Originally posted by: Mr.Coffee
Which vehicles or types of vehicles appear in both Star Wars: A New Hope AND The Empire Strikes Back? (there are 5).Quote
What about the Rebel Medium Transport? The one that they use to evacuate Hoth in ESB? It's in ANH also at the end, isn't it?
Motti: "Any attack made by the rebels would be a useless gesture...no matter what technical data they've obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe...I suggest we use it."
Vader: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignifigant next to the power of the force."
Motti: "Don't try and frighten us with your sorceror's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn't helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes. Or given you clair voyance enough to find the rebel's hidden fort -- " *chokes*
Vader: "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
Tarkin: "Enough of this! Vader! Release him!"
Vader: "As you wish..."
6 ft. is the right answer.
How tall is an Imperial Stormtrooper (in feet)?
Give me a little while...
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
well im gonna put in my last two cents here...
and then im never posting in this thread again...
bottom line is... the prequels were so different from the original movies that they will not be loved by those who grew up with the originals and those who did not grow up with the originals will prolly love the prequels...
me... now that i think of it....
I would rather watch the Star Wars Holiday Special, Ewoks: Battle of Endor, Droids and the Ewoks cartoons than even sit through one viewing of either prequels...
you can choose which one cuz both were disgusting .... well.... SHIT!
jimbo will die loving AOTC and will always think (lol, i love this part) that the story and acting was by far the best.... hahaha but he still wont admit these movies were just an effects show... let him think that....
believe me when you say that you will never be able to introduce him to reality... TRUST ME!
This is also going to be my last post. I quoted you Luke because I agree with everything you said in this post 100%.
My one final point to add:
Originally posted by: jimbo
Another thing in my belief if you hate a Star Wars movie you are not a Star Wars fan.
So, you'll make up reasons to like a Star Wars movie, no matter how bad it sucks? Fine, I'm not a "true" Star Wars fan by your ridiculous and hypocritical standards. I'm just a fan of the OT. Fine by me. I grew up with taped off TV versions, because the Pan-Scan versions weren't out yet. I got the movies for christmas the first time they were available in a box set in 1990.
(P.S. Just because a movie has a hot girl in it, like Natalie Portman, doesn't make it good...niether can a person be considered a good actress, just because you think she's hot)
Originally posted by: jimbo
Today computers have got to the point were you can put anything on screen in 100% photorealism. After seeing Final Fantasy I believe that actors days are numbered.
By "100% photorealism" you mean that it looks 100% as realistic as real life, with no possible way of telling the differance...CGI is FAR from that.
By the way, Final Fantasy did so poorly in the box office that the studio that made it went bankrupt. I think actor's jobs are safe for quite awhile...
Originally posted by: jimbo
First of all Terminator 2 is an Ok film. I see it as a dumb action movie. I enjoy it the same why I enjoy Van Helsing great effects but all the substance of the first Terminator movie is gone. What about the Matrix. You say CGI can never look good in slow motion but The Matrix is filled with slow motion CGI that looks excellent. Not to mention slow motion in movies normally is bad even in live action form.
What substance of the first Terminator film? Terminator 2 added substance to the first movie by fleshing out the story. Terminator 3 was a dumb action movie that was tacted on hoping to be a box office success, completely scrapping the story and plot of the original movies. Most of the slowmotion CGI in the Matrix looks like CGI. Most of the slowmotion effects in the Matrix is real actors on wires in slow motion. The Neo vs. Many Agent Smiths scene in Matrix 2 is obviously CGI, as is the final showdown in Matrix 3.
CGI is a long long way from replacing actors, sets, or traditional special effects (despite GL's efforts), because it's obviously not real and looks cheesy to film goers.
Science Fiction and Action movies generally utilize special effects WAY more than any other gengre (another reason actor's jobs are safe), and if you look at the best and most groundbreaking movies of those gengres, special effects were used in a traditional nature and CGI was used sparingly, if at all.
I'm talking about movies like Bladerunner, 2001, Predator, the Road Warrior, Terminator 2, Aliens, the first Matrix...
MEDICAL DROID: "Sir, it will take quite awhile to evacuate the T-forty-sevens."
LUKE: "Well, forget the heavy equipment. There's plenty of time to get the smaller modules on the transports."
I love 2001. I just watched it again the other day actually. The cinematograhy in that movie is simply amazing. Best ever, in my opinion. Not that GL would know anything about that, since he does 95% of his movies on computer...
That's another thing that bugs me. Back when the original movies were made, they were ground breaking. They had to do things that had never been done before. Basically create new technology so they could acheive the shots they wanted. How about now? Well, now they just do it all on computer. No innovation, to creativity, nothing.
Personally, I prefer models WAY more than CGI. I've been saying that since the day I saw TPM in theaters. Everything looked fake and cheesy to me. If they really just wanted to use computers so bad, why not just make a REAL model, make a digital map of it, and munipulate it digitally. That way, you can make it do whatever you want, but it looks real.
I agree, LOTR is one of the best CGI uses ever. Except for Gollum, where you can tell he's CGI (but not by too much), there isn't very many glaring CGI scenes that stand out. They did everything they possibly could with reality before resorting to computers. I mean, you don't use 250 REAL horses for no reason. If GL made LOTR, do you think there would be more than 3 horses EVER on set?
To me, CGI is like any other special effect. It can be awesome when used sparingly and only when necessary, but when overused, it's stupid. You NEVER want to over use a special effect, because then it's just cheesy and over done. The CGI in the PTs is both.
I completely agree with you Samatar:
CGI should be used only when necessary to enhance the story, not to BE the story.
And yes, the ships in the ORIGINAL original trilogy looks way better than anything in the PTs. The PTs are obviously fake and digital. The REAL models look like REAL ships because they are just that...REAL.
In my opinion, almost nothing in the PTs look real. Probably because almost nothing in the PTs is real...they set records for most use of CGI. I can't stand watching them because to me, everything looks so cheesy and fake and obviously computer generated.
Maybe to you and guys like jimbo, everything about the PTs is "so cool" and "awesome", but I can't stand any of it. The battle scenes were cheesy and lame, the ships looked cartoonish, and the feel was COMPLETELY differant than the originals, which makes it seem like the PTs were made by someone other than GL. Everything about the PTs rubs me the wrong way. They try and mix in way too much humor with unfunny actors so it sounds cheesy and forced, they're always seemingly shooting for kiddy appeal and lowest common denominator stuff. I mean, it seems like GL made Star Wars for preteens and no one older. To me, the PTs are kids movies. I'm in my 20s which may not be very old, but for myself, all my friends, and all of our parents, we can't stand the PTs. We grew up with the OTs and we know them well. So, when the PTs came along and were SO differant, and really cheesy and kiddy in comparison, it turned us right off. I can see why a kid who's like, 14 might love the PTs, but I hate them.
This forum was created so jimbo can rant and rave about how awesome ATOC was and how he thinks it's better than any of the OTs, and I can't resist arguing, because I feel so strongly against the PTs. I've seen each only twice and can't stand watching them any more than that. Everything about them makes me cringe. If you feel differantly, good for you. Personally, I hate the stupid things.
Originally posted by: HotRod
Super Star Destoyer was in Empire!!
Imperial Shuttle, A -wing, B -wing, Tie Interceptor, Mon Calimari cruiser (forgot what they are called) and a handfull of Rebel cruisers.
I guess you got it right...or at least came the closest.
Altho, the Imperial Shuttle you refer to (the Lamba-class shuttle) is also in Empire and there are no other new Rebel cruisers seen (except the Mon Calamari one)
But you got the rest right. There are 4 new types of ships. A-wings, B-wings, TIE-Interceptors, and Mon Calamari Starcruisers.
You're question HotRod.
Or a Lamba shuttle next to the Naboo queen's shuttle?
And speaking of going back in time for effects, has anyone here seen "Flight Of The Navigator"? From 1986!! Because they have the EXACT same shiny effect for a ship...
jimbo, I'd argue with you, but I honestly think you are on your own little planet deep in the galaxy somewhere...
But now, it's...still my favorite. But I don't like it any more than the other originals. I like each equally for differant reasons. Now, I don't watch any more than any of the others. Every few weeks or so, I watch I watch all three in order. Either in one night, or over the course of a few days (depending on time). I don't think it's the "weaker one". I love it. I think it's awesome. I even kinda like the Ewoks. I mean, that's why I'm here, right? I love the Star Wars movies. None more than any other.
Natalie Portman can act?
(After falling out of a transport and rolling down a sand dune)
Clone Trooper: "Are you alright?"
Padme (perfectly fine): "Yes."
The above scene was so bad that they edited it out for the DVD release and replaced it with a better acted scene. So, a) Natalie Portman is a crappy actress and b) ATOC had crappy editors.
No such thing as too much CGI? How about when you feel like you're watching a cartoon because everything in the shot looks fake and cheesy? Digital ships better than model ships? Every single ship in the OT looked infinitely better than every ship in PT, in my opinion. Maybe REALLY shiney fake looking cartoon ships look better to you than model ships that are actually real. I guess that's just you...
GL really does use CGI in order to be lazy. They could make models and have ships that look real, or they could take a short cut and use CGI. CGI was used. They could have actually shot a battle scene instead of making a battle scene completely out of CGI, again having the feel of a cartoon and looking and feeling really cheesy and obviously fake. CGI was used. So, is there really no such thing as too much CGI? When models looks better and more realistic and there is no real reason to use CGI except for laziness and ego, should CGI be used instead? Or go for something that looks better? If there is no such thing as too much CGI how come every movie isn't all CGI?
"Van Helsing is a dumb action movie. It is basically an effects show." Does that mean it had too much CGI...?
As for my question:
What planet did Senator Mon Mothma represent before breaking away from the Imperial senate to lead the Alliance?