Max Jenius Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 As an actor, I can only imagine what they must have to go through in trying to express emotions when there is literally nothing there. I've never bought that argument. How do stage actors manage, then? Sometime it's literally just the actor by himself on an empty stage. Yet they somehow manage to act. Besides, nobody complained about the abundance of greenscreen in the last 1/3 or Return of the King. Oh wait, it's not cool to nitpick LOTR. Thank you! Also the fact that WETA contacted ILM for tips on their CG. I also want to know what films Natalie Portman has supposedly been a great actress in. Aside from Leon... which I don't think is really a good example anyway.
bsu legato Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 I also want to know what films Natalie Portman has supposedly been a great actress in. Aside from Leon... which I don't think is really a good example anyway. Pictured here, Natalie Portman ponders her post-Star Wars career. As you can see, she looks positively delighted by the outlook.
Ladic Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 As an actor, I can only imagine what they must have to go through in trying to express emotions when there is literally nothing there. I've never bought that argument. How do stage actors manage, then? Sometime it's literally just the actor by himself on an empty stage. Yet they somehow manage to act. Besides, nobody complained about the abundance of greenscreen in the last 1/3 or Return of the King. Oh wait, it's not cool to nitpick LOTR. Thank you! Also the fact that WETA contacted ILM for tips on their CG. I also want to know what films Natalie Portman has supposedly been a great actress in. Aside from Leon... which I don't think is really a good example anyway. She was good in her small part on Cold Mountain.
Anubis Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Natalie Portman filmography from IMDB. She was good in Where the Heart is. She hasn't really been in a lot though yet.
Seven Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 (edited) I don't why, but for some reason, I keep thinking I've seen something like that before.... AAAACK!!! NO!!! John Travolta!!!!!!!! Edited August 20, 2004 by Rotary Magic
KingNor Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Besides, nobody complained about the abundance of greenscreen in the last 1/3 or Return of the King. Oh wait, it's not cool to nitpick LOTR. i bitch about the green/blue screen and cg backgrounds in lotr all the time. return of the king has some of the worst skating i've seen in a feature movie of large budget, watch frodos' feet as he sprints into mount doom, it's embarrising. also watch saromons feet when he's preaching to the mountains in fellowship. or in fellowship enters the great hall of moria. while i like lotr, its HIGHLY over ratted. especially cg effects wise. their real world props and special effects were really great. but when ever they use compositing and cg, i conisder it pretty much run of the mill. episodes 1 and 2 don't look any better, infact they look worse if you ask me. although i didn' t notice any skating, the factory scene in 2 looked paticularly bad, the cg friggen storm troopers was just down right pathetic, and the cg r2 and 3p0 were atrocitys. for shame!
Seven Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Besides, nobody complained about the abundance of greenscreen in the last 1/3 or Return of the King. Oh wait, it's not cool to nitpick LOTR. i bitch about the green/blue screen and cg backgrounds in lotr all the time. return of the king has some of the worst skating i've seen in a feature movie of large budget, watch frodos' feet as he sprints into mount doom, it's embarrising. also watch saromons feet when he's preaching to the mountains in fellowship. or in fellowship enters the great hall of moria. while i like lotr, its HIGHLY over ratted. especially cg effects wise. their real world props and special effects were really great. but when ever they use compositing and cg, i conisder it pretty much run of the mill. episodes 1 and 2 don't look any better, infact they look worse if you ask me. although i didn' t notice any skating, the factory scene in 2 looked paticularly bad, the cg friggen storm troopers was just down right pathetic, and the cg r2 and 3p0 were atrocitys. for shame! Man, you guys must be watching different movies than me... either that or I don't pay as close attention. When I saw those scenes that you speak of, I didn't notice anything out of order or anyone skating... I didn't notice anything funky with the backgrounds in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, hell, they cover the whole screen and look ok is all I think when I see CG backgrounds. As for the CG stormtroopers, they were so small in some of the scenes that I would have to break out a magnifying glass to notice details. Saruman's feet were touching the floor... is there something else I should have noticed?? Frodo's feet looked... well, hairy. Are you sure you just aren't nitpicking?
Jemstone Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 (edited) what's wrong with the board? All my quotes have vanished. Edited August 20, 2004 by Jemstone
Blaine23 Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 (edited) ...Just cuz Blaine loves them Wookiees. Wookie goodness! Seriously, they could announce today that they've ditched the whole "Anakin Schmanakin" storyline alltogether and changed the title to "EpIII - Reign of the Wookie" and I would be the happiest I could be. Because... well, wookies just make everything better. Uh oh, What the hell is going on back there? A little bit of that old wookie schnookie.... Wookies unfortunately have been brought low, due to their lack of proper speech abilities. Sadly, the occasional wookie has been forced to eek out a living doing Skinemax features, such as - Wookie Lust 4 - Grunts of Passion, The Forbidden Fires of Kashyyyk, and the ever-popular Brown Fur Diaries - the series. Luckily Chewbacca never had to do this sort of work, being that he was a furry Radio Shack on legs for Han Solo. But he will admit to occasionally watching them, uh - when there wasn't anything else on. Edited August 20, 2004 by Blaine23
bsu legato Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Seriously, they could announce today that they've ditched the whole "Anakin Schmanakin" storyline alltogether and changed the title to "EpIII - Reign of the Wookie" and I would be the happiest I could be. If hell really has an "Ironic Punishment Department," as seen on that old Treehouse of Horror episode, then I hope they have an infinite loop of the old SW Holiday Special for you. "So....you like Wookiees, do you?"
ZorClone Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 I don't why, but for some reason, I keep thinking I've seen something like that before.... AAAACK!!! NO!!! John Travolta!!!!!!!! OMG! lmao!!!!
the white drew carey Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 I don't why, but for some reason, I keep thinking I've seen something like that before.... AAAACK!!! NO!!! John Travolta!!!!!!!! OMG! lmao!!!! Actually, it looks like Harry and the Hendersons meets Battliefield Earth.
Blaine23 Posted August 21, 2004 Posted August 21, 2004 Seriously, they could announce today that they've ditched the whole "Anakin Schmanakin" storyline alltogether and changed the title to "EpIII - Reign of the Wookie" and I would be the happiest I could be. If hell really has an "Ironic Punishment Department," as seen on that old Treehouse of Horror episode, then I hope they have an infinite loop of the old SW Holiday Special for you. "So....you like Wookiees, do you?" Y'know... for just a minute there, I'd forgotten Itchy and Co. Thanksabunch. Still love the wookies, though... if the Special made me hate anything it was Bea Arthur. Okay. Well, it made me hate her more.
bsu legato Posted August 21, 2004 Posted August 21, 2004 Still love the wookies, though... if the Special made me hate anything it was Bea Arthur. Okay. Well, it made me hate her more. Are you kidding? after 15 minutes of that interminable hooting and growling by Lumpy & co, I wanted to punch my own grandmother! Then I'd punch Bea Arthur, just for good measure. And one for Art Carney, too. Hell, maybe a dagger to the clitoris for Harvey Corman while I'm at it. That "baking" sketch was just criminally bad.
Sundown Posted August 21, 2004 Posted August 21, 2004 Still love the wookies, though... if the Special made me hate anything it was Bea Arthur. Okay. Well, it made me hate her more. Odd. For me, if anything Bea Arthur's part was the only thing watchable, not counting any of the bits done by the real movie cast. Maybe just by merit of all the cantina aliens. The rest of the special looked like an episode of Married With Children gone bad, where the family all develops massive body hair problems, and Bud loses the ability to speak, only able to make noises like gurgling toothpaste. The Special was good for one thing... it showed what an absolutely fantastic actor Harrison Ford was, given crap lines and a crap show-- he was still the smug Han Solo, although his brain must have been screaming inside of embarassment and total loss of dignity. -Al
KingNor Posted August 21, 2004 Posted August 21, 2004 i've GOT to see this special, does anyone know where it can be downloaded?
the white drew carey Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 i've GOT to see this special, does anyone know where it can be downloaded? It's almost impossible to watch the whole thing, it hurts so much.
Sundown Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 Give suprnova.org a try. Found the torrent there. Be prepared for a toll on your soul. -Al
valkyrietestpilot Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 man,the mw forum critics will tear this movie a new 1 from now till it releases.your forgetting 1 thing.george lucas told the story of star wars for him.not to please the public or hope someone liked some aspect of this part or that part.he always had this story in his head that he wanted to tell & now he's realized it to the end.he doesn't care if you guys liked jar-jar or not.he was part of the story in his head,so on the screen he appeared.i've personally liked all the movies,i've been a big fan since opening night in '77.there's stiil more cool here than not-cool.but,the point is moot cause ole'george doesn't care if you hate it or not.he completed his story & it took almost 25 years to do it.now that's devotion to your dream
Amped Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 ...he completed his story & it took almost 25 years to do it.now that's devotion to your dream Well, that sounds nice & all, but face it: there's money to be had. It's more like 'devotion to his pocketbook'. Are Harlequin romance novels good? Probably not very. Do they sell? Yes they do, and how!!! The same reasoning applies to the Star Wars franchise.
valkyrietestpilot Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 yeah,your right,there's money to be had,but i think he only used what he's made in the past to be able to make what he wants now.money is a non-issue man.every person here would make a dime on something they loved in a heartbeat.you would,i would,not many wouldn't.it just happened to work out really well for george.his love will fill the cash-coffers of the lucas family for the grandchildren's grandchildren to be able to enjoy.i admire a man that goes forward with his idea despite all criticizms.in the end,only your happiness matters.nay-sayers won't be with you when you die.we all do that on our own.i'd rather regret the things i did,than regret the things i DIDN"T do.a movie is a form of art.the creator is the artist.perception of the work will almost never be the same as the artists.all others will,enjoy,hate & wonder about it for who knows how long
Radd Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 People tend to forget that if Lucas really wanted to fill his pockets even more full of cash, he easily could without exherting as much effort as he has. I personally believe that somewhere along the way, Lucas' idea of Star Wars, and the public's idea of Star Wars went in different directions. I also think Lucas was a little greedy in that he wanted to handle his movies by himself, despite his known weakness at directing actors, and boring, by the book camera work. That's something I can understand though. I'm not a strong writer, but I'm still trying to write my own comic. I can draw, sure, but writing? Not my strong point. However, I haven't met anyone that I think could do all that better than me, and I'm not willing to hand it off to a stranger.
valkyrietestpilot Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 yeah radd,your pationate about your work.i'm a surgical tech & i'm just as fanatical about my work.george is doing his thing & the publics detour about the purpose & meaning behind these films is a non-issue to him.he's still pulling strong in his original direction.
bsu legato Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 I personally believe that somewhere along the way, Lucas' idea of Star Wars, and the public's idea of Star Wars went in different directions. True enough. I just wish people wouldn't act so surprised each time one of the prequels "isn't what they'd imagined." "The first Trilogy will not be as much of an action adventure kind of thing. Maybe we'll make it have some humor, but right now it's much more humorless than this one...a little more Machiavellian - it's all plotting - more of a mystery." George Lucas, 1982
eugimon Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 more of a mystery? I don't see how lucas could possibly say that...
bsu legato Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 By the way, there some new videos on the OS that can be seen by non-Hyperspace subscribers. Check them out HERE and HERE.
KingNor Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 man,the mw forum critics will tear this movie a new 1 from now till it releases.your forgetting 1 thing.george lucas told the story of star wars for him.not to please the public or hope someone liked some aspect of this part or that part.he always had this story in his head that he wanted to tell & now he's realized it to the end.he doesn't care if you guys liked jar-jar or not.he was part of the story in his head,so on the screen he appeared.i've personally liked all the movies,i've been a big fan since opening night in '77.there's stiil more cool here than not-cool.but,the point is moot cause ole'george doesn't care if you hate it or not.he completed his story & it took almost 25 years to do it.now that's devotion to your dream this is total crap. the first movie was a stand alone one shot at turning cambells' heros' joruney into a space film from a storytelling point of view the first starwars feels very out of place in the rest. the original story had nothing to do with darth being lukes dad. it focuse don luke wanting to be a fighter pilot. you'll notice he never really even uses his light saber for anything? SEVERAL plot points had to be pretty shakily re-arranged in the next few movies. obi-wan: "yeah sorry i did just totally lie about your dad, but.. well.. i'm a mysterious blue glowing man. so from a certain point of view i was right.. your dad changing his name is EXACTLY the same as a seperate person KILLING HIM" and the leia is lukes sister thing? no way was that thought of by the filming of starwars. leia talks about her parents n stuff. and she's a princess... how many people hide someone from their father by "hiding" them as a princess of some planet? bah! and who would apoint an adopted kid into a position of royalty like that? bah x 2. everything after STARWARS isn't lucas's dream, its lucas using his dream (starwars) to spawn a cash cow franchise. i won't argue that starwars is lucas' baby, and that he's got the right to screw it over how ever he feels fit. but this franchise is hardly him realizing a 25 year old dream. he realized his "starwars" dream when "starwars" was in the can.
CoryHolmes Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 and the leia is lukes sister thing? no way was that thought of by the filming of starwars. leia talks about her parents n stuff. and she's a princess... how many people hide someone from their father by "hiding" them as a princess of some planet? bah! and who would apoint an adopted kid into a position of royalty like that? bah x 2. That's one thing I really enjoyed in the original novilizations of the first film, how the "fantasy" element, with pirates and princesses and royalty was there and in your face. Unlike the other two movies where the swashbuckling theme was played down somewhat, Star Wars really felt like a medieval tale told in the future, which I thought was really, really neat.
eugimon Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 hmm, disagree with the idea that star wars was distinct from the other two films... keep in mind those two movies had different directors which would really change the feel of the films... also, think about the name darth vader, almost german, and in german it would mean Dead Father. then there's the fact that there's only three jedi shown in the first movie, ben, luke and vader and since ben makes it clear that he's not the father there is a link between luke and vader... and there's vader sensing something different about luke during the death star sequence. and the whole vader replaced/killed your dad thing... if you take it literally than yeah, it's a big fat lie. But if you look at it from the perspective of the jedi and the philospohy of lucas that the decisions you make turn you into the person you become, than anakin did die and it was vader who killed him... vader killed the good and the potential in anakin. the princess thing, well, sometimes the easiest way to hide something is in plain sight.. besides, it's obvious that vader didn't even know he had a daughter so there would be no reason to hide leia like they hid luke. and yup, it is lucas' baby and yes, he is killing it. hahah
Seven Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 Not to mention, how many times did Leia kiss Luke? Sure, the peck on the cheek in ANH seemed innocent enough, but then you have Leia really planting one on him in ESB. Also, didn't Luke kinda have some sort of infatuation with Leia when he first saw her in ANH? Leia says something to the effect that she somehow had always known he was her brother in ROTJ. Ewwwww, incest!!!
Radd Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 I don't think Lucas has to worry about making Star Wars a cashcow, it was from the moment the first film appeared in theatres. Lucas does what he wants, because he wants to. He could have made the prequels all about dancing Ewoks and there would be fans lined up to see all three movies. I'm not trying to defend the prequels here. I dislike a lot that was done in Phantom Menace. I liked most of AotC, but hated the poorly done love story. I'm sincerly hoping RotS is much better than the first two, but not getting my hopes up. But I'm not going to explain away the poor writing of the prequels as 'Lucas cashing in'. He already cashed in. He doesn't need to make the prequels crap simply to cash in. I think he's honestly making the films he wants to make, and the majority of us find the films Lucas wants to make are crap.
Blaine23 Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 I personally believe that somewhere along the way, Lucas' idea of Star Wars, and the public's idea of Star Wars went in different directions. True enough. I just wish people wouldn't act so surprised each time one of the prequels "isn't what they'd imagined." "The first Trilogy will not be as much of an action adventure kind of thing. Maybe we'll make it have some humor, but right now it's much more humorless than this one...a little more Machiavellian - it's all plotting - more of a mystery." George Lucas, 1982 I'll agree that Lucas can do whatever he wants and that alot of people bitch about the dumbest things... But I'll be damned if I've noticed a damn thing is Episode I and II that seemed remotely Machiavellian or mystery. I've read every Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie novel, as well as The Prince, by Machiavelli. SW just simply isn't even comparable. What most of the people complain becabout are silly parts that seem completely out of place or that just don't really work - like Midichlorians, Jake Lloyd's existance, or the completely unbelieavability of Anakin and Padme's supposed "romance." I still like the movies okay - but I don't delude myself and say the GL is some kind of tortured artist working solely for love of his dream. The guy sells damn near any SW merchandise conceivable and he lets hack authors write terrible novels based on his "dream". Somewhere in between those two extremes is your real answer. He's not only in it for the money and neither is he Van Gogh. He seems passionate about trying to advance alot of things in movies - namely special effects and imagination - but let's be fair, he's making a fair deal of dough at it, too.
Ladic Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 Lucas To Make 'Star Wars' Sequels?Star Wars creator George Lucas could be poised to make three sequels to the original space opera trilogy, according to insiders at Lucasfilm. According to fan site Theforce.Net, employees at Lucas's company Industrial Light And Magic (ILM) have all been made to sign non-disclosure agreements to promise not to talk about the possibility of episode's seven, eight and nine being made. Now industry insiders are predicting the American Graffiti director will make the follow-ups, which pick up where 1983's Return Of The Jedi left off, despite insisting he would never be lured into filming them. A posting on the site says, "You didn't hear this from me, but you might be curious as to why everyone at ILM just signed NDA's saying that they will not discuss Star Wars episodes 7, 8, or 9. Since they're not being made, why the NDA's? Of course, since when has Lucas been consistent?" http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#1
bsu legato Posted August 23, 2004 Posted August 23, 2004 Jake Lloyd's existance, Hee hee...I wonder what the lil' tyke is up to these days. "Are you an angel?" *shudder*
Recommended Posts