Alexrd

georgec said:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53166

My interest level remains close to absolute zero.

So is my belief level on that "leak".

greenpenguino said:

Alexrd said:

eiyosus said:

Oh man, when they started ranting from 1:50 onwards I just about puked.  They called the restoration of the original versions a "waste of time."

Jesus.

In GL's point of view.

His point of view is wrong then.

Wrong opinions?

eiyosus said:

Oh man, when they started ranting from 1:50 onwards I just about puked.  They called the restoration of the original versions a "waste of time."

Jesus.

In GL's point of view.

Mrebo said:

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a story that he has even seen Ady's Revisited and that he was not offended?

Some employees of Lucasfilm have seen it, like Dave Filoni. Never heard of Lucas watching it, though.

none said:

Many appreciate the movie in and by itself.  Anything which blemishes the universe/story, or pulls someone out of that context is unwelcomed.

Then we go back with what I said, some people have a problem with Star Wars being part of pop culture.

and you feel otherwise, congrats you've formed an opinion.  On your side is that a company recent spent a rumored half a billion on a SW video game.

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/star_wars_the_old_republic/news/star_wars_old_republic_cost_ea_500m_says_analyst.html

How is that relevant for the discussion we're having?

'any press is good press'.  The Any = Good arguments really only works for extremely big type properties.  SW 77 was not one of those things, and that more innocent cultural item is valued higher then the washed out vehicle SW has become, by a certain subset of fandom.

I never said "any = good". I said that the ad is doing it's job.

Your icon showcases your mind set.  The 'hero' who in the pilot realizes that you don't need to advertise with any specific or worthwhile cultural goal, no truth or Truth needed, just get people talking/buy your stuff.  As that's the only goal, buy buy buy.

Care to explain what are the basis for your assumptions? Because that's what those claims are, assumptions.

You can have ads which accomplish two goals.  The shilling of a product and the advancement of the cultural object.  But in 77 there was only the goal of getting people to enjoy the movie.  In many ways this romantic notion that SW was this wide eyed childlike experience could remain that way is retarded.  But it's also sad that it's not really possible to experience SW in an innocent way, anymore.

And how does that relate to what we are discussing?

none said:

This allowing the SW material to be used by non-SW enhancing properties is what I think pisses people off.

But what's wrong with it? One thing is not liking the ad (I love both ads from Volkswagen, they were well done), the other is claiming that Star Wars is dead (or a similar variant) because it was used on an ad.

I just wrote that comment because the Volkswagen thread has the same complaints.

doubleofive said:

Oh, and Yoda, really? You needed to pay a lot of money to get Yoda to make that point for you?

It's not just advertising the service, but indirectly the brand too. And as an ad, it's working since we are all talking about it.

R.I.P?!

Wow, people here do have a problem with Star Wars being part pop culture... Besides, Star Wars being used for ads is nothing new.

STENDEC said:

the fact that no one is saying he can't edit his movies,

We both know that that is not true at all.

Harmy said:

When that becomes standard, the prequels are screwed and in the current state of things, so are the OT SEs (and so is Avatar for that matter).

They can still be released uncompressed.

walking_carpet said:

While it does suck that he told everyone how awesome everything was even though he knew damn well it was a POS,

Why should he know "damn well" your opinion, and take it as a fact?

^What?!

Baronlando said:

Well, doesn't matter how you take it, the point was that when the FX guys, not me, are aiming to make it look photoreal they don't mean that. I wasn't being super-literal with the midget thing, just trying to illustrate that THEIR (the fx people) goal was to make it look like something that was always there.

Always there as a character. Not an object.

Baronlando said:

Alexrd said:Using the picture above as reference, he looks realistic (different from real) to me. But then again, so does the puppet.

Sure I see what you're saying but forget the puppet for a second, when the FX guys say "photorealistic" is the goal, they very literally mean that you would just never know it wasn't actually there. You're supposed to just say "man, that is a really athletic midget in a great costume."

I took it as looking as realistic as possible. I'm supposed to take it as a real character (not object) that interacts with the environment.

Ever since I saw Yoda (or any other puppet for that matter) in the OT, I immediately recognize them as puppets. That's the first reaction. A couple seconds after, I accept them as characters. Same thing with certain background, objects etc. That doesn't mean they were badly done, because if that was the case, I would always have a hard time watching the scenes they appear in (which is the case with Jabba, for example).

In the PT it's the same thing. I know what is CGI. But I quickly accept it as part of the scene because they are well done (for what they are, that is).

If I were supposed to take CGI Yoda as an "athletic midget in a great costume", then it wouldn't do any good. It would be the same thing as saying "this fakeness is supposed to look like another fakeness". The purpose is to show a believable character.

CO said:

This was the first fatal plot hole of the SW movies when Darth Vader's name appeared in ROTJ.  If Luke was hidden from his father, why the hell would they use his same last name???????

Who said Skywalker was such an unique name?

Baronlando said:

Alexrd said:

How is this not photorealistic?

Uh, well, everybody's different I guess. To you, yoda just looks like he was there on the set and photographed with everything else? not arguing, just wondering.

Using the picture above as reference, he looks realistic (different from real) to me. But then again, so does the puppet.

sw1977ftw said:

2. Who´s with me, that any other LS effect in every SW movie (including ESB and RotJ originals), game, comic book, promotion picture etc. kinda if not totally (like in prequels) sucks?

What's wrong with the lightsabers in the prequels? And the '97 versions were fine, in my opinion.

Bester said:

You don't agree that TPM was a cinematic failure?  Commercially it certainly wasn't.  But artistically it's hard to argue with that conclusion.

Our opinions differ, and as you said, everyone is entitled to their own. What I said is untrue is the generalization made.

TV's Frink said:

I assume he was referring to the "we all loath (sic)" part.

That's correct.

Anchorhead said:

Poorly shaped puppet not withstanding, to me the CGI version still looks like what it is - a drawing.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

The shadows aren't consistent with the puppet or the world it existed in, the texture is softened, and the depth has been erased. The cartoon version looks flat.

I'll give you that the texture has been softened, but that's because that scene has a good amount of DNR. I hope they have a new transfer for the 3D release.

For the record, I know I'm trying to make my point to an apologist.

Apologist of what? As I said, I like both methods. It only depends of the end purpose.

Frink summed it up perfectly.  Had they paid more attention to the Empire puppet and duplicated it correctly, this would be a non issue.

I agree (at least in TPM, that is).

darth_ender said:

This edit certainly sounds ambitious, but I feel like people are largely ragging on this guy instead of giving him encouragement.

I merely questioned some of the story points of his edit. I may have sounded a bit agressive, but that's probably due to his untrue statement on the first comment.

Anchorhead said:

Alexrd said:

walking_carpet said:

 the idea behind cgi was not just animation but photorealism...

 

And isn't that what happened?

No.

Lets take a look at an actual screenshot:

How is this not photorealistic? It may have flaws (of course, nothing is perfect), but photorealistic CGI has been already achieved back in the 90's.

walking_carpet said:

Alexrd said:

walking_carpet said:

but even in the rest of the PT, yoda's clothes have almost no detail.  look at the picture above and see all the textures and then compare to PT. 

On the other hand, compare the motion of the OT Yoda and PT Yoda. One is not overall better than the other. It all depends of the purpose.

 not counting the often silly action sequences, maybe so.  but the idea behind cgi was not just animation but photorealism on top of it.  we kept being told that the breakthrough with cgi was that photo-realistic objects can be created.

And isn't that what happened? It is photorealistic, even though we still realize they are digital characters/objects.

walking_carpet said:

but even in the rest of the PT, yoda's clothes have almost no detail.  look at the picture above and see all the textures and then compare to PT. 

On the other hand, compare the motion of the OT Yoda and PT Yoda. One is not overall better than the other. It all depends of the purpose.

nightstalkerpoet said:

-Some people would like Fett removed from RotJ...

I see no reason for that to happen.

But why wouldn't it be safer to train under Qui-Gon? If they are rogue that implies they have a divergence with the Order, thus not making sense to leave Anakin there. Specially when he took Obi-Wan away from the Order too. Unless I didn't understood your idea correctly.

And he doesn't disregard Yoda's council.