Leonardo said:
Does not compute. AFAIK you don't put chapstick in your brain.
Well, if chapstick does not get put on the brain, then clearly it cannot prevent a chapped brain now, can it?
Bingowings said:
...He deserved to be a big star from that moment on but sadly that hasn't happened yet.
It's because he doesn't take anything seriously. He turned out to be quite the Joker.
Darth Lars said:
I think you could explain this easily. The Empire had been intruding on the Ewok's moon for quite some time, so the Ewoks could have made the traps before the Rebels even arrived. It is not like the Ewoks would have just accepted the Empire's intrusion and not been the least bit afraid of them.
In a small/medium-sized country in the real world when there is unrest near a border, the local military gets beefed up because the likelihood of a conflict has been increased. If your country gets invaded then you would form a guerilla and you hide arms and make traps at various locations in case you would need them in the future.
You could find the Mythbusters episode on Youtube quite easily if you searched for it. Spoiler: The armoured truck gets smashed. You could surmise that the armour of the truck, like the AT-ST's, was made to withstand small arms fire - not a large pounding. The logs in the movie were also twice as long and pulled up higher.
In the Ewok movies, we also see them having beasts of burden and we can assume that they are skilled enough with ropes/vines and wood to make pulleys. Also, C-3PO's recognition of the Ewok language as being a dialect of a language known on other planets does indicate that Ewoks have come from another planet (moon) originally and/or would have had interaction with other worlds, which means that they could have imported knowledge for how to lift them up.
... and it is not like there aren't examples of great feats of engineering in real-world human pre-history.
Even with a pulley system operating at a 10:1 ratio, that would still require 4000-8000 Ewoks in order to effectively match the weight of a redwood. Even utilizing beasts of burden to do the lifting, that still amounts to hundreds of animals involved. Miles of very heavy-duty hand-made rope capable of supporting thousands of tons of weight would be needed as well. It would take quite a while to chop down several redwood trees using only hand tools, and the felling of the trees would be quite noticeable. While it's theoretically possible for primitives to find a way to hoist trees that heavy, they also have to do it right next to an Imperial base that's actively patrolled. So either the Ewoks built ultra-heavy traps unrealistically fast, or the Empire couldn't be bothered to notice or care that a horde of Ewoks was building incredibly large traps right in their backyard. Either way, there's a problem.
As for the Ewok language being known, I'd say it's more likely that some Ewoks found themselves in the same situation as enslaved Africans. Instead of coming to the moon of Endor, it's quite possible that many of them were taken from their home world. Granted, I don't see this really having a bearing on their ability to pull of major engineering feats, since as you pointed out, humans figured out all this stuff without the assistance of civilizations from other planets.
Rox64 said:
By contrast, the OT-exclusive characters (except Chewbacca) are just exagerated versions of themselves (Han is dumber, Luke is cockier, etc). And once Pete's newphew became a regular player all the rich player-to-player interaction and story was scrapped and the movie's adaptation became more straightforward.
I'd say that was true with the Episode IV part of the comics, but with the recent revelations in the Episode V part of the comic, I don't think that's really true anymore.
questionmasterkinda said:
I'm not a physicist and obviously the Star Wars universe does not follow the laws of physics BUT.....
My friend and I were arguing over how easily the Ewoks were able to route professional stormtroopers, "Palpatine's best men." One part we disagreed on was how easily two large tree trunks took out an AT-ST. I understand it's a scout vehicle, but still, according to this source, they weigh 25 tons. Couldn't a AT-ST withstand the impact of two colliding trees? I'm pretty sure an Abrams tank could withstand that force no problem.
Apparently a redwood tree can weigh 4000 tons, so there's no doubt that a pair of them smashing into the sides of an AT-ST could destroy one.
The question you really need to be asking yourself is how Ewoks managed to rig up traps relying on such heavy trees--especially with such short notice.
timdiggerm said:
TV's Frink said:
team_negative1 said:
It's not clothing.
We'll be the judge of that. You can wear all sorts of things.
I'd like to see you wear files
They would make for very heavy and very rough clothing, but it could be done. Just avoid needle files unless you want to be a steel porcupine masochist.
CatBus said:
Don't ask for projected release dates. The answer you get (March 14th, 2015 at 9:32:03 AM GMT) will be wrong, off by months or more.
If you want to watch it anytime soon, download 1.0 now. If you want better quality, you'll need to wait with the rest of us.
In all fairness, he didn't ask for a projected release date--only a reasonable estimate of whether it is expected to be released "soon" versus "not soon" in order to make a decision related to ROTJ v1.0. Harmy may not ever be in a position to provide accurate release projections well in advance, but I don't think an impending release of his work has ever caught everyone by surprise.
I do agree that pestering for release dates is pointless, as even professionals in creative fields are notorious for providing wildly inaccurate estimates. I just think dclarkg's request isn't an example of this.
dclarkg said:
Handman said:
As for your first question, ROTJ is on version 1.0. Harmy is currently working on a 2.0, and this will be more comparable to his SW (v.2.5) and ESB (v.2.0) releases. This new version will be available on MKV, and I would recommend holding off on burning ROTJ until then.
That makes sense :p
Has Harmy said when v2.0 is coming out? If it is arounf the corner I'll wait for V2.0 but if it's going to take a while I don't mind burning v1.0 and then v2.0 when it comes out. Thx for the response
Last I recall, Harmy was still waiting for 35mm footage to incorporate into v2.0. With that in mind, it will definitely be a while. CatBus' recommendation to download v1.0 is indeed your best bet for now.
Windexed said:
I still kind of wish GL was involved in some minor capacity (perhaps extremely minor). Kind of like how Arnold Palmer makes golf courses. He might tell them to put a tree here and a bunker there, but otherwise he just shows up for the opening ceremony, smiles, cuts the ribbon, takes a piss in the bushes, and leaves. The architects, engineers, and other skilled people do 99% of everything, which is how it should be.
I think that's too dangerous. All the problems with the prequel trilogy boiled down to Lucas forgetting how important other people's contributions were. And really, if George Lucas wanted to be more hands-off, he had decades of opportunity already. He walked away for a reason, and as grateful as I am for many of his cinematic contributions, I think Star Wars is better off now without his involvement.
NeverarGreat said:
CO said:
I was thinking about this thread when the ST is finished. I actually think 4,5,6,1,2,3,7,8,9.
Now many would argue if you are going to start with 4,5,6 then you should go right into 7,8,9 then 1,2,3. But my reasoning for this is after watching 4,5,6, episode 7 takes place 30 years after. So by going back and watching 1,2,3, and then when you watch Episode 7, it will feel like a much longer time gap since you have seen Episode 6, which will jive better with seeing the characters much older now.
I hope that makes sense?
Using the logic that the last movie in a trilogy is a letdown, and considering that 8 will probably be better than JJ's 7, my recommendation for the 9 part saga would be episodes 2,3,1,9,6,7,8,5,4. I'm taking a wild guess that at least some of the ST will be better than ROTJ, but this ordering should guarantee that each movie will be better than the last.
Are you sure it's wise to start with a sedative? ;)
Let's just say I'm a lot more excited for Harmy's upcoming version of Return of the Jedi than I am for Star Wars: Episode VII. If Episode VII starts receiving glowing reviews, I'll start paying attention. Otherwise, I refuse to get my hopes up. Episode I convinced me not to watch Episode II in theaters. Episode II convinced me to not bother to watch Episode III at all for several years. If Disney wants me to watch Episode VII they're going to have to earn it first.
Vader would have been so screwed if he had won that duel. Could you imagine the wrath of cyborg Obi-wan?
I'm going to go with Harmy's reconstructions. I greatly appreciate his efforts to give us an HD version of the Star Wars trilogy without forcing the special edition changes on us. On top of that, with his commitment to continually improving them as his skills and available sources improve, I can look at any of the flaws as temporary. With the low-quality original sources, we're stuck with whatever limitations were present in the original formats, along with any poor decisions made regarding colors, DVNR, etc. Sure, they're technically original, but with low-resolution, bad color timing, and ugly video artifacts, I don't know that I can really consider them more faithful. I'll take the lovingly crafted reconstruction over the phone-it-in telecine.
Like CatBus and many others, I'm hoping that the results of the Team Negative1 project give us the best of both worlds. In the meantime, even their incomplete work has been a great asset to Harmy's work.
Wow! How could the "professionals" have access to theoretically better sources, yet produce something so clearly inferior to work being done by hobbyists? That's just another vivid example of the importance of the various preservation efforts being done here.
imperialscum said:
WedgeCyan said:
imperialscum said:
WedgeCyan said:
imperialscum said:
But for example AT-AT motion and interaction with environment looks quite fake to me because the dynamics of the model is completely different from the dynamics of the thing that it tries to model.
You're right. Stop-motion AT-ATs are so unrealistic compared to all those real-life 20-story mechanical walking tanks.
What a childish reply. I was simply stating the physics... If you make a model of something that does not exist in real life and your model does not perform/match in terms of physics, then you can't use an excuse as lame as "the thing I modelled does not exist in real life" to justify its bad performance.
Are we really criticizing physics in a discussion of Star Wars? Ships banking in space is certifiably bunk, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
In addition, I think AT-ATs are a little more realistic in their movement than, say, a tauntaun, simply due to them being mechanical in nature. They are mechanical, and look so as well.
And now we get back to the original argument. While practical models may visually look more real, but CGI has a huge advantage over miniature models when it comes to motion. You can simply apply a complex dynamics simulator behind the CGI model.
It really depends on individual circumstance. For instance, filming moving miniatures at high speed often produces a realistic look, as there are real physics in action. Then it's just a matter of playing the footage at a slower speed which introduces "weightiness". Of course, that doesn't apply for stop-motion.
While CG can have complex dynamics simulated, all too often that doesn't actually happen, resulting in stiff, unnatural animation. Kind of like that Stormtrooper sitting on the dewback. CG is ultimately more versatile in that regard, but it's not always easier.
Danfun128 said:
Um, the only reason thread survived 10 years is because you bumped it. Otherwise it would have been closer to 9.
Nine years? So are you saying the thread has been around for "almost ten years"?
Flem Clone said:
I feel a bit foolish because of the question that I'm about to ask, but here it goes...
I went to tehparadox and downloaded all of the RAR files for the MKV version. The extraction process doesn't work. 7-Zip says something about file corruption. So, I wanna go the Jdownloader route. But, I don't know where to begin. Do I have to be sent the link to the download?
Did you check your file sizes? All parts (except for the last one) should be identical in size. Any part that's a different size needs to be re-downloaded. This happened to me when I was downloading the Star Wars Despecialized Edition.
Protocol Droid said:
Obi-Wan: I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong.
That does not address the 'Did Yoda train Obi-Wan or not' topic. It just means that at one time Obi-Wan considered himself as good a trainer as Yoda.
But why compare himself to someone who only had a limited role in his training? Obi-wan comparing his training abilities to those of Yoda suggests a lot of first-hand experience being instructed by Yoda.
Regarding using the ion cannon to shoot at AT-ATs, a weapon specifically designed to shoot into space normally isn't going to be designed to aim at the ground. Beyond that, an ion cannon that has a clear line of sight to the approaching AT-ATs is vulnerable to return fire from them. The ion cannon may have been deliberately placed in a spot where mountainous terrain shields it from ground assault, as suggested by the mountainous terrain present in the shot of the ion cannon.
If you scroll far enough, a list of pilots can be found here:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rogue_Squadron
It doesn't look like you're going to have any luck finding an iconic third name though. If you're looking for name recognition, you're probably stuck with either Wes Janson or Dak Ralter, who were Wedge's and Luke's gunners respectively during the Battle of Hoth. Both are mentioned by name in ESB.
Jetrell Fo said:
Okay, if Dennis Muren could make full motion dinosaurs for Jurassic Park in 1993 that looked awesome, why did the CGI in the 1997 Special Edition films have to SUCK Bantha oysters?
:)
I've long since come to the conclusion that the quality of ILM special effects is directly related to how demanding the customer is. Considering George Lucas' impressive mastery at making real sets and models look like terrible CG, it wouldn't surprise me if George Lucas was approving preview renders of shots as final footage.
imperialscum said:
The thing you speak in America is the Special Edition of original English, made by a third party. As a comparison, Star Wars Special Edition at least has some merit since it was not made by a third party.
The difference between rumor and rumour is like the difference between Greedo shooting first and Greedo not shooting at all.
No, the Queen's English is just one of many genre films that were combined together to make American English, the Star Wars of languages.
And why should I assume the English are any more competent at language than they are at governing colonies? They've done a pretty good job at losing control of both. America (because obviously nobody else lives on those two connected continents) wouldn't be a third party if England didn't keep treating it like one.
AntcuFaalb said:
JediZombie said:
Seeing as how I'm not female, I found it a little condescending. You wouldn't call a couple of women boys. At least I don't.
True, but Anchorhead had no way of knowing your gender when he wrote his post.
In that case, that's what the word "children" is for.
It's not possible to alter a frame of developed negative. To alter a scene on a negative, the original frames need to be cut out and replaced with frames of new footage.
Ebaillargeon82 said:
hairy_hen said:
Well, the negative doesn't have any soundtrack attached to it. The mix would have been recorded onto reels of multitrack tape running in synch with the picture (not the actual negative but a copy, to reduce physical wear and tear), which were then put through further processing and duped onto printmasters for each film format the movie was due to be released in. The 4-track most likely exists as audio only, without any actual film being attached to it.
As a point of interest, the 4-track was also the main source for the 1997 Special Edition mix. If you listen to any part of the movie that hasn't been re-edited or had additional sound effects piled on top of it, you can hear that it is extremely similar to the 35mm stereo and 70mm versions. Because of this, it makes for a much better listening experience than the DVD or Bluray (which are outright terrible).
Speaking of which, are the original 1977 35mm stereo prints, the original 1977 70mm stereo prints, and the original 1977 mono prints all lost, or do prints still exist?
So it's settled. You don't need to worry about whether or not various sound mixes survived, because the original version of Star Wars is a silent film. ;)
Ebaillargeon82 said:
CatBus said:
I'd say your definition of "original" is a bit weird--Star Wars was shown theatrically with three different mixes, all of which could be considered original. The order in which the mixes were completed is more of a production footnote. Does the movie Clue only have one original ending because it was the one completed first?
Well technically, yes. Because if Clue had an original ending completed first, it combines with the rest of the film to make the first completed version of the film. And being the first means being the original.
I don't think you understand that during its initial theatrical release, there were three different versions of Clue being played simultaneously. By design, each of the three versions had a different ending. So on the first day of release, you conceivably could have gone to one theater and seen the version with Ending A, then gone across town to another theater that same day and seen the version with Ending B, and end your day by visiting a theater out of town to watch the version with Ending C. All three versions of the movie were released at the same time, but technically, prior to release in an editing suite somewhere, the footage for one of the three endings happened to be finalized first.
Does it really make sense to say that the ending the editor happened to complete first is the "original" version, even though all three versions were intended for simultaneous release? Tying this back to Star Wars sound mixes, as hairy_hen explains a couple of posts above mine, multiple sound mixes were made at the same time to account for different theater sound systems. It doesn't mean that any one theatrical sound mix from 1977 is more "original" than another simply for getting through the mixing process first.