Reading mode: Light Dark

OT: Attack of the Yawns?

Go to last post
RolandKorg said:
So, now, we have what amounts to a cartoon. Fine, if you like
cartoons. But the resultant PRODUCT is a mishmosh of mythology and
Roger Rabbit.
Click to expand...
I think you're thinking of "Howard the Duck." After all, George did have his experiments that failed, and now for some mysterious reason, the public is happy to stand in line for it.

Maybe Howard should have been given a light saber? ;>

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
 
I saw it today at the Star theater in Southfield Mich. They used a Boeing projector with a Texas Instrumnets DLP chip. Images looked good, however all titles had massive jaggies, not enough resolution for such a large screen.

However in the next generation of digital projectors we will all be impressed. I own a home theater installation company, I have sold my last high performance CRT system. Most new sets will be DLP, DILA and LCD on the cheap end.

I walked out of the theater feeling unfullfilled. I love Star Wars, but I hate it when they leave things up in the air.

The acting was stiff. Lucas's fault.

The effects were excellent, I saw only one scene that I really hated. It was the ocean scene on the clone planet. It looked to CG.

I liked a lot of the plot development, the film answered a lot of questions.

Lucas has a major problem. He is trying to improve on one of the great classic movies of all times and it is almost impossible. Einstein had E=MC2 at an early age and he could never top it. Copland's best works came at an early age etc.

I appreciate Lucas's efforts, I was dreaming that "two" would smoke "one". On some levels it did, however this kid that played Skywalker stinks, it's to bad.

--
Jeff Morris

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
 
No, i meant Roger Rabbit. The live action film that effectively used the incongruent addition of cell-animated characters, mainly Roger and Jessica Rabbit ("i'm not bad, i'm just drawn that way"). That movie sorta worked, because the treatment was so exaggerated. But seeing Neeson talking 'to' THAT thing is just painful. Kinda like when major celebrities used to go on the Muppets Show and do bits with puppets. Actually, there was almost a bit of dignity in THAT.

Then, after Who Framed Roger Rabbit came Cool World, with Brad Pitt, where Kim Basinger turned into a cartoon or somesuch.... That's all fine. But does George really think any of his zany li'l creatures look real? Still, to me, it's just an updated version of Sigmund and the Seamonsters. Not a lot of progress.

I don't think it's strange that people will stand in line for this stuff. Whether it's good or bad, it's still a monumental 'happening.' What is strange and pathetic are the bozos like i saw today - paunchy, bald, forty-somethings, fighting with plastic lightsabres on 34th Street. Now, i'm all for a good time. I don't even mind people who are so dedicated that they make costumes to wear to the show. But, the look of utter spastic, puerile glee on the faces of these THREE meatsticks was stomachwrenching.

This Star Wars thing REALLY gets my back up. Can you tell? I'm going to my happy place now. ...

rk
Bryan Siverly said:
RolandKorg said:
So, now, we have what amounts to a cartoon. Fine, if you like
cartoons. But the resultant PRODUCT is a mishmosh of mythology and
Roger Rabbit.
Click to expand...
I think you're thinking of "Howard the Duck." After all, George
did have his experiments that failed, and now for some mysterious
reason, the public is happy to stand in line for it.

Maybe Howard should have been given a light saber? ;>

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
Click to expand...
 
Bryan,

It looks like you just sold your 85mm f1.8 of several months on Ebay. Anything to add about your experience with the lens, beyond what was said with the listing? The lens is on my short list.
Bryan Siverly said:
Ok, this is off topic but of interest to probably many here... and
it is one of the first truly digital major studio releases, so it
fits here kinda. :)

What did you think of the movie? You know which one I mean.

I do reviews for our local country music station and we had a
lively discussion this morning. Though I found the movie slightly
better than the last one, it's like when they added blue diamonds
to my Lucky Charms... it still tastes pretty much the same.

I saw the first Star Wars movie 57 times in the theater (I dated
the ticket girl at my hometown movie-house). I don't think I could
sit through this one (or the last one) a second time.

The first trilogy was a masterpiece... well, the first two movies
qualify, maybe. This one is like watching Lucas paint the canvas
one painstaking brushstroke at a time. Some may find that
interesting, but it's not nearly as entertaining. And I'll admit
that it's hard to hold your suspense when you know how it all ends.

This movie is in serious need of edit, and then it might be better.
At least 40 minutes needs to go, but even that won't give these
characters the kind of charm and grace that made the first three so
much fun.

Star Wars is no longer the work of genius, and that's just sad.

The Sony Talk Forum is talking about the following Ebert and
partner review, and though I'm likely in the minority, I think
Ebert is right on the money.

http://download.theforce.net/episode2/ebert_roeper.mov

Have at it guys (and gals). Time to rip me to shreds. ;)

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
Click to expand...
 
Hi Roland,

What you wrote reminds me of the issues of camera technology vs. expressive photography that appear so often in these forums. Sounds like if George Lucas was a Canon guy, he'd rack up a huge collection of L/IS/DG lenses, shoot a lot of resolution charts, and then take superficial soulless portraits where all the little hairs on the person's face are sharp.

"Look! every single nostril hair is sharp at 500% magnification!"

"Uh, George, her eyes are half closed which makes her look like a flesh-eating zombie..."

Best,
WH

P.S. Imagine if the story of Anakin Skywalker were filmed in the style of "Ronin" by John Frankenheimer...!
RolandKorg said:
Episode One was an abomination. I both loved and respected the
initial three releases. Classics. Even though they were never
especially well-acted, and the dialog was usually poorly scripted,
they had something that overcame all of that. Character, maybe? I
dunno. ....
It's not about the effects
anymore. With the current state of computers, there's virtually
nothing that can be done to astonish the audience. When the effects
can no longer create impact, it's time to concentrate on story,
acting, composition, tension and drama.
Click to expand...
 
Roland,

You are the first person whose comments on this character (Jar Jar)...I could completely agree with...you summed it up so well in your question.

Steadman

RolandKorg Wrote:
SNIP

"could put a JarJar Binks into a film he believes to be so rich in symbolism and subtext. Seeing two serious actors working against that offensive cartoon was just sad. What was he supposed to be? A Jamaican lizard in a bellbottomed jumpsuit? That Stepin Fetchit routine was, indeed, offensive to anyone aware of cinematic history."

RolandKorg wrote:
 
Oh, wait. I remember. I only watched that movie for Lea Thompson. ;)
Bryan Siverly said:
I think you're thinking of "Howard the Duck." After all, George
did have his experiments that failed, and now for some mysterious
reason, the public is happy to stand in line for it.

Maybe Howard should have been given a light saber? ;>
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I'm somewhat amused that so many people (like people here "complaining") will go SEE the movie, even after (presumably) seeing reviews of it.

Does anybody really think that Hollywood cares more about a film getting good reviews or awards, than they do about a show that makes MONEY??? Sounds like you'd have more effect by voting with your wallet.

That being said, I'll probably still go see it. I know what to expect, and will enjoy the movie for what it is.

Besides, at my age now, I'm pretty hard to impress. The only movie in the semi-recent past that I REALLY enjoyed was probably "The Sixth Sense".
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I'm not a big sci-fi fan myself. I did see something on the news the other day that I thought was astounding related to the movie you're discussing. I didn't catch what city it was in, but a couple of guys have been on line since JANUARY waiting for tickets for this flick. They set up a tent outside the theatre on the sidewalk. One of them looked like the guy who runs the collectible comic and baseball card shop on "The Simpsons".

Can you imagine wasting 5 months of your life to be the first in line for a lousy movie ticket? News flash...it's a movie, guys! They'll keep showing it until everyone who wants to see it has seen it. It's not a once-in-a-lifetime Beatles reunion. Even that wouldn't be worth five months of your life. Sheesh!
-Kevin
 
DavidP said:
Besides, at my age now, I'm pretty hard to impress. The only movie
in the semi-recent past that I REALLY enjoyed was probably "The
Sixth Sense".
Click to expand...
If you're hard to impress (I am, too), I recommend a couple of films I've recently seen. "Changing Lanes" was excellent, and it has Samuel L. Jackson at his best, not this lame performance in "Clones."

Also, if you liked "Sixth Sense," you may want to rent a little-known film called "Donnie Darko," which I found to be very good.

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
 
elmo said:
It looks like you just sold your 85mm f1.8 of several months on
Ebay. Anything to add about your experience with the lens, beyond
what was said with the listing? The lens is on my short list.
Click to expand...
Elmo, I liked it... the USM was sweet. However, I didn't like the fact that the lens seems a little low on contrast. I kept having to boost things in Photoshop, not that big a deal, I suppose.

It's just that I wanted a sharp portrait lens and a macro lens, too. I figured out that I could have both, and opted for the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro.

Thanks.

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
 
Sounds like some of US here who have to be first in line to get a new camera. ;)
Kbone said:
I'm not a big sci-fi fan myself. I did see something on the news
the other day that I thought was astounding related to the movie
you're discussing. I didn't catch what city it was in, but a couple
of guys have been on line since JANUARY waiting for tickets for
this flick. They set up a tent outside the theatre on the sidewalk.
One of them looked like the guy who runs the collectible comic and
baseball card shop on "The Simpsons".
Can you imagine wasting 5 months of your life to be the first in
line for a lousy movie ticket? News flash...it's a movie, guys!
They'll keep showing it until everyone who wants to see it has seen
it. It's not a once-in-a-lifetime Beatles reunion. Even that
wouldn't be worth five months of your life. Sheesh!
-Kevin
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Interesting. I had not seen that particular criticism before. I want it for low light. But, I also want to do macro. So, I may wind up with a macro in the same focal length range, too. Or, I may get extension tubes to use with the 85.
Bryan Siverly said:
elmo said:
It looks like you just sold your 85mm f1.8 of several months on
Ebay. Anything to add about your experience with the lens, beyond
what was said with the listing? The lens is on my short list.
Click to expand...
Elmo, I liked it... the USM was sweet. However, I didn't like the
fact that the lens seems a little low on contrast. I kept having
to boost things in Photoshop, not that big a deal, I suppose.

It's just that I wanted a sharp portrait lens and a macro lens,
too. I figured out that I could have both, and opted for the
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro.

Thanks.

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
Click to expand...
 
elmo said:
Interesting. I had not seen that particular criticism before. I
want it for low light. But, I also want to do macro. So, I may wind
up with a macro in the same focal length range, too. Or, I may get
extension tubes to use with the 85.
Click to expand...
It's a fairly common criticism of this lens. Do a search in here for it, and I'm sure you'll find several comments on it. It would be a bigger deal if you're shooting film. Digital is no big deal to bump up the contrast.

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
 
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
I am not sure once. Indiana Jones I and III were very good (that is
his and Spilber's baby)
Click to expand...
Lucas co-wrote the story, someone else wrote the screenplay, the screenplay is where it comes together.

Do you credit "Shawshank Redemption" to the brilliance of Stephen King? Its the screenplay writer and director that are the real talents that count in making great movies.

It was directed by Spielberg and that is the other piece of the puzzle. IMO Lucas has little to do with the success of Raiders. Spielberg is a major talent. Lucas is a hack.
Mario Jesmanowicz said:
He does not have to milk anything, he has
made and is making a forunte through ILM, LucasArts, Skywalker
Sound, THX, Lucasfilm, and other adventures with Spielberg, so that
he is doing it for the money is obviously the wrong observation but
I do agree that he had a great idea but executed it wrong. I even
Click to expand...
You make the assumption the greedy money grubbers, one day determine they have enough. That doesn't hold up in practice.

Peter
 
I have not seen the movie yet, but I found this review entertaining:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2002/05/16/attack_clones/index.html

Cheers
Bryan Siverly said:
Ok, this is off topic but of interest to probably many here... and
it is one of the first truly digital major studio releases, so it
fits here kinda. :)

What did you think of the movie? You know which one I mean.

I do reviews for our local country music station and we had a
lively discussion this morning. Though I found the movie slightly
better than the last one, it's like when they added blue diamonds
to my Lucky Charms... it still tastes pretty much the same.

I saw the first Star Wars movie 57 times in the theater (I dated
the ticket girl at my hometown movie-house). I don't think I could
sit through this one (or the last one) a second time.

The first trilogy was a masterpiece... well, the first two movies
qualify, maybe. This one is like watching Lucas paint the canvas
one painstaking brushstroke at a time. Some may find that
interesting, but it's not nearly as entertaining. And I'll admit
that it's hard to hold your suspense when you know how it all ends.

This movie is in serious need of edit, and then it might be better.
At least 40 minutes needs to go, but even that won't give these
characters the kind of charm and grace that made the first three so
much fun.

Star Wars is no longer the work of genius, and that's just sad.

The Sony Talk Forum is talking about the following Ebert and
partner review, and though I'm likely in the minority, I think
Ebert is right on the money.

http://download.theforce.net/episode2/ebert_roeper.mov

Have at it guys (and gals). Time to rip me to shreds. ;)

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
Click to expand...
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com/Alegria01.htm
 
Remember, Lucas' source material for the original trilogy were the many cliffhanger serial episodes from the 1930's and 40's. Flash Gordon like dialogue pervades the SW series. There is nothing we can do about it except enjoy.

To read high art or faux theology into the series is folly. It is a 1930's serial brought to life by today's technology. No high art, just craft (though some would say "crXp"). Besides, prequills are a lousy idea. We know where the story arc must go, so where's the mystery? I guess it is all in the ride............
Besides, the Force is now a microbe? So much for supernatural theology!
Best,
Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top