Slashdot Mirror


Episode I 3D Release Date Announced

TheBrakShow writes 'Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox announced today that the 3D theatrical launch of Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace now has an official release date — February 10, 2012!' Are enough fans interested in watching the weakest films of the trilogy again just to experience them in 3D?"
I for one am looking forward to a new and improved Jar Jar experience.

313 comments

  1. Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be an interesting debate to have on what is the WORST part of The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar? That little kid who couldn't act and was thrown into laughably implausible situations (like a bad straight-to-DVD Disney movie where NASCAR lets an 8-year old join the circuit just because the movie's called "The NASCAR Kid")? The introduction of Mitaclorians, which pretty much undermined everything Yoda taught Luke in Empire? The creepy child molester vibe Queen Amadalia was giving off talking to the aforementioned non-acting little kid?

    I'm going to go with the fact that they brought Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Samuel Jackson into this godawful shitfest--actual talented actors with long resumes of much better films. It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours. No amount of overpriced popcorn could make that any better.

    But now I get to see her raped in 3D, and pay twice as much for the privilege. Look Aunt Wanda, we get to keep the glasses! Awesome.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the worst part was the part between the "paragraphs flying through space" opening and the end credits. The best part, by far, was the end credits.

    2. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you had me all excited that there was a real film about an 8 year old racing in NASCAR.
       
      If you're going to troll at least keep it on topic.

    3. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good list of 'wtfs'. Thanks for reminding me how much I hate the new movies. Sometimes I forget.

      "The introduction of Mitaclorians, which pretty much undermined everything Yoda taught Luke in Empire? "

      Of all the WTF's in the new set, this has to be the biggest.

      It's as though these new movies were written by a completely different author. Maybe that's what wealth does to you.

    4. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours.

          Yes, it's exactly and precisely like that.

           

    5. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have it all wrong!

      The best part was the *opening* credits ... before your hopes were dashed.

    6. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I've already pitched it. I fully expect a greenlight any day now. Then I'll just have to convince Justin Bieber's little brother to take the part, and we're good to go.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well raped in 2.5D since they never shot the original with a stereoscopic camera... so its paying 2x for the worst star wars movie of the series cut into flat planes artificially placed at guesstimated "depths" to annoy your eyes since the focus is controlled by the movie and not your Cillary muscles the bend and flex your (eyeballs) lenses.

      Its hard to believe a man who created such a wonderful universe of fantasy hasn't had an original appealing idea in the last 10-15 years

    8. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I like Samuel Jackson way better than her. She wasn't even in Pulp Fiction.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm glad you're excited, you are going to have to return those glasses when the movie is over.

    10. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by commodore6502 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      A Volkswagen Beetle in a NASCAR race has already been made. Talk about unrealistic!

      60hp versus 800hp. Yeah right.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    11. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jar Jar could have been a decent character if during the raid he stopped being a completely worthless and became a useful fighter. Preferably with some variant of capoeira, or some sort of flashy fighting style (from how we walks it seems like it would be something he would do).
      Yes he's the goofy comic relief and that is fine, but the bigger problem was he was worthless and provided nothing else.

    12. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that turned into a kickass video game, so I'll allow it.

    13. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Zcar · · Score: 1

      Well, HPA Motorsports did make 500+ HP AWD V6 twin turbo beetle not too long ago with a 4 second 0-60.

    14. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is both of them are similar in a lot of ways, naturally aspirated and carburated and all that. Outated is what I really mean. NASCAR needs to update, oh and stop going around in circles.

    15. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by asn · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours. No amount of overpriced popcorn could make that any better.

      So that would be a thumbs down?

    16. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      But was it naturally aspirated? Did it use a carburator? Or even have a suspension from the 1950s?

      Clearly this car you speak of would be far too modern and high tech for NASCAR.

    17. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by BLToday · · Score: 1

      I vote for the midichlorians as the worst thing from Episode 1. I remember how I felt and how everyone in the theater reacted on the first day of showing when Liam Neeson was explaining the midichlorians. It was like getting punched by your best friend after he told you he slept with your sister.

      I hope in another universe Lucas didn't make Episode 1-3, and left Episode 4 in their original state where Han shot first and Hayden Christensen was not the ghost at the end of Episode 6.

    18. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by lul_wat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you havn't already, I highly recommend RedLetterMedias free youtube reviews of Episode I, II, & III. Each review is nearly as long as the movie and tears them a new asshole.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    19. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Have some towels handy for when your ears start bleeding. If there's one thing that's more annoying than Jar Jar, it's Mr. I-Wanna-Be-Buffalo-Bill.

    20. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      It's spelled "mitochloroplastondrion", not "midichlorian".

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    21. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      oh and stop going around in circles.

      They do road course hereabouts at Infineon/Sears Point. I never go, but it's interesting that all of the big points leaders on the Left Turn Circuit get their asses wiped there.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    22. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      But with that short a wheelbase, it would be really unstable at NASCAR speeds. And even with 500+ HP and 4WD it would still be underpowered, the suspension would suck and it would be left far behind.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    23. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The suspension would suck?
      NASCAR still uses a live rear axle last I checked.

    24. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      NASCAR needs to update, oh and stop going around in circles.

      Circle is fine, but I think they should have the even numbered cars go clockwise and the odd numbered cars go counterclockwise. It would make a more interesting show.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    25. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the problem is that a comic relief character needs to be at least slightly funny. Also not a thinly veiled demeaning racial stereotype.

    26. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Do you mean whipped? Or that someone cleans their behinds for them?

    27. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by MrSenile · · Score: 1
      I beg to differ.

      Jar Jar provided something very important to the movie. A plot device that the poor writing of Lucas allowed to be the central cause of the Empire being born.

      'Why yes, miss Amelia, I'll represent you to the entire Republic!'.

    28. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like it ....except that you (and your aunt) are completely able to leave at any point, or even not participate in the first place!

    29. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      Hey, this is awfully close... and it has Jay Leno!

      http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7393883

    30. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by jbezorg · · Score: 2

      This pretty much sums up my feelings on the franchise.

      http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/luke-learns-the-truth.html

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    31. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      Lucas is recasting Ashton Kutcher in the role as a romantic interest for Queen Amidala.

    32. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the best part was that this movie was never made. I repeat NEVER MADE.

    33. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's as though these new movies were written by a completely different author.

      There were people writing that stuff? I always envisioned somebody dumping an eightball of coke into a 40, using that to wash down a handful of waffle pretzels and a mouthful of spray cheese, and then Voilà, it's movie making time...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    34. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be an interesting debate to have on what is the WORST part of The Phantom Menace.

      That's simple. The worst part of the movie was the plot. It was a movie about a tariff dispute between the galactic teamsters union and some unimportant edge systems. The first half was literally about transporting a witness to give testimony in front of the senate sub committee on interplanetary trade. George Lucas could have saved a lot of effort if he just skipped the script and the actors entirely, and just slapped special effects on top of a raw CSPAN video feed.

      Imagine if someone made a three-part movie ostensibly about the American Revolutionary War, but the first move was just whiny Dutch traders writing protest letters to King George to complain about the tea tax. Then, a rather boring and affectless young Princess gives a confusing and unremarkable speech in front of a bunch of disinterested Lords in Parliament! That would be a great movie. You could show something like that in nursing homes and airplanes, and not have to worry about anyone getting too excited or being offended!

      (It didn't help that there was no character development, there was no reason to identify with any of the characters, and the situations could not have generated any type of empathy from the audience. But the biggest culprit was the plot, which had people you don't care about doing stuff that doesn't matter for reasons that you don't understand.)

    35. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ.

      Jar Jar provided something very important to the movie. A plot device that the poor writing of Lucas allowed to be the central cause of the Empire being born.

      He wasn't the central cause, he was a tool. Jar-Jar was just coaxed into presenting the proposal to grant emergency powers to the chancellor... The rest of the senate were tripping over themselves to approve it.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    36. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Lucas is recasting Ashton Kutcher in the role as a romantic interest for Queen Amidala.

      The Republic just got punk'd!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    37. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Jar Jar and Palpatine were the only characters who raised any emotion.

      Jar Jar was irritating (the ONLY character to irritate Liam Nelson's otherwise emotionless jedi) and fun.

      The rest of the actors (some of whom have been quite good elsewhere) were squashed. It had to be the director since it was so consistent across all the actors.

      And no, I won't be seeing these movies. I imagine a lot will. I might see the originals tho the sand of that grossly fake arm firing first (come on, you have a million bucks to fix the fake arm to where it looks real and instead it looks like a flat piece of paper).

      So I might see the second one. Probably not the third one because
      a) It's only half of a good movie.
      b) They erased the "real" darth vador and replaced him with the younger anakin. That really pisses me off - even when i think about it. They get all pissy about protecting the "integrity" of their films then they make massive changes and erase actors from existence.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    38. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >He wasn't the central cause, he was a tool. [...]

      Lucas was a tool.

    39. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And, in true American fashion, all of the drivers should be armed. With rocket launchers.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    40. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The new movies were pretty close to Lucas' original vision. The difference is that this time the actors actually did what he told them. In the originals, people like Harrison Ford just ignored his direction and, in some memorable places, the script (for example, he was meant to reply 'I love you too' to Leia's 'I love you', but the 'I know' that he ad libbed worked a lot better).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    41. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      No, it wouldn't. The car being discussed was a MAGIC car. That was the point of the movie. MAGIC cars are extremely stable with short wheelbases, and go as fast as is necessary to MAGICALLY win the race.

    42. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      >He wasn't the central cause, he was a tool. [...]

      Lucas was a tool.

      was?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    43. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are talking about the Apple car i see.

    44. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by SuperSlacker64 · · Score: 1

      No, Google's the one with a magical, self driving car nowadays.

    45. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Although this release might have some puerile value for hard core fans, the cynic in me can't help but think it will turn into a 'Clash of the Titans' 3D hack job. The very thing that James Cameron warned studio's against. Granted if they spend enough time on it, it might be decent, but then it has the stigma associated with Jar-Jar to overcome as well.

      http://geektwins.blogspot.com/2010/04/controversy-over-3d-in-clash-of-titans.html

      I would much prefer someone write Episodes 7-9 instead. Quit with all the remakes.

    46. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't the midichlorians some stupid shit from one of the adapted Star Wars spin-off novels?

      Having said that... it doesn't excuse Lucas completely misunderstand the appeal of his own creation;.

    47. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying, but, if you look dispassionately at the original trilogy, are they that much better? A lot of the acting and plot in episode IV is quite implausible too. Ep V is pretty good, but when I watch ep VI these days I skip over large sections of the Ewok battles. At least Jar-Jar came in small doses.

    48. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      i'm going to go with the fact that they brought Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Samuel Jackson into this godawful shitfest--actual talented actors with long resumes of much better films.
      Right like Moulin Rouge, Next of Kin, and Deep Blue Sea("A Shark F*cking ate me!")?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    49. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by pwizard2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would much prefer someone write Episodes 7-9 instead

      Except how are they going to do that without undermining 15-20 years worth of sequel novels/other EU stuff? For the benefit of the uninitiated, dates in Star Wars are based around episode four much like our CE and BCE system, (The Battle of Yavin happens at 0 BBY) so BBY ==years before the Battle of Yavin and ABY == years After the Battle of Yavin. The Star Wars timeline has been extended out to as far as ~150 ABY in the legacy era and prequel stuff goes back over 4000 BBY into the early Old Republic era. (KOTOR games, comics, etc) We have even seen glimpses of the Pre-Republic era (20,000 BBY) but it hasn't been explored very much.

      The only hope for more movies would be to cram additional episodes somewhere in the middle between those two extremes and hope everything still fits together without any huge contradictions. (though I personally doubt Lucas would actually care if he ruined years of established continuity in favor of his own vision)

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    50. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      To be fair, does that really matter that much? Yes, for real roads that real cars drive on, fully-independent suspension is indeed far superior. However, NASCAR tracks are glass-smooth, even by racing standards; would an IRS really make much of a difference? They aren't like, for instance, Formula 1 tracks which are really regular city streets cordoned off, and complete with curbs, crappy pavement, and other irregularities, and certainly nothing like the gravel mountain roads that rally cars drive on. And unlike those other cars, NASCAR cars never even make any sharp turns, they just travel really fast in a slight left direction constantly, so their suspensions don't even have to deal with fast transitions.

    51. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Its hard to believe a man who created such a wonderful universe of fantasy hasn't had an original appealing idea in the last 10-15 years

      Huh? It's more like 20-25 years. He hasn't done anything worthwhile since Episode VI (and even that wasn't that great; it would have been much better if he had let Kirshner keep control of it like he did with Ep. V). The Prequels were nothing but a blatant and ugly money-grab.

    52. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      i'm voting for the part between opening and ending title. that one really sucked just as all actors showed in it.

      and like it wasn't enough to completely destroy good 3 parts with remake, now is destroying even 3 awful ones?

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    53. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      To be fair, I don't see how it could have been avoided. The Republic was weak and ineffectual, allowing some of its members to blatantly invade and pillage other members, and refusing to take action without going through tons of bureaucratic hoops and time-wasting investigation. Regardless of who represents any member, that's just a recipe for disaster and dissolution.

      Worse, I think it's an interesting parallel for other real-world governments, showing that Republics just don't live very long and aren't highly stable forms of government. The Roman Republic is a classic example; it too was mired in corruption and turned into an empire, which lasted a while before its corruption and decay led to it being invaded and destroyed. The USA is a Republic-turned-empire too, and is on the brink of total collapse within a much shorter time than the Romans lasted. Germany's Weimar Republic sure didn't last very long (about a decade) before turning into a very short-lived empire. How long has any other Republic lasted? A half-century or so at best, probably.

    54. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about a parallel universe where Lucas didn't become a greedy, egotistical bastard, and who gave the directorial reins to someone like Kirshner not just for ESB, but for Episodes 4 and 6 too? And then went on to create prequels with the same method, and maybe some sequels too, with Lucas doing the visual arts stuff (his one real talent) and leaving the screenplay and direction to more talented people?

    55. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      more faithful representation of jar jar emotions
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdJ9wdqHM4A

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    56. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      thinly veiled demeaning racial stereotype

      Like a guy in a Yankees cap referring to "my pet snake Reggie"?

      Like a planet named "Dagobah"?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    57. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by William-Ely · · Score: 1

      It takes about 10 minutes into the Episode 1 review before things really start getting awesome. After that I was hooked and I now base my life upon Lord Plinkett's teachings.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    58. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by WCLPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      A Volkswagen Beetle in a NASCAR race has already been made. Talk about unrealistic!

      Even though it was unrealistic doesn't change the fact that an anthropomorphized Volkswagen Beetle from a cheesy 1960's Disney children's movie had a deeper range of emotion and acting ability than what was demonstrated by the actors in the Phantom Menace.

    59. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I think the acting and casting in Episode IV was spot-on. Particularly Skywalker, something of an idiot savant, was played by a dullard. The plot came together, too. Among other things, it was a tale of seemingly ordinary people doing extraordinary things. But by Episode V, the characters (now beloved by audiences) continue to be major players in universal affairs for no particularly good reason. VI is just preposterous. Ewoks? Leia in a metal bikini to please an obviously non-human beast? Vader, Skywalker, and Kenobi as father, son, and holy ghost? ACK!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    60. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well I'd have to say what the worst was, in no particular order because it was ALL painful, the bad acting, the damned "meesa massa" Jar Jar ebonics, the queen and the kid (although seeing him grown up was worse, way to make a bad ass into a wussy boy!) and the ever obvious "we cooked this up to add a new toy" like that stupid race.

      Frankly it is high time for "Spaceballs 33 1/3rd, the search for more money" although Lucas has managed to slaughter so much of the franchise on its own its practically a parody unto itself. To steal a little of Yahtzee's review of Force Unleashed II "proof that no once profitable franchise is so dead that you can't jump on its stomach and sell whatever liquids shoot out of its nose" which at this point is a pretty damned good description for the Star Wars franchise as a whole.

      Personally I'm just waiting for the R2D2 vibrators and the Jar Jar "Messa hit that!" panties. After all why pretend to even give a shit about anything but $$$ after Phantom Menace? You might as well embrace your inner Gene Simmons George, you've done shat on the franchise so bad that 100 of the best screenwriters of all time couldn't save it now.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    61. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      They should run NASCAR on the streets of Detroit. Preferably in the most decrepit parts of town

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    62. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by frito_x · · Score: 1

      i'm still laughing... added to my collection...

    63. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by frito_x · · Score: 1

      More like: Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction and Trainspotting (choose life)...

    64. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by BLToday · · Score: 1

      It's spelled "mitochloroplastondrion", not "midichlorian".

      Not according to Wookieepedia.
      http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian

    65. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      Yes, they use a solid rear axle. They have also have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the best suspension to use that live axle on the tracks they race at.

      Aftermarket VW parts don't quite cut it.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    66. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by J_Darnley · · Score: 2

      Perhaps one of the good trilogy of books should be filmed. Nobody has to write anything then! My vote would go for the Jedi Academy series for being the first three I read. Alternatively, go into the "far future" and invent a new revival of the sith.

    67. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. Episodes 4-6 were great movies. Too bad they didn't make any more movies.

    68. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way would Jar Jar become a better CHARACTER if he knew martial arts? he'd still be a cartoon character acted out by a cartoon in a live action movie. If he was suddenly competent during the raid it would seem entirely implausible in comparison to how he had acted in the rest of the movie? Think about it this way, what did C-3P0 do to assist the rebel alliance in the original trilogy? Nothing that I can remember, but he still managed to be a good character that provided a proper amount of comic relief.

      I don't think people realize how difficult it is to really create a masterpiece.

    69. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by dylan_- · · Score: 2

      How long has any other Republic lasted? A half-century or so at best, probably.

      The oldest republic is San Marino, from 301 AD. So, a bit longer than a half-century :-)

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    70. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so you thought they were written by Charlie Sheen?

      OK, I get it. Enough with Sheen already. I can't wait for Emilio to try to one-up him.

    71. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      Star Trek also has ~500 novels that expand upon the original show.

      Gene Roddenberry's solution? "I hereby declare the novels non-canon" and then he could do whatever the hell he wanted to do in The Next Generation and sequels. The new television episodes/movies routinely contradicted what the novels said.

      George Lucas probably has a similar view towards the SW novels, so if he ever created an Episode 7 through 9, they would go in an entirely different direction from the novel history. (In fact he's already done that once - Episodes 5/6 contradict the 1977/78/79 Alan Dean Foster novels based on the first movie.)

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    72. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by captjc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember in Pulp Fiction Jules saying that getting thrown out of a window is no way for a nigga to die. Only in episode 3 for Mace to get thrown out of a fucking window.

      That was the final insult for me. I can take alot shit from movies but that made me lose my appreciation for Lucas permanently. He could do a special edition of all the movies where he undoes all the crap and I will still not care.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    73. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by rxan · · Score: 1

      I didn't get to keep my glasses...

    74. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of NASCAR races are ovals, but they do have two road courses, Watkins Glen and Infineon Raceway (Sears Point) on the schedule, so they have to do more than turn gently left. Those two races are great, I wish they'd run more.

      Formula 1 does have some street circuits, but their schedule is dominated by purpose built race tracks, not street circuits - there's 15 tracks and 5 street circuits on this years schedule, and 3 of the street circuits races were new to the schedule in the last 4 years.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    75. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You just lost the science.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    76. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by dswensen · · Score: 1

      It would be an interesting debate to have on what is the WORST part of The Phantom Menace..

      No it wouldn't. It stopped being interesting in 1999 when the movie came out, and hasn't become any more interesting since.

    77. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by BLToday · · Score: 1

      You're trying to correct a made up fictional plot device? That's why midichlorian is terrible because Lucas tried to explain the Force with sentient microscopic life.

      You fail at Star Wars knowledge.

    78. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Then next time try "i no rite" as a response instead :P

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    79. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Hysterical and lead me to robot chicken which was great fun.

      However, it still made the same point.

      Jar Jar provokes a reaction. The only other character who provoked a reaction in the last 3 movies was Palpatine. I have to credit the actor for that.

      Darth Maul didn't even say a single word. When blocked from fighting by an invisible wall, both of them just sat down and didn't say a damn thing to each other. I didn't care about any of the characters. They were just ciphers.

      I don't like Jar Jar-- but I recognize at least I *FELT* something when he was on the screen. He wasn't a cipher.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    80. Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      How long has any other Republic lasted? A half-century or so at best, probably.

      The oldest republic is San Marino, from 301 AD. So, a bit longer than a half-century :-)

      Though considerably younger, it's also worth pointing out that Iceland has been a democratic republic for quite some time too (since 930, according to some accounts).

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
  2. Hahaha by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Informative

    Meesa call moneygrab!

    1. Re:Hahaha by machine321 · · Score: 1

      Jar Jar shot first!

    2. Re:Hahaha by JonWan · · Score: 1

      this is why copyrights should only be 5 years.....

    3. Re:Hahaha by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      good plan, who we shooting second?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  3. I feel a... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...lack of disturbance in the force, as if millions of people yawned in disinterest.

    1. Re:I feel a... by Desler · · Score: 1

      And yet it will make another half billion for Lucas despite all the butthurt rage from the neckbeards.

    2. Re:I feel a... by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I guess fresh waves of fanboy indignation don't register with the Force.

  4. Cardboard acting in 3D? by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad technology can't improve acting and dialog, because that's the real reason Star Wars I, II and III are forever stuck in the second dimension.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      "...Star Wars I, II and III are forever stuck in the second dimension."

      Ignignokt: Here on the moon, our film making is far more advanced.
      Err: Yeah, Jar Jar sucks!

    2. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair many of the actors have done great work before and after the prequels. I just don't think that they could do much with a bad plot and bad dialogue. RedLetterMedia's critique of the movies brought a great point: There is no protagonist in any of the films. All three were a loose collection of characters. While having a single character as the central character isn't always necessary, it generally works better in some plots. Robert Altman's films do well without a central character but his movies focus much more on storylines and plot.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by gambino21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the RedLetterMedia/Plinkett Reviews are the best thing the come out of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I found the review to be much more entertaining and higher quality than the films themselves.

    4. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's hardly fair! The script was wretched as well!

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    5. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yup, another recommendation here. The reviews are of a much higher standard than the films that they review. I love the way he mixes in the interview and film footage. For example, shot of Lucas defending Jar Jar because the movie was for kids, followed by shot of someone giving a boring speech in the senate, with the voice over 'because if there's one thing kids love, it's political drama!'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. If they released the RedLetterMedia review in the theater in 3D, I'd go see it. But Phantom Menace? God no. Watching movies should be FUN, and that movie very much wasn't.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I think they're literally stuck in the second dimension because that's how they were shot. I've seen what happens when they try to make a 3D movie that was shot in 2D. They end up just layering 2D images. It's awful.

    8. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I think there's more to it than that. Good actors don't act in a vacuum, they work with the director to bring out the best in them. A good director is able to bring out great acting in a good actor, and a lousy director will make a great actor seem like a hack. Lucas is a terrible director. From what I've read, Lucas never did multiple takes of any scene with dialog, he just wanted the actors to spit their lines out and that was that; he just didn't care about the acting quality at all, he just wanted to get those scenes over with. He could have had Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and made them look like poor actors.

    9. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by mfwitten · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that really counts as an explanation because there are really excellent films that have ensemble casts rather than a well-defined protagonist. Alien comes to mind.

    10. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I'm 62 years old, and in all that time there have been only four films I paid to see that were so hideous I walked out before they were half over. Altman's was one of them. It takes a foul person to make the sort of films he makes.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The prequels were always sold as the story on how Anakin became Vader. Yet they weren't really about him. They weren't really about the other characters either. Many ensemble casts work well when there is some sort of central story or if there are multiple story lines, how to relate them together. Take for example, Pulp Fiction had three storylines but there were interrelated. Short Cuts had multiple story lines and the purpose of the film was to show how the characters and story lines were related. For the prequels, everyone knew how it ended; they wanted to see how it happened. Lucas however didn't put together a coherent story; he put together a needlessly complicated story.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by DrSpock11 · · Score: 1

      I love the comments people make about the "bad acting" in the prequels. Because Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and even Harrison Ford are so well known for their great acting. For Hamill and Fisher, their acting in Star Wars was so bad that it was the beginning and end of their main-stream careers. How easily people forget the half a second of sadness Princess Leia shows when her entire planet is destroyed and the equal half second of sadness Luke experiences when the only parents he's ever known are brutally murdered.

      You know the reason so many people think the original 3 Star Wars movies are so much better? Because they saw them when they were kids, and nothing could ever live up the childhood memories.

    13. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I can see walking out of "Brewster McCloud" - I lasted about 45 minutes watching that at 2AM on TV, and that was pushing it - but Altman has made a lot of great films... I think he's fairly hit and miss, but when he hits, he hits big - MASH for example. I guess I am just amazed you call him a "foul person" for the films he makes, but you don't mention which ones you're referring to. Most directors end up with a few stinkers along the way, and you can't judge them based on their worst.

    14. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by SuperMonkeyCube · · Score: 1

      That is a surmountable obstacle and hardly an excuse. I'm not convinced _every_ director is able to raise up someone's acting. Some directors are actor's directors, and some focus more on visuals and/or storytelling and need to cast crack actors to make it work so they don't have to worry about that part as much. Sometimes the editor is able to rescue stuff (but usually only if the director has shot multiple takes). The quality of Ewan McGregor's acting , trying to fill the giant shoes of Alec Guiness, or Liam Neeson's acting, was quite different as compared to Jake Lloyd's or Hayden Christensen's acting. Granted, it would have been quite difficult to cast someone with more experience as Anakin as Lucas seemed like he wanted a new face in the role, but if he _had_ cast someone with more experience, and perhaps in the second and third movie someone with more chemistry with Natalie Portman, there was the possibility that they could have overcome Lucas' ham-fisted lack of direction of dialogue. Also, in light of all the complaints about Lucas' directing, while I always hear fans say "Empire" (that Lucas did not direct) is the best of them, how come nobody directly complains about "A New Hope" (that Lucas directed) that much?

    15. Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say without interviewing many of the main actors, including Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Liam Neeson, etc. But a couple of guesses: 1) Maybe Lucas just got lucky with the early films, and Hamill, Fisher, and esp. Ford and Guiness were able to pull off good performances despite Lucas's poor direction; 2) Maybe Lucas was a better director back then, as it was over 30 years ago, and maybe he cared a little more about the acting and dialog back then in his youth, and now he doesn't give a shit.

  5. Probably not by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who wants to see one dimensional characters in 3D?

    1. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see Flatland done in 3D (although that is 2D to begin with).

    2. Re:Probably not by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      meesa

    3. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem... Avatar?

    4. Re:Probably not by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Spoiler alert:

      It's 3D near the end.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Horse by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    The Horse is dead, you can stop beating upon its carcass.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Horse by click2005 · · Score: 1

      When all you have is horse bones you either retire and live of the millions you already made or sell horse nuggets.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    2. Re:Horse by ddd0004 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are gonna keep trying to bleed those films dry as long as the return is positive. It's kinda fun to see how far they'll take it as long as you don't spend any of your own money on it. I predict that the final release before they put this to bed will be the uber-enhanced ultra-digital 3D edition with unseen footage, enhanced audio, product placement (the Jawas will be selling droids with a marlboro red hanging off their lower lip, eating cheetos and wearing Nikes), and a special audio commentary by Jar Jar across all 6 episodes.

    3. Re:Horse by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      No, you carve the horse bones into crossbow bolts to train your hunter before switching him over to marksdwarf.

    4. Re:Horse by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Star Wars fans have been kicking it for thirty years. I can see how it would have been an amazing experience in the 70s. I don't understand why they haven't fucking moved on in three decades.

    5. Re:Horse by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      The Horse is dead, you can stop beating upon its carcass.

      Agreed. However, Lucas keeps reanimating it into ZombieHorse. We have no choice but to pound it into a greasy pulp or let it devour our brains.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    6. Re:Horse by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. There's always a new generation of kids upon which to foist the Star Wars franchise. The best part is they're too young to realize they're watching pure crap.

    7. Re:Horse by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I call Boatmurdered on that.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    8. Re:Horse by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I was one of the kids who was around during the first showing of the first movie. I thought it was great back then, but you know, I was JUST A KID.

      now, I look at the entirety of star wars and yawn. its not important and it did not age well at all.

      even the first movie to come out was crap. the effects were advanced for their time, but the stories were always crap. sorry, but they have always been.

      if you are honestly still 'amazed' by anything star wars, you must be a twentysomething or younger. trust me, once you get a bit older, the whole SW stuff will seem quite silly to you.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:Horse by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I can't agree with you. Expectations could never have been so high if the first two movies were not so genius. I'll never forget that moment in the theater watching "Phantom Menace" when the thought crossed my mind..."This movie sucks." It was an utter letdown. We were all violated by a marketing machine, and we were angry.

      And they really were genius. Of course, I was just a kid back in 1977 but even in later viewings those movies were pure gold. To me, that shit was REAL. We cared about the characters, all of us did. I mean, Han Solo fucking shot a guy in a bar. Arms came off! Uncle Owen and Aunt Berew were slaughtered and their corpses set on fire. These bad guys were BAD and the fate of the universe was at stake. This was legitimate cowboy space-opera magic.

      That's why the new movies are so hated, because we bought in and then our childhood memories were raped for money. Fuck you George Lucas!

    10. Re:Horse by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      I sort of agree. It's train-wreck entertainment, at its wreckiest. However, I just don't have time for it.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    11. Re:Horse by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2

      The ultimate bad guy was Vader. That was made clear. Vader was evil. I say was since after watching I, II, and II we find out he was a winy bastard, Vader does not seem so evil and bad anymore. Vader is pathetic. There I said it.

    12. Re:Horse by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Moved on to what?

      To be fair, Star Wars had a lot of cool stuff for a space-opera sci-fi movie: all kinds of weird aliens (actually speaking their own languages and not English like on Star Trek), interesting-looking ships, some religious stuff (Jedi), light-sabers, etc. It was really very imaginative, and you must give Lucas credit for that. His talents in visual arts are very impressive, and it's really sad that they're completely wasted in movies that are otherwise terrible (the Prequels) because of his greed and ego. On the one occasion when he turned over the reins to someone else (ESB), the result was excellent; what other great movies could we have now if he had done the same for the last 30 years, instead of sitting on his ass for two decades and then coming out with those shitty Prequels?

      As for "moving on", it isn't like there's a ton of other sci-fi film franchises out there to become a fan of. There's Star Trek, which has really been a mixed bag as far as SF movies go, with some really great ones (2, 4, maybe 6 and 8), a decent one (3), some mediocre ones (9, 10), and some downright stinkers (1, 5, 7). Or there's the Alien/s franchise, which had two great movies back in the 70s and mid-80s, and after that created two or three real stinkers as the studios yet again tried to milk the franchise for money with terrible scripts and bad director choices.

      There's tons of SF fans out there who would love to see more great sci-fi movies, and would happily pay for the privilege to see it on the Big Screen, as sci-fi movies are one thing where seeing it on a big screen makes a real difference (unlike, say, romantic comedies where it really doesn't matter if you watch it on a big screen or a 13" NTSC TV with mono sound). Unfortunately, Hollywood refuses to invest in any really good big-budget sci-fi movies with good stories and good directors, so we get Lucas's privately-financed crap, Hollywood-made poorly-written junk, an occasional low-budget good movie like Moon, and a very rare big-budget movie like Avatar.

    13. Re:Horse by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      I, II, and... II? O.o Did Mr. Lucas forget how to count or something?

    14. Re:Horse by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      These days, special effects mean that even death isn't an impediment.

  7. Go by Edzor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go fuck yourself George.

    1. Re:Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 3D.

  8. FOOMP by Ariastis · · Score: 1

    "I for one am looking forward to a new and improved Jar Jar experience." -- FOOMP

    Read this dilbert strip to understand...

    1. Re:FOOMP by publiclurker · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm enjoying a new and improved Jar Jar experience right now by not watching episodes 1-3.

  9. I would seriously consider by Mick+R · · Score: 4, Funny

    poking out one eye just so I CAN'T EVER see that in 3D!

    1. Re:I would seriously consider by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      > poking out one eye just so I CAN'T EVER see that in 3D!

      Do not look into Phantom Menace with remaining eye.

  10. star suckers by alen · · Score: 1

    GL releases a "new" version of these movies every few years to get money from the fans and they keep paying. next there will be another blu ray release with 3d and digital copy when he could have done it for the upcoming 2011 release

    1. Re:star suckers by corbettw · · Score: 1

      After Portman's performance in Black Swan, I fully expect GL to come out with a new version with a digitally-inserted Mila Kunis as one of Padme's handmaidens...including a shower scene.

      I'll be in my bunk.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  11. Sounds like an interesting movie by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've never heard of this "Phantom Menace" thing before. I'm sure if George Lucas was behind it, it must be humorous, entertaining and dramatic, with characters we can identify with for generations to come, just like the Star Wars trilogy we all loved as kids!

    I'm so glad that somebody with the integrity of George Lucas is responsible for shepherding this loveable trilogy through the years. That way I can introduce these movies to my own children without having to worry about somebody coming along and pooping all over the memories of my childhood. You know, the temptation to edit or re-issue movies to capitalize on their enduring success might be quite extreme, but George is one of those guys who knows when to say "it was good enough 30 years ago, let's not mess with a good thing".

    A lesser man might have, for example, decided to edit away some of the age-inappropriate roguishness of Han Solo in an effort to merchandize schlocky toys to kids. But not George, no.

    I'm not really sure what this whole 3d thing is about though. I'm sure it's a sincere effort to make a genuine artistic statement that just happens to be set in that Star Wars universe we all know and love.

    Thank god for George Lucas.

    1. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Truly, he's as wise as he is unselfish.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by gaderael · · Score: 0

      Now I need to go and get some paper towel, because the sarcasm is dripping down my monitor and all over my desk!

      --
      Anyone got a light for my sig?
    3. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot wait to see what *new* characters, androids and entirely new ethos his brilliant mind can imagine from the vast and limitless universe that he created. Surely the new connections and rich, infinite possibilities of a new birth will be amazing to experience with a fresh new take on the genesis of his creation.

    4. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The main problem with George in the prequels was that he was writer, director, and producer. He served different roles in the original trilogy but he was never all three. For prequels, no one had the authority or balls to tell George that his movie sucked.

      For example, the storylines were needlessly complicated. Maybe in George's mind complicated meant complex but in reality the more complicated, the greater chance of a plot hole. Take for example the virgin birth of Anakin. That really served no purpose. His father could have died in mining accident, a burglary attempt, solar storm; any of those would be far simpler and easier to handle.

      For me it's like George created artificial conflicts and constructs so that he could exploit later as plot devices. But someone on the outside might have pointed logical flaws. Remember how Anakin missed his mother and how her later death would trigger his descent? That wouldn't have worked had the Jedi council or Queen Amidala returned to Tatooine and freed his mother. Cause if I was Yoda and sensed all this fear in the chosen one over his mother, I would make sure his mother was okay.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Take for example the virgin birth of Anakin. That really served no purpose. His father could have died in mining accident, a burglary attempt, solar storm; any of those would be far simpler and easier to handle.

      Not to mention that in the context of the story they were really glossing right over the most obvious explanations.

      That is, of course, that Shmi was either lying, or else she was raped while unconscious, possibly drugged... In which case her own insistence that there was no father is highly suspect. What could she gain from such a lie? Or if it's not a lie, how would she arrive at such a fantastical conclusion? Is she merely deluded? In a state of denial? Terribly, terribly naive? Desperate to create an exciting fiction around her otherwise dreary life?

      It did always seem really fishy that someone with such powerful connections - (former) planetary royalty, political elite, etc. couldn't arrange the freedom of one slave - particularly before he went off to fight in the Clone Wars...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    6. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember, Amidala's republican credits are no good on Tatooine, that's why they had to gamble on the pod race.

      Yeah, you're right, the whole thing made no sense :)

    7. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the most hilarious thing was that Lucas defended the movies as being "kids movies", while on the other hand saying the key focus of the plot was intergalactic politics. Why would any rational personthink kids would be interested in politics?

    8. Re:Sounds like an interesting movie by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember, Amidala's republican credits are no good on Tatooine, that's why they had to gamble on the pod race.

      Well, that by itself isn't too unreasonable - if it's not a world where Republic Credits are an accepted currency, they wouldn't be accepted. They don't take Euros at the local 7-11 either.

      But more importantly, in that particular instance, Watto was dealing with off-worlders who needed a ship. In other words, they were stuck on Tattooine. He probably could have taken their credits. But when dealing with people desperate to make a deal, there's an opportunity to exploit them.

      After leaving Tattooine, of course, they'd be at no such disadvantage...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  12. NOT I by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    you couldn't pay me to see this garbage again, let along get me to pay to see it with a headace

  13. Weakest? by rknop · · Score: 1

    Weakest of the three? Perhaps, but the competition is strong!

    1. Re:Weakest? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Personally I'd rather watch Phantom Menace again than whatever the third one is called. But I definitely won't be rushing out to watch it in 3D.

    2. Re:Weakest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revenge of the Sith does have the high ground when it comes to the worst.

    3. Re:Weakest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attack of the Clones takes the prize without breaking a sweat. If you're unconvinced, watch one of Hayden Christian's whine-fests.

    4. Re:Weakest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than watch ANY of them. I can't even watch Eps 4,5,6 anymore because their memory has been so soured.

      damn those midichlorian

      and damn all that shitter than this cgi.

      I hate you George Lucas.. so many years on and it still hurts.

  14. Ok. Why weak. by unity100 · · Score: 0

    i dont understand this exaggerated bashing of the last 3 films that are made. stories are not so lacking in these last 3 movies. all that people show are jar jar binks, and some sloppy acting on part of the woman who played queen amidala. if you look at it, there were worse characters than jar jar binks in the early 3 movies, and on top of it, they were puppets. and there were actors who were more stiff than amidala in those films too.

    i was of rather the same opinion until i watched the first 3 movies by chance again. i saw that, they are now 'too 1980s' for my standards. from hairdo, garment style to various jokes and whatnot. at least, hollywood is not retaining the 'fit the contemporary fashion/hairdo into films' mistake anymore, and there is much concentration on originality and realism. back before 90s, there was a habit of fitting whatever contemporary fashion or hairdo at that time into even historical movies.

    i think this bashing of late 3 films and rather exaggerated praise of early 3 is more due to the fact that we grew up with the first 3 films, and they were dear to us. not only that, they shaped our expectations.

    1. Re:Ok. Why weak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should check out the RedLetterMedia reviews on youtube.

    2. Re:Ok. Why weak. by pinkj · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. I watched The Phantom Menace again not long ago with my 3 year old with the assumption that I was going to hate it as much as I hated it the first time I saw it when it came out. Surprisingly, I didn't find it as bad as I remembered it and the acting reminded me of the wooden acting of the original trilogy as well. Was Marc Hamill really that much better as the centre role? Is Jar Jar really that much more annoying than C3PO? After an hour or so, my son was disinterested (especially during the dialogue scenes) and I actually coaxed him to watch the rest of it because I was still curious to see rest of the film!

    3. Re:Ok. Why weak. by thepike · · Score: 1

      I agree. I mean, the prequels aren't the best movies of all time, but the originals are pretty campy too. I love them though; probably largely because I watched them every week for the first 10 years of my life and played the video games and all that. I predict that my kids (who I will force Star Wars upon) will probably like all six of them, as they'll grow up watching all of them, and won't be surprised if they like the prequels better because they have better special effects.

      The same thing goes for the new Indiana Jones. People are all "Aliens, in Indiana Jones?! That's not okay!" but it really isn't any less believable than a guy pulling out someone's heart through their chest.

      Complain about the acting, hate on Jar Jar, whatever, but Mark Hamill couldn't act either, and C-3PO is annoying in all 6 movies.

    4. Re:Ok. Why weak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are all "Aliens, in Indiana Jones?! That's not okay!" but it really isn't any less believable than a guy pulling out someone's heart through their chest.

      You're missing the point of that complaint; it's not because aliens are "unrealistic", it's because aliens don't really fit into the series, thematically speaking.

    5. Re:Ok. Why weak. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      Movies 1-3: supernatural mumbo-jumbo

      Movie 4: naturalistic if far-fetched explanation (aliens)

      It's not that it's less believable from the first three, it's that the others had set up the assumption that Indiana Jones = the supernatural

    6. Re:Ok. Why weak. by eviloverlordx · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's a mistake to believe that the original movies were great films. Good, yes. Enjoyable, absolutely. Great cinema, no. They were basically 30's serials updated with current (at the time) special effects. The prequel trilogy didn't really deviate from the pattern, except for more modern special effects.

      --
      'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
    7. Re:Ok. Why weak. by potHead42 · · Score: 2

      It's not just Jar Jar and the wooden acting, it's the complete and utter lack of proper storytelling and cinematography, caused by a director obsessed with green-screens and special effects. Note that from the old movies only A New Hope was directed and written solely by George Lucas (though allegedly his former wife also had a big influence as editor).

      Watch the RedLetterMedia reviews for a detailed and hilarious analysis of all three movies.

    8. Re:Ok. Why weak. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      i think this bashing of late 3 films and rather exaggerated praise of early 3 is more due to the fact that we grew up with the first 3 films, and they were dear to us. not only that, they shaped our expectations.

      The 'bashing' is because the prequels were worse than the original trilogy. We may have rose-colored hind-sight, but it's not like there are many other movies out there that ingrained themselves into modern culture like the original trilogy did.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Ok. Why weak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, you've been spending way too much time with 3 year olds.

      Answers to your questions: yes and yes.

    10. Re:Ok. Why weak. by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      too 1980?

      you should really watch Hunter Prey http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270291/
      this is how one makes classic in these times. movie is awesome and not lacking one single thing

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    11. Re:Ok. Why weak. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Was Marc Hamill really that much better as the centre role? Is Jar Jar really that much more annoying than C3PO?

      Yes and hell yes.

      Next.

  15. Don't you have to FILM in 3D First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that you need to film using a special camera? Did Lucas actually film the last three movies in anticipation of a 3D release?

    1. Re:Don't you have to FILM in 3D First? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2

      That's if you want to do it right, but since Lucas didn't get anything right with the prequels to begin with, he might as well do it in 3d wrong.

      There's another way to make a movie shot in 2d into a 3d movie. It doesn't work very well and it looks like crap because a movie actually shot with a 3d camera (which is essentially 2 cameras stuck together at a specific distance) has each camera seeing a slightly different angle of the scene. It's that parallax that makes actual 3d look. . well. . not good, but better than fake 3d, in which they essentially just drag a copy of elements of the scene slightly to the right and then project it through the right-eye filter (either polarized or color depending on what tech they're using). You end up with something that looks almost, but not quite, entirely unlike real life.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    2. Re:Don't you have to FILM in 3D First? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that you need to film using a special camera? Did Lucas actually film the last three movies in anticipation of a 3D release?

      No, but if you can colorize a black & white movie (and we all know how beautiful those colorization jobs are!), then why can you use those computer thingies to turn a 2D movie into 3D! I'm still waiting for my 3D, color, super hi-def version of Casablanca!

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:Don't you have to FILM in 3D First? by penguinchris · · Score: 2

      Color and 3D in Casablanca would be a tragedy, but as for "super hi-def"...

      I've seen Casablanca projected on 35mm film (three times in different theaters including at the George Eastman House), and I've seen it on Blu-Ray on a big screen at 1080p. The job they've done on restoring the film elements is astounding (as you'd hope for such an important film), and it's already "super hi-def" as even film in the 40's is capable of extremely high resolution. It looks astonishingly good.

      You can certainly appreciate the cinematography on a small screen just watching the DVD or seeing it broadcast on TV or whatever, but that doesn't mean that seeing it as it was meant to be seen originally (film resolution and on a big screen) doesn't make it better :)

  16. Since there are 1.5 times more dimensions... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

    Will it suck 1.5 times more? Is that even possible?

    Patton Oswalt said it best: "If I had a time machine, I would go back to around 1993 or 1994 and kill George Lucas with a shovel."

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  17. Karma Killer: I Like Jar Jar by trydk · · Score: 2

    OK, I am going to kill whatever goodwill (and karma) I may have had with these statements:

    * I actually liked Jar Jar Binks -- he was the not so bright, but well-meaning, comic sidekick
    * I think Jake Lloyd performed much better than Hayden Christensen
    * I think the chemistry between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen was as hot as the chemistry between gold and nitrogen at 0 Kelvin
    * I do not think that Anakin's shift from good to evil is very convincing

    But no matter what, the movies are not worth another ticket to me, 3D or not.

    1. Re:Karma Killer: I Like Jar Jar by Homburg · · Score: 2

      I would think only the first of these would be particularly controversial. Jake Lloyd was an averagely annoying child-actor, while Hayden Christensen was a complete black-whole of charisma, removing any possibility of drama from any scene he was in; this explains the third and fourth point, too, although I think the script has to take a fair amount of blame for them, too ("You're smooth, not like sand").

  18. So what we've got here by Crash+McBang · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is a 3-dimensional projection of a 2-dimensional movie with 1-dimensional acting.

    mmmm, can't wait....

    --
    To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
  19. "Improved" Jar Jar? Must be less Jar Jar! by Kosi · · Score: 1

    The only room for improvement here is to reduce the scenes with this thing to a minimum. I can only remember one really funny scene, when Qui-Gon grabs his tongue during the meal with Anakin's family. Maybe there are one or two more, but besides that, JJB is just a plain annoyance that makes the movie even worse than it would have been without it.

    C3PO was mostly funny, so they knew how to do it right. Why did they screw it up so much with that unfunny and annoying creature?

    1. Re:"Improved" Jar Jar? Must be less Jar Jar! by Darundal · · Score: 1

      Find and watch "The Phantom Edit." That, and a few other tweaks, make the movie a million times better.

  20. $15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    $15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way!

    1. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      No one is requiring you to get the popcorn or pop.

      Admittedly, no one is requiring you to get the ticket either, but even if you did, you wouldn't be required to get the rest.

      (Me, even if they paid me $20 they couldn't get me to go the movie.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Popcorn and pop aren't compulsory.

      You should try a movie without them sometime, it's much better without those distractions.

    3. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

      Your theater just rips you off. It's $6.75 for a matinee (yes even 3D too) where I go and I just bring in my own snacks or eat a meal before.

    4. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The difference is that I'm likely to enjoy the popcorn and pop.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      $4 pop

      its called a "Soda".

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in this case, the distraction is the enjoyment factor...

      Rating without popcorn and pop: 2/5
      Rating with popcorn and pop: 3/5

      Or you could just skip the movie, get some popcorn and some pop and give yourself a 4/5 night.

    7. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Alamo Drafthouse for the win. $15 ticket + $10 pizza + $7 pitcher of beer. If the movies especially bad just get another beer and you don't care any more!

    8. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by gklinger · · Score: 1

      That depends on where you live. See The Great Pop vs. Soda Controversy page for details. It's surprisingly interesting. To offset that OT comment I will now sheepishly admit that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is my favourite of all the Star Wars movies and yes, I will go see it again in 3D.

    9. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You should try a movie without them sometime, it's much better without those distractions.

      This statement might be true with a good movie. Not with TPM.

    10. Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's soda. It's also pop. There both short for SODA POP, you dickhead.

  21. There are only THREE Star Wars movies. by c.r.o.c.o · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the first one is Episode IV.

    1. Re:There are only THREE Star Wars movies. by witch-doktor · · Score: 1

      +1

    2. Re:There are only THREE Star Wars movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this Episode IV you speak of? I know only Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Ewoks^H^H^H^H^HJedi.

    3. Re:There are only THREE Star Wars movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not according to my cut, mine starts with merely the words... "Star Wars"

    4. Re:There are only THREE Star Wars movies. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Heresy! Saint George planned all six movies from the start, fully detailed in his notebooks. Not one, not nine. For this act of impiety you shall say 20 Hail Jar-Jars as penance.

    5. Re:There are only THREE Star Wars movies. by Mathness · · Score: 1

      There are only two Star Wars films, Star Wars and the sequel The Empire Strikes Back.

      The rest is poorly created trash flicks made by a crazed man known as George Lucas to steal candy from children, which he sadly made a great profit and career out of.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
  22. For the record... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought Attack of the Clones was by far the weakest:

    ESB
    RotJ
    SW
    TPM
    RotS
    ...
    Care Bears the Movie
    Sex and the City
    ...
    AotC

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you hating on Care Bears? They're leagues above TPM and RotS... come on...

    2. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the only thing in AotC worth watching is that midway point with the Obi-Wan/Jango Fett fight in the rain, and maybe the strangely hot tall alien chick who's in there for five minutes. The rest of AotC is more poorly written than Phantom Menace.

        OTOH, it's hard to top smarmy child actor's presence, and full-blown Jar-Jar obnoxiousness. Ep 1: Balance of the Force fixes most of that, though. I wonder if anyone knows of a really good fan edit of Ep 2 that makes the plot less meandering and dull, and perhaps chops out the worst dialogue (like that awful romance plot?)

    3. Re:For the record... by gowen · · Score: 2

      Actually, that list goes:

      ESB
      SW
      RotJ
      Star Wars Holiday Special
      Caravan of Courage: The Ewok Movie
      TPM
      RotS ...
      Care Bears the Movie
      Sex and the City ...
      AotC

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this progression would make an excellent graph on xkcd

    5. Re:For the record... by ELitwin · · Score: 1

      First of all, it is referred to as "ANH", not "SH" Second of all, how can you rank "RotJ" above "ANH?" WTF?

    6. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, the Care Bears movie was much more entertaining than Phantom Menace.

    7. Re:For the record... by frieza79 · · Score: 1

      First of all, it is referred to as "ANH", not "SH"

      Third of all, he said "SW" not "SH"

      Second of all, how can you rank "RotJ" above "ANH?" WTF?

      Forth of all, he ranked RotJ below ANH

    8. Re:For the record... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Is it bad that when I saw that list with the "...", I immediately thought "Profit!" was supposed to be there? Is it even worse, then, that adding "Profit!" in the context of Star Wars would make an unfortunate amount of sense?

    9. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Attack of the Clones was by far the weakest:

      ESB
      RotJ
      SW
      TPM
      RotS ...
      Care Bears the Movie
      Sex and the City ...
      AotC

      Agreed. AotC was by far the worst. Scenes that weren't necessary plus that God-awful love story between Christiansen and Portman.

    10. Re:For the record... by Noren · · Score: 1

      The name of that movie was Star Wars. Lucas added the Episode IV bit for the first rerelease in 1978. Yes, he started messing with it even before ESB.

    11. Re:For the record... by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 2

      It's just that nothing happened in it. I've watched all of the prequel movies exactly once (and that was enough), and this is what I remember (not necessarily in chronological order, since the plots were... weak):

      Phantom Menace:
      - The senate quacked about something
      - The Naboo queen went through space, was attacked, thwarted the attackers with her super shiny ships
      - Strangely unemotional little kid is sold to some race driver or something
      - Said kid finds and repairs C3P0 (RETCON)
      - Kid meets JarJar, is nonplussed
      - Kid wins a race for some reason
      - Naboo attacked by the Trade Federation (more like the War Federation, am I right?)
      - Unemotional kid helps fight trade federation off by piloting a spaceship
      - Midichlorians
      - Obi-wan and his master (Qwi-gong or something) fight some Sith for some reason, then find the little kid
      - Something about a prophecy?

      Attack of the Clones:
      - there's some clones of boba-fett's daddy; obi-wan goes to see them
      - Anakin is older, still has problems expressing emotion

      Revenge of the Sith:
      - Palpatine dissolves the senate, activates the clone's secret programming and they quickly wipe the jedi out
      - Obi and Anakin kill some droids
      - Anakin starts to get evil for some reason, even though he has a pretty hot girlfriend now
      -- Still doesn't think of doing something about JarJar
      - Anakin and Obi fight
      - Anakin burned, puts on voice-changing suit, screams comically
      - Chewie comes up somehow
      - Queen dies for no good reason just to avoid having to explain where she went in the next movies

    12. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fifth of all, it is "Fourth", not "Forth", as you're not referring to either the computer language or Scotland.

    13. Re:For the record... by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Agreed, one major problem with AoTC is that is was so damn boring.

    14. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFY: ESB, SW, RotS, RtoJ, RPM, ... Gigli ... AotC

    15. Re:For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason for that so goatKCD can give it the treatment they both deserve.

  23. tags by corbettw · · Score: 1

    I was going to tag this story with the obvious one ("nooooooooo"), but I don't see any tags. Anyone else have this problem?

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:tags by guspasho · · Score: 1

      I see a "noooooooooo" tag. How many "o"s is that supposed to have?

    2. Re:tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a "noooooooooo" tag. How many "o"s is that supposed to have?

      Two; one in the "do" and one in the "not".

    3. Re:tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to tag this story with the obvious one ("nooooooooo"), but I don't see any tags. Anyone else have this problem?

      Try "!want"

    4. Re:tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nooooooooo

    5. Re:tags by corbettw · · Score: 1

      WTF? I don't see any tags at all.

      I really, really hate the new site.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  24. OMG! OMG! OMG! by killmenow · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm so freaking excited about this! I'm actually giddy just thinking about the day this comes out! I cannot wait to stay home and completely ignore it!

  25. Could be great! by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

    The beauty of 3D is that the Z axis works both ways. They could take Jar Jar and sink him into the BACKGROUND until he's gone.

    1. Re:Could be great! by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Too bad audio is not 3D so we still have to hear Jar Jar bitch at full volume from his little speck body.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  26. It's a trap! by archer,+the · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately we won't here that good line said in 3D for another decade...

  27. Angry Joe said it best... by Dakiraun · · Score: 1

    "Angry Joe" from the infamous review site "That Guy with the Glasses" probably put it best (at least sums up most of my thoughts pretty well): http://angryjoeshow.com/2010/10/star-wars-3d-rerelease/ Not quite suitable for work... LOT of F-bombs... understandably. George... seriously man, just stop.

    1. Re:Angry Joe said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infamous?

  28. Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does this mean we can watch Natalie Portman, naked and petrified and covered in hot grits IN 3D?

  29. Train wreck in 3D by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A train wreck in 3D is still a train wreck... it just looks more like you're going to get hit by the caboose.

    Loved Ep. 4, 5, 6. Deeply despised 1. Still haven't seen 2 and 3, as by all indications Lucas still hasn't learned that clowns do not belong on the battlefield (and, in fact, trivialize any sense of heriosm or sacrifice or tragedy present in the non-clowns), Western audiences don't like the idea that galactic domination is genetic, a bad movie with eye candy is still a bad movie, and that sullen teenaged angst is only entertaining to sullen teenagers.

    Will not buy or download.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:Train wreck in 3D by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Episode 2 and 3 were much better. Episode 3 actually was decent. George Lucas should redo the first two, but hes too arrogant and greedy.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Train wreck in 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "clowns do not belong on the battlefield"

      They do if a powerful and subtle manipulator of the Force puts them there, and makes sure they stay alive.

    3. Re:Train wreck in 3D by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I was a sullen teen when the prequels came out. I had grown up during the 90's resurgence in popularity of the original films, and loved them (saw the special editions in theaters when they came out and everything). I was not obsessed like a lot of people, but it meant a lot to me. I liked all the computer games too (where are the good star wars games these days? how hard can it be? the Battlefront games were the latest good ones - copying the Battlefield formula - Battlefront 2 is a PS2 and original xbox game, from 2005!).

      I saw Ep. 1 the day it came out. Didn't think it was dead-awful, but was disappointed. I left feeling empty, and more sullen than before. I went to see it again with a friend later who hadn't seen it yet - perhaps I was in a bad mood or something the first time and this time I'd enjoy it - nope, made me feel worse.

      I was even more of a sullen teen for Ep. 2. I again saw it on opening day (why not, I thought?) and was again deeply disappointed, although some of the sound effects were cool (sonic bomb or whatever it was, despite that not making sense in space).

      One thing I was not entertained by was the sullen teenaged angst. I was a sullen angsty teenager at the time and Anakin's sullen angstiness was just stupid and cringe-inducing. I guess some people are immune to bad acting and can enjoy that kind of thing anyway, though (how else can you explain some of the awful movies that come out).

      I was (and still am) something of a film snob though, which most super-big Star Wars fans really aren't. But I really think you're overestimating the entertainment value of Anakin's shit acting (and the shit script), or the ability for the audience to connect with him in any way, even to those who presumably can identify with him (angsty teens).

    4. Re:Train wreck in 3D by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. I saw Eps 1 and 2, didn't bother with 3. Ep. 1 was horrifically bad, but even so, it was still far better than Ep. 2, with the painful-to-watch dialog between Portman and Christenson. I've heard Ep. 3 is better than Ep. 2, possibly Ep. 1, but that's not enough for me to waste two hours of my time on it. I can spend that two hours watching some low-budget sci-fi movie on Netflix and have a better chance of enjoying it than Ep. 3.

  30. Crap sucks. Crap in 3D sucks in multiple dims by losman · · Score: 1

    Seriously, let me see how many suckers pony up for this crap in 3D.

    --
    Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
  31. The only way by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only way I'll watch this is if Natalie Portman reaches out of the screen and gives me a hand job.

    1. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True story.

    2. Re:The only way by dswensen · · Score: 1

      And then go on the Internet to complain you got a much better hand job from Carrie Fisher back in 1984.

  32. I disagree with the premise of your question by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To say Phantom was the worst implies the other two were any better.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  33. Why not discuss how horrible 3D technology... by andyr86 · · Score: 2

    The quality of Episode 1 has been discussed so many times its nearly boring as the film. Lets discuss how bad 3D technology is! I'll start. 30% less colour, ruined focal length and shot clarity. Illusionary pointy things in your face. Headaches. Its bad.

    1. Re:Why not discuss how horrible 3D technology... by crazycheetah · · Score: 1

      Add in the flickering. James Cameron is smart enough to realize that they should have raised the FPS on Avatar, but everyone else overrode that intelligence and so there's flickering for anyone like me that can see it really easily in the 3D. In 2D, it at least isn't nearly as obvious. That's what gives me the headaches after a whole movie. I ended up watching parts of Avatar without the glasses because I couldn't stand it after a while. Lucky for me, I used to work as an usher at 3D movies at a theme park in California, so I was prepared for the odd looks of it without the glasses, having had watched a few multiple times over without the glasses on that job...

  34. Lucas has outdone himself this time by guspasho · · Score: 1

    Was Episode I not bad enough by itself??? I understand that converting 2D movies to 3D is probably the second worst thing to happen to cinema, but you don't need to combine them! There is no prize for worst movie idea.

    1. Re:Lucas has outdone himself this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  35. Jar jar... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Aside from being an annoying character - some of you wouldn't realize how annoying many thought C3PO were in the first movie...

    However - it's important to realize that sometimes you have to have the annoying side characters - they make the experience more real. Even real life is full of annoying people in one form or another.

    Then you can look at Jar Jar from another perspective - what he looks like is well within what an alien may look like if we are to encounter them.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Jar jar... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I doubt the first alien we encounter will be bipedal.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Jar jar... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      C3PO wasn't nearly that annoying (in fact, I never found him annoying at all). He also wasn't a racial stereotype unlike JarJar.

      Also importantly, C3PO was actually useful, aside from his comic relief. He provided translation services and did some useful things at times. JarJar never did anything useful, he was just annoying and useless.

    3. Re:Jar jar... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I doubt the first alien we encounter will be bipedal.

      Why do you think that? I think it's most likely they will be, and will look somewhat like us. There's some good reasons we're bipedal and technologically developed:
      1) We have hands and opposable thumbs, so we can easily manipulate our environment, unlike, for instance, dolphins who are basically stuck with no easy way to manipulate anything. Four-legged (quadrupedal) animals generally don't have the luxury of being able to manipulate their environment much.
      2) It's not likely that any aliens will be 6-legged (i.e., four walking legs and two grasping limbs, sorta like praying mantises, crabs, scorpions, etc.). Having more legs means more energy to maintain the extra body mass and move the legs around, so in nature here, we only see 6 or 8-legged creatures in very small creatures, with crabs and lobsters being about the largest I can think of, and most insects being tiny. There's probably a reason larger animals (esp. land animals) have evolved to only have 4 legs.

      Of course, it's impossible to predict with any certainty, but if aliens evolve in an environment much like ours, they're probably going to look something like us.

    4. Re:Jar jar... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      He was pretty annoying in Episode 2. I figure that Lucas must have decided to ramp him up to 11 as revenge for having to tone back Jar Jar.

    5. Re:Jar jar... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      What about Squids and Octopi? They have multiple limbs and the ability to manipulate things like humans can. Octopi also have the intelligence to do so, some being as smart as cats. My only other point would be the fact that life originating elsewhere may not even be carbon based or maybe it won't even use water and sugars for energy. Think silicon based life or methane breathing lifeforms. Chemistry may favor four legs and two limbs on a planet with a different atmosphere and energy storage chemical (sugar, methane, etc).

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:Jar jar... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, but squid and octopi are sea creatures. It's a little hard to think of sea creatures building rockets or other technologies the way we have on dry land.

  36. February 10, 2012! by Servaas · · Score: 2

    So this will be the day people will rise up and take power, where we all agree to a little bit less, so everyone can have some and we tear down the walls of our manufactured lives, cause let's be honest: What The Fuck.

  37. There may be an upside... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps George in his "wisdom" will fuck with this release even more than he did for the re-release of the original trilogy. At the very least redoing the voice overs could improve this movie. Hell, it's hard to imagine that any changes to it could make it worse.

    Uh, never mind. This was the guy that was somehow able to take a series that I enjoyed during my youth and managed to turn it into what feels more like a Deliverance style ass rape'in. Somehow he could make it even worse.

  38. Re:D'Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Steve Jobs but I suppose at least he rips off other peoples ideas and does something a bit different every now and then.

  39. I have 2 words for this movie and Lucas. by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=free%20hat%20southpark&hl=en&meta=
    Free Hat (you NEED to see the episode if you like Star Wars or Indiana Jones)

    "Free Hat" is episode 88 of the animated series South Park. It originally aired on July 10, 2002. The episode ridicules Lucasfilm's digital altering of George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy and Steven Spielberg's E.T.. The episode also shows huge criticism towards remake movies.

    1. Re:I have 2 words for this movie and Lucas. by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      I was reading this entire comment thread just to see if anyone else had remembered this episode.

  40. Never forget the truth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jar jar shot first!

  41. Same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to comment about how in the Star Wars universe, I'd put the Ewok movies above AotC. But you have Care Bears the Movie in there, so I guess you've covered that.

  42. Jar Jar or the Will Smith family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jar Jar or the Will Smith family?!

  43. RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Khopesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We've got to be only a year or two from realizing that RealD is a dumb gimmick...

    RealD Cinema, the technology used in all of these films, uses alternating frequencies of light which get filtered differently by each polarized lens of the glasses it requires. This gives up to two planes of vision at a time, which can move relative to each other. For whatever reason, we are calling this 3D (I'll use the term "biplanar" for the rest of this post). Disclaimer: this is a simplification and I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I think it hits the point.

    All this biplanar vision is good for is superimposing a flat view of something in front of (or behind) the main action. That's it. I saw Avatar and was impressed by a few scenes (specifically, the captions used in the diary entries ... which were 2D), but it was almost wholly a gimmick; neat trick, but a novelty that faded before the movie finished. Captions and other flat items can add to things, but (in their current state) they do not justify the extra cost or the need to wear sunglasses in a dark theater.

    That's not to say we've exhausted the limits of what biplanar movies can do; I expect explosions and other instantaneous effects can benefit greatly from this; each frame of the explosion moves slightly closer to the audience on the Z-axis, and since it emits like a wave, there is no need to continue to display previous frames in their own dedicated Z coordinate. The same goes for anything opaque that's coming right at you, so long as it has no component that requires a different depth (so a car --or spaceship-- is out because the windshield is farther from you than the fender; turn your head and the perspective shows a 2D image). In fact, the only things I can think of that fit this bill are explosions and other things that move so fast the you don't have time to move and see their flatness plus anything that is so flat it has no depth, like maybe a propeller-driven device whose propeller is so big you can't see anything else, or a wall that the first-person perspective is driving into head-first (though those two examples are pretty lame and limited).

    Re-releasing old hits (a generous term for the Star Wars prequels) won't do much unless you have a fanbase that will buy anything you make (in which you might as well stick with snorting commentary tracks and back-patting featurettes).

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ehh, no.

      Polarized 3D isn't limited to two planes. The polarized filter ensures the left and right image each go to the right eye, and it can look 100% like you look at the world normally.

      The problem is that the perspective doesn't change when you move your head, so when you do it looks like the movie is made of paper cutouts placed at different depths (but still not limited to two). There's also that polarization is sensitive to the angle from which you're viewing the screen.

      For the absolutely best effect you'd need head tracking. Of course the image would have to be rendered in real time. But then you can really create the impression that the monitor has a hole in it through which you're looking at say, a game.

    2. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 2

      RealD Cinema ... gives up to two planes of vision at a time

      No it gives two projections of vision at a time, one for each eye... just like your eyes get from the rest of the world (each eye only sees 2d of course). It can be as 3d as actually being there, except that you cannot change the focus; your eyes always should always be focused on the screen regardless of what is projected. This causes eye strain and perception problems for some people.

      ReadD does have some problems... mostly people who can perceive at 72 Hz or greater will see some flickering, and with movies made from 24 fps source frames are repeated three times (per eye) so people with fast perception will see some stuttering; frames are flashed in sequence 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3..., so if you can perceive individual frames then you'll see action frozen for two frames out of three.

      But yeah, if you are only seeing two planes in a movie like Avatar made from 3d source then your brain is not processing correctly (ie you have some visual perception problem). You may in fact not be perceiving the actual world in 3d as other do. I wouldn't expect you to see anything in those random noise pictures where you cross your eyes for instance.

    3. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suffice to say, you don't really know what you're talking about.

      "Bi-planar" is a term you just made up. What it's really called is "stereoscopic imagery", which means two images, one for each eye. For a static head position, this completely recreates the imagery you would actually see in the real world, non-planar 3D objects and all.

      What you seem to be talking about requires head motion, and is the effect of parallax. Currently, parallax-enabled 3D viewing is only possible for a single head-tracked user, or with fancy research hardware in very limited scenarios.

    4. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wow, you have not understood how 3D cinema works at all. You even invent new terms (biplanar vision), when we are simply using Stereoscopy, a technique known since the 19th century. Your eyes see two different images due to parallax in the real world, and that important part of depth perception is what we try to imitate by feeding a slightly different image to each eye, as if there was a camera where each eye is. Well, guess what, that is not all the depth perception information we use in real life - there is also the focusing that we do that depends on the distance of objects, so each person is "tricked" by Stereoscopy in a different way. That's why we say some people don't "get" 3D.
      As for the technical details, you have mixed things up. RealD does not use alternating frequencies, that is the Dolby 3D method (wavelength multiplexing). RealD is using circular polarization and polarization is not related to the frequency. Then there are the linear polarization methods, like Imax 3D, with the obvious disadvantage that you can't tilt your head sideways or your polarizer glasses won't work. These three systems all "feel" different, for example my wife gets a better 3D effect with Dolby 3D, while I think that it is worse when I move my eyes around and generally prefer Imax 3D but most likely due to the huge screen. Even if each method gives you a bit different effect, if you can't trick your brain into seeing 3D just by using stereopsis, then I guess no system will be useless to you...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    5. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll, and you got +5 Insightful!

      Of course parent makes a few valid points, like the bit about sunglasses in a dark theater. But the whole "biplanar" thing is totally made up. RealD is just polarized glasses, which means your left and right eyes get different images, which enables stereo vision (on any number of planes.) And Avatar was shot in stereo, with two cameras, and all the CG and VFX were done in stereo, none of that biplanar BS. Who is modding up that clown?

    6. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone goes to the movie theaters actually thinking that the movie is actually three dimensional. I don't think the terminator hand reaching for me is real, I understand that it is merely an optical illusion, but the fact that it looks just like it is 3d is very exciting. That is what I pay for.

      You do realize that anyone actually believing it is 3D can simply take of their glasses and bear witness to the "dumb gimmick", right?

    7. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Khopesh · · Score: 1

      I never claimed to have a well-informed idea of how it worked; I knew it was related to the differently polarized lenses of the glasses but mistakenly called that a frequency issue (my understanding is that polarized lenses filter various light wavelengths, which differ by frequency).

      However, with respect to RealD's two planes as "3D," I don't think I was as far off the mark as many of the responses (yours included) have indicated. I used an invented term ("biplanar") because I didn't want to call it stereoscopic; I haven't seen any evidence that the two fields of vision it presents combine in any meaningful way (beyond showing two flat planes to view). To me, there is no illusion of depth beyond those two planes, so nothing really looks three dimensional.

      Consider a ~futuristic glass display, motorized to move along the Z-axis in front of a television. These are the two planes I'm talking about. My experience with RealD is not terribly different from this. Perhaps I'm not typical in this regard; there are many optical illusions that are difficult for me (e.g. "Magic Eye" autostereograms do nothing for me) and though I've never been tested, I doubt I am stereo-blind since I get /something/ out of RealD and similar effects and because my excellent depth perception diminishes some when I'm covering either eye. As to the other 3-D film techniques, the only one I've experienced is the old fashioned red/blue glasses format, and I honestly don't remember if it worked (I'm leaning on stating that it did).

      I am under the impression that 3D films are shot with two cameras, each from a unique angle and/or focused field of depth. This would make it hard to represent a third angle or field of depth. This is probably complicated by visual effects and computer modeling, perhaps to the point at which the problem is either moot or will be soon. Even Avatar, which was designed for 3D and did not have a non-3D presentation (in theaters anyway), didn't actually use the technology much -- it was a gimmick. I don't think that was for wont of trying, I think it was a limitation of the technology. Maybe we'll see a change in the future as it matures, but for now, it remains a gimmick.

      --
      Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    8. Re:RealD is a two-plane gimmick by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      My head hurts with your comments, as I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say from the gibberish you write. Phrases like "focused field of depth" have absolutely no meaning, other statements are simply wrong (for the second time, polarized lenses DO NOT filter frequencies) and then there is a number of statements that almost have a meaning, but not much (like the motorized Z-axis thing etc). I completely lost you with the "third angle or field of depth", that made no sense whatsoever.
      Things are simple, all the stereoscopic methods (including the old anaglyph method - red blue as you say) try to feed each eye with a different image to emulate the fact that each of your eyes does indeed normally see things from a slightly different angle. That is enough for most (? don't know the statistics on this, judging from people I know) people to make them believe things are leaping out of the screen. For me, the effect is the strongest sitting at the middle of an Imax theater, so that the 3D screen fills completely my field of view.
      Then, for other people the fact that their eyes have to maintain focus at a specific distance to see all the supposedly 3D items, is enough to spoil the effect.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  44. Star Wars by fermion · · Score: 2
    I saw Star Wars when it first came out. I saw the sequels. I saw Star Wats when it was remastered. Seeing the old characters and the new effects was worth the money. There was no point in seeing the other two remastered because, frankly, if you see a new effect once then what is the point. In any case, at least in my mind, Star Wars was the only movie that had any really real humanity. We can all relate to the longing of Luke Skywalker and the the classic cad of Han Solo, without the annoying good side that everyone wants to add. Really it was the additional the Han Solo good side that made me not see the remaining remakes. It was good though that people who wanted to got to see them on the big screen.

    I understood The Phantom Menace to be made for a new generation and therefore had little to do with Star Wars or the sequels. I dutifully went to see them, and the disappointment was less the story than the fact that throwing money at a slew of well known actors would solve the problem. It did not solve any problem in The Empire Strikes Back. The f/x was good, but again they can only go so far. In Return of the Jedi it seemed that there was a new appreciation of a combination of practical and special effects. Not more.

    I think the the fact the prequels are pretty much animated stories with a bit of live acting thrown in will make them a very good 3D experience. Star Wars and the sequels will be less so because of the human element. It will certainly allow the kids who enjoyed the prequels to see them as adults and reflect on the story.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  45. The Mayans were off by 10 months. by rjejr · · Score: 2

    I might consider seeing a 2 1/4 hr. condensed version of the first 3 films in 3D. That's 45 minutes per movie, should be more than enough. All dialouge edited out as well. Yoda could do a narrative past tense voice-over as if filling in Luke during his training. "A great pod race he won. Giant fish they did escape. Killed by Darth Maul Gaugin Jin was. Clones they did create. Begun the clone war had. By the emporer betrayed they were. Like a coward ran I hid here until now I have. Train you I shall". Yeah, I'ld see that.

    1. Re:The Mayans were off by 10 months. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      That's like, two minutes tops. What the hell does Yoda do the other 43 minutes? Shadow puppets?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    2. Re:The Mayans were off by 10 months. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...actually, I'd see that too. That's an interesting idea. Shrinking all three films down to, say, 88 minutes (2 1/4 hours is still too long) would get rid of a tremendous amount of crap. Jarjar would be a background character, most of the filler that was the pod race gone, incomprehensible battles condensed down to highlights, all of the comic relief that didn't work... GONE. Jake Lloyd as a walk-on part. Keep the few things that did work, like the lightsaber fight with Darth Maul and the arena fight, but cut out the repetitious parts. Yoda as a voiceover would work.

      Seriously, this is something anyone with taste and a little experience could do. Who wants to give it a try?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  46. Dear Mr.Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    35 years ago you had a great idea for a film.
    Unfortunately, you haven't had one since, and continue to hock the same repackaged crap over and over.

    1. Re:Dear Mr.Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35 years ago you had a great idea for a film.

      Not just great -- brilliant. Who'd have thought "Dune meets The Dambusters" would be more successful than either?

  47. 3D and no airsickness bags? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fugeddabahtit!

  48. Can you say blackmail? by dracphelan · · Score: 1

    So, in order to see the original trilogy in 3D, we have to pay Lucas to see the horrible crap he foisted on us as "prequels."

    1. Re:Can you say blackmail? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Somebody does. It doesn't have to be us.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  49. only if Lucas is merely beating a dead horse by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2

    I think he's HUMPING the dead horse... Really George, what have you done LATELY?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  50. let's not forget... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    F'in Ewoks!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:let's not forget... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Will that be defined as Zoophilia?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  51. Jar Jar in 3D will be great! by Posting=!Working · · Score: 2

    You haters are missing the point here. Jar Jar in 3D will be awesome! It will give you the opportunity you've been waiting for since Episode 1 first came out. Just bring a knife with you to the theater, and when Jar Jar appears it 3D, you can finally stab him in the face!

    Might want to make sure no one's sitting in front of you, because if they are, you'll have to explain. I mean, they'll completely understand and forgive you, but since it won't look the same from their perspective, they'll probably be mad until you tell them.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  52. well by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Mark Hamill was definitely not much better than this as the center role. he looked more out of place and less believable than phantom's obi wan and qui gonn.

  53. So... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

    Is Meow Skywalker coming next?

  54. And A Turd Gets a Polishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Nuff said.

  55. A horse in carbonite... by MrSenile · · Score: 1

    Which goes to show you...

    Not only was Han Solo frozen in carbonite, but apparently so was the dead horse that George Lucas keeps managing to pull out to beat again after thawing.

    Any votes on how squishy that horse is now?

  56. Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excited to see StarWars back on the big screen? You bet! Excited for 3D, not so much...

  57. Hey maybe they'll fix it... by Alanbly · · Score: 1

    ...and Han will randomly show up to shoot Jar Jar

    --
    -- Adam McCormick
  58. Tagged as Entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice that this story is tagged as entertainment. I believe that this is an error. The Phantom Menace was clearly not entertainment. How do I get the story re-tagged?

  59. more exaggeration. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    it's the complete and utter lack of proper storytelling and cinematography,

    this is the exaggeration i am talking about. what the fuck does 'complete and utter lack' of 'proper storytelling and cinematography' means anyway.

    1. Re:more exaggeration. by potHead42 · · Score: 1

      If you want more details just watch those reviews I linked to, it will quickly start to make sense once you get used to the guy's voice... or alternatively you can probably find hundreds of written reviews which discuss these technicalities.

      But why am I even defending the crappiness of the Star Wars prequels?

    2. Re:more exaggeration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does 'complete and utter lack' of 'proper storytelling and cinematography' means anyway.

      The lack of storytelling means that a bunch of characters nobody cares about are stuff that doesn't matter for reasons that nobody understands.

      I disagree about the cinematography. The movies certainly weren't beautiful, but they weren't Battlefield Earth bad. Not bad, not good, just 'meh.'

      The fact that you had to force a three year old to watch that boring snore fest should tell you something.

  60. Vote with your feet by steveha · · Score: 1

    Just don't go. Tell your friends: don't go.

    Burning down the theatre would be a bit much, though.

    I was going to say "vote with your dollars" but in this case it's really "vote with your lack of dollars".

    If this project massively loses money, George Lucas will give up on the idea. But that is what it would take. A slight loss? He'll go ahead with the others.

    I think a lot of people might actually go to see this, unfortunately. But I predict a rapid fall-off in the numbers; it will have poor word-of-mouth. Once the initial curious people have seen it, the numbers will plummet. I don't know if they will plummet fast enough to put a stake through the heart of the idea, though.

    You know, even proper 3D movies have their drawbacks. Trying to hack a 2D movie into 3D will have all those drawbacks and won't even have the benefit of actually being 3D. This will be fail upon fail.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  61. Yeah, call me when Jar-Jar is 0d in a silent film by jbeach · · Score: 1

    Then MAYBE I'll see them - if George Lucas personally autographs my Laserdisc version of the only 3 movies that are really Star Wars.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  62. Will theaters even bother showing this? by Animats · · Score: 1

    Nobody does theatrical reruns any more. Will theaters even run the thing? It's just fake 3D, after all; the source material was filmed in 2D. I can't see exhibitors going in for re-releases of old movies just because they're 3D. Maybe for a film festival or something like that, but not for general release. This sounds like a limited theatrical release to promote the product for 3D TV displays.

    1. Re:Will theaters even bother showing this? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Nobody does theatrical reruns any more. Will theaters even run the thing? It's just fake 3D, after all; the source material was filmed in 2D.

      "Nightmare Before Christmas 3D" Worldwide Gross $26 million. And that was before the big Avatar-related push to get 3D projectors into cinemas.

      Since the 2D->3D on a movie is $6-$18 million, there is plenty of opportunity for profit even for a movie that doesn't have a huge box office.

    2. Re:Will theaters even bother showing this? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a lot of people actually like that movie (I like the original version and I saw it in 3D because some friends were going and it sucked, the whole thing was a blur to me; I don't bother going to 3D movies any more - doesn't work for me). Very few people like the prequels (Ep. 1 especially) enough to want to go pay $15+ to see it in fake 3D.

      If it really costs $6-$18 million to do... that's an amazing waste of money. I guess it's better that it goes to computer animator salaries instead of paychecks for overpaid actors, but wow. That's a lot of money to essentially throw away for a shitty result. I guess Star Wars, even prequel re-releases, can top $18 million at the box office though, so from a business standpoint it makes sense. Lucas has already lost any integrity (artistic and otherwise) he might have had, so I can't even say anything bad about him on that front.

    3. Re:Will theaters even bother showing this? by Animats · · Score: 1

      "Nightmare Before Christmas 3D"

      That's a holiday-season perennial. A number of movies are rolled out every Xmas season, starting with "Miracle on 34th St", and various versions of "Scrooge". (Fortunately, we have been spared a rerun of the "Star Wars Holiday Special")

  63. 2012? by Iverach · · Score: 1

    This is just more ammunition for the 2012 doomsday clowns.

  64. Amazing... by geogob · · Score: 1

    Some people apparently think 3D solves everything... ... this is not the movie depth you are looking for.

  65. Three Dee, Schmee Dee by macraig · · Score: 1

    Are enough fans interested in watching the weakest films of the trilogy again just to experience them in 3D?

    No. Just no. Hell no.

  66. it'll make money by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    You know that enough people will go to the theaters that it'll make money. It's not like they're making a new movie, so they don't have to fill as many seats to turn a profit.

    ...and it's not like Lucas is capable of making movies anymore. He lost whatever spark he had back in the eighties. (Maybe earlier.) If he had an ounce of creativity left, we'd be seeing an apology movie (it'd take an apology trilogy...) but he doesn't, so he has to keep flogging the old stuff, basking in the adoration of fewer and fewer geeks with each iteration, hoping that the money won't trail off before his ignoble retirement.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:it'll make money by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but don't understand why it's necessary for him to do this. He's got hundreds of millions, if not billions. Can't he (and his kids and their kids and their kids and their kids...) retire off of that comfortably? Why does he continuously do things to generate ill-will among people who once were his biggest fans?

      He must realize what most people think of him. He's clearly gone mad from greed.

  67. agreed with all, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with the haters, BUT::
    Star wars I, II and III were not made to tell any story about anakin becoming darth vader or whatever. That could have been mentioned in a one-hour star-wars special after ROTJ. What the prequels brought were supreme effects and animations that brought space combat and lightsaber battles to a whole new level, up from that Obi wan vs darth vader battle in the death star. It wasn't a matter of storytelling. It was a matter of showing off, and that they did.

  68. Dear George, a few polite suggestions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear George,

    I heard that you will be re(rere)releasing Star Wars movies, starting with The Phantom Menace. Given previous rereleases of Star Wars movies, I think it is safe to assume you're willing to tinker with it. Might I politely suggest the following?
    - Cut JarJar Binks antics out of the "Gungan war" scene. War isn't funny, and seeing a Goofy character succeeding in it lessens the impact of the scene. Basically, although Gungangs are dying by the hundreds, we can laugh at it because Goofy tripped over his feet, causing an implausible chain of events leading to the destruction of 10 enemy bots. This trivialises the whole war, and thus reduces its contribution to the story to somewhere near absolute zero.
    - Cut the "uh-oh" sound from Anakin's mouth as he blows up the droid control station. Much as before, a highly implausible chain of events making things right is bad enough in itself. But adding slapstick comedy to that severs any connection the audience may have had with the plight of the fighters.

    I actually think that with these two small changes, the movie will become quite a bit more enjoyable to watch.
    Should this lead to sufficient success to warrant a rerererererelease of part II and/or II, I also have a suggestion.
    In one of them, you inadvertently introduced a third aspect of the Force: the bouncy side. This is quite confusing, actually. Yoda is a bouncy-side master, who masquerades as a light-sider. On top of that, Yoda is the only bouncy-sider in the movie. Perhaps this could be reimaged to avoid any reference to the bouncy side, and just keep the Force as either light or dark?

    In the event that success allows you to continue reimagining further movies in the franchise, I have a general request: please stop thinking PG-13 and start thinking about what you want to show. Situations, characters nor actions need to be completely black-and-white. If a story doesn't shrink from depicting violence in a mature fashion, why not have mature depictions of romantic / sexual relations/tensions?
    Yes this may mean that 13 year olds cannot see your reimagined movie for the time being. However, you've already captivated quite an audience in the 70s/80s. Since all these are sufficiently mature to pass any age requirement, do not let a concern for the children ruin whatever remains of your artistic vision, please.

    Finally, good luck! Many people will whine about it, but in the end the movie or movies are likely to turn out quite successful. Since that seems given, I hope you can make them into something you'll look back upon proudly. Even if no one else does. Like with The Phantom Menace.

  69. Merchandising Merchandising Merchandising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mel Brooks' parody was dead on. Star Wars (fill in a number): The Quest for More Money!!!

  70. What? by Corngood · · Score: 2

    It's not 'biplanar', it's stereoscopic. I suppose they could use something like what you describe to reconstruct a stereoscopic view of a 2d film, but in practice they are more sophisticated than that. I know you're trying to simplify things, but calling it biplanar is selling it way short.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate just about everything about this 3D fad, I just think you are confused about the implementation.

  71. "fans" by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 1

    Are enough fans interested in watching the weakest films of the trilogy again just to experience them in 3D?"

    No, definitely not. Are enough retards going to go to buy tickets to make this ridiculously profitable? Yes, definitely.

  72. Lucas is truly amazing by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    I thought TPM couldn't possibly suck more, but in crappy 3D, it will. Congratulations George for doing the impossible.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  73. Awesome, probably the first 3d movie I'll watch by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    on purpose anyway.

    I know most geeks hate EP I, and think Jar Jar is TAH DEEVIL, but EP I rocked in my opinion.

    Sorry if you remember the late 70s/early 80s as awesome, but get over your hate.

    Best light saber fight ever and it doesn't require you to hold your vomit back due to Harrison Ford and Mark Hamills absolutely shitty acting ability and lines. Yoda and Obi-Wan were awesome in both, Qui-Gon was the bomb in EP I.

    So yes, I know that I'll probably have half of slashdot dressed in full Jedi gear in front of my house threatening to beat me with their light sabers by dawn, I for one liked EP I

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  74. SW Theater Performance Recordings by none295 · · Score: 0

    Hello, i'm researching SW Theater Performance recordings (bootlegs), and would love to read people's memories of their viewing or knowledge of such a recording. post here or e-mail pl1x@earthlink.net. Yes it was a long long time ago, but oddly these recordings remain the only way to...
    well this site puts it better:
    http://savestarwars.com/

    Any memory would be great. What movie? Format (PAL-NTSC, U-Matic/Beta/VHS/VCD/BinCue/etc, widescreen or pan-scan) When did you see it? What was the story behind seeing the tape? (friend who was a collector, sci-fi convention, just knew the right people, did you record it yourself!) Did you bring a cassette recorder to the 70mm screening? Are you responsible for the Hastings RotJ Heist? Did you go to jail for RotS? AotC? TPM? Was the version you saw, Good, poor, miserable. Did you buy it from an ad in a comic book journal? Surprise us with any detail no matter how irrelevant it may seem. thanks in advance.

  75. Since this is a SW thread... by Lazarian · · Score: 1

    Off topic, but can anyone here remember the -original- Episode 4 where Luke just gets rescued by Obi-Wan, and asks him "You fought in the Colonial Wars"? I swear that "Colonial" was the original dialog, and they changed it to"Clone" when they re-released it. I'm just going by memory here from an old VHS copy that I lost a long time ago.

    1. Re:Since this is a SW thread... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      It was Cologne Wars, because he knew they would stink.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Since this is a SW thread... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      There are entire scenes that a lot of people claim to remember being in the film originally (or in early VHS copies) but which never were. I thought so too about a certain scene; can't remember what it was now but it was one of the more common ones to imagine. They came from various sources, but not from the actual films. One of them was in a picture book novelization or something. A quite interesting case of mass delusion, apparently.

      But it was always the Clone Wars. You're misremembering that.

    3. Re:Since this is a SW thread... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      No, it was the Bologna Wars. Luke hadn't had lunch yet.

    4. Re:Since this is a SW thread... by Lazarian · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I suppose it just seemed to fit better in memory since there were always references of fighting the colonials, and when the modified version came out in the mid 90's, the word clone was getting to be a big buzzword with Dolly the sheep and all. I had the impression that when the new version of ANH came out, TPM was already on the drawing board, and they altered the dialog to make the storylines mesh.

  76. Re:How in the hell did you come up with that? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    How in the hell did you come up with that? I read the page you linked to, and what you said makes absolutely no sense. The page does not support your claim.

    You take a picture from one angle, and at the same time from a different angle, true stereoscopic imaging. Project one angle with one polarization, the other with the other polarization, and you get a "true" 3-d image. It's not really true 3-D, but it's convincing enough, and far more than just biplanar images.

    I think what you're talking about is when people take a 2D movie and try to make it into 3D. They generally do a terrible job, unless the original consisted of mostly animation. It's easier to lift the foreground, put the background behind it, and pretend it's 3D. The animation you can hopefully re-render stereoscopically.

    The problem with Avatar was not being bi-planar, it was trying to merge animation with live action material. Somehow it just didn't work, although I enjoyed the animation-only scenes immensely.

    Provide more sources that back up what you're saying, so we can read more about it, or get your eyes checked please?

  77. I'll wait until the hard light holographic by dadioflex · · Score: 1

    So I can kick the crap out of Jar Jar as soon as he pops up.

  78. waste of time? by mcn · · Score: 1

    why not spend time and money to do Ep 7,8,9? I know I know, it is supposed to only contain 6 episodes.. or was it?

  79. Who shoots first in this edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My money's on Greedo.

  80. 3D TVs disappear from Costco by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

    You might recall all the warnings from the health sciences community and from manufacturers themselves about the possible damage 3D TVs could have on developing vision in kids. Shortly after that episode, all of the 3D TV gear and their hype, disappeared. Did anyone else notice an absence of 3D TVs in recent weeks?

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  81. Double headache by scotts13 · · Score: 1

    Full disclosure, I never thought the original three film were that exceptional. Bad science, mediocre acting, simplistic plot. At best, they were entertaining in a 30's movie serial sort of way; which I believe was what was originally intended. They did serve to popularize SF themes for the general public, and should have lead to higher quality fare. UNFORTUNATELY, they were wildly successful, and lead to formulaic prequels. You can actually go through the fils making notes: "There to appeal to the pre-teens... there for the toy market... there to appeal to the tweens. And the overwhelming need to twist everything out of shape to sync with the 'later' films. There are parts of the prequels that literally have me avert my eyes. Seeing them in 3D, and thus a DOUBLE headache, is something I'd pay to avoid. Hey, THERE'S a way to make some money from the franchise. "Send your PayPal donation to 'Stop Lucas now'..."

  82. Re: virgin birth without purpose by i41 · · Score: 1

    The virgin birth served the same purpose as all miraculous births in literature and religion, to foreshadow a mythical character, a chosen one. What's more, in "Revenge" Darth Sidious shares a story of one Darth Plagueis who "was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life. He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying." To me at least this strongly hinted that Plagueis engineered Anakin, using Shmi as an unwitting vessel, and this untold backstory was one of the reasons Lucas introduced midi-chlorians. Still, to prop up the mythical elements of Star Wars with factual explanations was a poor decision. As for fishy, Shmi was sold to Cliegg Lars (father of Owen, who later raised Luke) shortly after Anakin left Tattoine, who freed her and married her. She died in Episode II before the Clone Wars began, with the Battle of Geonosis and the clash of Yoda and Dooku.

  83. Re: virgin birth without purpose by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The virgin birth served the same purpose as all miraculous births in literature and religion, to foreshadow a mythical character, a chosen one. What's more, in "Revenge" Darth Sidious shares a story of one Darth Plagueis who "was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life. He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying." To me at least this strongly hinted that Plagueis engineered Anakin, using Shmi as an unwitting vessel, and this untold backstory was one of the reasons Lucas introduced midi-chlorians. Still, to prop up the mythical elements of Star Wars with factual explanations was a poor decision.

    Yes that's a very complicated backstory, but it's still my opinion that all of it was rather unneccessary. It seemed more of an artificial construct than anything else to add plot elements that were contrived. After all until the midi-chlorian things, the force sensitivity of individuals was something of a mysterious born ability. It ran in families and species but either someone had it or they didn't. So a child born on a distant world with superb force sensitivity wouldn't need any explanation.

    As for fishy, Shmi was sold to Cliegg Lars (father of Owen, who later raised Luke) shortly after Anakin left Tattoine, who freed her and married her.

    Yes but Anakin didn't know about this until he returned to Tattoine or at least that's what the conversation he had with Waddle would seem to suggest. So despite his fear and concern for his mother, he never inquired about her for ten or so years. After the battle of Naboo, I would think that the government and the Queen owed him a small debt. Did anyone even ask him what he wanted?

    "Young Anakin Skywalker, the planet of Naboo owes you a debt, how can we ever repay it?"
    "Free my mother on Tattooine."
    "Done."

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  84. Re: virgin birth without purpose by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    The virgin birth served the same purpose as all miraculous births in literature and religion, to foreshadow a mythical character, a chosen one.

    Well, sure, but no one questions it. Including, most importantly, Shmi herself.

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're married to a woman, and she gets pregnant without you having sex with her. Are you going to believe her when she says it's a miracle?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  85. New character by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Lucas is recasting Ashton Kutcher in the role as a romantic interest for Queen Amygdala.

    See Kutcher in his groundbreaking role as King Hippocampus! Coming soon to a cerebellum near you!

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."