Sign In

Samatar

User Group
Members
Join date
9-Mar-2004
Last activity
25-Jul-2004
Posts
214

Post History

Post
#52719
Topic
Changes in 2004 DVDs
Time
"They don't have to say this isn't something. Thats like a slab of pork needs a label like this isn't to be used as dishwashing detergent. I hope if anyone buys these expecting them to be the originals and is disipointing I hope it teaches them to research a product before they buy it."

THat's a bit like saying companies shouldn't have to list the ingredients the put into food products; that it's up to consumers to do research to find out what's in a product before they buy it. If these versions of Star Wars are altered, then it should say so on the packaging. What reason is there not to?
Post
#52259
Topic
CNN HEADLINE NEWS
Time
JImbo, if you think my arguements are pitiful, you should take a good look at yourself. You carry on day after day with the same old crap we have all heard from you a million times and continue to believe that your POV is the only one that can be correct, despite the fact that nearly everyone disagrees with you. There is no point reasoning with you, so like many others have decided to do I am simply going to ignore everything you say in future; you're not worth the effort.
Post
#52236
Topic
CNN HEADLINE NEWS
Time
Actually what GL did would be like Tolkein coming back and saying, "Well, I rewrote that whole scene where Gandolf hits the steward of Gondor with his staff so that the steward attacks Gandolf first, and Gandolf defends himself; That's what I wanted to write originally, but I didn't have enough ink in my typewriter..."
Post
#52148
Topic
Stupidest Prequal complaints
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
Quote

If people would just accept Attack of the Clones for the masterpeice it is the Star Wars fanbase would be taken more seriously.


Masterpeice???
first off you must mean masterpiece...
second... its far far far far far from a masterpiece...
but then why am i even bothering with you...

**sigh**



Well, I don't know if AOTC was a masterpiece... but I do think TPM was a piece of somethin'....

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist...)
Post
#52083
Topic
CGI and Digital or Real models and actors-whats your prefferance.?
Time
Shimraa, I realize that they are different films... I was only saying that LOTR used CGI more effectively than AOTC, and it was more believable. So maybe AOTC was less suited to CGI and it should have been used less, rather than more. I know the soldiers are clones, but as someone pointed out even twins do not look or act EXACTLY the same; they are very similar, sure, but they don't look like you have just taken footage of one, and duplicated it, which is what the clones look like (because that's exactly what they did).

As far as Jarjar goes, I don't think it would have made any difference if he was CGI or a man in a costume, as you say his character just isn't believable. Personally I just don't find that type of humor (slapstick I suppose you would call it) funny. But then I don't Jerry Lewis funny either. I guess you could call Jarjar an intergalactic Jerry Lewis.
Post
#51890
Topic
CGI and Digital or Real models and actors-whats your prefferance.?
Time
It's not a matter of cost Jimbo. Like I said, if it was only a matter of cost, the studios would not hire big stars, they would hire nobodys. The studio that made "Terminator" could have hired a nobody for next to nothing, but they didn't; they hired Arnie because he has pulling power. It's the same with CGI. The fact that it is cheap does not mean people will use it. The way Hollywood looks at it is that cheap movies don't make money.
Post
#51834
Topic
CGI and Digital or Real models and actors-whats your prefferance.?
Time
CGI will never replace actors, no matter how convincing they may be. There wouldn't be any point in it, for one. I can understand in action or sci fi you might use CG charaters for some scenes, or for characters that can't be played by humans, but what about dramas? Romance? Period pieces? Why would you bother? Plus, a huge part of cinema in Hollywood is star power. People go to see films for the actors that are in them. Studios pay millions of dollars for actors like Arnold Schwarzewhatever (sorry, no idea how to spell that one), Sylvester Stallone etc. Is that because they are more convincing actors? I don't think so. Digital animation, like any form of animation, has it's place, but will never replace live action.
Post
#51833
Topic
MORE CHANGES!!!
Time
The whole reason the scene was cut was because Lucas wasn't happy with the way Jabba looked (IE a man). If he had been able to use the same puppet that appeared in ROTJ, then the scene wouldn't have been cut in the first place. There is an interview where he recounts this, I think it is on one of the OT videos.

A very good decision to cut the scene I think. Can you imagine ROTJ where a man is used instead of the fat slug thing we all know and love? It just wouldn't be the same...
Post
#51634
Topic
CGI and Digital or Real models and actors-whats your prefferance.?
Time
CGI can be good when it is done properly. LOTR is the best example of this, just look at Golem; a completely digitised character, but totally believable, because the creators took the time and made the effort to develop the character properly, and the animatorsdid a great job making his movement natural (unlike Jarjar who seems to walk in an unnatural boobing motion... but that's the least of my concerns where Jarjar is concerned). Also as I said in that other post, most of the CGI in AOTC and TPM is to shiny and uniform looking to be believed. In LOTR all the CGI characters look different from one another, even in the battle scenes; in AOTC all the soldiers are perfectly identical, right down to the way they wear their uniforms and their movements; it doesn't look natural.

Personally I think CGI generally belongs in computer games, not movies; but if it is done right, it can work. I think the difference between AOTC and LOTR is that LOTR used cgi when it was necessary (to complement the story); AOTC used it whenever possible (to -be- the story).