1990osu

Hayden and Natalie actually had amazingly good chemistry, but it was all between takes!

Jump to 4:50

Tyrphanax said:

1990osu said:

If there's considered no difference between paintings and photos, why go to an art gallery at all?

It doesn't have to be like that; you go to see paintings at one art gallery for a different reason than you go to a collection of photographic art in a different gallery.

You can take a picture of something and paint a picture of the same thing and they can both be beautiful artistic expressions in their own different ways.

Just because painting no longer holds the monopoly on transmitting visual information to someone doesn't mean it's gone forever; the same goes for black and white photography, and real film, and 2D pixel art video games. It'll happen to digital photography and film and 3D animation one day as well, probably. We'll have holograms and stuff, things we can actually "touch" and manipulate and interact with all in realtime; who knows.

But people will still be making silent, black and white movies on real film, and getting out the oil paints and canvas to paint a pictue, because artistic expression isn't unbreakably bound to technological advancement, our favourite mediums never really go completely away, they just fall out of the mainstream - people have been painting since the dawn of humanity, and they'll continue to do so until the end.

I don't know.  I just hate to see movies like "The Godfather" and "Star Wars" and "Alien" be thought of as "blurry" and "jittery".  Just like people don't appreciate paintings anymore, people won't appreciate these movies anymore.  Maybe it's inevitable but it doesn't mean i have to like it

zombie84 said:

And no. Sorry. Raiders could be shot 90% the same looking with a digital camera today--if they wanted to. But people don't. You could achieve the same effect. It's not the technology--it's a matter of taste. Crystal Skull was shot on 35mm film and look how that looked!

I think you are missing my point...you COULD achieve the effect, but then it becomes "achieving an effect" rather than "using the tools to produce the most artistic result." 

I'm not arguing digital can't be beautiful, just like I wouldn't argue that a watercolor can't be beautiful.  But it's a different medium.  Oil paintings are also good and artists should be able to use the medium for no other reason than because they feel like it. 

And no, I don't believe that you can reproduce all the looks of the past with digital technology.  You can't make digital look like a 1970s columbus episode.  You can try.  Lots of directors have tried to give their stuff a vintage look using the computer.  It doesn't work.  They didn't use the right lights (carbon arcs).  they didn't use the right lenses.  You can't just fix it all in post, that's the George Lucas syndrome.  won't look teh same.

And naturally, this is art.  It's all a question of taste;)

^^No I am not arguing that it won't be truer to life.  What I'm saying is, I think there is value in the imperfections.  I think there is value in the graininess of real film, and the differences in grain from scene to scene and when they change camera angles.  not because it was contrived or added later, but because they were using analog methods. 

I think the mona lisa in 2012 would be truer to life (just take her picture!) but what artistic value would it have? 

There is beauty in craftsmanship.  There is beauty in things that were hand crafted by people with talent and skill.  Did you know that Douglas Slacombe never used a light meter on raiders of the lost ark? Just held up his index finger to the sun. Raiders would not look nearly as good today because those idiosynchratisies would be gone, and to put them in again artificially becomes a contrivance.

I am interested in people, I guess.  But not if they are mean.  If it seems like they are not brain dead stupid or mean, I am interested.  If people are attractive and female then I am definitely interested:)

Penguins wearing slippers on a green boat made of chocolate Robin Hoods.

zombie84 said:

The reason being, once photography came around there was no point.

*sigh* [(TM) warbler]

zombie84 said:

Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price?

Because the painting is objectively better?  Because it has texture and it looks differently depending on the lighting in the room because different light reflects off of the texture in different ways- you don't just get one sterile, perfect experience that is standardized for everyone.  Just like movies on film-every showing is a unique event that requires people in the audience, a skilled projectionist, etc. If there's considered no difference between paintings and photos, why go to an art gallery at all?  If there's considered no difference between viewing film and watching the digital movie on your cell phone, why go to the movies at all?  Isn't this a massive mistake?

^^Here's a good analogy: Why do a painting when you can just take the same picture with an HD camera?

Also, black and white should not have died;) It co-existed with color from the 1930s to the 1960s.  It should have remained an option.

I read in a book some time ago that 24 fps was decided on as the result of a variety of different tests- it was determined that it produced smooth motion but being slightly under 30 the strobing effect put the audience into an altered state.  After lots of tests done at a variety of different frame rates, it was determined that 24/25 was the best format for narrative stories.

But hey, maybe I am wrong and maybe 48 fps is great. But judging by the audience reaction to the first 48 fps Hobbit clip, I have a feeling I am not the only one.

You_Too said:

No matter how stupid this might sound, I think that even though this could be considered a technical step forward, I think film is film and video is video and one of the things that makes a film feel like a film is how the motion differs from reality.

I would love to see The Hobbit in 48fps after seeing the 24fps version just because I'm interested in how it would feel to watch it that way, but I'm pretty sure I will prefer the 24fps version. I can somehow imagine 48fps would look a lot like the motion interpolation effect all new TVs have. Every time I got to an electronics shop they have TVs displaying films like Avatar, motion interpolated to double or triple framerate and it looks horrible.

That is a good idea.  I think that's what I will do.  I will watch the real, 24 fps version first so that the movie won't be ruined. 

Then I will go to the 48 showing and see what that is like. 

You are a Class-A troll, friend.

Father Skywalker said:

he's is just so ugly looking......

I thought this was a more adult SW community that knew how to write in complete sentences.

:\

Looks like we may have another jimboAdamwankenobi on our hands.  These things happen every 3 years...

NeverarGreat said:

Getting the thread back on track a little, I couldn't disagree more with the review of ESB. That it is said to have "no character development", "no plot", and "no emotional or philosophical point to make" makes me think that the guy didn't even see the movie. To me, ESB is the soul of the Star Wars story:

"For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us, and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you!"

"I don't believe it!"

"That is why you fail."

I think it probably seemed better with age.  I remember reading something about the original Star Wars in 1977 that "The Force" was not original at all, just a trendy name picked out of one of the myriad 70s "self-help" books that were gaining popularity then.

I wasn't around then so I can't comment.  That was certainly never my perspective growing up.

Now you're pushing it;)

xhonzi said:

I never really took the time to answer my own question here, so I think I'll pluck this little gem from page 3 and put 'er back on top:

I think Luke would have lost.  And I see two or three scenarios in how he would have lost.

1. Luke would have been presented to the the Emperor.  The Emperor would have tried to turn him- first by talking to him and then attacking him.  (All very much in line with the events of the end of RotJ- except for the absense of Vader)  Luke would have stayed cool, however, and not taken the bait from the Emperor.  The Emperor would then realize that Luke was not going to be turned, so he must be destroyed (again, like the ending of RotJ) and Luke would die.  Perhaps he gets to be a Force Ghosty and hang out with Ben and guide Leia into becoming a Jedi.

2. Luke would have been presented to the Emperor.  Luke would be ready for the clean kill- a proper "light side" way to rid the Galaxy of the Evil Emperor.  But before he gets the chance, the Emperor begins to goad him and make him feel bad/fell mad.  Then he justifies his strikes against the Emperor and his usage of maybe just a little bit of the Dark Side to strike him down.  Luke has the Emperor on the ground and poises to strike him.  He is full of dark side energy. 
2.a  A look of peace crosses Luke's face.  Reluctantly, Luke lowers his arm and shuts down the sabre.  He bends on one knee in front of the fallen Emperor.  The Emperor rises to his feet and demands fealty from young Skywalker.  Luke, corrupted by the Dark Side, swears allegiance to his new master.  He watches as the Emperor returns his attention to the battle out the window.  Luke joins the Emperor as they use the dark side to guide the Empire to victory.
2.b Luke has the Emperor on the ground and poises to strike him.  He tries to push the dark side from his mind.  But his emotions outweigh his thoughts- he angrily swings the sabre and slices the Emperor clean through.  Luke gets ahold of himself.  He has done it.  And it did not, as the Emperor warned, cost him his soul.  He has not only rid the galaxy of the Evil Emperor, but he has used the Dark Side of the Force and bound it to his Light Side will.  He has nothing to fear of the Dark Side.  It is his ally.  It is under his control.  And he can bend it to his will.  It will not control him.  Ben was a fool to think it would.  Yoda wasn't strong enough to control it.  Not like Luke is.  Luke is truly the master of the Whole Force.  And with it, not only will he bring down the Evil Empire- he will bring peace to the Galaxy.  He will bend the galaxy to his will, just as he has done the Dark Side of the Force.

2.a - I think this is really hard to pull off.  When the Emperor says things like "Strike me/Vader down and your journey to the dark side will be complete!"  I think Luke must be thinking: "I bet I can strike him down and not be totally won over to the Dark Side... Why would killing one or two evil men, even in anger, makeover my moral view of the galaxy and instantly make me join an enemy?  He can't be serious!"  I can't really see Luke deciding to serve the Emperor in the near future no matter what happens in the Emperor's throne/thrown room.

2.b Rather, I think Luke would kill the Emperor, with the Dark Side, but not chose to serve him.  He would emerge from this experience less afraid of the Dark Side.  More sure of himself.  Palpatine and Yoda both said that just a little taste of the Dark Side would change Luke forever... Well- they were wrong!  It didn't change Luke.  He was the same as he ever was.  In fact, he was better!  He no longer had to fear treading down the dark path and becoming his father.  He was above that!  And of course, it would be these feelings of triumth and disregard for the warnings he had been given that would ultimately be his downfall.  The Emperor taunting him about instantly becoming a servant of the Dark Side would cause him to focus on the near term effects (which don't really exist) and ignore the long term effects. 

The 2.a scenario is along the lines of Anakin's fall in RotS.  I can't for the life of me think of how this single scene could be changed to make it end with Anakin joining the Dark Side full time.  I can see him momentarily employing the Dark Side to get himself out of a jam- and then maybe losing his fear of the Dark Side to where he's using it a lot... and then finding that he doesn't agree with every point of Jedi doctrine... being outcast from the Jedi once they hind his usage of the Dark Side to be unrepentant... and before long... he's a Dark Jedi.

It makes you wonder if they are considering reshooting ROTJ's ending for the sequels, or perhaps beginning Episode 7 with a replay of the throne room scene going differently...

^^Tragic for different reasons altogether...haha

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Father Skywalker said:

Star Wars is not a movie. There is no Star wars, episode, star wars. Star wars is the name of all 6 movies in both trilogies, not a paticular movie in paticular..... All Star wars films are called/named star wars; not a paticular movie called "star wars"...

Strike two.

lol

tuxmanv said:

Get Jar Jar the hell off my fourm

Hahaha

^^People who say that the less Lucas was involved, the better the movies were.  The idea that Gary Kurtz was this genius and he and Marcia Lucas saved SW from being a flop, and Irvin Kirshner and Kurtz were the only reason ESB was good. 

I was looking for more evidence of George Lucas' talent to combat those who think he is a "talentless hack" and I found this:

Movie

Genius can be a two-edged sword.....

Which was a much more talented director with a much better eye than the director who did this:

People say that Lucas wasn't really responsible for the success of the Star Wars trilogy and it was other people that pulled it through.  I disagree, I think George Lucas was very much behind all of it.  ESB by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan should actually read By George Lucas, revisions by Lawrence Kasdan because Lucas inserted many of the things we love about ESBHe had taste back then.  THX, American Graffit, and Star Wars are all cut from the same cloth and the cloth was called TALENT.

Jaitea said:

At the closing of Empire Luke agrees to meet Lando on Tatooine, it seems to be knowledge to them & the audience that Fett is taking Solo to Jabba....so a year looking for Solo doesn't sound right.

About Jabba...people who complain about ROTJ talk badly about the Jabba part, saying the Jabba rescue takes up half the movie. 

That maybe true, but it is GOOD so it's worth it.  Jabba the Hutt is a GOOD character. 

"Ho ho ho ho".  He's like an evil Santa Claus!  This is why ROTJ is a genius movie.