Mielr

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

How does one become a voice-over artist? Were you an actor before? Or did someone just hear you speak and say “she’s got the right kind of voice”? Just curious

No, I had no acting experience previously, though both of my parents were actors and singers. It was always something I was curious about, and thought I could do, because people were always telling me I had a nice voice and I was even asked to record the outgoing message on the phone system for a business I worked for back in the 90s.

I signed up on voice123 and voices.com and started auditioning for jobs. I do all my recording in my closet, but for the final “CAPCOM GO!” recording, I was asked to go to a studio so they could patch in to the recording from England.

Most of the stuff I do is pretty dull, but I just did an ad for a translator device with a Polish film company that came out REALLY cool…but I don’t think I’m allowed to post it yet (I’ll post it when it’s finished), but this is a short documentary I did last year for the Solidarity Center: https://youtu.be/12fowZKgOGY

Is NOBODY curious about what I found out about Mark Hamill? 😛

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

Congrats! Is that your voice in the trailer?

Having recently seen the Apollo 11 documentary, this looks like a good companion piece. I wonder if that IMAX dome I’ve been to in San Jose to see the new SW films in 70mm would get this?

Yup, that’s me! Thanks!

Wow, you you sound just like John Kennedy! 😛

Funny! 😉 I was wondering if somebody was going to say that.

SilverWook said:

Congrats! Is that your voice in the trailer?

Having recently seen the Apollo 11 documentary, this looks like a good companion piece. I wonder if that IMAX dome I’ve been to in San Jose to see the new SW films in 70mm would get this?

Yup, that’s me! Thanks!

I hope it will appear in the States, in whichever venues can accommodate it. I only have the Fernbank planetarium near me, but I don’t know if they have the right type of equipment.

oojason said:

Well in Mielr - and congrats and best wishes on the new career 😃
 

That looks a quality and intriguing documentary…
 

Thanks! 😃 I hope many of the OT community in the London vicinity will go and give their reviews!

In the past year, I started a new career as a voice-over artist.

If you’re near London, please check out the planetarium show: “CAPCOM GO!” for which I just completed the narration. It’s a great project, and I’m really proud of it!

Hopefully it will be in the States at some point as well (which is the only way I’ll get to see it), but if you’re lucky enough to be in the London area in July and have the opportunity to see it— let me know what you think! 😃

This is an info page, with a trailer:
https://nsccreative.com/projects/capcom-go/

PS-- I got some dirt on Mark Hamill from one of the directors during the recording session. 😉

LexX said:

Mielr said:

Mocata said:

Is there a benefit to actually watching these versions at all today though?

They’re really the best version of the OT that we have.

Not really if you’re a member of this site.

They’re the best commercially-released versions of the OT. And I am a member of this site. Since 2006.

I said above that DarkJedi’s versions were one of the most watchable versions, IMO.

Nevermind! 😛

I thought you were talking about another piece of music.

Mocata said:

Is there a benefit to actually watching these versions at all today though?

They’re really the best version of the OT that we have. The anamorphic fan-edits take care of the subtitles problem so that you don’t have to zoom in and chop off the titles.

Or, are you comparing them to the Harmy edits?

This is really wonderful, not just for those of us who’ve been hear a while, but especially for new members.

LordZerome1080 said:

Mielr said:

35mm film still has more resolution than HD. 4K comes closer.

It’s not normal for a film to be noticeably “scratched”. Scratches occur on theatrical prints after heavy use.

So is this why the GOUT and the SSE look like they do? Or is the gout different in some way?

The GOUT discs weren’t made directly from prints—that’s the whole reason the GOUT is so derided in the first place, why they’re non-anamorphic, and why they’re considered such a slap in the face from Lucasfilm. They were made from leftover 4:3 video masters (originally made from prints) that were used to make the 1993/95 laserdiscs, probably some sort of tape-based masters, I would imagine.

I’m sure there’s someone here who has a better understanding of the 1990s print>>>laserdisc-release workflow.

DarkJedi’s anamorphic versions are one of the most watchable versions of the GOUT, IMO.

35mm film still has more resolution than HD. 4K comes closer.

It’s not normal for a film to be noticeably “scratched”. Scratches occur on theatrical prints after heavy use.

Happy 67th, Mark Hamill! Wow, gettin’ up there!

I’d be very surprised if RJ is kept aboard. The trilogy might still go forward—but I’ll bet it’s with a different director.

They can now skip the OOT on blu-ray and go straight to UHD. 😉
I’m willing to buy all the necessary equipment.

moviefreakedmind said:

They also don’t need anywhere near as many characters as they have. Rogue One had far too many indistinguishable characters.

I felt that way about TLJ. There were too many unnecessary characters, and just too much window dressing in general. Some better writing would have been welcome.

I only saw RO once, but I have to say that except for the ending, I really don’t remember much about it.

Handman said:

But when I think of cars, one of the first to come to mind is the 1960 Corvette:

I saw one of those in the parking lot at Walgreens a couple of years ago (also red & white). It was really nice.

I love old Mercedes, my favorite is the 300SL. I actually saw someone driving one once in Atlanta.

Handman said:

Just piping in to say that is one of the best posts I’ve read here in awhile, Mielr.

Thanks! 😃

DrDre said:

Shopping Maul said:

With regards to Rey, whatever fanboy misgivings I may personally have about the writing, I do think its great that Kathleen K. and co. have given young girls their own Luke Skywalker to look up to and dress up as.

I consider the statement, that young girls cannot relate to or identify with Luke Skywalker, because he’s male to be inherently sexist. The character of Luke Skywalker is an avatar for the desires and hopes of both men and women. As such, it shouldn’t matter, if the character is portrayed by a man or a woman. Lucas wasn’t trying to cater to a specific gender group when he created the character. Consequently, Luke could have been a girl, and the story would have played out in exactly the same way. The only time the gender of a character matters, is when that character, has specific traits, that are gender specific, or if you want to specifically relate to a specific gender group. In all other cases casting should be driven by having equal representation of men and women, not by the sexist notion, that men can only relate to men, and women only relate to women.

I agree. That line of thinking IS inherently sexist!

I’m a female, and I never felt like the OT wasn’t made “for me.” It was made for everyone. I didn’t need to be catered to by seeing an abundance of females on the screen to “relate to.” I identified most closely with Luke—NOT Leia, in part because I had a giant crush on him! I had posters of Mark Hamill all over my bedroom walls…not Carrie Fisher. But I also identified with the fact that Luke didn’t know his parents & was kind of a fish-out-of-water, which is the way I’ve felt most of my life, also not having known my father very well since he died when I was very young.

What was great about the OT was that it wasn’t trying to second-guess the audience. I can’t remember who said it, it may have been Spielberg (or maybe even Lucas), but some famous director said something to the effect of “once you start second-guessing the audience, it’s over.” I think that’s what has happened with the SW franchise now. The films are no longer coming from an organic place, they’re being made by trying to cater to certain demographics and the anticipated $$$ in mind. Those are not the ingredients of creatively-successful films.

SilverWook said:

Of course, the Superman films would never just toss out some random power we’ve never seen before out of the blue. 😛

I never took the Superman films that seriously. They were just goofy fun. 😉

BTW, they just sold the “bad Superman” costume from Superman III in an auction. If you check out the ROTJ auction thread I made, you can see it in the catalog.

ZkinandBonez said:

Fair enough. But quality of filmmaking has nothing to do with wheather or not something should/could be added the lore; that’s all I’m saying.

I agree that new things can and should be added—it’s just the way they’re added that has to feel right; like they belong, like they’ve always been there/been possible. Even if you’ve never seen something happen before, it should feel like it could have happened all along. I remember the first time everyone saw Jabba in ROTJ and how great and disgusting he was—he didn’t feel out of place, he was just…Jabba.

I didn’t mean to turn this into another TLJ-bashing thread. Just wanted to discuss the current perception of the Star Wars films with the public in general. I think the brand has been cheapened, and it’s going to affect the future of the franchise.

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

“Rules”? Why does the OT have to be the rules? The OT showed very little of the galaxy, and is set in a time with only a handful of Force-users. There was always the implication that the Force could do so much more, so why limit it to what little we saw in the OT?

And who makes the “rules” anyway? George Lucas? Seeing how many people dismiss the PT, there really isn’t much of an official baseline for what can or can’t happen in these movies.

Mielr said:

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

Just because something like that never happened within the plot of three movies doesn’t mean it can’t happen within the world.

Plus, what about Palpatine’s Force-lightning. That was a pretty jarring addition to the lore that didn’t resemble anything seem before. At least “flying” Leia is consistent with levitation, telekinesis, etc.

I’m not saying anyone has to like this scene, or the film, or any of the new SW stuff, I just don’t get the point of the argument that these movies aren’t conforming to what we saw in the OT. We saw so little in the OT, it only makes sense for the new films to introduce weird new things, just like the OT did when they were new.

They could have at least conformed enough to make them good films, like the OT were. It’s not about “weird new things” it’s about quality. With the prequels, George Lucas misinterpreted what made the OT great. It wasn’t FX, it was the story. Which is something sorely lacking in the recent films.

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force to lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

If there’s something in TLJ that reminds you of ESB, that’s great, but there was nothing in the film that even remotely reminded me of the OT. There was, however, quite a bit that reminded me of the PT, which is why I have no interest in seeing any more of them.

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

It just reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/jP8dC8E6Emk?t=26s