Here’s the color balanced version of that still. You can clearly see the Death Star walls have a blue bias, as Mike Verta maintains should be the case:
Beautiful!
That is a good photo. If you correct for the red, it would have nice skin tones and maybe more blue to the walls in the background.
I think I’ve found what you are looking for:
Can someone white balance to the edges of the card? Could bring out some interesting color.
Does anyone think the old topps trading cards are of any use whatsoever to color correction reference? I’ve got a near mint collection of the yellow ones.
Maybe he goes into a medically induced hibernation type sleep that makes it ok for him to be sitting up. Or perhaps he just retreats into a bacta tank every night.
I quite like the theory that the suit gives him the energy to never sleep. That’s kind of badass.
Since I know you have The Blues Brothers, there must be someplace in the ROT for this scene. Lightsaber effect added of course. 😉
Maybe splice it in as Palpatine is killing the Jedi before the Mace duel in ROTS?
The 70mm prints were sent out earlier and they did some last minute newer/better shots of the ships present at the end in time for the 35mm but not the 70mm, as I understand it. The 16mm prints also lack them.
Hmm. I knew about that, but it just seemed like he was referring to more than just that one bit. Well I guess we’ll find out if we ever come across a 70mm print with some more different effects.
Unfinished effects shots or just without the latest effects shots in the final scene? All of the 70mm prints lack the latter.
I wasn’t sure if that’s what he was referring to or not. He mentions “some unfinished effects shots” as though there are multiples and doesn’t mention shots that were left out, rather he makes it seem as though there were unfinished effects shots physically in the film that was sent out.
Speaking of 70mm ESB, did any of you see the interview with Dennis Muren posted on the Star Wars YouTube channel? He talks about how there were some 70mm prints sent out and screened with some unfinished effects shots and that these prints are likely still floating around out there somewhere.
When obiwan says “I don’t seem to remember owning a droid” cut to a closeup of r2 then crossroads to a montage of the scenes of r2 and obiwan and Anakin on grevious ship in ROTS set to sad ballady-esque music to make it seem this statement has broken r2s heart.
Set to this:
https://youtu.be/4fWyzwo1xg0Not available in my country
Where do I live? Narnia?
It’s the sound of silence by Simon and garfunkle.
He’s said before he never will because it’s George’s baby. And honestly, I wouldn’t want him to. If he wasnt such close friends with George I would say yes all the way. But because he’s so close to George I feel like we’d have another kingdom of the crystal skull on our hands. Spielberg is arguably the greatest director of all time, but I feel like he’d feel obligated to listen to his friends wishes if he were to direct a Star Wars movie. I’m sure he’d do his best, but it would probably be a George Lucas story.
Marquand was actually a very competent director. Lucas ended up being on set a lot because of Marquand’s inexperience with special effects. So George had to be there to make sure everything would mesh with ILM. But being on set, he clearly had opinions on what was going on with his movie, so he ended up basically being backseat director to Marquand in the process, which I’m sure Richard was just thrilled about.
So in short, I don’t think George planned on being on set so much, but it ended up that way anyways and I guess he just figured “while I’m here anyways…”
When obiwan says “I don’t seem to remember owning a droid” cut to a closeup of r2 then crossroads to a montage of the scenes of r2 and obiwan and Anakin on grevious ship in ROTS set to sad ballady-esque music to make it seem this statement has broken r2s heart.
Set to this:
https://youtu.be/4fWyzwo1xg0
And now I’m just rambling but technically all agnostics are atheists. As an atheist is simply a person who doesn’t believe in any deities. Well if you are even the most middle of the ground agnostic, as in you don’t really know for sure one way or another, you are still not actively believing in a god, so in a way, all agnostics are atheists, and all atheists are agnostic, because to NOT be agnostic in the sense that Einstein thought of the word, would mean you know everything, which is impossible. So really everyone is agnostic. Even if you believe in God with all your heart, you can’t possibly say you KNOW for sure.
Maybe the notion of being agnostic is really the way people of every faith and non faith come together.
theist😒omeone who believes in God
agnostic: someone who neither believes in God or the existence of God
Atheist: someone who believes God doesn’t exist
That is how I understand the three to be.
How you understand them to be is almost correct. You can be agnostic about the existence of God, but the word agnostic really just means not knowing and can be applicable to anything.
And atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in deities. Not necessarily belief that they don’t, have never, and can never exist, but rather just not having a belief in any deities to begin with.
It’s practically the same thing as what you said, but slightly different based on how it was said. Not a belief that gods don’t exist, but a lack of belief that they do exist. Hard to describe. I hope this is coming across and not making me sound stupid.
For instance, saying “string theory is true” is a claim. Saying “string theory isn’t true.” Is not a claim.
actually they are both claims.
Well of course they are technically both claiming something but in the context of needing to provide proof, the latter claim is really just a claim negating the prior claim, thus does not carry the burden of proof. I suppose I could have worded it better but I wanted to get my point across as simply as possible.
Something I don’t think a lot of people talk about is that the bible was not originally one flowing book. Ergo the violent and bloody God of the old testament shouldn’t taint your opinion of the God of the New testament, which explicitly states the old laws are no longer to be practiced. And yes over history Christians have done bloody and terrible things, but that is the fault of the Christians that did it, not god. You will not find any place in the New testament, which again was not written in a book with the old testament at the time of it’s creation, encouraging such things. Also Christ never condemned homosexuality or encouraged hatred or violence of any kind.
But again you can’t prove either way. Although it is much easier to disprove Santa than Satan.
Well the other problem with the bible is it is contradictory. Yes Jesus does explicitly state according to the New Testament that the old laws are no longer to be practiced. But also explicitly states later that they MUST be practiced. It’s these contradictions that lead to people picking and choosing what from the bible to follow. Which, at that point, why not just form your own opinions on morality and disregard the bible as anything but interesting stories altogether?
I know it’s just a movie, but is it believable to think that Anakin could survive those burns even with the suit?
Well if we’re talking in the real world:
The burns, yes. Assuming there is proper medical attention it is possible and has happened to survive third degree burns on your entire body.
But the burns aren’t really what he’d have to worry about. He’d be dead (along with Obi wan mind you) long before that would even matter from breathing in the excrutiatingly hot, ashy, poisonous air around the lava.
My ranking based on personal preference.
Captain America Civil War
The Avengers
Captain America The winter soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Iron man
Ant Man
Avengers age of ultron
Captain America the first avenger
Thor
Thor the dark world
Iron Man 3
Iron man 2
The Incredible Hulk
And now I’m just rambling but technically all agnostics are atheists. As an atheist is simply a person who doesn’t believe in any deities. Well if you are even the most middle of the ground agnostic, as in you don’t really know for sure one way or another, you are still not actively believing in a god, so in a way, all agnostics are atheists, and all atheists are agnostic, because to NOT be agnostic in the sense that Einstein thought of the word, would mean you know everything, which is impossible. So really everyone is agnostic. Even if you believe in God with all your heart, you can’t possibly say you KNOW for sure.
Maybe the notion of being agnostic is really the way people of every faith and non faith come together.
Seeing as how all religion is based on faith, it doesn’t matter to them that there is no proof. Funny you bring up Einstein since he was an agnostic who denounced the atheist movement.
I know it doesn’t matter to them and that’s fine. This all stemmed from me asking in a polite manner why they have faith. Asking why would you believe something with no evidence.
Also, thank you for the snarky remark about Einstein. Funny you should bring that up since I prefer to be called agnostic rather than atheist as well. For the same reason as Einstein, mind you. Because the term agnostic refers to more than just disbelief in God. It means “One who does not know” when loosely translated. Einstein preferred it because it embraces the flawed nature of a human mind who will always have things they do not know.
I am agnostic, because technically speaking anything which cannot be disproven is theoretically possible. But just like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and any other undetectable supernatural thing, I do not entertain the notion of a god because if something cannot be proven or disproven, it is really not worth considering. (That may have come off as harsh. I promise I’m not trying to be an asshole. Just trying to effectively communicate my thoughts. Sorry if it comes off badly)
There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.
And in science, if there is no evidence for or against something, it is not worth taking seriously. I think Einstein said something akin to that.
Also, you can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than theists can prove that there is one. So “this bickering is pointless.”
Well to be fair, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
Therefore, when making a claim that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming God doesn’t exist.
Disputing the claims of someone else is not a claim in and of itself.
For instance, saying “string theory is true” is a claim. Saying “string theory isn’t true.” Is not a claim. At that point the person who believes string theory can present evidence. Only if the evidence is shown to be accurate evidence is the opposing side then tasked with providing evidence which shows string theory to be untrue.
So, as the ones opposing the theory that God exists, the atheists need not provide any justification for their non-belief until those who claim God does exist provide some empirical evidence.
This is how claims are tested in laboratories and court rooms.
Also, you can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than theists can prove that there is one. So “this bickering is pointless.”
Well to be fair, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
Therefore, when making a claim that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on the one claiming God doesn’t exist.
Disputing the claims of someone else is not a claim in and of itself.
Also, you can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than theists can prove that there is one. So “this bickering is pointless.”
Well to be fair, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
But I agree this discussion is unfortunately going nowhere interesting and has turned into people of all opinions getting overly easily butthurt and bickering with each other.
There is absolutely 0 evidence to support the existence of any god(s). It is a ridiculous ancient notion and I honestly can’t comprehend how intelligent, rational people in the modern age can believe in an invisible man in the sky who created everything and a centuries old man who rounded up two of every animal on a boat and a dirt man and a rib woman and a man living in a whale. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I’m sorry if this offends anyone but it’s all really silly.
Depends on what you call evidence. Not offended by you, but again, this is an age-old argument that any religious person has already addressed, so you score no points for originality. Sorry. To me there is ample evidence.
But empirical evidence is not a subjective thing. I call evidence the same thing scientists do, which is in essence, something observable that supports the theory. I’m not trying to be original I’m just trying to ask questions and have a discussion.
You say “to me there is ample evidence” well, such as? I genuinely want to know. Again, I know I can come off as somewhat stand-offish at times. I don’t mean to. Just wanting to discuss.
But why have faith? I’m not trying to be an ass so I’m sorry if it comes off that way I’m genuinely curious. Why blindly believe something without evidence? Is it just because you were raised to believe it’s true. I mean I can make just about any outrageous claim I want to a child, tell them it’s true enough times and they’ll probably believe it.
Why is it a good thing to have faith? If I told you I could fly, you wouldn’t just take me on faith and believe me. You would want me to prove it somehow before you believed it. Why does religion get a pass. You’re clearly an intelligent person, so why put that aside when it comes to Jesus?
