O my gosh! No threads on Star Wars 3 yet!?

[Savior_Sora]

I just have one question....why...? O.o

[PrincessZelda]

Why what?

[Ingemar]

That head is something, but what really bewilders me is Lucas's lack of a chin now.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

The ewoks destroying hi tech equipment with a bunch of logs ruined it for me. Cut that out and it was good

For me empire worked because it had the characters seem most human

do NOT mess with ewoks AH...

didja know you only see one ewok die in the entire RoTJ movie? yeah the ewoks messed up the movie a lil... but the battle of endor in space compensated for it...

"We don't last long against those star destroyers!"
"We won't last long against that death star!"

"ATTACK THOSE STAR DESTROYERS AT POINT BLANK RANGE"

ahh man the music was amazing

[Bobtheduck]

Going OT, I think that digital cameras and CGI are actually making modern movies more soulless than older ones in general. The main reason I thought Raiders of the Lost Ark was better than Last Crusade was for that reason

Did Last Crusade use a digital camera or CG? If I remember correctly, the withering villain scene was done entirely with "conventional" Special effects... And it still looked better and less laughable than the claymation melting scene in Raiders...

Besides that, I find that statement offsetting. First off, the ONLY difference between digital video and conventional film that's even really worth discussing is the difference in the way they handle shadows. I've seen many productions made on Video that had tons of "soul". It's not the format that gives something its soul, it just affects the colors really...

Looking at CG (both 2d in anime and 3d in movies and such) at this early stage and making a judgement about it for the rest of time is a bit irresponsible... I mean, I look at some of the films made in the 20s, and they are incredibly boring and laughable... It was still new. Then, when talkies came around, for a long time "screen acting" was really just "stage acting" perhaps toned down a couple decibles... The hyper-realistic acting that shows up in the better movies of today wasn't possible on stage, and people just didn't have experience with it.... I think the same this is true with CG, and just like back then, I think there are exceptions...

Lord of the Rings would NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE with conventional effects... Then there are things like Shrek that are produced entirely digitally... Many games, though I don't remember if you're a game fan, contain incredible emotion and revelation to them. Silent Hill 2 is an example I bring up a lot, even though the voice acting in that particular game is mediocre, the "acting" of the characters is what makes it work for me. The CG characters were very moving, and I can't get through that game without a good cry and serious thinking.

CG is a tool. It's an artistic tool. You can't have any more or less soul in any medium than the artists are willing to put into it...

EDIT: Off topic, to make a comment about Metal Gear, the NES game only sucked because it was stripped of some very important scenes from the original MSX game... THe second NES game wasn't even canon, and the second MSX game was rather moving and set the stage for MGS because it is Snake's breaking off from Foxhound...

[Arnobius]

Did Last Crusade use a digital camera or CG? If I remember correctly, the withering villain scene was done entirely with "conventional" Special effects... And it still looked better and less laughable than the claymation melting scene in Raiders...

Besides that, I find that statement offsetting. First off, the ONLY difference between digital video and conventional film that's even really worth discussing is the difference in the way they handle shadows. I've seen many productions made on Video that had tons of "soul". It's not the format that gives something its soul, it just affects the colors really...

Looking at CG (both 2d in anime and 3d in movies and such) at this early stage and making a judgement about it for the rest of time is a bit irresponsible... I mean, I look at some of the films made in the 20s, and they are incredibly boring and laughable... It was still new. Then, when talkies came around, for a long time "screen acting" was really just "stage acting" perhaps toned down a couple decibles... The hyper-realistic acting that shows up in the better movies of today wasn't possible on stage, and people just didn't have experience with it.... I think the same this is true with CG, and just like back then, I think there are exceptions...

Lord of the Rings would NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE with conventional effects... Then there are things like Shrek that are produced entirely digitally... Many games, though I don't remember if you're a game fan, contain incredible emotion and revelation to them. Silent Hill 2 is an example I bring up a lot, even though the voice acting in that particular game is mediocre, the "acting" of the characters is what makes it work for me. The CG characters were very moving, and I can't get through that game without a good cry and serious thinking.

CG is a tool. It's an artistic tool. You can't have any more or less soul in any medium than the artists are willing to put into it...

EDIT: Off topic, to make a comment about Metal Gear, the NES game only sucked because it was stripped of some very important scenes from the original MSX game... THe second NES game wasn't even canon, and the second MSX game was rather moving and set the stage for MGS because it is Snake's breaking off from Foxhound...

You're free to disagree. Nothing I say is dogma. However, back when they shot in film, and editing was hard, they seemed to take more time with their shots to do it right and plan it right. Now they can film a lot more and pick and choose. It seems lifeless. They may get better, but right now it just seems lifeless in comparison because they are not putting in the soul they did before.

Take Pixar-- everyone seems to love their films... except me. They just seem to be more wowed with making things look good than in getting me into the story.

Before everyone gets out the flamethrowers, just remember these are my tastes and opinions, and not a declaration of war with those who disagree...

Oh and LOTR-- I'm one of the guys who thought it was too much effects and not enough story, so that was the wrong one to cite for me

[Bobtheduck]

It is all a matter of taste

Sometimes when I hear people say "too much graphics" really what they're saying is "it looked too good, I liked it better when we had to use our imaginations more"

Just because something is easier now doesn't mean it's lost it's soul. Do you prefer slaughtering your own meat, writing letters that take weeks or months to reach their destinations, beating rugs, trying to use water to clean everything, or having to talk to people only within your own town or village to the modern things we have now that make life easier? Supermarkets, email and a ratehr well developed postal system, vacuum cleaners, cleaners of all sorts, and the internet... Now, Supermarkets, Email, and internet aside, since you may well think those things remove the soul from life, but do you think vacuum cleaners and chemical cleaners remove the soul from your house because the house can be cleaned faster and with much less effort? Do you think that having a well developed, quick postal service somehow removes the soul from what you have to say because there isn't the 2 week to a month or more wait until it gets to its destination and then as long or longer for you to get a reply?


You can have your own answer to that, even though the questions were mostly rhetorical (I can't say for sure, because people have weird thoughts... This whole "natural" kick is conditioning people to believe technology is evil) I mean, IMNSHO things being easier, taking less effort, isn't a bad thing. Along those lines, I think the same thing applies to animation... I mean, merely because the artists have better tools and don't have to try as hard to get what they want, and in some cases can get things that those other tools couldn't afford them doesn't take the soul out of them. The soul comes from the artists portraying what they wanted to portray, what meant something for them, in whatever way that was possible... It is only souless if the artist has lost something, not if a certain tool was used (particularly "digital video" I can't believe people even say that one...)

[Arnobius]

It is all a matter of taste

Sometimes when I hear people say "too much graphics" really what they're saying is "it looked too good, I liked it better when we had to use our imaginations more"

Just because something is easier now doesn't mean it's lost it's soul. Do you prefer slaughtering your own meat, writing letters that take weeks or months to reach their destinations, beating rugs, trying to use water to clean everything, or having to talk to people only within your own town or village to the modern things we have now that make life easier? Supermarkets, email and a ratehr well developed postal system, vacuum cleaners, cleaners of all sorts, and the internet... Now, Supermarkets, Email, and internet aside, since you may well think those things remove the soul from life, but do you think vacuum cleaners and chemical cleaners remove the soul from your house because the house can be cleaned faster and with much less effort? Do you think that having a well developed, quick postal service somehow removes the soul from what you have to say because there isn't the 2 week to a month or more wait until it gets to its destination and then as long or longer for you to get a reply?


You can have your own answer to that, even though the questions were mostly rhetorical (I can't say for sure, because people have weird thoughts... This whole "natural" kick is conditioning people to believe technology is evil) I mean, IMNSHO things being easier, taking less effort, isn't a bad thing. Along those lines, I think the same thing applies to animation... I mean, merely because the artists have better tools and don't have to try as hard to get what they want, and in some cases can get things that those other tools couldn't afford them doesn't take the soul out of them. The soul comes from the artists portraying what they wanted to portray, what meant something for them, in whatever way that was possible... It is only souless if the artist has lost something, not if a certain tool was used (particularly "digital video" I can't believe people even say that one...)

You don't get what I'm saying at all. Technology is good in it's place, but when it becomes a crutch, it's not helping. Nowadays, the movies they shoot a bunch of footage and paste together what looks good. If they used modern technology with the principals of filmmaking that used to be taught, tech would be a good thing and who knows maybe once it becomes common enough, they'll go back to techniques that work and films become better than before.

Bringing it back to Star Wars--how many memorable incidents can you remember from the original battle of the death star? How many can you remember from when little Anakin flew out in his Naboo fighter and fought a bunch of robots? The tech was better in Ep 1, but the technique was better in the original Star Wars, even though the effects were crude in comparison.

My whole point, which you seemed to have missed, was modern filmmakers are focussing on the technology and not on filmmaking skills. They need to get over their love affair with tech and treat it as the tool it is.

[HisaishiFan]

Wow, I read up through page 12 and then skipped to page 19, so I hope I'm not repeating too much here that has already been said.
1. I agree with Shepherdess and Shatterheart that a lot in Ep4-6 was cheesy. What worked in Ep4 was the chemistry among Luke, Han and Leia. In my opinion, the best of the three pictures was "The Empire Strikes Back" -- why? Because Lucas had some screenwriting help and it wasn't directed by him. Plus - no Ewoks and not as many puppets that sound like Frank Oz.
2. I've heard that Christopher Hayden is a good actor in other roles. I've not seen any so I can't say for sure, but his performace in Ep2 was wooden, wooden, wooden. And there was no chemistry between Anakin and Padme. (Minor plot nitpicking - they "elect" queens? Excuse me, that's not a monarchy, that's a republic!)
3. George Lucas's writing gets in the way of his story-telling. Instead of of showing what the characters are feeling, he uses exposition: "I am angry! This is unfair!"
4. Yes, I'll be seeing Ep3 and I'm already getting excited just looking at the stills. I am doomed to see any Star Wars related film, regardless of how good it is. (Compare Stephen King's statements on being doomed to see every cheesy horror film that comes out.)
5. Christopher Lee rocked in Ep2! Christopher Lee's website
6. For an anime point, Mark Hamill voiced Col. Muska in Laputa and the Mayor of Pejite in Nausicaa.

[blkmage]

I guess 'queens' or 'kings' are just a title, just as 'president' doesn't necessarily mean that the nation is democratic.

[Rocketshipper]

There actully are a lot of people who would say e-mail has taken the soul out of communication. they long for the letter writing days of old ^^

[Yojimbo]

There actully are a lot of people who would say e-mail has taken the soul out of communication. they long for the letter writing days of old ^^

Alot as in a ten or alot as in a hundred...

[Arnobius]

http://ae.contracostatimes.com/entertainment/ui/cctimes/movie.html?id=299413

Here's the first review I came across. No real spoilers. Seems like a mixed bag.

[mastersquirrel]

Alright! It's all set. Me and Link are going to see it this Friday. I hope that it's as good as the book was.

[Rocketshipper]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/reviews/sw3-n.php Dark Horizons has a review up too.

[Stephen]

Going to see it at a midnight showing in...like 13 hours. I can't freaken wait! I will post a spoiler free review later tonight...maybe...if I don't collapse. I gotta work a 10 hour shift before I can go to the movie. Blargh!

[Nate]

http://ae.contracostatimes.com/entertainment/ui/cctimes/movie.html?id=299413

Here's the first review I came across. No real spoilers. Seems like a mixed bag.

Apparently you have to register to see the review on that site. Can you give us a Reader's Digest version?

I read the Dark Horizons one. About how I expected. I was going to see it no matter what kind of reviews it got, but it's nice to see that it's a good movie. I figured Darth Vader's scream in the final scene would be cheesy, though. Oh well.

[Rocketshipper]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7803983/?GT1=6542 Check this out. It's an MSN atar wars link I found in my e-mail

[Pent]

I have read some spoilers And let me tell everyone a lot of time seemed to be spent towards the end of the movie filling in plot holes. So I think a lot of them will be filled in. Of course you can't blame them for not being able to dig themselves all the way out of the hole they have made. You can only blame them for making the hole in the first place. Word of wisdom I have heard advanced ticket sales have allready sold out all the tickets for a while or something. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm gonna have to wait a couple weeks to see it anyways.

[Rocketshipper]

Today I overheard some guys listening to a christian talk radio program and the guy who was on was saying that Revenge of the Sith is anti-Bush propaganda. o_O.

[Arnobius]

Today I overheard some guys listening to a christian talk radio program and the guy who was on was saying that Revenge of the Sith is anti-Bush propaganda. o_O.

I find that extremely unlikely.

[HisaishiFan]

Yeah, somehow I don't think George Lucas is lying awake at night trying to figure out how to get back at W. Now if it were Penn of Penn and Teller, than's another story. . . .

[blkmage]

It's only there if you're looking for it. I mean, I can see how that's possible, but it's not the first thing that comes to mind, is it?

[Arnobius]

It's only there if you're looking for it. I mean, I can see how that's possible, but it's not the first thing that comes to mind, is it?

Maybe back in 1977, Lucas was thinking "How can I attack the Republicans 28 years from now...? I know! I'll make a series of popular movies that become part of the popular culture and use it as a platform to attack somebody who's currently an unknown oilman!"

[Rocketshipper]

Supposedly Hayden Christensen .said in an interview that the movie definitly had something tosay against the bush administration. I can't find the link to the interview anymore. It was somewhere on MSN. However, I did find a little article that kind of seems like a response against the allegations that the movie is intentionally anti-bush

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2005/05/revenge-of-sith-questions-bush.html

I think it's more likely that the Bush administration, by sheer coincidence, happens to mirror some of the things in the prequal movies, rather than the movies themselves being deliberate criticisms of the administration.

[Arnobius]

Supposedly Hayden Christensen .said in an interview that the movie definitly had something tosay against the bush administration. I can't find the link to the interview anymore. It was somewhere on MSN. However, I did find a little article that kind of seems like a response against the allegations that the movie is intentionally anti-bush

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2005/05/revenge-of-sith-questions-bush.html

I think it's more likely that the Bush administration, by sheer coincidence, happens to mirror some of the things in the prequal movies, rather than the movies themselves being deliberate criticisms of the administration.

Or someone draws connections that aren't there...

[Stephen]

People that go the whole Ep3 is anti Bush are anti-common sence. Thats like saying, oh goodness, I just read a greek play where the lead guy invaded...w00t its propaganda! People will search for politics in everything. That being said...don't turn this into a debate.

[bigsleepj]

People that go the whole Ep3 is anti Bush are anti-common sence. Thats like saying, oh goodness, I just read a greek play where the lead guy invaded...w00t its propaganda! People will search for politics in everything. That being said...don't turn this into a debate.

Its pretty stupid to read political parables into everything. Slate.com is famous for its "Merchant of Menace" article on Episode One saying that the movie uses Japanese, Jewish and Black stereotypes in a derogatory fashion. And the banker never wears a mac in the rain. Some people really need to "lighten up".

[termyt]

I don't know about the anti-bush-ness of the movie, but Lucas was influenced by current events when righting both sets of trilogies. It's not like he wrote the script for ep3 twenty years ago.

There's definitely social commentary in it as well as a "healthy" dose of Lucas's world view. I, however, doubt the movie itself is specifically speaks out against the current administration. There is a certain amount of action based on Lucas's interpretation of current events, but it's up to the viewer to determine whether it reflects positively or negatively on Bush. It's also quite possible to ignore any kind of social commentary at all. It's not like it's going to be another Fahrenheit 911, after all.

I'm going to see the movie tonight, but I think I already know quite a few spoilers thanks to Lego Star Wars and the Episode III video games.

[Arnobius]

People that go the whole Ep3 is anti Bush are anti-common sence. Thats like saying, oh goodness, I just read a greek play where the lead guy invaded...w00t its propaganda! People will search for politics in everything. That being said...don't turn this into a debate.

Actually, on Broadway, someone did take an ancient greek play and restaged it with modern political references, but yeah some people see what bothers them wherever they look...

BTW, hope you survived your marathon day...