Anchorhead

Alexrd said:

You're missing the point.  

If I may, sir.

I'm not missing my own point.

Realism and being real are not the same thing.

I stated that the puppet Yoda (exists in the physical world) looked much more believable than the cartoon Yoda (exists in the Characters folder of the C drive).  My point in this discussion has been that the appearance of physical objects in the prequels - ships, people, beings, structures, surfaces, light, shadow, etc - look unrealistic to me because they aren't rendered in the manner in which things exist in the real world.  Technology isn't there yet.  Better than ever - sure, but still not there yet.

Puppets & models - while not real animals, beings, structures, or ships - do exist in the real world.  As such, they show texture, reflect light, absorb light, cast shadows, and move correctly (depending on the skill of the crew).  They interact correctly with the physical world we exist in because they exist in it as well.  Cartoons do not.  At least none that I have seen.  Claiming that realism and being real are the same thing was never the point I was trying to make, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!

Do you see Yoda as a doll, or as a living character?

I see the puppet Yoda as a much more realistic looking version of a make-believe character.  It's impossible to completely buy the character because as soon as he appears on screen, we know he's not real.  The task is for the film maker to get us to focus on the character, not the method of presentation.  When it's a puppet, I think "hey, he talks funny and seems impatient with Luke".  When it's the cartoon version (which I've only seen in screencaps) - I think "look, it's a cartoon of the character from the second film".

My point again is that this...

...helps me focus on the story.

This...

...causes me to focus on how well they drew a picture of Yoda.

Bingowings said:

There is no comparison.

No, there isn't.  My post  was serious but the screencap portion was more of an attempt at a light moment -  start the comparison discussion, post two screencaps,  then become distracted by how shapely Carrie Fisher was 30 years ago.   I seem to have missed the mark. 

Here are my original caps before I decided to lighten the mood.

Outdoors in the originals - detail, color, shadows, texture, depth, perspective, etc is all much more real looking - because it is real. If it's a puppet, it still exists in the physical world. Even when there is a matte painting in the shot, it still looks much more realistic.

On the other hand, the prequels look like cartoons and video games.  No matter how much technology Lucas throws at them, they still look exactly like what they are - computer drawings made to emulate reality.  Again, I haven't watched them, so I don't know what the motion experience is, but they look fucking terrible.  Visually, they look completely unrelated to the originals.

A few years ago I was coming over a gentle rise in the road, out in the Texas hill country and came upon a group of Turkey Vultures eating something big. They were just off the road in some short grass. I slowed as quickly as I could - they took off as quickly as they could. If you're not familiar with them, they're very large and it takes them a moment to get moving.

By the time I was on them I was going about 30. I tucked down as low as I could and one of them grazed off the top of my helmet. No damage to either of us, but it sure scared the hell out of me. That 60-inch wing span blotted out the sky.

I agree with Bingo and Zombie.  If Lucas had wanted the prequels to start off somewhat matching the originals, he could have come a lot closer than he did.  Digital can be manipulated to have all sorts of looks - muted, saturated, washed-out, grey scale, warm, cool, grainy, etc.

Instead, he went with what he prefers - style over substance.  An over-saturated, surreal cartoon look and then he chose to try and force the originals to match the prequels.  As the technology advances, so do the releases of the originals.  That's why we get a new version of Star Wars every few years - Star Wars 4.3, Service Pack 2. 

I haven't seen this film, so maybe it looks better when watching it, but just looking at this screencap it has that cartoon look I was talking about.  The colors are weirdly saturated, the lighting seems strange, and people look like they aren't actually touching the ground.  It looks nothing like reality.

Compared to this picture from the original trilogy;

This seems much more real.  It has a.....there's a...it's.....I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen.

Mike, I've said it before and I'll say it again - hats off for going the extra mile for the fans of the original trilogy.  I think I speak for all of us here when I say well done, sir and the hard work is very much appreciated.

Bingowings said:

This sums up every point I was making about the PT.

 

Not trying to be a dumbshit (it just comes naturally), but what is the error in that shot?  I've seen it posted before, but not having seen the film, the mistake is lost on me.  Just curious.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-3-2011/barack-obama-is-luke-skywalker

Home Alone

Yeees -  I realize it's a silly Christmas movie. For me, it's a guilty pleasure.  Without going into a lengthy dissertation;  I have very strict, self-imposed rules about watching Christmas movies any time other than December - I don't do it.  However, for reasons I can't figure out, I was weak and watched it this past weekend, a day after December.  It's now put away until December of this year.

Is this toothbrush approved by the American Dental Association?

I don't know.

Well, could you please find out?

Anchorhead having an opinion --->       ......Warbler disagreeing with it.

Warbler said:

How can you defend the unneeded remaking of a classic. 

Because I saw it and thought it was much better.  It's the story from the book, not the 1960s take on the story, which was reworked to suit John Wayne and softened to appeal to a wider audience. 

John Wayne IS Rooster Cogburn. 

So is Jeff Bridges. He also gives a deeper and better portrayal of Rooster Cogburn as he was originally written, which is what I prefer.

Kind of curious about that myself.  They could have the actual print I saw every week in 1977 and it doesn't really mean anything if all I can still watch is the 2006 non-anamorphic DVD.

I saw that they have a link to HDNet, where the LOC films are shown on cable.  However, Star Wars didn't come up in a search of their site.

National Film Preservation Board
Library of Congress (4690)
Motion Picture, Broadcasting & Recorded Sound Division
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington DC 20540
Attn: Steve Leggett, Staff Coordinator
Email: sleg  @  loc.gov

Well done, sir.

I look forward to receiving my copy as well.  It will arrive in  5 - 8 business days.

If I were a betting man, I'd say McGregor shows up in Return this next go-round.

Kenobius Prime said:

  I'd love to find a larger one!

http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/92010/swhildfeb10.jpg

skyjedi2005 said:

The Lucash Apologists just get more and more creative all the time.

They are finding all sorts of good things about the prequels that are not there.  Ironically they are being far more creative and imaginative in their defense of these crap movies.  Then Lucas responsible for their creation.

To me, that's the funniest\saddest part of all of their constant exposition.  Lucas isn't even close to being as deep as they want to think he is.  If they weren't so closed-off to the actual history of the first trilogy and the truth behind making them, they would see that he just doesn't get it.  Had Marcia and Kurtz not stepped in, Star Wars would have been a mess. Same with American Graffiti.  

He isn't a good story teller at all. He has some great ideas, but he constantly struggles to flesh them out.

• Hiring two people to write two different sequels to Star Wars because he didn't have one himself.
• His wanting to cut emotional moments from the original Star Wars because he didn't understand why they worked. (thank you Marcia for stepping in).
• His attempt to add depth with the Vader\father change.
• His going ahead with the "no, there is another" scene - before he even thought of who it would end up being.

• His ham-fisted fix for the "no, there is another" scene, which shrunk the universe & weakened the story even more.

• His pathological lying about his "Original Vision".

Those are not the practices of a savant story teller. They are the practices of a hack who got lucky in 1973, 1977, & 1980 - thanks in large part to his wife\editor, his producer, and a director.

It's the Hilldebrandt version of the one sheet artwork. 

TV's Frink said:

SUCK MY BALLS, BKEV!!!

See, it is bad.

*cleans the coffee off the monitor and keyboard*

TheBoost said:

Anchorhead said:

The L.A. Times squelched my comment. Even after I verified my email per their request.

Guess they don't dig the truth because it exposes their "guest essay" for the fanboy masturbation that it is.

 

Although I can guess it's general topic, what was your comment?

It was a link to Kaminski's Star Wars site.  Nothing inflammatory, nothing off-color.  I thought it might be because it was a link, but I see there are others.

The L.A. Times squelched my comment. Even after I verified my email per their request.

Guess they don't dig the truth because it exposes their "guest essay" for the fanboy masturbation that it is.

Unbelievable! 

As a long-time fan of the original (one of only two John Wayne movies I like) - I have to say goodbye to it now.  2010 marks the proper telling of the story.  Gone are John Wayne-playing-John Wayne, the poor acting of Glen Campbell, the over-acting of Kim Darby, and the 1960s Hollywood niceness and silliness.

In their place -  depth, realism, believability, and the harshness of the book.  Oscars should go to Jeff Bridges & Haliee Steinfeld.  Truly amazing performances.  Hats off to Matt Damon as well, for bringing depth to LaBoeuf. 

If you're a fan of the book, this film will be a Godsend.  If you're are a fan of John Wayne playing his usual, for the upteenth time, prepare to see how it's really done.

No two ways about it, I have to move something out of my Top Ten All Time to make room for True Grit 2010.  Going again Thursday. At least once more after that.

Strange - I dig only one of the six films (yet haven't watched it in 4 years),  remember next to nothing of the second, third, & fourth, haven't seen the last two, nor any of the SEs or cartoons.  In fact, my Star Wars world is really just the NPR version of the first story & four novels written 30+ years ago.

Yet - I probably log-on and interact more here than the motorcycle boards or the Indiana Jones board I'm a member of.   That only leaves one possible explanation.  The people.

Quite literally, a glass is raised to you all.  Merry Christmas, fellas.

swifte said:

... can't watch the re-mastered damage done to the original Star Wars movies  Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, & Return Of The Jedi.

Welcome aboard, by the way.  You'll find resources beyond your imagination.