[David600]

 http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...r-ebert10.html


seems Ebert nails it well: as for Episode One, AOTC could likely look much better on dvd in your home theater..... ( argh! sorry! Episode One was plagued with EE and "grain video noise whatever", wrong example sorry ).


read his review and do NOT see a super sharp 70mm or Panavision shot movie before going seeing AOTC. Digital is still well "underdetailed" as compared to the best argentic cinematic processes.


so, either see it in a digital theater ( Lucas was right to worry when he learned about the pitiful nr of 3DLPs in the US market : he knows his movie won't look that good when transfered on film) or wait for the dvd ( let's hope without EE and "lowered" track ) ? it's a valid question to ask.


argh!


PS: his review seems to confirm the fears some people have ( especially on the dialogues ).

 

[TSHA222]

Hey David,


I would take Ebert's comments with a grain of salt. He may well be right, I'll find out at midnight next Wednesday. But Ebert is very, pro film and anti digital projection in cinemas. As for his review, I am excited since he wasn't crazy about the movie. Usually, if he doesn't like a film I end up loving it


(PS - I just got my 3677's and 8330's temporarily hooked up. Very powerful sound!!)

 

[David600]

hi Chris !


yeah, me too, I have often liked movies he did not but some others, I agree with him. case by case. I'm afraid he's right for AOTC...


OT: cool ! no subs yet ? I tested some accoustic panels on the front sides. works well.

 

[Cain]

Like somebody else said:


"Every Star Wars film is worse than the one before it."

 

[Rachael Bellomy]

 Oh, I just can't wait! I've been eating Episode II cereal all month in anticipation...

 

[gtaylor74]

He also gave spider man 2.5 stars. I think he's forgetting that not every movie strives to be a great masterpiece or work of art. Sometimes they're made for entertainment purposes, like Spiderman and Star wars movies.

 

[Digital Howie]

David,


Thanks for your post. If you're a fan of this series I can't imagine not seeing it in the theatre...hopefully in a digital theatre.


I try to limit how much I read about any film before I go to see it. The average move trailers of today are so long you often end up seeing the entire film in the trailer...really lame.


I loved the first two films and liked the third one as well. The last film was really poorly written, had a terribly cast child actor, and provided a really poor quality dvd release. Even so, I enjoyed The Phantom Menace because I enjoy the characters, and love the special effects.


All the early reviews indicate this should be better than the last film, and possibly better than Return of the Jedi.


The dvd release has to be better than the last film! (we'll see)...shame on George Lucas!


H

 

[Shaded Dogfood]

"Every Star Wars film is worse than the one before it."


Au contraire(sp?)! The Empire Strikes Back is the best by a wide margin, though it is true that the first one is remarkable for the impact it had on the unsuspecting public.

 

[David600]

Howie


hi


I will. but :


1. I'm fed up with excess of CGI ( if not excess of poor CGI, which is worse ). visible CGI and too much of it KILL the believable factor, as low as it can be with sci fi. but at least with SW, ESB, we "believed" in it, sort of.

bring us back great models and giant sets ! Maybe the huge advances in robotics will help in this department some day, filmmakers might try to use more of these. I found the CGI in LOTR to be quite appropriate and well integrated.


2. the dvd better be something MUCH better than TPM dvd !!! fooled once, not twice ( I got the Japanese ld too, much better , in the limit of the ld format, still not reference, image speaking. TPM didn't look good in theaters either anyway ).


Shaded: well said.

 

[Shaded Dogfood]

CGI and too much of it KILL the believable factor, as low as it can be with sci fi. but at least with SW, ESB, we "believed" in it, sort of.


David: Of course, now, the first three films were long before CGI was possible, discounting the 90's additions. I remember the film that was touted with the first extensive CGI was The Last Starfighter in 1984, which looked like a videogame.


But you're right about CGI. It wore its welcome out with me a while back. It should be like matte paintings of old, something that makes the impossible possible in a long shot, but the bread and butter of film is people acting (One of the reasons The Empire Strikes Back was so extraordinary; Kershner got such fine performances, and the interrelationships were so strong). I stayed away from Gladiator because the CGI in the previews looked so cartoon-like (when I finally saw the film, it looked much better- I could only figure the preview stuff was early run-throughs- pity the movie itself was such a big ho hum. Sorry, know you like it).


I also feel that the CGI in Rings was among the best I have ever seen. I wonder what they know everyone else does not.

 

[Karnis]

Quote:

Originally posted by gtaylor74 He also gave spider man 2.5 stars. I think he's forgetting that not every movie strives to be a great masterpiece or work of art. Sometimes they're made for entertainment purposes, like Spiderman and Star wars movies.

Interesting in that Ebert contradicts himself in his reviews of these two movies. In his review of "Spiderman" he likes the story, direction and acting but trashes the effects (and REALLY didn't get the ending, oh brother!), while for SW2, he does just the opposite. Methinks he suffers from too many years of sitting too close to the TV screen..... It might be to his advantage to actually pay attention to the movie he's watching instead of taking notes in the dark.

 

[paddy]

The movie is not yet even in the theater and digital copies (albeit very poor quality) are apparently showing up on the internet: AP article at iWon News site . The article also states that Spider-Man was also on the internet before the movie opened at the theater.


I'll be waiting for a legal DVD (hopefully good quality) before I watch these movies.

 

[Digital Howie]

It's interesting to be able to discuss the use of CGI in more detail now that it is seeing so much more use.


I agree with you guys about LOTR with very good balance of CGI where it was needed without taking away from the film. CGI allows for many situations that would not have been possible before. Spiderman would look pretty stupid with a guy dangling from white rope for 2 hours. However, when the CGI overpowers plot, acting etc., it becomes a complete waste.

The Empire Strikes Back is everything the Star Wars saga should be, while The Phantom Menace is everything that shouldn't have to happen. As long as story, dialogue, and acting all take a back seat to the effects, we will contine to be disappointed.


When the Planet of the Apes remake came out I refused to pay money to see it in the theatre, much less buy or rent the dvd. A friend stopped by with the dvd last night so I finally gave in. Here is a classic example of how special effects can not only dominate, but become the only redeeming value. This was a picture that should not even have been remade in the first place, as the original is a great film. What an incredible waste of time and money!


I think the future of CGI will have its ups and downs...I just cross my fingers and hope that the situation gets better before it gets worse.


Howie

 

[David600]

hi guys


Shaded: we see eye eye.


Howie: well said.


Jackson really managed (though one or two scenes were borderline of "being believable" , effects-CGI speaking) to create a believable "heroic fantasy" environment.


as for Spiderman, I'm stunned people are so craving about "this" adaption on screen, CANCERED with CGI all over and brain-damaging super fast filming ( though I liked what Raimi did in the past, see DARKMAN for instance ).


EMPIRE STRIKES BACK rules !
http://www.theforce.net/multimedia/a...1-ESB-vcap.jpg


and I read on the HTF that there's strong possibility the original trilogy won't be on dvd untouched, but only after Lucas has "adapted" it to the CGI, euh, technical level of EPSIODE 1-3 ..... watch out....


if FOX could get the trilogy untouched on DVHS , with that beautiful Panavision source.

 

[JPinTO]

When he described the "non-memorable" lines and "clone" characters, I though he was describing TPM. The wit and humor of the originals, the interesting characters that you cared about were gone in Episode 1.


I could care less about the characters... perhaps Ebert is right, maybe it's a surprise ending and the characters are the clones. In fact, reading his article and seeing one of the trailers, I'm not all that anxious to see it.

 

[John Moschella]

Quote:

Originally posted by TSHA222 Hey David, I would take Ebert's comments with a grain of salt. He may well be right, I'll find out at midnight next Wednesday. But Ebert is very, pro film and anti digital projection in cinemas.

If you read his review carefully he makes those comments about digital prjection vs. film with respect to BIG movie screens. Not the typical multiplex size. And he is right. There is more resolution on film and if done correctly digital can't touch it, not yet anyway. The reason why its beign pushed is because the movie studios will make more money, not because its better.


John Moschella

 

[David600]

you know what ? I will see it mainly because I want to see Junga Fet! the abstracts look awesome. HE's the guy . I always found him misterious, mighty and not afraid of Darth Vador...


as for digital vs film: let's say that seeing a 1920x1080 (?) shot movie transfered to film is like seeing a dvd transfered to an analog composite format then projected

Film, especially Panavision 70mmm (!!!), with a fresh untouched copy (!!!!!! ) is light years above digital ( except perhaps in terms of qty of different colors, as a 3DLP can yield 1B colors +). Still.

Once we'll have those 3400x1920 or so digital cameras, and projected on 3DLPS (especially the models with the black chip mode ), then film will be a forgotten for good.

So,as for AOTC, it will look THE BEST on a medium screen (30ft or so), on a recent 3DLP ( I say recent as only the latest models from NEC, CHRISTIE and PANASONIC have that deep black enhancement mode).

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Ebert is strange. He trashes SPIDERMAN, a film I loved. He loved EPISODE I, a film most regard as being the not only the worst in the series, but a complete disaster of a film. He votes thumbs down on EPISODE II, trashing the way it was shot, but can we trust him? He is completely anti-digital and has trashed the format constantly for the last few years. How can he judge the film fairly.


Roeper gave the film thumbs up and clearly thought Ebert was out of his gord to think the CGI and film were soft and not good. Roeper praised the look of the film and said it looked sensational. Better than all the others in the visual department.


People. Just judge for youself.

 

[David600]

he loved EP I ? yiaicks!!! ( I only like "moments" in EP I one myself, anything that is bassy, anything with Darth Maul and Watoo )


my main reason for the thread here was about digital vs film, which is likely crucial to enjoy AOTC as it should.

 

[gtaylor74]

Ebert gave The Phantom Menace 3.5 stars, so I don't think we can trust his judgement as far as Star Wars is concerned.