zombie84

lordjedi said:

C3PX said:

If the use of film were to come to an end, it would be the loss of an art form.

I kind of see it the opposite way.  Digital will get cheaper and cheaper while film will just get more expensive.  So fewer people might end up using film, but it'll still be there as an art form.

Similarly, with digital photography you no longer have to worry about having enough film to get that "killer shot".  As long as you have enough space on the memory card, you can take pictures to your hearts content.  When you get home to your "digital darkroom" you can then pick out that one great shot out of the hundreds of photos you took.  Maybe you didn't get the ISO right or maybe the exposure time was to long on one shot.  As long as it was right on the one shot out of 20, then you still got your shot.  And of course it's also possible to "make" that one great shot if one photo is close but not quite right.  The difference is that instead of it costing you 80% of a roll of film (assuming 24 frames and math I don't feel like doing) it didn't cost you anything for the digital shot.

Of course, there are still people who would prefer to wait and try to get that perfect shot.  To them I say good luck.  It'll be a little more expensive for them, but if they enjoy it, then so be it.

 

In photoshop there is an acrylic paintbrush option. It looks the same as a real acrylic brush stroke, you can edit the parameters including strength and brush coarseness, and you have much more precise color mixing options. You can erase and re-paint at the stroke of a mouse click and more importantly you don't have to buy acrylic paints, which are expensive, spend time mixing palettes, use easels and canvases which are bulky, space consuming and cost money, and you dont have to buy fancy brushes with specially made hairs. Plus you have digital filters and plug-ins and the ability to have unlimited image manipulation in the digital realm.

But would you want all fine art made in photoshop?

Film is the exact same. Anyone who tries to argue differently either doesn't actually  understand the art of photography or doesn't care in the first place. To those people, digital is an efficient trade off in speed and quality, but for people that care about the art its not a replacement. Audiophiles listen to vinyl records, cinematographers shoot n 35mm film, photographers use chemical emulsions in whatever format and painters use oil or water based pigments on a physical surface. Digital emulation is not a replacement for any of the above, not yet and not ever.

Its not just resolution though. Its the quality of the image. I would never shoot on the RED because it doesn't look very nice, I can shoot with 16mm for the same price and it will look beautiful. Until HD gets its aesthetics worked out, it aint going anywhere with DP's. They solved the depth of field problem, the color space issue almost worked out, but there's still a lot of issues with image quality. Resolution is simple, its just a storage issue, thats the most elementary to solve and it really was a matter of time before it appeared. And case in point, its irrelevent--35mm is not the be-all end-all for resolution. Theres IMAX and 65mm. Why isn't everyone shooting in IMAX and 65mm? Why arent most TV series and feature films shot in these formats? Because going beyond 35mm resolution was never the problem. Cost and feasibility is. There's no way 28K would ever be practical, and even when you start shooting in 10K there is enormous post-flow logistics that simply aren't cost-effective. 35mm became the standard because it was the most efficient trade-off between cost, affordability, and quality. While its exciting that the next-gen RED cams are making steps in HD, I think most people sort of suspected that we would see HD sort of competing and/or overtaking film by 2020 anyway.

Thats like saying we should remove brush strokes from oil paintings. Its part of the texture of the medium. Filmmakers and cinematographers are well aware that grain exists and work WITH it, chosing deliberate film stocks for the grain quality. This notion that grain=bad is firstly dumb but secondly ignorant. Its SUPPOSED to be there because its film.

Film doesn't really have inherant "Resolution". When evaluating its sharpness we refer to its "resolving" power. This is dependent on many factors, mostly format (ie 16mm, 35mm, 65mm), lens quality and film stock. The bigger the format, the higher the image quality can be because its captured on a bigger area (ie 35mm is twice the size of 16mm, therefore its detail should yield double). Lenses probably make an equal difference, but most people don't consider this; some lenses are softer, some sharper, and it contributes greatly to the amount of detail captured. As ChainsawAsh stated, film speed plays a role as well, as fine grain, typically low speed, film can capture greater detail. Even things like shooting aperature can contribute to resolving power, since contrast levels change with your aperature.

All in all, its estimated that, under the best conditions, 35mm ideally resolves something like 5 times the amount of your standard 1080-HD. HD is really equivalent to modern 16mm. There's this perception that 16mm equates grainy old soft documentaries but nothing could be further from the truth.

Thats a point, I suppose; I think a lot of prequel-supporters don't mind the change, and the people that seem most horrified by it seem to be the ones whom will never have watched it in the first place. Still, there was never any complaining pre-2004 about why Hayden didn't appear at the end of ROTJ, and if I had made that complain in, say, 2002, I'm sure most Hayden-in-ROTJ supporters would have told me it was a dumb and unnecessary idea.

Because they've been referred to in that time since. Even still, it makes absolutely no sense why they would destroy some of the highest-quality material for the film--the SE is actually made up of parts of the IN.

I think this whole thing stems from a confusion of a few sources:

1) Lucas says the original print doesn't exist anymore. He's talking about the O-neg. And he's right--its been re-edited into the SE. You'd have to go back to the trim bins and put the original pieces back in.

2)Lucasfilm claims that the GOUT is the highest quality material. This is, frankly, marketing bullshit; its the best pre-existing video transfer, is what they perhaps mean.

3)Lucasfilm indeed took OOT prints out of circulation. Were some of them destroyed? Maybe. After all, what is the point in having 100 degrading, scratchy release-prints of a film that will never supposedly be screened again. They almost assuredly kept a master release print, I'm sure, as this is standard practice, and no doubt a few exist in the Fox vaults too. However, these would not really be used as sources for future releases in the first place so it really doesn't matter.

That report is heresay. Its unfounded and unsubstantiated, aside from the fact that 1) it would be pretty hard to do, 2) there ARE still prints of the OOT out there, and 3) LFL and Fox still have master prints such as IPs, INs, seperation masters and the dye-transfer print used as a color -reference for the SE itself. The whole "Lucas destroyed them all" thing is just a rumor started by panicy fans. Its possible that LFL might have destroyed a few excessive copies they had (ie release prints) to clear up some space, but LFL would not have literally destroyed every copy.

I'm of the opinion that when the BD version comes out there'll be further revision; the HD SW release will be a big deal, not just because its SW on HD, but because it'll likely be the first time all six films are available in a single collection, and we all know that Lucasfilm had very, very elaborate plans for the six-film Saga set. At the least, I would say a few of the OT problems will be corrected (lightsabers specifically), but who knows what else will change--probably very minor touches, I'm sure, nothing at all like what fanboys have been speculating and salivating for, but I nonetheless doubt Lucas will be able to resist taking his hands off it. My question is will the awful color-timing remain intact? My feeling to that is probably yes, so we'll have the worst of both worlds.

Puppets in SW: none.

Puppets in ESB: Yoda, the greatest puppetry in motion picture history. Theres also the wampa in one shot and the space slug, both of which are acceptable.

Puppets in ROT: Jabba, a great performance that brought a real character to life. Yoda, continuing the jaw-dropping work of ESB. There's also the Rancor, which continues to be a pretty impressive effect (matte lines aside, which are now erased anyway), plus Salacious Crumb, which is a pretty underrated little side-character. Then there is Sy Snootles and the Blue Elephant, which look dumb.

So really, it comes down to Sy Snootles and the Blue Elephant looking dumb. But then in the SE, Sy Snootles looks equally dumb, just in a different way, and the sequence goes on much longer. So the only real exclusive is the stupid Blue Elephant, who has about ten seconds or less screentime in the few cut-aways that he's featured in.

The next generation won't be watching much of the prequels because without the hype machine to shove them down their throat they'll sort of be left behind due to lack of interest. The OT, on the other hand, WILL be shoved down the next generation's throat, because film scholars, critics and viewers alike will continue to rave about what terrific classics they are. Its sort of that way already, actually. And once Lucas is dead, LFL will just go with whatever is most popular, which inevitably is the OT, so this will continue to be emphasized by the official party line as well.

In some shots its green, in some its white. Just as it was in 2004.

The new set is nothing out of the ordinary; films are regularly re-packaged at holiday times these days with new artwork. Its just a way to market the films to buyers at the holiday season who haven't yet picked them up, and its also the cheapest the films have ever been, I believe. I mean look at Die Hard, the three movies were in a barebones boxset in 1999, a bulky SE boxset in 2001, then the 199 barebones individual films were re-released at new low prices in 2006, then the SE trilogy was re-packaged in slim-case set in 2007, then a four-film boxset came out in 2007. Movies are always like this. Back in the day the OT came in 1989 (the first purchasable version?), then in 1992, then the DE LD in 1993, then the THX release in 1995, followed by the SE release.

http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/visualdevelopmentofdarthvader.html

This might be of some help. ROTS changes are at bottom. But the costume changed a lot for ESB as well.

Mielr said:

My all-time favorite Star Wars poster (1978 re-release):

Me and Mielr continue to find things in common.

This is hanging in a big frame in my room right now. Beautiful poster.

RRS-1980 said:

jukeboxjoey said:

Still, it does make you feel like you got the most thorough background published EVER.

 

 I guess zombie84 would disagree here ;)

 I think if any other book packed more info into it than The Making of Star Wars it would be boring and tedious. As it stands I think this is the most informative behind-the-scenes product ever made.

(my own book wasn't all-encompassing like this one, being concerned mainly with the writing).

BTW, its relevant here that The Making of Empire Strikes Back has been confirmed by a LFL press release for 2010.

The extended trailer I saw, I have to admit, was pretty compelling as well. Totally inconsistent with the universe--but, much like ESB, consistency doesn't mean shit as long as its done well, and TFU seems to be one of the better plotted SW media projects since that first sequel. It has the drama, characters, and challenging themes that were absent from the PT. In a way its a shame its just a game, but I guess the SW universe is so congested with people trying to supplement or improve upon the failures of the films that we don't really need another, even if its done with some skill.

I guess this confirms that Jonathan Rinzler indeed was successful in pitching The Making of Empire Strikes Back. I look forward to it! Although I have to say, the reason The Making of Star Wars was great was because of the Lost Interviews--The Making of Indiana Jones, for example, uses little vintage interviews other than publicity tour stuff, and it often feels much flater than the candid "you are there" feeling of Star Wars. I'm more interested in the early script materials--I'm sure Lucas will have some interesting comments on the whole I-am-your-father twist.

doubleofive said:

I didn't even realize he had done more than sound for movies until Good Musician started complaining about how he ruined the score for Episode II.  Where do we find evidence of him in the editing suite?

 Um, in any documentary on the making of the prequels.

Plus, he's the EDITOR.

Ben Burtt's one of the prequels biggest faults IMO, but at least he seems to be aware of the position he was in. You know, a lot of these people have had professional and personal relationships with Lucas for decades so they aren't going to slam him in the media because then people (like us) will just fixate on it and it'll look bad for himself, but its interesting how subtle little bits tactfully slip out:

"I do feel a bit critical even of films that I've been connected with in recent times to some extent, because time and technology allow film-makers to postpone choices or not make choices and therefore you end up with less focus in the storylines and so on. I guess that's a pretty harsh criticism but that's how I see it."

Of course, Burtt hasn't worked on anything but Star Wars for the last decade.

There's already a basher's sanctuary at outerrimsieges.com...

I think it might have been a television airing from 1986 or so; I don't actually remember. Most of my childhood viewings were from television airings that my dad recorded--maybe that very first viewing? ESB is equally obscure in my early childhood, and I watched it from a VHS-recorded TV airing around the same time. I still remember the commercials from both of those, they are so ingrained in my memory.

ROTJ I didn't see until 1989, when it aired on The Movie Network and a family friend recorded it for me, but I wasn't all that into it. Sometime around 1992 I taped over the first 20 minutes with an episode of Superdave Osbourne, so I didn't really see the intro of Jedi until the 1995 THX releases (though I remember a vague sense of familiarity during certain scenes; I had also read the novel a year or two before that).

Are we talking just the originals? Because the SE has been airing on TV a lot recently and I've probably seen it three or four times this year just by catching it on the tube that way. Otherwise I'd say I watch Star Wars and Empire maybe once or twice a year, and Jedi probably once every other year, if that.

I agree with the basic argument of that post--TPM is an imaginative and fun children's fantasy film that continues to stand as a totally sincere and strikingly unique adventure. As a Star Wars film, as the first episode in the six episode cycle, its incredibly mediocre, but I enjoy watching it with a sort of detached removal from the franchise. Its ironic that one of its greatest flaws as an Episode I--its purposeless removal and emotional irrelevance to the larger storyline of the prequels--becomes its one saving grace: its so disconnected from being a Star Wars film that I can actually enjoy it to a large degree on these terms.

I think most people appreciate the potential of the prequels and what they project into it, rather than the actual construction of the films themselves. The story potential is incredible--the fall of a hero, the rise of Darth Vader, the downfall of the Jedi, a Republic torn asunder in civil war, a secret warrior sect striking out from the shadows to bring about an apocalypse, Anakin's forbidden love and his torn loyalty's between his mentor and Palpatine, his quest for immortality, etc. The actual storyline is fantastic, and the thematic elements are far more powerful than anything in the OT. But none of that gets translated to the screen; it's all flat and messy and without any emotional resonation. But, because the potential is so great, just having those elements in the storyline itself still sort of allows people to appreciate it, they can sort of project their own emotions into it and intellectually fill the great void that Lucas left. I think thats one of the reasons there is so many people convinced of how great the prequels are; the potential is there, but unfortunately none of it is used. It is like if a twelve year old had written the films; you are simultaneously admiring the very sophisticated storyline but disappointed that none of it gets pulled off. I'd like to see someone really do the prequels with all of the human drama present in its conception, because I truely believe the three films could make one of the greatest sagas of all time.

Mielr that was awesome! Thanks for digging that up; I had no idea it existed.