Sign In

theprequelsrule

User Group
Members
Join date
2-Jun-2011
Last activity
15-Mar-2021
Posts
813

Post History

Post
#509315
Topic
How would you have done ROTJ?
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

We don't even know if Kurtz's alleged Jedi Treatment is even true and we won't until Rizner's book comes out.

He has already blasted some of the Kurtz hero worship out of the water with the empire book which proves Lucas had much more involvement than fans want to acknowledge.

Yes. We can't let what Lucas has become cloud our judgement on who he was. The man had a great talent for storytelling and filmmaking. Yes, he struggled with dialogue, but from what I have read a lot of the dialogue he wrote was not thrown away, but rather rewritten to be snappier. He was given credit as the writer of Star Wars, and rightly so.

You cannot compare the prequels with ROTJ. ROTJ, despite it's problems, had some of the best moments of the saga. Indeed, if Fisher and Ford were not in coma's during filming then it could have been on pair with the prior films - ewoks or no ewoks.

 

 

Post
#508103
Topic
How would you have done ROTJ?
Time

canofhumdingers said:

 I like the idea of having the Emperor do something that shows how powerful the force can be, but not so much this idea specifically.  I like the idea of the force being tightly knit with living things.  Sure it can move inanimate objects via telepathy, but that's not where the real power lies.  The real power lies in the ways it can be used to monipulate or overcome other people (like the mind trick).

See C'baoth, Joruus.

Post
#505980
Topic
The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. Or is it?
Time

zombie84 said:

Also, the acting coach in ROTS seems to have been mainly for Portman and Christensen. The focus was on developing the background of their new stage of relationship (married, baby, etc.) and also acting as a "rehearsal arbirtrar" to get more time to hone the performance. I think it shows tremendously. Their chemistry works better. They still have shitty dialogue, but their acting is better. Look at Clones, they are both awful in that film, and even though ROTS is not worth writing home about for performances (McGreggor and McDiarmid being the exceptions, as they were in the previous film), Portman and Christensen as a couple seem a lot more natural and a lot more convincing than the near-parody that is seen in the previous entry.

There were some good moments in ROTS (notably the Padme and Anakin intercutting scene when Anakin is grappling with whether or not to interfere in the showdown between the Jedi posse and Palpatine). The reason I find it so disappointing is because, of all the prequels, it was the one that had to be great and it wasn't. All in all I thought ROTS was edited together really poorly and came across as being less than the sum of it's parts.

Post
#505974
Topic
kershner directing AOTC
Time

CP3S said:

theprequelsrule said:

TV's Frink said:

theprequelsrule said:

I love the idea of that thread...alas, it's too late for me.

Ask for your account to be abandoned and make a new one...or ask for a name change, though I don't remember if that is possible or not.

I think at this point I'll stick with it. Thanks for the info though.

I for one rather like your name. Though when you first showed up my first thoughts were oh great, here comes a PT gusher. The thought that you might be some past troll's sock crossed my mind as well. You turned out to be a pleasant surprise and a lot of fun though.

Thanks. I try to be fun. That's us OOT fans these days; if we stop laughing, we'll start crying.

Post
#505970
Topic
The Phantom Menace - general discussion thread
Time

zombie84 said:

Worst film ever? Jesus, come on.

I thought Crystal Skull was a very fun film. I thought the last 30 minutes were too ridiculous and too disjointed, but the first hour is I think some of the best Indiana Jones stuff there is. The more I re-watch it the more I like. Again, poor ending and a disappointing last act, but overall a worthwhile addition to the series in my opinion. But then this is coming from a guy who holds Temple of Doom as his favourite.

TOD was my favourite as well, but I thought that CS was awful. When something enters the public consciousness and then you return to the material 20 years later it cannot help but feel like a satire/mockery. It's not fair, but there it is (also see the following series: Terminator, Alien).

I was pleasantly surprised by the new Predator film however, so TEHO.

Post
#505742
Topic
The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. Or is it?
Time

zombie84 said:

They would have gone the same. Actually, they probably would have been worse, since most producer's aren't as good as McCallum and he actually did contribute more to the films in a subtle way than people give him credit.

Basically, the films would have been the same or worse because Lucas would have replaced McCallum with someone who was willing to do what Lucas wanted if McCallum wasn't doing so. That's what Lucas was looking for in a producer--someone to ensure his wishes were carried out faithfully. Sometimes, that's how producers work. McCallum was smart enough to realise this so he didn't push Lucas inappropriately, although he wasn't totally passive. For instance, he warned Lucas about Jar Jar and tried to dissuade him, but Lucas had made his mind up and McCallum realized that's how it would be. He also snuck in an acting coach for Episode III, which is probably why that film has the best performances of all, probably because he saw how embarassing bad Episode II finally turned out to be.

These are interesting timbits of info. It reminds me of Red Letter Media's review in which McCallum is shown with a look of shock after the initial private screening. Then a discussion follows between Lucas, Burtt, and McCallum in which they mention that they cannot edit out the bad parts because they would not have enough material left over for a movie!

Post
#505737
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

Let's not also forget another way in which CGI is detrimental to the film-making process: the fact that acting without any sort of frame of reference (i.e. against a blank green screen instead of on an actual set) does not encourage good performances by your actors. As CGI gets cheaper we can expect less and less use of actual sets.

Also, CGI replaces actual stunts and the danger associated with them. Most people would, of course, see this as a  good thing, BUT IT IS NOT SO. The element of real danger adds to the films. This is one of the reasons I enjoy Jackie Chan's classic films; you have to respect a guy willing to die to entertain us! CGI encourages what Nietzsche called the "slave morality" in film-making.

 

Post
#505358
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

timdiggerm said:

doubleKO said:

Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does.

I suspect this has something to do with the puppet never crawling around. I don't think it's the only issue, as the Jabba puppet really is pretty amazing, but I think it's part of the problem.

Yes, but that is the point. Jabba is fucking fat! We don't expect him to move. It becomes part of the character, part of the storytelling. Jabba is a decadent, self-indulgent, lecherous crimelord so it makes sense that he is huge and can't move - a result of his disgusting lifestyle (insert cheap George Lucas joke here). Jabba should never have been depicted as moving; EVER.

It achieves Suspension Of Disbelief. You know, the opposite of that iguana-thing that Kenobi rides in ROTS.

Post
#505348
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

I guess I'm just not properly conveying my issues with CGI. I suppose I just have bias towards models and suits. I just find them more aesthetically pleasing and am sad to see that CGI is replacing all that. I mean, I don't even want to see blockbuster FX movies anymore, even if they are well acted, written, etc., because I find the look of CGI repellent. Don't even get me started on all this 3D crap. My favourite parts of Iron Man were the character moments - by far.

To continue ranting, but off-topic this time, I am just so pissed off that Titanic and Avatar are so highly regarded compared to Cameron's genuinely great films (Terminator, Aliens).

I think I'm an old curmudgeon.

Post
#505344
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake. This is my point when it comes to CGI - it is not real. A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.

Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.

Post
#505172
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

Ziz said:

All this talk of CGI being "just a tool" and it in and of itself isn't good or bad and rather that the blame lay with the filmmakers' dependence on it all reminds me of something from that other "star" franchise - Star Trek, The Next Generation, specifically.

There was a "clip show" episode they did during the writer's strike where Riker was in sickbay owing to his wounds from some kind of malicious plant he encountered on the latest away mission.  At one point, Troi asks him if he wishes he wouldn't have gone down there because then he wouldn't be in this predicament.

Riker: "If you drop a hammer on your foot, it's hardly useful to get mad at the hammer."

The irony of the majority of this whole "to CG or not CG" discussion is that most of the arguments for or against are using "obvious" FX sequences as the basis for comparison.  There are tons of examples of CGI mattes in "everyday" shows like House, NCIS, CSI, Law & Order and 24.  And there are plenty of films that have tons of CGI and STILL get it right across the board like District 9.  Here's a demo reel for the effects for an assortment of films.

Just because you can quickly ID the bad ones doesn't mean that good ones don't exist.  The whole theory behind perfect special effects since the beginning of film has been that if you knew it was an effect then it failed.  The best FX are the ones you never knew were there.

Granted, when you get into sci-fi there's a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" that has to be figured into it, but I think the reason people can so quickly identify bad FX are specifically BECAUSE they already know it's an effect by nature of what it's trying to show you in the first place.  That makes the FX maker's job that much harder going in.

I think that because of the wide availability of CGI these days director's have to exercise restraint, whereas in the late 70s and early 80s you had to pick and choose what FX shots you would shoot, due to budget and tech limitations. George Lucas is like a child and CGI is his candy; if you make it available to him he will use it until he pukes (or we puke).

Post
#505168
Topic
More Old Republic game
Time

TheBoost said:

The last big TOR trailer had a girl-Boba Fett, a fake Darth Vader, and a thousand generic Darth Maul types, and the fan world gave a similar 'this is what the PT should have been' response... so maybe deep down we hate originality.

A lot of Star Wars fans just want a repeat of the original trilogy. Nothing great ever came from imitation. Remember how much hate the Jedi uniforms in KOTOR got? I actually liked the fact that they weren't wearing the "traditional" robes - which of course were just desert apparel.

Off-topic tangent; I really like the idea of armour for Jedi, as it fits in with the whole "knight" thing. One of the mistakes in ESB was changing the conception of Jedi from adventurous, heroic, galactic special forces to warrior monks - it set the stage for the horrible depiction of Jedi we were subjected to in the prequels.