Asteroid-Man

I would really like that info please!

- although I might go the bluray route only issue is that Legacy and the original just released the prices and they are over $40 Canadian a piece... then I need a Blu-Ray drive for my computer... so I don't know what I can do unless I can raise donations through screenings of my own short films, telling the viewers that the money would go towards future film production endeavours.

Here's the comparison video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALrxQ12sFJg

In case you guys wanted to see, here's a small weekly assignment my group and I had to do for one of my classes. It was just for continuity, adapting storyboards, rules of film and framing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q51Q6O7FnTk

That was well done! I'm going to post a side to side comparison of the trailer I posted so people can see the difference in lighting, colour and contrast.

You'll have it before the summer.

Let's move on guys... This is just "non-contructive".

Considering this short film is what my future in film depends on I think I'll focus on that for now. :P

True but all my procrastination on this is quite the embarrassment...

So I went to burn it last month and I caught that when I was fixing the audio sync issues earlier I had missed the first AOTC segment and the first ANH segment - I'm going to fix it as soon as I get a chance.

I'm really sorry about all of this and I am quite ashamed... I've been really busy getting my short film finished (I have to present it to a panel on the 2nd of March to see if I can advance to the follow up program to the one I am currently in). I'll try and get this done as soon as possible!

Again, I'm very sorry and I will get back to this as soon as possible!

A-Man

Let me give you a better clue at what I was aiming to say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc

Ah! Thanks for the clarification.

I see your link and raise you this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kPUFxXYLs

In all seriousness - so Qui-Gon in that episode... was he a force ghost or was he also one of the son's personifications?

There was an outline... the OT - why it was ignored is completely beyond me...

That's some confusing shit... and you just seem like you want to argue for arguments sake...

Akwat Kbrana said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

So regarding the PT as badly-acted is elitist, but asserting with equal dogmatism that the entire saga is badly-acted is...what, fair & balanced?

 they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion.

See, in my opinion this is far more elitist than the manifold complaints about the PT's poor writing, acting, and execution. You're basically saying that those who prefer the OT over the PT don't have valid opinions because their opinions have been distorted by nostalgia. And that's a lot more elitist than anything RLM and his fans are saying.

First of all I never said the saga was "badly-acted", I said the acting wasn't it's strong point - for example, look at an ensemble cast like that of in BB/TDK and even LOTR and compare it to SW. Saying "the acting in SW is amazing" is just naive and biased. Look, I LOVE Star Wars, but even I can admit Hamill's acting in the SW and ESB wasn't anything special... ESPECIALLY his reaction to Vader's revelation.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia - so if you think everyone at OT unconditionally loves the OT and sees it as perfect then I guess you would take it that way, but most people on these forums can point out the flaws to even the OT.

Ok, so you're talking mainly about the haljordan28 types, who really do assume that the OT is utterly flawless and the PT is utterly flawed. Well that makes a bit more sense then; I just thought you were being hyperbolic. In that case, your charge of elitism is probably pretty accurate. Then again, that mindset is really only displayed by the kook fringe, both in terms of Star Wars fandom at large as well as on this site in particular. I'd say the kind of knee-jerk OT = good / PT = bad mentality has so few adherents on this forum that you could count them on one hand. Most of the members here would be considered "bashers" by TFNers, but are actually pretty rational in approaching the SW saga and criticizing the PT. So why focus on the few loonies whose poorly-expressed ramblings are (in my opinion) not really even worth reading?

As for the acting merits of the OT...well, as Bingowings said we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree. I'll confess that the OT's acting may not be quite on par with, say, LOTR, but I wouldn't agree that it's inherently weak. Obviously what makes acting good or bad is partially subjective, but my criterion is this: good acting is that which effectively portrays characters as real people, and thus succeeds in suspending disbelief. Are some of Han's one-liners cheesy? Perhaps. But at no point in SW or ESB do I find the characters to be unconvincing or artificial. (ROTJ is admittedly a good deal weaker in this area.) When I'm watching Han, Luke, and Leia in these films, I see Han, Luke, and Leia. Quite to the contrary, when I watch the PT, all I can see is a group of actors trying valiantly to portray some poorly-written characters, and failing in that endeavor. In Ep. 1-3, the characters don't feel real to me. This, at least as far as I'm concerned, makes the PT acting incredibly bad.

Even at its weakest point (ROTJ), I don't think the OT approaches the level of poor acting that the PT evidences throughout its run. Carrie and Harrison do seem to be "phoning in" on this one, though its more noticeable in Carrie's case since Harrison's natural charisma allows him to coast a little without too much collateral damage. Moreover, Mark really pulled out all the stops in this one and delivered such an impressive performance that it almost makes up for the weak performances of his co-stars. IMO, at least.

Yeah I meant those who blindly love everything about the OT and hate everything afterwards.

And I didn't say the acting was POOR I just said it wasn't the strong point of Star Wars - NO ONE watches Star Wars because of the acting... I think we can all agree though, that the acting in TCW is better than the acting in the PT.

twooffour said:

Asteroid-Man said:

I didn't doubt the greatness of Star Wars... you just assumed that I did. I was just mentioning in response to people saying that "CW and PT" retcon everything that it's fair to make judgment like that as long as you can make judgment on the originals too, including it's acting, cheese and retcons in ESB and ROTJ - not doing so will only limit your own credibility.

 

You know, by this point I feel the need to askyou  the question directly: do you understand the difference between "bad" (or "not good") and "cheesy"? Because they ain't the same thing.

As for my previous response, I never said those movies were bad because of all the cheese, did I? Fact remains, there's a whole shitload of cheese and narm in LOTR, ST09 and Batman. And you said "virtually cheeseless"

No I understood that, but you were prepared to put the cheese of Star Wars in the context of the film, but you didn't do it for LOTR or ST. And Batman isn't cheesy - at all. The one thing you might not have liked was the voice, but that was a poor choice on the audio editor's fault, not the director or the actor or the writer. And LOTR was meant to show the dark moments very dark and the light moments very light to reflect the feelings people got reading the books at the time which were meant to reflect peoples REAL emotions at the time of the Second World War. Star Trek 2009 wasn't cheesy...

By cheesy, I'm talking about those truly *face-palm* worthy scenes. Star Wars has a few in every film - denying this is foolish. It's the aspect that draws in kids. Star Wars has elements of film targeted for all audiences and ages, obviously they have to implement cheesy one liners and predictable outcomes (ESB aside) to appeal to them.

I didn't doubt the greatness of Star Wars... you just assumed that I did. I was just mentioning in response to people saying that "CW and PT" retcon everything that it's fair to make judgment like that as long as you can make judgment on the originals too, including it's acting, cheese and retcons in ESB and ROTJ - not doing so will only limit your own credibility.

twooffour said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

So regarding the PT as badly-acted is elitist, but asserting with equal dogmatism that the entire saga is badly-acted is...what, fair & balanced?

 they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion.

See, in my opinion this is far more elitist than the manifold complaints about the PT's poor writing, acting, and execution. You're basically saying that those who prefer the OT over the PT don't have valid opinions because their opinions have been distorted by nostalgia. And that's a lot more elitist than anything RLM and his fans are saying.

First of all I never said the saga was "badly-acted", I said the acting wasn't it's strong point - for example, look at an ensemble cast like that of in BB/TDK and even LOTR and compare it to SW. Saying "the acting in SW is amazing" is just naive and biased. Look, I LOVE Star Wars, but even I can admit Hamill's acting in the SW and ESB wasn't anything special... ESPECIALLY his reaction to Vader's revelation.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia - so if you think everyone at OT unconditionally loves the OT and sees it as perfect then I guess you would take it that way, but most people on these forums can point out the flaws to even the OT.

Bingowings said:

Asteroid Man

Sorry but that's daft.

The acting in ROTJ is a bit hit and miss at times but the acting the first two films is essentially cheese free but the important thing is it's acting.

The actors are creating realistic feeling characters rather than just reciting lines and avoiding or aiming for chalk marks on a green floor.

Carrie Fisher as Leia in SW was not good, neither was Anthony Daniels as C3PO in any of the films, or the extras (Kantina Bartender for example). In ESB, Hamill's acting in ESB is his worst performance I've seen (then again I don't really follow his career and I think his acting as the Joker is some of the best voice acting I've ever heard) - just look at his reaction to Vader's revelation.

And you REALLY think SW isn't cheesy? ...honestly? It's incredibly clicheed and formulaic - but the formula works, which is why the films appeal to so many people. 3PO is filled with nothing but cheese, Solo has a lot of cheesy one liners (which is what initially made him so appealing), and there are an incredible amount of re-occurring cheesy lines throughout the saga, like "I've got a bad feeling about this..." Better yet, from Luke blowing up the Death Star and onwards in the first film...

Look, I'm not pointing out the flaws in the PT because they needn't be addressed - everyone is aware of them... I'm trying to simply give people some insight on the sad reality - you want to compare SW to some virtually cheese-less and incredibly acting films (by the entire cast)?

Inception, Toy Story 3, The Lion King, The Dark Knight, Gladiator, Batman Begins, Lord of the Rings, 500 Days of Summer, The Count of Monte Cristo, Road to Perdition, The Prestige, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Prince of Egypt, Hotel Rwanda, Equilibrium, Star Trek (the newest one), The Godfather, The Stoning of Soraya M and hell even Tron: Legacy (I'm just talking about the acting and the amount of cheesy moments - not to say those films don't have them either, just that if you compare those films to SW, you'll see a CONSIDERABLE difference.)

Um, Anthony Daniels not good? WHAT? His movement and voice acting pretty much defined an iconic character - sure the character is pure unadulterated cheese, but cheese has nothing to do with quality.

General Grievous is made of 100% ham and cheese, yet he's awesome for what he is.

Flash Gordon 1980 is made with the sole purpose of being as cheesy and silly as it gets, and it's 100% genuine awesomeness.

 

The Bartender had just like 1 minute on screen, but I honestly can't tell what problem you have with his acting - his role was the grim, gloomy barman from the smoky, gritty Western bar, where any moment a pistolero can enter through the double door and start making trouble, and he pulled it off marvelously.

Sure, nothing against that guy in Desperado... but hey.

 

Also I seem to be in the minority of people who actually don't laugh at Luke's Big No from ESB. Just like the Emperor in the last movie, the "overacting" could've easily come off as bad and silly, but because it worked, it didn't to me. But whatever...

let's look at that nice list of "virtually cheese-less movies" of yours, that contains both the Lion King and the Godfather in one sentence... good god.

 

 

Inception

Leo's acting was pretty cheesy - he just had this "cool" grim "troubled by life" expression on his face almost the whole time, I think it was cartoony and artificial. Good for the movie, I guess...

Toy Story 3,

Haven't seen those movies, but come on... the looks alone....

 

The Lion King,

Whaaaa-a-a-a-a-t?...

First of all, it's a fucking DISNEY CARTOON WITH TALKING ANIMALS. Good god... all the "acting" in there is over-emphasized and over-stated (like PT Yoda's), card-carrying, sinster-looking villain with a demonic fucking VILLAIN SONG, then those two obnoxious side kicks... what?!

The Dark Knight,

Bat's voice is, according to unanimous consensus, incredibly cheesy and takes one out of the movie.

The Joker, while considerably more "serious" than this character's other incarnations, is still pretty damn cheesy with his overstated acting and cartoony tongue-licking, compared to any kind of "serious" villain in a serious movie.

The best, least cheesy kind of villain behaves somewhat like a normal person (or maybe "somewhat" "different", see Uncanny Valley - if he's mad) and intimidates purely through his words and actions, and subtleties of behavior - not flashy, overstated mannerisms or saying things like "fly fly fly... fly fly fly".

Pretty hammy, the guy. Then, you've got lots of artificially inserted scenes like those kids playing with toy guns inside that car (WHY was it in the movie??), hamfisted patronizing catchphrases like "It's what we do, not who we are", or those two snobby guests complaining how they don't get to enter Bruce's panic room... geez.

NOWHERE in the league of the 60s's series, but come on... come on. 

Gladiator,

Haven't seen that one in ages, but pretty cheese-less as far as I can recall. Except for Ralf Moeller and his hilarious death scene.

 Lord of the Rings,

Those films are filled to the TOP with narm and cheese. Have you even watched them?

 

Road to Perdition, T

Extremely serious and cheese-less as far as I can recall. Not even crazy Daniel Craig. Or that assassin who makes photographs of his victims.

 

, The Prince of Egypt,

Um, that Disney's film about Moses? SERIOUSLY?

 

Hotel Rwanda

Haven't seen that one, but yea, I love how you put that movie on one list with fucking Lion's King.

, Equilibrium,

For a movie built entirely on cheese and style, I admit it was pretty damn slick.

Had they wanted to completely avoid cheese, though, they'd toned down the action shoot-outs and done without the techno soundtrack.

 

Star Trek (the newest one)

Everyone met at school? That green goblin thing who constantly sit on things? SIMON PEGG? Eomer "all I've got left is my bones" Urban? WICTOR WICTOR 2? "oral sensitivity on multiple occasions"? YOMAYO??! SIMON FUCKING PEGG???

Chekov alone was a pure, unadulaterated (and awesome) Russian cartoon. Jesus Christ man...

 

(I'm just talking about the acting and the amount of cheesy moments - not to say those films don't have them either, just that if you compare those films to SW, you'll see a CONSIDERABLE difference.)

Sorry, no. You can't just throw in Star Trek 09 and LOTR, then embellish your list with stuff like Godfather or Hotel Rwanda and then think you've made a point somehow.

LOTR is only one cheese level below SW, and that's if you exclude EpV. Sorry, just no.

If you're prepared to use context for scenes in Star Wars, you need to equally do the same for other films - INCLUDING the Lion King and The Prince of Egypt. Seriously man, these are amazing films - only a fool would doubt it.

twooffour said:

Asteroid-Man said:

twooffour said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Because there are a lot of individuals who will say IV-VI are incredible, masterful and flawless and then talk about how cheesy, terribly acted and inconsistent the PT is, but in all honesty, the acting in ANY of the SW films was never it's strong point, cannon is just always being retconned, and they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion. Star Wars is in original and very rich story - one like never seen before - but some people (it's a small group, but it exists) will call the OT flawless and the PT nothing BUT flawed, simply because the "OT" is the "original" trilogy.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were referring to the "refuting" of ANY discontinuity in the Star Wars series, not just the new ones... so yea, my question was obviously how someone criticizing the retcons in ESB and ROTJ is an "elitist" if he just points out what is there... guess I was wrong :DDD

I'm only going to address the point I didn't cover in my other post:

I'm saying it's stupid to say the PT and CW retcon and not acknowledge the retconning ESB and ROTJ did... The biggest being Darth Vader being Luke's father...

Ah, then agreed. Although not sure if you can use the term "elitist"... I prefer the good ol' Fan Dumb ;)

I'm not sure I have that much of a problem with that one, though... Leia being his sister is much, much more problematic, so that means Vader can't be the "biggest" anymore ;)

Granted, but I meant more the "most obvious" rather than the "biggest". And yeah I guess Fan Dumb makes more sense... cause know that I used "elitist" everyone's jumping into "wtf did you call me mode!?" even though it wasn't even directed at anyone...

Nostalgia CAN manipulate your opinions - it's a factor pertaining to bias. Again, I said UNCONDITIONALLY... I didn't think it possible to selectively read - especially after I made it more clear the second time.

twooffour said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Because there are a lot of individuals who will say IV-VI are incredible, masterful and flawless and then talk about how cheesy, terribly acted and inconsistent the PT is, but in all honesty, the acting in ANY of the SW films was never it's strong point, cannon is just always being retconned, and they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion. Star Wars is in original and very rich story - one like never seen before - but some people (it's a small group, but it exists) will call the OT flawless and the PT nothing BUT flawed, simply because the "OT" is the "original" trilogy.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were referring to the "refuting" of ANY discontinuity in the Star Wars series, not just the new ones... so yea, my question was obviously how someone criticizing the retcons in ESB and ROTJ is an "elitist" if he just points out what is there... guess I was wrong :DDD

I'm only going to address the point I didn't cover in my other post:

I'm saying it's stupid to say the PT and CW retcon and not acknowledge the retconning ESB and ROTJ did... The biggest being Darth Vader being Luke's father...

Akwat Kbrana said:

So regarding the PT as badly-acted is elitist, but asserting with equal dogmatism that the entire saga is badly-acted is...what, fair & balanced?

 they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion.

See, in my opinion this is far more elitist than the manifold complaints about the PT's poor writing, acting, and execution. You're basically saying that those who prefer the OT over the PT don't have valid opinions because their opinions have been distorted by nostalgia. And that's a lot more elitist than anything RLM and his fans are saying.

First of all I never said the saga was "badly-acted", I said the acting wasn't it's strong point - for example, look at an ensemble cast like that of in BB/TDK and even LOTR and compare it to SW. Saying "the acting in SW is amazing" is just naive and biased. Look, I LOVE Star Wars, but even I can admit Hamill's acting in the SW and ESB wasn't anything special... ESPECIALLY his reaction to Vader's revelation.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia - so if you think everyone at OT unconditionally loves the OT and sees it as perfect then I guess you would take it that way, but most people on these forums can point out the flaws to even the OT.

Bingowings said:

Asteroid Man

Sorry but that's daft.

The acting in ROTJ is a bit hit and miss at times but the acting the first two films is essentially cheese free but the important thing is it's acting.

The actors are creating realistic feeling characters rather than just reciting lines and avoiding or aiming for chalk marks on a green floor.

Carrie Fisher as Leia in SW was not good, neither was Anthony Daniels as C3PO in any of the films, or the extras (Kantina Bartender for example). In ESB, Hamill's acting in ESB is his worst performance I've seen (then again I don't really follow his career and I think his acting as the Joker is some of the best voice acting I've ever heard) - just look at his reaction to Vader's revelation.

And you REALLY think SW isn't cheesy? ...honestly? It's incredibly clicheed and formulaic - but the formula works, which is why the films appeal to so many people. 3PO is filled with nothing but cheese, Solo has a lot of cheesy one liners (which is what initially made him so appealing), and there are an incredible amount of re-occurring cheesy lines throughout the saga, like "I've got a bad feeling about this..." Better yet, from Luke blowing up the Death Star and onwards in the first film...

Look, I'm not pointing out the flaws in the PT because they needn't be addressed - everyone is aware of them... I'm trying to simply give people some insight on the sad reality - you want to compare SW to some virtually cheese-less and incredibly acting films (by the entire cast)?

Inception, Toy Story 3, The Lion King, The Dark Knight, Gladiator, Batman Begins, Lord of the Rings, 500 Days of Summer, The Count of Monte Cristo, Road to Perdition, The Prestige, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The Prince of Egypt, Hotel Rwanda, Equilibrium, Star Trek (the newest one), The Godfather, The Stoning of Soraya M and hell even Tron: Legacy (I'm just talking about the acting and the amount of cheesy moments - not to say those films don't have them either, just that if you compare those films to SW, you'll see a CONSIDERABLE difference.)

Because there are a lot of individuals who will say IV-VI are incredible, masterful and flawless and then talk about how cheesy, terribly acted and inconsistent the PT is, but in all honesty, the acting in ANY of the SW films was never it's strong point, cannon is just always being retconned, and they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion. Star Wars is in original and very rich story - one like never seen before - but some people (it's a small group, but it exists) will call the OT flawless and the PT nothing BUT flawed, simply because the "OT" is the "original" trilogy.

Every Star Wars film after the original has destroyed a bit of cannon - it just depends how elitist you are and which retcons you WANT to refute.

Hey ady, are you going to make the audio pitch match that of the Emperor in ROTJ? It's slightly higher in ROTJ than it is in ESB:SE and ROTS.

Ady, is there a benefit to going 720 rather than 1080?

I was thinking about trying a few test shots, and uploading them so that HOPEFULLY I could catch the eye of somebody out there who can do without a dual layer bluray player/burner for the computer to not only help with this project but my future projects too.

By the way if anyone is interested, I'm shooting a short film this weekend. When it's all finished I can upload it for all to watch.