zombie84 said:
The pod is to the right of Watto. There's also E.T.s in the senate.
I've been wondering for years about this. Is it a real prop or CGI? Did somebody at Lucasfilm know someone who actually had the pod from 2010 in his garage? The world may never know!
Where were you in '77?
Baronlando said:
It was a good show but some Whedon fans can be scary, man. They are super-devoted and organized.
I own this T-shirt - it applies to both Whedon and Star Wars!
And I'm also a member on Whedonesque.org :)
RedFive said:
Baronlando said:
It was a good show but some Whedon fans can be scary, man. They are super-devoted and organized.
I own this T-shirt - it applies to both Whedon and Star Wars!
And I'm also a member on Whedonesque.org :)
Joss Whedon addresses the i09 March Madness poll in a recent New York Times interview. Keep in mind almost everything he says should be read with heavy irony. Linky.
Q.Did you happen to keep up with the March Madness tournament on io9.com, in which readers voted “Serenity” the top fantasy film of all time, over “The Empire Strikes Back”?A.I have been alerted to this fact by certain of my friends. When I saw us going up against “Empire Strikes Back,” all I could think was, “Oh, they’re gonna hate it. They’re gonna hate us. They’re gonna call our fans names.” But while “Empire Strikes Back” is for me the more seminal film, “Serenity” at least has an ending. I don’t know when “The Matrix” got voted down – that’s my favorite. It is starting to be a double-edged sword. There’s no greater sadness than not still being on board that ship with that crew, in my career. All I can think is, maybe someday, someone at Universal will say, “Hey, we made money. Let’s do that again.” So I’m glad that it lives. But I also know that every time it gets in one of those polls, against beloved movies, we just get flamed. I feel sad, too.Q.It’s like being a parent, and letting your child find its way in the world.A.I can’t control how beautiful and popular my child is. What can I do?
Tobar said:
I didn't like Serenity at all. I've seen some of Firefly and liked it but the movie was a big disappointment. It fell into the same trap that most Joss Whedon projects do, "Let's kill off a bunch of the popular characters for the heck of it!" I could accept losing one or two but he killed almost the entire cast in that movie! So to see that film (people should not count that vote as vote for the show as well) win out over the Empire Strikes Back is truly disappointing.
Come again? Of the main cast, only two characters (Shepherd Book and Wash) were killed off in Serenity. Everyone else (Mal, Zoe, Jayne, Inara, Kaylee, Simon, and River) live to fight another day. So how does two out of nine amount to "almost the entire cast"?
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
I dunno, it's been forever since I've seen that film. It was probably just the blow of having my two favorite characters killed off that made me remember it being worse. =P
Its laughable to compare bad modern cgi crap to real films.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
I appreciate your thoughtful, detailed, and reasonable response. You've made some good points.
I was not mocking you but the very idea that Empire should even be mentioned at all with crap like the Matrix and decent but not super great serenity.
The Whedon fans are just very i don't know the word, maybe over-rating his skills, sort of like those JJ Abrams New School Trek people.
Firefly on the other hand is a good western in space, must like the original star trek and should not have been canceled.
Whedon is talented. Still does not make me go out and support this crazy 3-D and HD-Cam craze Hollywood is on while abandoning actual film.
For instance i am totally against Peter Jackson shooting the Hobbit on Video and in 3D, instead of in super35 like the trilogy, but hey i will watch it on film if film still exists when it comes out if not i won't go to see it in theaters.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:
Whedon is talented. Still does not make me go out and support this crazy 3-D and HD-Cam craze Hollywood is on while abandoning actual film.
Whedon.. 3D? I'm not seeing the connection, as Whedon has spoken out against the overuse of 3D in films.
For instance i am totally against Peter Jackson shooting the Hobbit on Video and in 3D, instead of in super35 like the trilogy, but hey i will watch it on film if film still exists when it comes out if not i won't go to see it in theaters.
That's fair, but he is shooting in 48fps, which is awesome. And just because it's being released in 3D on some screens doesn't mean you can't see it in 2D, the option is there for whichever version you prefer. Personally, I'm going to see it in 2D first (Imax hopefully), and 3D the second time.
Avengers in shot in 3-D video, as far as i'm aware it will be done that way. And they are going to most likely do JJverse Trek 2 in 3-D which means he won't direct it cause he hates 3-D.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Personally, I don't understand the big 3D hatefest. Yeah, it's stupid most of the time. Stupid and pointless. But so far I haven't seen a movie released ONLY in 3D. So if you hate 3D just see the regular version. What's the problem?
The Hobbit is being shot at 48fps? Ugh. =(
RedFive said:
That's fair, but he is shooting in 48fps, which is awesome. And just because it's being released in 3D on some screens doesn't mean you can't see it in 2D, the option is there for whichever version you prefer.
I'm not anti-3D, but more and more the bigger screens and better venues are tied up with the 3D version.
Tobar said:
The Hobbit is being shot at 48fps? Ugh. =(
I thought this was awesome when I heard it, what is the downside to 48fps?
Shooting digitally is one thing, but it completely loses any film like quality to it if not shot at 24fps. Look at movies like Public Enemies or Collateral, it just ends up looking like video.
None of those were shot on 48 FPS. They were shot at 24p, or 24 frames per second, the exact same thing as the projected speed of film.
48 FPS better approximates human eyesight. The rate of 24 frames per second for film was arbitrarily chosen. Early films were anywhere from 18-22 FPS, and many cameramen wanted it higher than 24 FPS (in fact, I think there might have been some early high-speed experiments), but to do so would be very expensive so they compromised for cost. The only reason we ended up with a standard as low as 24 FPS was because studios didn't want to pay more money for more film stock and lab fees. It has nothing to do with aesthetics; it's just what we're used to seeing in movies.
Awesome, thanks Zombie! You've always got the answers I'm looking for :)
That doesn't change the fact that the kind of movement you get from shooting at 24 FPS is iconic in and of itself. When you start moving to higher speeds the picture starts to feel cheap because you lose that iconic feel.
That seems a weak excuse. Black and white was iconic when Technicolor came out in the mid-1930s and when Kodachrome came out in the 1950s, but I'm sure you are in favour of Jackson shooting in colour. Silent was iconic in 1928 when sound came out, but I'm sure you are also in favour of him shooting with audio; for that matter, mono, and then stereo, was iconic when DD 5.1 came out in the early 1990s, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to see The Hobbit with one single speaker (or two) at the front of the theatre. And on and on. Whenever a new form comes out in cinema people protest it, because they don't like stuff they aren't used to--lots of people hated sound and then colour, felt it was robbing cinema of its art. To me it's exciting when filmmakers innovate and experiment and show us things in ways we've never seen (or heard) them before. That was, after all, one of the main draws of Star Wars itself.
Personally, I like 3D, I don't have a huge problem with digital these days as long as it is done right, and I'm all for the idea of shooting 48 FPS. In 30 years from now, I am fairly confident this will be how most major motion pictures are shot, as costs come down and computing speeds increase. It's been the trajectory we have been on since the early 1990s. Even consumer camera will probably be like that, and we'll look back at those blurry, flat films from decades earlier, just like people in the 1960s looked back at those black and white silent films.
Let's have him bring back Smell-O-Vision while we're at it. I respect your scholarly work in the Secret History but the idea that abandoning the 24 FPS standard would be a positive change for the film industry is lunacy.
Tyrphanax said:
My mind is reeling, still.
*shakes his head sadly*
Here's an idea - take your head out of your ass for two hours [and change] and go watch Serenity.
You might not like the film but you will probably understand the poll results better.
and yeah - what none said.
it's a bow fighter from the cologne wars.
and jupiter 2 from lost in space [partly visible on this screen]
RedFive said:
I appreciate your thoughtful, detailed, and reasonable response. You've made some good points.
I see you've met skyjedi.
Tobar said:
Let's have him bring back Smell-O-Vision while we're at it. I respect your scholarly work in the Secret History but the idea that abandoning the 24 FPS standard would be a positive change for the film industry is lunacy.
I notice you've still not stated any actual reason for this thought.
Possibly of interest:
Peter Jackson posted:
The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.
We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.
Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.
However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.
More soon ....
Cheers,
Peter J
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
