Cool News
The Digital Projection of STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE!
Hey folks, here are a couple of reviews of THE PHANTOM MENACE, but unlike the other reviews you've seen... these have come from the perspective of someone having seen the films DIGITALLY PROJECTED IN A THEATER. The first example of this was covered by Moriarty back during SHOWEST (Click here to read that report!) If these test runs are successful, look for the entire universe of film projection to change, the future of film distribution, the quality of exhibition and... NO MORE SCRATCHY PRINTS. Instead... we get to discover a whole new universe of screwups that they haven't even yet begun to realize will happen when High School kids begin running this equipment! Joy! If you've seen this new Digital Projection... Post your experience in TALK BACK, let's hear about this new fangled technology!
How a Digital Screening and My Thirteen Year Old Brother Saved Star Wars
Meesa wuv you. Meesa wuv you? Meesa freakin' wuv you!? I haven't heard
any thing so uproariously awful since "Itchee Wah-wah." The only thing
that could have possible been worse came a scant 30 minutes later when
young Anakin "disproportionate head" Skywalker cheered "Yipeee!" and ran
off screen. Part of me died the night TPM premiered. Star Wars had
finally re-emerged and I had wanted, and expected so much more.
For the record, I should clarify where I stood. Star Wars came out when
I was three. I went. I cried. I got my parents kicked out of the
theater. Time passed and with Empire I was old enough to understand
obsession. Star Wars toys, bed sheets, stationary, underoos, even a
lunch box, before to long I wouldn't touch anything that wasn't a Star
Wars trademarked item. In fact, I think it was all the things I was
bought as a child that really paid for TPM. This fascination continued
on for me for years, until eventually-- in that Star Wars void of the
late eighties/ early nineties when it was completely forgotten by the
populace-- I forgot about it.
When I was thirteen I had to spend a wretched summer baby-sitting my
three year old brother. I hated him. I would do anything to keep him
quiet. One method was to put either Top Gun or Ghostbusters into the
VCR, for some reason they captured his young attention span. After two
months of viewing one of them every other day I was getting sick of
them, I hate Tom Cruise and Bill Murray getting "slimed" was only so
funny for so long. I needed an alternative. So I dug through a cabinet
of old videos, past all of his cartoons, past all of my Dad's "secret"
pornos, and there in the back of the cabinet, covered with dust, was the
holy trilogy.
Dubbed on SLP from HBO off a satellite dish before the days when they
scrambled signals, the tapes hadn't been played in years. I had
rediscovered my roots. While my brother screamed for Top Gun I noticed
the tape wasn't rewound, I slipped it in and the screen filled with a
Star Destroyer dropping it's payload of probe droid pods. My brother was
instantly quiet. He didn't make a sound until he begin laughing
hysterically at Yoda rummaging through Luke's belongings. He started
crying when it was over so I quickly rewound the tape and started it
again what did he care
about continuity?) I had to dig into the cabinet further to find Jedi,
and admittedly it wasn't quite as cool as I remembered.
Time passed, and something called America Online and the internet came
into existance. It was here that I first started seeing the rumblings of
what went on at those weird sci-fi conventions that my pointed eared,
Starfleet uniform wearing aunt attended-- Star Wars had never really
died amongst the hard core fans. Tension built. I think it was Zahn's
trilogy of books that came out that really started the SW resurgence.
Rumors of new toys on AOL. Rumors of new movies even. Was it all crap?
More time passed. Then George showed up on Entertainment Tonight saying
he was going to do the prequels, I remember Leonard Maltin practically
crapping his pants. The next day on AOL several people "in the know"
were giving out plot points involving Kenneth Branaugh battling it out
with IG-88 droids and Dark Lord of the Sith Clancy Brown, all with help
from Christopher Lambert as Anakin. Like a fool I believed it. I told
all my friends. They laughed. They called me a dork. "It's just a movie,
dude." I should have listened. I should have stopped. Of course I
didn't.
Almost six years later I found myself going to the Force.Net every day
for the latest reports. The closer May 1999 came the more it seemed like
Christ's second coming. Hugely anticipated with equal amounts fear and
excitement. I remember staying in the theater until the last of the
credits rolled after the Special Editions because somebody "in the know"
on the net had assured us there would be a secret prequel trailer
afterwards. Lies. The same thing happened when they came out on video.
My roommates and I searched through every inch of tape to find a secret
prequel trailer... but alas there was none.
Then at last, like Ewan's post-rehabilitation shot of heroin in
Trainspotting... the trailer. Months of being teased by blurry photos on
the net, crying in agony over some of "in the know" rumors, cheering for
others, wondering if "The Phantom Menace" was a worthy title, discussing
the finer points of lightsaber colors on bulletin boards assuring I
would never get laid again, it was now all going to pay off. I skipped
work and went to the first showing of the Waterboy in town. I thought I
was in on a secret, but the place was packed. There was a brief moment
of panic when the showed the "feature presentation" clip before the
trailer. Then it happened. Some fools, (actual Adam Sandler fans) walked
in making noise and were collectively shushed. I think I actually
blacked out, because I don't remember watching the trailer. I only
remembered my pants being wet and Adam Sandler acting retarded. I sat
through the awful movie to see the trailer again. I think I cried. I
went home to my Star Wars shrine that I had been assembling since the
day I had found the holy trilogy behind my Dad's pornos, and prayed. I
prayed for several things. I prayed for no midi-chlorians. I prayed for
kick-ass Jedi kung-fu like action, I prayed for a low muppet factor, and
I prayed for no musical numbers.
Like a fool, I moved to Los Angeles a few months before the release. It
occurred to me that all those times I had seen people camped waiting for
movie tickets on the news, they were in LA. I was in LA. I began to fear
I wouldn't get to see the flippin' movie. I went to see The Matrix in
Westwood in mid April, it was the last show and I got out well after
mid-night. I parted with my friend and started for my car, then I heard
it. Westwood is usually dead at that time of night, but I could swear I
was hearing tie fighters. I turned slowly and was more then a little
shocked.
I saw three figures. One was Han Solo, he was holding his blaster and a
sign round his neck said: "Episode I line starts here." The other two
figures where in lawn chairs watching the Death Star battle on a
portable TV. I drove home distraught. That clenched it, I wouldn't get
to see TPM for a month... at least. Not only that, but I thought I was
such a good fan, but these guys... talk about devotion. I just couldn't
do what they were doing. What was I supposed to do, quit my job and drop
out of school so I could wait in line for a month? Okay, it was
tempting, but I couldn't do it.
The week of the release was depressing. I sat at work going through all
the Force.Net's archives. It got little of my job tasks done, hey it's
their own fault for giving my computer internet access. Instead of
work-work-work-work-work-work my day usually consists of Star Wars-Star
Wars-Star Trek-nudie pictures-Star Wars-Star Wars. Two days before the
Tuesday night mid-night premier, my workmate slammed his phone down with
a cheer. "What are you doing Tuesday?" he asked me. I had been planning
to drown my sorrows with alcohol and repeated viewings of Empire.
"Twenty bucks gets us in." he proclaimed.
I guess it pays to be friends with a theater employee. Actually I guess
it costs to be friends with one, it pays if you are one. Tuesday came
and we left work a only a scant hour before show time. The line was
frightening, I'll spare everyone the details, I'm sure everyone knows by
know what it was like. The best part was when I sat next to a perfect
model of a lack of washing can do to a human.
"I've been in line for six days!" he told me. The smell concurred. "How
about you?" he asked me and I checked my watch.
"About fifteen minutes," was my reply. He only scowled. We've all had
the moment of euphoria when the lights went down, it's when they came up
that I really felt odd. I had the impression that had I not known the
story for months previous I would have been lost. All my friends asked
me the next day how it was, and I couldn't answer. I had to say I like
it, but honestly I thought it sucked. I spent a week trying to come to
terms with the fact. I really wanted to like it, I swear I did. I tried
to see it a few more times. Admittedly the good parts got better, but
unfortunately-- the bad parts got worse. All I could think of was, "Yeah
man! Episode II!" I'm such a junkie.
My brother, now thirteen, came to visit this week. The first thing he
did when he arrived at my apartment was head for my Star Wars shrine. He
lost all concept of reality and actually tried to touch one of my
lightsabers, I almost clouted him over the head with it.
"Are you insane?" I asked him and snatched it away.
"Is the movie good?" he asked with huge eyes.
"You haven't seen it?"
"No, is it good?"
"It's Star Wars."
"Right, so it has to be good!" he smiled.
Ack. That was the point, it had to be. I mean, I am an adult. I know
that the original trilogy is not really the best acted or written set of
films around. But it doesn't make a difference, they're cool because
they're Star Wars! My brother pleaded for me to take him so I conceded
to seeing TPM again. I told him he'd have to wait for the digital
screening-- I needed something for myself.
Much like when I went to see the trailer, I was blown away by the
amount of people. I don't know if it was because of the "Star Wars Fan
Day," or if it was for the digital screening. Either way, something
happened when the lights went down. Magic. Like the first premiere
people whooped and hollered, but that wasn't it. The 20th Century Fox
fanfare always opens the floodgates of nostalgia, but that wasn't it.
The main theme starts, and you realize it's a new Star Wars, but that
wasn't it either.
The magic happened when I looked over at my brother and saw the same
look of amazement he had when he was three. I realized then that Star
Wars didn't suck, I did. I had gotten old and sardonic. I was used to
the Pulp Fictions, the Matrixes, the Armageddons. I was used to Star
Trek constantly reinventing itself. I was used to science fiction being
nothing action covered with special effects. I was used to a different
type of movie. But not my brother, he didn't care.
I started paying attention to the screen as the crawl ended. The
Republic cruiser flew by, and for a moment I thought I was sitting a lot
closer to the screen then I was. I was expecting the main big thing to
be sharpness, and let me tell you-- it was freakin' sharp. It was like
watching a DVD or laserdisc on a gigantic HDTV after dumping a gallon of
visine in your eyes. What really caught my breath though, was the color.
The freakin' colors man!
Vibrant. Thick. It did wonders for the digital scenes that were less
refined then others. The senate looked perfect this time. Jabba was
better then perfect. The pod race was absolutely amazing, I only wished
it was 3-D. The only scene that still looked a little to cartoonish were
the Gungan battle scenes, but even they seemed vastly improved.
Everything seemed so much more... "solid." The haziness of some of the
effects, like during the lightsaber battle or the Jedi Temple scenes was
much more subtle. Everything seemed more cohesive, and therefore--
realistic. I must say, for me one of the best visuals that seemed to
take full advantage of the sharpness was the Federation Battleship.
During the last battle it looked so convincingly huge and real, I just
want to... well, lick it. I felt like I could run down to the screen and
simply lick it because it was so realistic.
As I sat there and watched it through my brothers eyes, I started
cheering with everyone else. It's also important to notice, my brother
went in completely green with sickness in the end from horror. He hadn't
even seen pictures from the Insider. He didn't have a clue to the
story. When Qui-gon got the saber through the chest, my brother's jaw
hit the sticky movie theater floor. Then, when Obi-wan offered up a
little payback, my brother cheered. He completely came unglued when Maul
fell into two pieces, which BTW with extra sharpness looks really cool.
My brother claims to have seen hints of a spinal cord, but I think he's
imagining things.
It was watching TPM through my brothers eyes that I was able to go back
to being a kid. If I had never seen Star Wars at all, and I heard this
was the big summer movie, would I have liked it? Probably not. The fact
that it is Star Wars, that it's a culture of it's own, that it's a small
part of a much bigger story-- that's why I love Star Wars. Now, I can
admit freely... I love The Phantom Menace. Anakin isn't that bad. The
story and dialog are perfect Star Wars. I love everything about this
movie.
Even Jar-Jar.
Cantankerous Jedi
And now... on to Peter's look at it...
On March 10th of this year George Lucas took the stage at the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas to make a major announcement. Beginning June 18th four movie theaters in the United States would be host to the first public demonstration of a full-length motion picture from a major studio using digital electronic projectors. The motion picture to be presented? Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace. Lucas stated "I'm very dedicated and very enthusiastic about the digital cinema," further mentioning the "quality, the savings in cost and the ability to do things that aren't possible today."
I read George Lucas's statement on a Star Wars web site and patiently awaited the announcements of where exactly the spectacle would take place. Imagine my surprise when two weeks ago a theater no more than 15 miles from me was one of the chosen few. So with our clan of fourteen Star Wars junkies we descended upon the Route 17 tenplex in Paramus, New Jersey for what promised to be a milestone in the future of movie presentation.
Before I give you my review of the digital Menace presentation let me give you the cliff notes explanation of what exactly Digital Cinema entails. In Digital Cinema the movies are shot on film and then converted to a digital format. Lucas has even said that he plans to forego film on Episode II and just shoot it digitally. The completed movies are then distributed from studios to theaters by satellite, by fiber-optic cable or on special discs. Then, the movies are shown on a digital projector. Two of the industry's leading forces in digital projection are CineComm Digital Cinema and Texas instruments. These projectors create a screen image by bouncing light off 1.3 million microscopic mirrors squeezed onto a 1-square-inch chip.
Movie distributors welcome this format for numerous reasons. The high cost of film prints, the number of film prints needed and competition from digital and high defintion television. The digital technology gives audiences a cleaner, sharper onscreen image that won't show wear and tear with repeated showings. That means no scratches, declining color, or fiery film eating infernos in the projection booth. Sound is also another matter that weighs heavily in here. Crisp, digital sound with no pops or scratches emenate from the speakers, allowing you to hear subtle nuances clearer then ever.
The lights fell at exactly eight o' clock pm that night and we were bathed in an eerie glow from the large screen as two previews were quickly rushed onscreen to whet our palette until the "real deal" came on. Both previews were shown in digital format and it was quite obvious that this would be no "ordinary" film experience. Then, the familiar John Williams thunderous kettle drums exploded alongside the cacophony of horns and I noted how incredibly clear and free of distortion the sound was. Now, on to the good stuff. I will dissect the digital experience of Phantom Menace for you.
How was the picture quality? Incredibly good. Imagine a picture free of flecks of dirt or grainy image. The level of detail was quite staggering in some scenes. I tried to pick out certain nuances in characters such as the Gungans. Their scales and markings were vivid and stood out with such clarity that were not apparent in my other four viewings of Menace on film. Landscapes of the Naboo surface presented lush colors that were vibrant and alive. The yellow Naboo fighters, the queen's ship, and the royal palace exuded a crispness you would never see in a film presentation. Was it perfect? No, but the technology has me excited. This is a promising step of things to come. An image that will ultimately lead to a near life-like experience at the movie theater. None of us came out of the theater flabbergasted or overwhelmed, but we were all in agreement that digital film was superior to ordinary film in every way. Will it replace film someday in our futures? Count on it.
The auditory experience was nothing short of incredible. Let me give you two scenes in particular. When Qui-Gon-Jinn addresses the Jedi council through the back glass you see several starfighters pass by. The panning effect of the starfighters was so accurate from the left to right speaker you would swear they were in front of you. Of course the other scene I speak of would be the pod race. Every smack of metal or gunning of engines came through with such ferocity and clarity that I was indeed dumbfounded by it. The precision of a given sound effect, devoid of any noticeable distortion is a testament to the technology of digital film. Granted, the sound was cranked in the theater but every auditory bell and whistle that LucasFilm put in Menace was clearly audible through the digital experience.
We left the theater with big smiles on our faces. Digital Cinema is clearly the future. This was truly the ultimate and only way to experience The Phantom Menace for any Star Wars fan. Science Fiction or effects laden films will look great on a digital projector. I could probably do without seeing General's Daughter in a digital format. Overall, this is a technology for us film geeks to get excited over. No more scratchy, dirty prints with blurry images. America is getting a new set of glasses.
Peter
-
+ Expand All
-
I felt much like the first reviewer -- only without the brother to change my mind. It's 2 bad. PS -- I'm FIRST!
-
Yeah, Digital Cinema is definitely the future, but you don't promote it with LAME movies like "The Phantom Menace". Lucas does like to think that he's at the forefront of movie innovation, but he's nothing but a HACK!! The digital technique as used on TPM, is only gonna make you realize how cartoon-like the effects were (if you hadn't noticed already?). This obviously won't improve the flick at all. But it will show how conventional theater projection partially disguised Phantom Menace's FX lameness. Anyone with eyes and a brain could see how phony everything was. That pod-race looked like something they should be showing on a Saturday morning for kids. Also, half of the aliens were so unrealistic that I ended up laughing at the ineptitude. They really were that bad...... However, I want Digital Cinema to become the norm as fast as possible. Blurry images will no longer deceive an audience as to the "quality" of the FX. When everything is bright and clear, hack-jobs like TPM won't be able to get away with murder - like this film obviously has. I hope Lucas isn't too stupid to realize that he's actually making things more difficult for himself by promoting the digital format. Fake-looking alien creatures and spacecraft won't be accepted so readily with digital FX. But, as the mindless masses have already been subjugated by Lucas and his propaganda machine, you'd probably all buy into whatever he says - no matter how dumb it may be...... Digital Cinema IS the future, but Lucas should be banished into history..... PS: Even with digital, a movie still requires a good story and characters in addition to its FX. TPM loses out on ALL THREE COUNTS!!!
-
You bastard.....you could have at least given a spoiler warning.....You just spoiled the ending for me!!!!!
-
Jun 19, 1999 4:15:10 AM CDT
Has anybody else been wondering if filmmakers will be called dig
by paragonian
Just wondering, cause that would really suck. By the way I skipped this story so I won't ruin Episode 1 for myself. I still haven't seen it and I still don't know anything about it, self control anyone? And to answer your poll thing, to tell you the honest truth I'm not looking forward to Star Wars or Lord of the Rings any more than anything else. I'm sure they'll be really cool though. Sorry to spoil everyone's comic book fanboy image thing.
-
Hey everyone,
Here are my impressions on the digitally projected TPM. I won't bore you with the usual rantings on why TPM rocked or sucked. The fact that I've seen the movie 4 times (including tonight) should be indication enough.
Upon entering the theater, my friend insisted upon choosing the seats that would optimize the audio for the movie. And wouldn't you believe it, I had one of the actual people from Texas Instruments sitting right next to me (didn't catch his name, not that I would remember it at this hour anyhow). We got to talking and he started to tell us how the movie is stored (the movie eats up about 30 terabytes with a transfer of over 320 megabitss a second...now that's fast). He started mentioning how what we were aboutto watching was something akin to an HD projection with over a million a pixels something like that.
Anyways, some representative from AMC comes out with a bullhorn and asks how we were a part of history yadda yadda yadda and from there they introduced various members of the Texas Instruments crew (who recieved a huge applause). Finally, the lights dimmed and the previews started.
We got the usual AMC popcorn toting walking strip of film starts dancing around the screen. But what really caught my eye was how vibrant and clear the picture was. The only way I can even begin to describe what it was like is to tell you to go out to Best Buy or whoever is selling HDTV's and check that out. I'm a big DVD nut, so I've been casing out the video department drooling over the HDTV display they have there, and the only thing that even comes close to what I saw onscreen tonight is the picture you get on an HDTV set. Next, the preview for that retarded movie about the giant alligator (crocodile, who gives a shit which), but what surprised me was that even that was in digital format (for some reason it never occurred to me that even trailers would get the same treatment that TPM got). Sorry if i'm jumping around alot, but hey, it's friggin' 4:30am.
Let me tell you what has totally captivated me about TPM, and it is those panoramic shots of Naboo and Coruscant. God, those images are SOOO awesome. I can't wait till Lucas releases TPM on DVD and I can just hit pause and check out all the details. The waterfalls, birds, trees, and Naboo buildings are soo much more clear in the digital projection. Almost throughout the entire movie, the TI dude next to me was pointing out all the little things that differiated the projection from regular film. Besides just the clearer and more vibrant picture, when letters appeared, they appeared perfectly still and clear. They didn't shudder or twinkle like you would normally see on a regular film stock.
But that is not to say I didn't have any gripes about this new digital projection format. When very light colors (white, blue) are projected on the screen, you see these very apparent lines (not lines per se, but slight pixelations) on the screen. So during a large portion of the movie, my eyes kept on wandering to those damn lines, and I'm sorry to say that they bugged the hell outta me. The TI guy said that they were working on that, but because of the nature of how the images are projected, you're going to get those damn lines. But let me remind you, I was focusing on those damn lines but shit like that bugs me, and since I've seen the movie so many times already, I tend to concentrate on secondary characters, and not on who is actually speaking and little shitty damn pixels on the screen. (aside: anyone else catch the ad libbing that Padme does right when Qui-gon and gang enter Schmi's home and Qui-gon introduces himself, if not, watch Padme's lips VERY carefully during that sequence, and you'll be laughing outloud and everyone will be wondering what a crazy ass you are for laughing at nothing!! ) I never caught that before, and I can attribute this to the increased clarity of the digital projection.
I can't really comment on the audio quality for one very simple reason: AMC theaters keeps their damn volume TOOO DAMN LOW!!!!! Turn that SHIT UP, UP, and UP!!!!
I was expecting my chest to be rocking and reverberating during the Pod Racing like it did when i saw it at Edwards Spectrum in Irvine. With a format that is supposed to showcasing the visual AND audio superiority of the digital format, it pisses me off when the volume is set so damn low. But anyways, friend Daniel and the TI guy were talking about how this theater had the SD-EX format of THX that has the extra channel for the rear speaker. But alas, I couldn't appreciate it thanks to the old farts at AMC crying cuz they have their hearing aids set too high. I guess I'll have to continue to goto Edwards who overcharge (not student discount, WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THAT!!!) since I've been known to walk out on a few occasions when there was no surround sound whatsoever in the theater I was watching the movie in.
But alas I digress, it was awesome seeing the movie again with a packed audience cheering and hollering the whole way through. I would say about 80% even stayed all the way to the end shushing everyone when Darth Vaders breating comes on. So in conclusion (YES! finally), I agree with the previous reviews that the presentation was awesome (curious though how none of them mention those damn pixelation lines) and that eventually digital projection will replace film, but i'm guessing that it is still at least 5 years away if not more. If you have a chance to catch TPM on a digital screen, then hell I would tell you to go and check it out, it's certainly worth your time AND you get one of those cool necklace thingies that you wear around your necklace, surely a collectors item.
ps: Just one quick question to help answer a damn debate I was having with my friend. In the scene in the "Gungan Sacred Place"and others where the Queen and Padme are shown together, tell me that is NOT Natatlie Portman playing the Queen, cuz it totally does not look like her. It's as plain as the nose on your face. My friend says it was, I say HELLZ NO!!! What do you guys think? I KNOW that it's easy as hell to just use the computer or mirrors to have Natalie Portman play both roles while they stand next to each other, but i'm telling you that's not her, I know what Natalie Portman looks like in the Queen's costume, and that is not her, her profile, cheeks, HER FACE just screams at you that it's not her!!! -
TO ALL AIN'T IT COOL NEWS READERS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE A ROCKY VI:THE FINAL BELL UPDATE....GO TO THE THURSDAY ROCKY VI TALKBACKS. I HAD JUST WRITTEN AN EXTENSIVE UPDATE AND EXPLANATION OF MYSELF AND THE PROJECT. I KNOW ALL OF THIS BECAUSE I WORK FOR MGM AND I AM ALSO A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MR. SYLVESTER STALLONE(I AM OBVIOUSLY USING A FAKE NAME). IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ROCKY VI OR SYLVESTER STALLONE...WRITE ME AT ADAMACE1@HOTMAIL.COM. SO GO READ THE UPDATE THAT AIN'T IT COOL NEWS WAS SUPPOSED TO REPORT, BUT DID NOT YET. ROCKY BALBOA IS BACK IN A BIG WAY. THANKS.
ADAM ACE -
Sounds great, but when will it be installed in all theatres? Will there be a limit on screen size? The postage stamp screens at the local mall come to mind. Also will there be a higher piracy rate, since it sounds like these will be on some type of disc? Will we see an increase on the street of what I would think will be perfect copies since you would be able to just feed the stream into a CD burner? Has anyone even considered this angle? And don't tell me they can prevent it by encryption. Any safeguard can be beaten. Like I said I would love to see it but wonder if it might be hurting the industry more than helping it. Oh, and to the poster of Rocky VI, whoppedeefuck. I await that sequel almost as much as Wing Commander II. Blech.
-
Just wanted you to know that the first review was one of the best posts I've read here in a long time, thanks. I was getting worried for a while, with all the idiot detractors clogging up this place like a floating turd that refuses to go down when you flush. Cool reviews both.
-
Anything, ANYTHING to make this film look better!! I loved parts of it, but because of the sucky story & dialog, it needs all the help it can get!! Digital, YEAH, BABY!!!
-
...but the smell of that camel's butt wasn't quite his brand!! "Pee-Yousa!!"
-
I've always HATED the logic of the above statement. How many times have you heard someone defend TPM by simply saying - "it's Star Wars?" What kind of reasoning is that? Does this mean if the film is total shit (which it WAS, by the way), then it's still great just because "Star Wars" happens to be included in the title? I've heard some lame excuses for poor quality movies in the past, but this one takes the fucking cake! A CRAP MOVIE IS A CRAP MOVIE!!! Or would be if you all had the balls to say so. I mean Christ, the amount of times I've heard "it's Star Wars" as a defense, MUST mean these people are having serious doubts about its so-called "quality". If a movie is awesome does it really matter what it's called? So why use this as an excuse? OK, yes, TPM is one of the WORST movies I've ever seen, but as it's called "Star Wars" I'm supposed to love it? What a dumbass idea! The STAR WARS films are not above criticism (contrary to what some may believe), and if they don't make the grade, NO mercy should be shown towards them. George Lucas has had far too easy a ride with this abomination of a flick, and he mustn't even touch Episode 2 if Star Wars is to reclaim its former glory. And if Jar-Jar Binks appears in the next one, then Lucas has some serious explaining to do.
-
What this movie really NEEDS is not digital "enhancement", but the negative being burned and re-shot again right from the start. No amount of tinkering with TPM will alter the painfully obvious fact that it simply SUCKS!! You can't save something when it's half dead to begin with. If you took out ALL the kiddie bullshit, EVERY scene with Jar-Jar, the fake FX, and the ridiculous antics of Anakin, you might be left with something worth watching. It's a pity, however, that this new movie would only be about 5 minutes in length, but hey, nothing's perfect!!
-
...but by gawd at least you know who he is. I went to a dinner last night with a party of people as middle-aged as I was and so I ask them, "So does Jar-Jar Binks reek or what", ready to explain his redeeming values and knowing I'm going to lose another argument. AND NO ONE KNEW WHO THE HELL I WAS TALKING ABOUT!! I was the only one to see TPM. I am ashamed of these people. These people cannot be my friends. They are so out of touch. You can bitch and moan about the "Yippee" or the midichoridians or how Jar-Jar reminds you of Janis Joplin but you GOTTA KNOW! Anyway, as I build a new circle friends who have a heart and a head not inserted where the sun does not shine, I am looking forward to the day when a movie never deteriorates. When the 2,094 showi0gn is as great as the first! LONG LIVE THE MOVIES!
-
I know I risk the wraith of all the Star Wars fans but....
The Phantom Menace just wasn't very good. I saw Star Wars on its openning day so many years ago. I was 14. As the opening episode prologue scrolled up, a friend next to me said the word "Classic".
He was right. It wasn't the greatest written, acted or directed film, but it was a classic. It's just like the Robin Hood movie Harry loves so much.
Wonderful. TPM wasn't even close to those two. Many of the people on talk back say Disney seeks out the lowest common denominator... well this movie is guilty of that charge. Technology, so matter how advanced, can't help a movie that just isn't very good. -
I now firmly believe that some people have their heads wedged so firmly up their asses that they simply cannot enjoy this movie due to their own overwhelming faecal stench. And I pity those people. But it's their loss - not mine, and I shant lose any sleep over it. Though I may get into an animated discussion (as I already have and probably will continue to do) with anybody who has an opinion - good or bad - about TPM. Unfortunately for me I dont think I'll ever get to see this digital screening. Dammit....we Australians just got digital watches. It'll be a while before we get digital movies.....
-
This is the same, tired so called defense I have heard for this mediocrity since day one. The two biggest misconceptions and outright lies that are the only so called defense I have heard for the biggest disappointment of all time are as follows:
LIE #1.) Star Wars is a kid's film. Since when? As I recall, the Trilogy are each rated PG. Who says? Lucasfilm has only been saying that in recent months to cover their asses. Unfortuneately, they are right about TPM. IT definitely is a kid's film, God help us all. Besides, they were made for the young at heart, not for the brats, like the mind numbing kiddie fodder that has been coming out of Disney and several other places in recent years. This movie was clearly George making something for his kiddies. Hello, George, remember us? The fans? We created him, and we can "destroy" him if we have to. Make the movie for the fans, not the brats!
LIE #2.) You will appreciate TPM a lot more once you have seen the rest of the prequels and can put it in the larger context.
Utter bullshit! I can watch any of the real Star Wars films right now, on their own, in any order, and they have plenty of depth and merit to stand good and strong on their own. TPM, save visuals, doesn't come even close. Admit it!
I have yet to hear ANYONE spell out for me clearly all the reasons they liked this movie. I mean, those of us that hated it and were disappointed in it (and there are plenty of us!) can clearly enumerate and spell out PLENTY of reasons why. I want to see ONE PERSON spell out for me in the same manner, all the reasons why they liked this film. Yes, we all agree it looks cool, even though the CGI still has some ways to come, and is not ready to carry an entire movie. Everything looked too slick and unreal. I still think models embellished with CGI are 100 times better. (Like the Special Editions)
Oh, and BTW, I know plenty of kids that hated Jar Jar and were disappointed in this film, too. Just watch Regis and Kathie Lee and a bunch of other mainstream shows. I rest my case. Anyone want to take up my challenge? -
The fact that these two reviewers (and a few posters) have a different opinion to mine means JACK SHIT!! AICN has always used people who give FAVORABLE opinions on this flick (with the exception of the great Joe Hallenbeck), and pro-TPM fans flock here in droves. Get someone who hates "The Phantom Menace" to review the digital showing of this film and see what they say. I doubt it would be in favor - the format is only as good as the movie it's showing. There are MANY people who fucking despise the flick, even more than I do.... You see, some of my friends believe "Star Wars" is an almost religious experience, and when they saw TPM their faith was shot to hell. I wouldn't go as far to say I think this way, but plenty of people I know felt betrayed by the film..... I'll even give the likes of "Return of the Jedi" credit where it's due. I mean, most people hated this movie, and although it was pretty pathetic, it still had enough good moments to redeem itself (at least partially).... Also, no matter what flaws A NEW HOPE had, it was NEVER a "kiddie flick". It might have been geared so the entire family could enjoy the movie, but it didn't target any specific audience like TPM. Why the hell was this film aimed almost entirely at kids? It's pretty fucking obvious. Those are the guys who buy the most toys and merchandise! George Lucas is smart, but in a totally negative way. Money is all that concerns him. Has he shown any interest in making an INTELLIGENT movie since he realized selling toys is more profitable? Has he fuck!! Remember, he is the same guy who directed THX-1138. Although I don't especially like this film, can you imagine him making something like this these days? IMPOSSIBLE! This movie was a box-office FAILURE, and that's the KEY to Lucas' thinking. Takings at the theater are all-important to our man George. He doesn't care about being considered a great director, as long as his movies clean up at the box-office. And that's what pisses me off.
-
ive got to address the above post saying most people hate return of the jedi. id never in my life heard anyone bitch about return and ewoks until i got on the net last year. all i can figure is that geeks dont like ewoks cause they dont dress in black and wear sunglasses. since i dont really hang out with geek types id never heard that return of the jedi sucked. anyways, my point is "most people" dont think jedi sucked. most geeks do. jedi sucked, tom cruise sucks, and decaprio sucks, oh and john woo is a god, almost forgot that one.
-
i find it so amusing that all these hard-core star wars fans hated TPM so much. it was something i said as soon as lucas started production "no matter how great it is, fans will never be happy because it won't capture that intagible experience of their first time (seeing star wars, i'm guessing the guys who dress up like darth maul or change their names to ben kenobi are still waiting for *that* first time). i wonder if christians will be as dissapointed when jesus comes back...
-
Fuck this movie. It's so fucking retarded I couldn't beleive it. It's amazing what utter shit Lucas and Coppola have turned into. But at least Coppola still tries, Lucas is a whore. And if your gonna act like a whore then your gonna get fucked.
-
The "fake" queen in the sacred place is indeed just another person that looks like natalie portman, I think she's even in the credits or something. I guess they figured that if they were going to reveal that they are not the same person, they could at that scene use a look-alike, so that it's more obvious. Also, it would have been a real pain to double natalie portman in that shot (i mean they could have done it and it would have looked 100% real) but it was just easier to get a double. For further proof, look at lynne's diary, the one about the droids. You will see, toward the end, the sacred place scene raw footage, and the queen and "decoy" are both seen.
-
I've been going around saying how much I've liked TPM to everyone, but no more... Reality is setting in... TPM Gripes: ((1)). Jar Jar Binks. No, I don't think he's a rip-off of some doofus-butt from a foreign country. He's just too dang annoying and distracting to be real, PERIOD!! His morphing smile, his fake-looking eyes, his fake-looking teeth, the unbelievable walk, the muffled talk, the everything about him!! Pure CGI garbage!! And to think, he stole away from so many important scenes with credible actors... For SHAME!!! George, go back to the pre-CGI days, when you HAD to put an actor in a suit! At least we could tell something was really there! ((2)). We waited for 16 years. You'd think the story and dialog would be FAR better than it was. George, what were ya' thinkin' about for those 16 years???!!! And another thing!!! What about character development??? I had no real reason to care about anyone in TPM. ((3)). The ships were sleek, okay-looking mostly, but with exception of Maul's ship, there was nothing that really really stands out, like a Star Destroyer, Millenium Falcon, Super Star Destroyer, Death Star, X-Wing, Slave 1, need I go on?? I was looking forward to buying some models from Ep. 1, but not no more!! They kind of suck!! ...and the C-shaped ship was most impressive... NOT!!! ((4)). Most of the creatures, droids, etc. were not cool-looking at all, as opposed to Hammerheads, Wampas, Wookies, Hutts, Sandpeople, Boba Fett, droids on Luke's moisture farm, bounty hunters, even Ewoks! Instead, most reminded me of bugs I've stepped upon. Those STOOOPID no-nose, big-headed Neumodian aliens were SOOOOO STOOOOOPID-looking in particular, and I couldn't believe the awful dialog, lip-syncing, and voice-overs for them. Major puke!! How about a ship full of IG-88's instead? Don't even talk to me about that 2-headed guy... MMffmmffmf... Bleaghhghhghg... ((5)). The music. I bought the soundtrack. Lots of good, lots of so-so stuff, lots of borrowed stuff. A few pieces do stand out quite nicely, so it's not too disappointing on a whole. Overall, a nice score from the distinguished Mr. John Williams. ((6)). The part of Anakin is so miscast. The kid didn't steal my heart for a second. ((7)). Anakin's friends were just plain weird! "LET'S GO PLAY BAAALLLLL!!!" Oooookay... ((8)). Explaining away The Force... Was that really necessary?? ((9)). The droids were downplayed way too much, should have been center stage instead of Jar Jar. ((10)). The CGI battle with Jar Jar's buddies was a little too CGI for me to swallow. ((11)). Battle droids saying "Roger Roger!!" all the time made me want to hurl. The battle droids also seemed very un-menacing. ((12)). Obi-Wan was played down to the point of being an extra next to Jar Jar. ((13)). Many of the sets were not very cool design-wise, like a Millenium Falcon interior, Dagobah swamp, Luke's farm, Executor bridge, etc... ((14)). The special effects were cool, but not anything you might care to remember, like the snow battle of Hoth, the Death Star trench run, the battle at the end of Jedi, etc. ((15)). Anakin and Jar Jar saved the day without even trying. Too lame!! ((16)). Padme's scene's with Anakin were a little forced. Not believable. ((17)). That Gungan "king", or whoever the heck... Another bad example of overly-obvious CGI, and the distracting morphing-mouth antics that go with it. ((18)). Ric Olie was such a tard, and so was the inside of the queen's ship. This is where they really could have done something a-la Han Solo and the Falcon, but didn't. ((19)). Why leave the Sidious/Palpetine issue so foggy? Why drag it out into the next movie??? Yaaawwnnn... ((20)). The title of "THE PHANTOM MEANACE" should be predominant and larger over the "EPISODE 1" in the ads, like ESP and ROTJ were. ((21)). IT WAS WAAAAYYYY TOO MUCH FOR KIDS WITH A 5-YEAR-OLD MENTALITY, at least for the most part, until those 5-year-olds see Darth Maul, then suddenly, they think the devil's out to get them, and have nightmares ever after. George, couldn't you have thought of someone a little more original than the devil for the bad guy??? Yeah, **some** people thought he was cool, but somehow, I just can't see Darth Vader and Darth Maul being from the same side, hanging out together... And how about making the rest of the movie a little more for us adults to enjoy??? ((22)). What would I have done differently in Episode 1? First and foremost, get rid of Jar Jar. George, he just isn't cut-out for a Star Wars flick. Get over it yourself, George, and get him the heck out of my Star Wars. Please don't inflict any more damage by keeping him around in 2 and 3, just for spite. I don't care what kind of role he'll have in the next two. He's NOT ENOUGH GOOD FOR STAR WARS!!! Next, let's forget all about Naboo, the Neimodians, the Gungans, re-design most of the ships, give Obi-Wan and the droids the LEAD instead of Jar Jar, spike the dialog, and set the story so it shows a (different) young Anakin, but more like 16 to 18 years old in Ep. 1, and show how he turns bad RIGHT AWAY... Then, let the next two films show how he came to need the outfit, while showing how he inflicts damage upon the galaxy, and Obi-Wan's (and Yoda's) failed attempts to keep him on the good side. Let's also see the Mandalorian's in 2 and maybe 3, and see what the secret to Yoda's "dark side" tree is all about. Maybe Dagobah was at one time an inhabited bright and sunny planet, until Vader turned it dark, swampy, and lifeless... Play down the romance triangle as well. Oh, and let's find another Han Solo, but it might be a little too late for that now... Oh, well... Here's hoping for a MUCH BETTER Episode 2.
-
HELLO TO ALL AIN'T IT COOL NEWS READERS. IF YOU WANT AN UPDATE ON ROCKY VI, GO TO THE ROCKY VI THURSDAY TALKBACK POSTINGS. THERE YOU WILL FIND UPDATED AND EXTENSIVE NEWS ON THE FILM. WARNING:THERE ARE SPOILERS. THE FATE OF ROCKY IS TOLD.
I KNOW ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE I WORK FOR MGM AND I AM A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MR. SYLVESTER STALLONE(I AM OBVIOUSLY USING A FAKE NAME). FOR MORE NEWS ON SLY OR ROCKY VI, WRITE ME AT ADAMACE1@HOTMAIL.COM. IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THE UPDATE, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
SO GO NOW AND SEE THE ROCKY VI UPDATE AT THE THURSDAY TALKBACK POSTINGS...IF YOU CARE. AS FAR AS WRITING IN CAPITALS, I PREFER IT AND I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT PROPER COMPUTER ETIQUETTE.
ADAM ACE -
The Phantom Menace was NOT the greatest movie of all time. Neither was it the worst. The SFX were pretty good considering the fact that the entire film was pretty much a SFX shot. What looked fake to some appeared amazing to others. But this talk of not allowing the creator of the series to "even touch" the next film, has me boiling. Even if I agreed that Lucas didn't deliver on TPM, based on previous films I wouldn't call him a HACK. Every one is entitiled to one or two films that don't make the grade without being banished to hell. American Graffiti was excellent. Star Wars (the first) was WAY COOL when I first saw it. And as I recall Lucas wrote ALL of the Star Wars scripts (or at least the stories). What did I not like about ALL of the Star Wars films? Not too much actually, except for the Ewoks, which upon my first viewing of the film I could practically see price tags on them as retail sale plush toys. In this latest film the pod race didn't excite me as did the chariot race from Ben Hur, and again I could see the price tags dangling for the next ride at Universal Studios or Walt Disney World as well as the PC game. I missed the "snappy" dialogue that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher dispensed so well. And I think the film took itself a bit too seriously one one hand and not seriously enough on the other. Jar Jar wasn't as annoying as some of you led me to believe, though he was difficult to understand at times, and Anakin (I couldn't believe his Mom called him Annie) wasn't as bad as others of you complained. And yet I couldn't help but think of a prepubescent Wesley Crusher, even though Anakin is much cuter. Was it a children's story. Yup! When you see a small boy getting involved in pod races and flying space craft, your seeing pure childhood fantasy, like having your own pet dinosaur or a real Robby the Robot (C3PO in this case) to do your bidding. It's all about the power that small kids wished they had. But Anakin must grow up, and my guess is that the next two films will be more adult and I HOPE they have more adult scripts.
And as far as SFX, I want that suspension of disbelief as much as the next guy. I want be WOWED by the effects! But I would settle for a phoney Star Destroyer hanging on a string in front of a black velvet backdrop (ala Saturday Night Live's spoof of Star Trek), if the story is REALLY GOOD! Screw the surround sound, the computer graphics and all the technical crap. That shit does not make a good story. It merely adds to it. Some of you dorks act like no good film could possibly be made without special effects and ear drum shattering sound. It's similar to some of my friends who when getting their first color TV would not watch anything in black and white, and wouldn't watch an academy award winning film, saying (I swear), "That's no good, it's in black and white", and turn on Gilligans Island because it was in color. I knew then that the world was insane. And now with some of these agruments, it only makes my case. -
Um, you said there should be a review of TPM's digital screening from the point of view of someone who didn't like the movie... That's what the first review is. Did you read it? Or did you just skip right down to talkback to argue about something of which you know not. Unless you have witnessed a digital screening of the film, let those that have seen it talk. You haven't seen it digitally projected. The two reviews (and one in talkback) have. You say the effects will look more like cartoons shown digitally. They say it doesn't. They win.
-Q -
Am I the ONLY one who's gettting a wee tad sentimental for the scratches and pops of projected film. Yeah, I'll get over it...but film going digital is our equivalent of records to CDs...and you know what all those old farts say: "It just sounds better on records" (or something to that effect). Then I shall be the first to say: "It just looks better on film!!!" Times, they are a-changin...
-
I meant someone who REALLY dis-liked the movie. Not a guy who could easily change his opinion "because it's Star Wars". Anyway, I'm tired of this subject. You've all made your minds up that opinions other than your own are not to be taken into consideration. Just understand, that there ARE a great many people who hate this movie. At most message-boards I visit, practically every pro-TPM post basically boils down to saying they wish everyone agreed with THEM (in one way or another). AICN is no exception. People will ALWAYS find reasons to dis-credit opinions which don't tally with their own.
-
I'm really glad we're all here discussing the phantom menace again. Like many people, I came here every day during the pre-release frenzy to dive into the sheer insanity of the fan-hype. It was like an out of control, building, snowballing thing...the likes of which I have never seen associated with a pop culture event ever... but after the movie arrived, only one or two postings appeared (mainly the 'reviews', which spawned a really long talkback). I've watched something totally new happen here- something that only could have happened in this age of pre-millennial angst, that only could have happened with this new level of internet connectedness that we all so recently acquired, that only could have happened within a population that had such a burning need for new examinations of its myths. It's as if we were all waiting for the shaman to come out of the vision quest tent to show us the new path to enlightenment. I think it grew so big that I developed a need for it. Harry, you should simply post 'Star Wars: Discuss' every now and then so this new phenomenon can continue. Bottom line: we didn't get enlightenment in the end - we never could have - we only got a cool fantasy movie... no wonder the venom and bile has flown so furiously. The needs are still there in this population. We need to talk more.
-
Judging from the e-mail flames I'm receiving, I seem to have touched a nerve. Yes, I disliked the movie. BIG FUCKING DEAL!! Does EVERYONE have to like this flick in order to make you feel at ease? Are your own beliefs so fragile that you need others to back them up? There are MANY movies I love which most of my friends hate. Do you see me whining at them? HELL NO! Why? Because I RESPECT their fucking opinions. So, by the same argument, accept that people have DIFFERENT views and respect MINE.... What a boring world it would be if everyone thought the same. You'd all be sheep - BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAA!!! Sound familiar?
-
It seems to me that everyone has forgotten about what this TalkBack is for and has continued on their hapless crusade to bash or support TPM. I for one enjoyed the TPM, but I also do not expected to be denegrated for having enjoyed a movie that you may have despised. If you did not like the movie, fine. Someone in one of the previous posts said "You've all made your minds up that opinions other than your own are not to be taken into consideration," well, let me say a few words about that statement. Chances are, no matter how much I talk and debate about the SFX, story, plot, or characters, nothing I say will ever make you love, or even like the movie. In that same respect, nothing you say about Jar Jar (whom I hated) will get me to hate that movie. You, just as I, have firm opinions on the movie and chances are we're not going to convince the other of our opinions, all we can do is respect each other opinions and move on. Since my first viewing, I have had many lengthy discussions with my friends about all the fore-shadowing that Lucas does in the TPM. My friend has a theory that Lord Sidious and Palpatine are not one and the same as it is made painfully obvious in the movie simply because Lucas is known for throwing his audiences for a loop ( in the original script, Lucas had Luke's father as Obi-wan, and dropped the ball on everyone announcing that Vader was the father), and so because of this, and other little tid bits, my friend believes Lucas is just leading us in one direction and will eventually "drop the ball" on us again. Hey, that's what he thinks, but I thought it was an interesting theory nonetheless.
Anyways, I think I've rambled on long enough.... -
It doesn't seem like anyone else who have seen the digital projection of the TPM has posted on here. But I was curious as to your impressions of those pixelations I mentioned in my post at the beginning of talkback. Did it bother you as much as it did me, or were you simply able to ignore it (I'm not sure how you CAN do that, since it's so painfully obvious). Also, I read that if you sit close enough to the screen and you look VERY carefully, you can actually see the individual pixels that make up the overall picture since the whole thing is projected from a tiny chip with 1.3 million mirrors on it. So you can actually see the pixels themselves, although I have been unable to verify this and it's ramifications on those stuck in the front row. Also, someone was asking about possible digital piracy. Since the digital data will either be beamed in via satellite, or put on some type of disk, or stored on an array of hard drives (I doubt these are commercial quality Seagate harddrives), I think overall, it would be next to impossible to pirate the video because of the sheer size of the data we're talking about. You could somehow intercept the encrypted data as it was being beamed down, but you would still have to store it on something. With the actual disk, you can somehow steal the disk, but since you don't have the equipment to play it, that wouldn't do you any good either ( I doubt you can just drop it into your DVD player). Since it transfers over 320 (give or take a few megabytes) a second, that is a huge sum of data to try and capture or pirate even if you had the necessary equipment. So overall, I doubt piracy within this new medium would occur in the near future, perhaps later with new advances, perhaps. But what I'm talking about here is pirating it and still maintaining the clarity and sharpness you get with a digital projector, not that cheap ass 500 dollar digital camera you can get at any video store. If all you wanted to do was just carry a camera and record the movie, you can do that in any theater.
-
This is great for all young filmmakers and wannabes, if you will. Digital "video" gives us an opportunity to get high-quality footage at a very low price. I'm sure there are plenty of guys just like me who spent a good part of a year or two trying to find $100,000 to shoot a feature CHEAPLY on 16 mm. With movies like THE LAST BROADCAST (the first to be projected digitally, not STAR WARS), digital filmmaking is now an accepted medium. And for better or for worse, a lot more people can make a movie. And (even if they suck), it's a such a cool thing to know that people can FINALLY realize their filmmaking dreams. And, it's weird to says films, filmmaking; etc. when it's digital, but it's just a word.
Digital is the future, and it's accessible now.
I hope this doesn't sound like a justification to digital filmmaking!
heath mcknight
P.S.-And you can make your own non-linear system with your PC or Mac. How cool is that?!!!!!!!!!!????????????? -
Finally an answer about piracy problems. Thank you 0060 I was getting way tired of reading the same stuff I've been reading for weeks already about TPM. Yes i realize the data transfer is huge but think how far our little PC's have come in only three to four years. That's pretty close to when the last of the new trilogy will be out. I'm thinking that the data stream won't be intercepted but just recorded on site. I know some theatre folks who routinely let the movies be taped with the little minincams and some that are more extensive than that. And if you flash a couple hundred dollars at these guys making food stamp level incomes what you do if you were them? Data storage is getting better every month, and I still think it will be a bigger problem than they realize. Any comments?
-
Finally an answer about piracy problems. Thank you 0060 I was getting way tired of reading the same stuff I've been reading for weeks already about TPM. Yes i realize the data transfer is huge but think how far our little PC's have come in only three to four years. That's pretty close to when the last of the new trilogy will be out. I'm thinking that the data stream won't be intercepted but just recorded on site. I know some theatre folks who routinely let the movies be taped with the little minincams and some that are more extensive than that. And if you flash a couple hundred dollars at these guys making food stamp level incomes what you do if you were them? Data storage is getting better every month, and I still think it will be a bigger problem than they realize. Any comments?
-
Hi, it's Peter again here to comment on some posts that caught my eye in regards to my viewing of digital Menace. First off, AntiLucas you are entitled to your opinion of Phantom Menace. Yeah, you hated it...so did my brother but to expend so much energy tearing the film a new one is such a waste of time. Have there been films that critics and friends of mine loved and I hated? Of course. I'm not paid by Lucas and I don't have Phantom Menace bedding either. I just like the worlds he creates. Spend your time going after movies that really duped the public like Godzilla. You don't know me so get it out of your head that I percieve Lucas as some deity, because if he did put out crap I would SAY it's crap. He hasn't thus far. That's just my opinion, take it or leave it.
To 0060- The pixellation question. I don't know about your presentation but we sat in about the 5th row and it was not noticeable. Keep in mind that the seats are set a good distance back from the screen so if you saw it, I believe it to be true. You'll notice in my post that I said the picture was NOT perfect. I wish now that I had gone into some specific details about that. Some colors seemed somewhat off in flesh tones. I view digital cinema as an emerging technology in its infancy stages. It excites me because it can only get better. I am also a bit of a purist as well (I miss vinyl too!), but I think it's wrong to impede technology. If the people hate it, then it will fail (see divx). Anyway, I hope I cleared things up. -
I like The Phantom Menace. Say what you will, like it, hate it, be overjoyed, feel betrayed, mock Jar Jar till your jaws unhinge, whatever. I like The Phantom Menace, and all the arguments either pro or con won't change my mind. There. Can I go now?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 35 mm film about twice that? I sincerely hope there are increases in resolution coming soon, because I'll guarantee at that resolution SOMEONE would see pixelization, unless the screen blurs it. (which would sort of partially defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?) Not that I won't enjoy seeing movies like that, especially late in their runs, but I'm sure I'd enjoy it more if there were *no* flaws for me to find.
-
(I originally e-mailed this to Harry as an article, but he either didn't get it or decided not to post it. I thought, however, you all might enjoy a taste of Hughes/JVC's take on Digital Cinema! They are one of the two companies exhibiting TPM in L.A., at the Pacific Theatre's Winnetka Stadium 20 in Chatsworth.)
After attending NAB (that's the National Association of Broadcasters annual convention in Las Vegas for all you non-video geeks) I had to write with my first-hand
experience with Digital Cinema!
First off, let me give you just a smidgen of background info on myself. I'm a professional videographer who works with non-linear editing, 2 and 3-D graphics, paint, SFX,
compositing and animation, and just about every other computer-based, techno-riffic doo-dad I can get my hands on. I guess you'd call me a "power user" when it comes to video
technology.
My background, however, is in film. I've been a projectionist. I've worked at a grip house. I've worked low-level crew on a handful of feature films, commercials, etc. I've made a
few short films myself, and I'm a huge cinema geek.
Although my company paid for me to go to NAB, and I was obliged put together a plan to migrate fully into digital production, that's not what really got my heart pounding. My
secret wish was to experience a demonstration of Digital Cinema. After reading Moriarty's excellent articles about ShoWest, and pouring over Texas Insturments' website, I was
chomping at the bit to see it for myself.
I wanted to see if anyone could win over a cinema purist and confirmed skeptic like myself. I was worried that a substandard technology would make it into theatres, forever
cheapening the moviegoing experience for all of us. I wondered if the hard work of genius cinematographers would be reduced to the lowest common denominator of video
projection. Oh, I was concerned...
...When I stepped into the Hughes/JVC black-curtained booth showcasing their line of digital video projectors. The quality ran the gambit from dismal-looking, laptop-sized
projectors to fairly impressive industrial-size machines that might run on a concert stage, or other similar application. Then a Powerpoint presentation caught my eye. It read:
"Come experience the technology endorsed by George Lucas to digitally project Episode One! The Hughes/JVC Digital Cinema Presentation at the Riviera Hotel!"
I ask you - How could a geek resist?
Later that evening, my wife and I arrived about 20 minutes late at the Riviera Ballroom. It was to be a 2-hour presentation, and I figured there would be a lot of hype and pre-show
talk about how great this technology is before getting down to the heart of the matter, which would be to show a few clips from feature films.
Instead, there were one-sheet posters for Life is Beatiful and Shakespeare in Love! After signing in, we proceeded through a "lobby" area with popcorn and sodas, rounded a
curtain, and....
OH MY GOD!!!
It was Shakespeare in Love, bigger than life, bright as hell. I was in a movie theater! Although the place had been constructed ad-hoc from pipe and drape, and the seats were just
your standard metal banquet chairs set on risers to create stadium-type seating, this was a movie theater! All the surround speakers had been hung from the ceiling in their proper
places, the screen was as large as I have seen in any 500-seat stadium theatre, and the image...oh the image!
If you've ever had the pleasure to sit in on dalies for a feature film in production, you'll know what I mean. When a film is being shot, the Director, Cinematographer, Producer, and
other cast and crew will view a print, fresh from the lab, of the previous day's shooting. This is about as close as you'll ever get to the original camera negative. It is usually
viewed in a small, intimate screening room, set up to exacting standards of projection quality.
By the time that a completed film has gone through the generations of interpositives, internegatives and release prints, then gets broken down into reels, shipped, spliced
together and strung up at your local theater, with a projection lamp 6 months older (and dimmer) than it ought to be, and a dirty old projector adding jitter, scratches and
questionable focus....Let's just say that the image you're seeing, even at a good theater, is pretty far removed from what was captured by the fabulous cameras and lenses on the
set.
But this was like sitting in a dailies screening room, watching Shakepeare in Love in all its' original pristine quality! The blacks were totally black, the highlights were a brilliant
white, the colors were spot-on-perfect. I was floored. And to top it all off, I couldn't detect a bit of aliasing, interlacing or "video look" at all!
After about 15 or 20 minutes, I decided to make my way to the back of the theater, where a technician was sitting on a platform surrounded by at least half a dozen monitors,
laptops, and three racks full of video gear. I carefully stepped up the stairs and whispered: "Excuse me, but I just had to ask. What format are you running?" I hoped that he
wouldn't shoosh me off the platform, telling me to return to my seat and stop asking ridiculous questions. To my surprise, he was very willing to talk (whisper) to me, and seemed
as exited about it all as I was! We talked for about 10 minutes, during which he said that they had planned on showing Life is Beautiful, but that Miramax had delivered
Shakespeare in Love just that morning! They were running a D-9 tape that Mirimax had made from an interpositive as a video master for the home video release of the film. He said
that the Hughes/JVC system has been much more forgiving with different tape formats that the competing system from Texas Insturments. He said that this presentation was actually in High-Defeinintion 1080-i, which floored me, because it held up so
well on a screen that was at least 30 feet tall! He talked about how images just looked so much better on their projector because the contrast ratio was better than 1000:1, and how
the resolution was high enough to not have to downsample or interpolate the 1080-i footage. He said that the first round of scouting had been done for the theaters to show
Episode I digitally in L.A. and New York, but that a second round of elimination would happen in May. I was in techno-geek heaven! He turned to look at the D-9 deck, and said
he had a reel change coming up, but he didn't know when, as he hadn't even screened the entire film before! I thanked him for his time and returned to my seat, glowing.
My wife and I talked about how rich the images seemed, how they gave the illusion of more depth. We also noticed something that I didn't expect. We saw many more flaws in the
movie! In the balcony scene, for instance, it was pretty obvious that the greensperson had used real plants for part of the set dressing and plastic vines and plants for others. In
the scenes that took place in the theatre sets, many of the wooden posts and buttresses looked flat and painted, and just didn't hold up! I hadn't noticed any of these things when
I saw the movie on film, and neither had my wife. Strangely enough, many television producers have complained of exactly the same thing when they switch over to
High-Defenition television! The lavish sets that look great on standard-defenition t.v. look fake when viewed in H-D.
I tell you, I think that we've just seen the bar being raised. My only remaining fear about electronic distribution of motion pictures is that theater owners will adopt a
less-expensive and inferior technology because they think people won't notice the difference. Well, it's not to far in the future until most of us will be able to afford a 50-inch,
High-Definition, wall-mounted plasma screen in our homes, and when that happens my friends, theaters owners are going to be scrambling to figure out how to keep an edge, and
keep filling seats. And they can keep doing just that if they remember why people go to the movie theaters in the first place. They go for the scale of the screen, the quality of the
image, the immersive experience that they just can't get at home. The American moviegoing public knows the difference, and I believe that if theater owners keep up their end of
the bargain as they make the move to digital, we'll keep paying for that immersive experience well into the coming century, and the art of cinema will be the better for it, allowing
filmmakers to present their vision just as they intended it to be presented.
Now, if we could just see what Lucas and Sony have cooking for Episode II... -
Hey all,
I really appreciate everyones answers to my questions. So just let me give my thoughts on some of the issues. I knew that this talkback would eventually evolve into a discussion about the digital theatre realm sooner or later, I just wished it could've occurred a little sooner, but better late than never. This is what I believe talkback is all about, exchanging ideas, asking and answering questions. I think it is totally justified to post your opinions, but when those opinions evolve into flame wars, well, that really doesn't get us anywhere. So let me get to my replies. TO Barsoom: I do understand how computer and digital technology has and will continue to advance in leaps and bounds. But when you really think about it, if you want to some how pirate a genuine copy of a digital movie, without losing the richness that digital cinema is capable of, then we are still a long ways off. But that is just my opinion. I mean think about it, 1 terabyte is (I think, my math could be off here) 1,000 gigabytes (right?, some let me know). So if TPM is 30 terabytes, then that is one HUGE disk drive you're going to need. I mean, you'll need thousands of dual sided, dual layered DVD's running RDSL to even come close. But you never know when there might a HUGE jump in commercial data storage devices. But as you'll remember from my previous post, I mention all of these huge figures because I'm assuming you want to record the digital movie and preserving all of the quatlities that would cause you to want to copy it in the first place right? Even you just want a crappy copy, then you can just do that with a regular digital camera sitting in front of the screen. I'm still in the process of finding out how much information has been allocated for the sound compression, so that is something to consider as well. Just taping a digital movie, you're obviously not going to get the kind of acoustic fidelity that you'll want to experience in a home theater. I would just wait until TPM comes out on DVD (or HD-DVD) whenever that is going to be. Has anyone heard any info on when Lucas plans on releasing TPM on DVD? I've heard dates of 1 year to 7 years because he wants to release his entire collection on DVD at one time. Who knows. Damn my posts are getting long. I guess it's the novelty of posting for the first time. TO PETER: I sat some what in the middle, where I believed the sound acoustics would be optimal. For me, the audio track is EXTREMELY important to any movie that utilizes action sequences, explosions,...etc. I know for a fact that those pixelations exists because the guy from Texas Instruments was discussing it with me. And since digital projection is still in its infancy, he was confident that that problem would be fixed sometime in the near future. I was just curious if those lines detracted from your movie going experience. Although it wasn't that big of a deal to me, it still caused me to squirm in my seat while those lines were readily apparent. I guess your seating position and your angular relation to the screen has something to do with how those pixelations appear to the viewers since you didnt see it at all, and I did. Thanks for your replies nonetheless. I need to go now and actually get a life. :) ps: I hope you all make an effort to go out and experience this new technology for yourself and make up your own minds on the future of digital technology. -
Hey all,
I really appreciate everyones answers to my questions. So just let me give my thoughts on some of the issues. I knew that this talkback would eventually evolve into a discussion about the digital theatre realm sooner or later, I just wished it could've occurred a little sooner, but better late than never. This is what I believe talkback is all about, exchanging ideas, asking and answering questions. I think it is totally justified to post your opinions, but when those opinions evolve into flame wars, well, that really doesn't get us anywhere. So let me get to my replies. TO Barsoom: I do understand how computer and digital technology has and will continue to advance in leaps and bounds. But when you really think about it, if you want to some how pirate a genuine copy of a digital movie, without losing the richness that digital cinema is capable of, then we are still a long ways off. But that is just my opinion. I mean think about it, 1 terabyte is (I think, my math could be off here) 1,000 gigabytes (right?, some let me know). So if TPM is 30 terabytes, then that is one HUGE disk drive you're going to need. I mean, you'll need thousands of dual sided, dual layered DVD's running RDSL to even come close. But you never know when there might a HUGE jump in commercial data storage devices. But as you'll remember from my previous post, I mention all of these huge figures because I'm assuming you want to record the digital movie and preserving all of the quatlities that would cause you to want to copy it in the first place right? Even you just want a crappy copy, then you can just do that with a regular digital camera sitting in front of the screen. I'm still in the process of finding out how much information has been allocated for the sound compression, so that is something to consider as well. Just taping a digital movie, you're obviously not going to get the kind of acoustic fidelity that you'll want to experience in a home theater. I would just wait until TPM comes out on DVD (or HD-DVD) whenever that is going to be. Has anyone heard any info on when Lucas plans on releasing TPM on DVD? I've heard dates of 1 year to 7 years because he wants to release his entire collection on DVD at one time. Who knows. Damn my posts are getting long. I guess it's the novelty of posting for the first time. TO PETER: I sat some what in the middle, where I believed the sound acoustics would be optimal. For me, the audio track is EXTREMELY important to any movie that utilizes action sequences, explosions,...etc. I know for a fact that those pixelations exists because the guy from Texas Instruments was discussing it with me. And since digital projection is still in its infancy, he was confident that that problem would be fixed sometime in the near future. I was just curious if those lines detracted from your movie going experience. Although it wasn't that big of a deal to me, it still caused me to squirm in my seat while those lines were readily apparent. I guess your seating position and your angular relation to the screen has something to do with how those pixelations appear to the viewers since you didnt see it at all, and I did. Thanks for your replies nonetheless. I need to go now and actually get a life. :) ps: I hope you all make an effort to go out and experience this new technology for yourself and make up your own minds on the future of digital technology. -
I saw TPM at the AMC theaters in Burbank, Ca. on opening day and am not impressed. I have been working in film exhibition for the last 12 years, and am now employed by the leader in cinema quality check services and I don't like what I saw. The image had footlambert inconsistencies and there was noticable high definition shimmering. I have friends who are pushing this technology because they have a financial interest in this, but I can't see this replacing good old film.
Andrew J Saidi -
I'm glad that the discussion finally got back to the original subject of the post which was digital projection and technology. Some valid concerns have been brought up about piracy in this new format, but personally, I don't think it will be all that easy. Let's remember that we're talking about movie studios here, possibly the most paranoid institutions on Earth when it comes to piracy. These are the guys that held the DVD format introduction back more than a year because of copy protection concerns. Even now, we can't buy progressive-scan DVD players because studios are worried about copyright issues, even though manufacturers have the hardware ready to go. You can bet that digital cinema will have layer upon layer of safeguards to protect the content before studios sign off on it.
It's true that data storage technology has increased tremendously over the years. Unfortunately, storage is probably the easiest of a multitude of technical problem to overcome here. There's also the matter of video and audio encoding technology. I think it's a safe bet that even if you could get your hands on an original copy of the data, you won't be able to run the data stream through your garden-variety MPEG-2 decoder and come up with a pristine copy of the film. If studios go with a proprietary codec, that will have to be cracked, along with any additiional encryption technology that's included. Not exactly something that can be done in a basement somewhere. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the technical challenges might make it prohibitive for all but the most ambitious pirating operations. It's also very likely that the digital stream may be flagged so that if illegal copies are made, they can be traced back to the theater.
Getting off the subject of piracy, I'm curious about some of the comments made about the image and sound quality of the digital presentation. Did the people who saw the digital presentation of The Phantom Menace see the film previously in the same theater? If not, this might account for the difference in sound more than the actual technolgy. The soundtracks on both film and digital versions are recorded in Dolby Digital EX, and although I believe the bit-rate of the AC-3 coding on the film version might be slightly less that the digital version, the difference should be small enough that the actual playback hardware would have a bigger influence on the the overall sound quality. We can be pretty sure that the THX Theater Alignment guys went over those venues with a fine-tooth comb to make sure that everything was perfect. I also wouldn't worry too much about the glitches you saw in the digital presentation. Remember, this is very new technology we're talking about here, and like any first or second generation equipment, theres probably lots of room for improvement. Anybody remember the pixelation problems some first-generation DVD players used to have? -
Hey all, 0060 here with a quickname change. Anyways, I totally agree with all your comments on video piracy and how it would be extremely difficult to pull it off. You asked "Did the people who saw the digital presentation of The Phantom Menace see the film previously in the same theater?" I can say that I for one have not watched TPM in the theatre in which i viewed the Digital edition of TPM. But I had seen it 3 times previous to that at Fox Westwood theater (an awesome theater with the best audio reproduction I have ever heard), at AMC 21 at Puente Hills (shit sound), and Edwards Spectrum in Irvine (very good sound), and finally in Burbank AMC 14 in Burbank. I have always equated AMC with bad audio. I am sure that they have invested alot of money in top notch equipment, but the managers at the various AMC's that I've been to have always told me that people already complain that the volume is already too high as it is (and I want them to turn it up). So that probably has alot to do with my gripes about the sound that I experienced at the digital screening. During the pod race, I even closed my eyes to see if I can actually tell the difference and I must say the surround sound is awesome. But i guess I just expect the lower frequencies to really reverberate throughout my body. I have a question for you. How many channels does Dolby Digital EX utilize anyways? I have heard everything from 6 to 8 channels. Are they including the low frequency and calling that a separate channel? Was just curious in case I needed to relay this info to someone else, I try to as accurate as possible so as to not sound like a doofus (too late!). As to the video presentation, they were obviously using a new type of digital projector, and since my only gripes have been the pixelation, I associate that with the new technology itself. I just hope they fix that problem FAST!!
-
I just have to clear up a few misconceptions about these technologies:
1. The sound quality on JVC and TI's projectors is funamentally no different than what you hear every day in multiplexes across the country. The only possible difference is that THESE PARTICULAR THEATERS were chosen for their quality. God bless Lucas, not for Star Wars, but for THX and all the certification work they do for theaters all over the world. Sound quality in your average theater has increased incredibly over the past decade or so, and it has as much to do with THX certification as much as the various digital sound formats. Take the greatest digital sound in the world, then play it through underpowered, mismatched speakers in a poorly designed accoustical house....You get the drift.
2. The "white line" problem described in an earlier talkback is a result of TI's poor resolution in their Digital Micromirror Device. At last count, it had a shoddy resolution of around 1024x768. Not only is this the wrond aspect ratio, forcing TI to stretch the picture out using an anamorphic lens, but they are also using their dubiously-defined "software enhancement" to do some sort of interpolation to the picture. What you are seeing, plain and simple, is PIXELLIZATION, and no amount of digital voodoo is going to fix that as long as your base resolution of the chips is so low. I saw the JVC presentation at NAB on D-9 Digital Videotape, projected at standard HDTV 1080-i format, and it looked great! That's because the JVC projector has a resolution of 2000x1280, over 12,000 lumens of light output and a contrast ratio of 1000:1! That's a picture that's as bright as film and just as much contrast. On the subject of resolution, I'd like to see even more! I mean, CGI effects are usually scanned into a computer at 2000-4000 lines or more! If we truly want to replace film, and not lose anything in the translation, let's really RAISE THE BAR and demand high resolution images! Which brings me to:
3. Whatever type of system eventually takes over and begins popping up in theatres, it will unfortunately be probably based on an HDTV video model. I doubt that the public will demand extra resolution if they can't tell the difference. THAT means that the format that movies are encoded in will NOT be inaccesable in terms of huge data rates. Keep in mind, JVC projected Shakespeare in Love on D-9! You can go buy a D-9 deck RIGHT NOW from JVC and hook it up to your HDTV! I'm talking RIGHT NOW! Of course, you wouldn't spend the $50,000 or so for that deck unless you were a high-end HDTV production house, but it won't be long before that technology sits in your home in the form of an HDTV VCR or DVD player. The reason that you won't get your hands on first-run movies is ENCRYPTION. Why do you think JVC is partnering with Quallcom? They need the tecnology for distribution AND an encryption process so secure that the major studios will put their faith in sending their newest blockbuster over satellite or high-speed data lines to theaters! -
As per the Dolby Web Site: www.dolby.com/cinema/sa10bro.html "Dolby Digital
-
Why is digital projection being pushed so much?,,the reason is simply so studios can save money on making prints,thats it,,so these companies can make bigger profits,,whos going to pay for all the digital projectors?,,,the studios,,,dream on,,to equip one screen with digital projection youre talking somewhere in the region of
-
Jun 19, 1999 6:55:10 PM CDT
To "Showcase": Choose Life, Choose a Job, Choose a wife, Choose
by azscott
I feel your pain, brother! The art of filmmaking is being subverted in every direction! I used to be a lone projectionist at an 8-plex in 1986. That was bad enough. Now there ARE NO MORE projectionists here (Arizona). Films are actually run by assistant managers to save money! And we wonder why we can't get a decent presentation! Let's face it, studios (and theaters for that matter) are in the business of making money, end of story, and they're going to do that any way they can, even if that means replacing film distribution with some present or future form of digital video. I used to believe that film would rule supreme for decades, that no technology would develop to provide that immersive experience until far, far in the future............I was wrong! And so are you if you think that Digital Cinema is a far off dream. It's here today, it's on the way, and it will come faster than anyone expects.......SOUND THE DEATH KNELL OF FILM! (insert wailing and gnashing of teeth).....BUT, consider an alternative. If, and I say this with all reasonable caution, IF the technology exists to allow a filmmaker's vision to be delivered to an audience much more reliably, authentically, and inexpensively, preserving the original intent of the filmmaker, who wouldn't want that?.....And to take this thought one step furter, IF the 24P camera developed by Lucasfilm and Sony can duplicate the responsiveness, richness, contrast ratio, and overall "feel" of film, while also giving filmmakers new and exciting palettes that go beyond the scope and limitations of film emulsion, who wouldn't want that?.....And IF this technolgy makes it possible to shoot a feature film for a cost that is more comparable to a video-based production, thereby allowing many more independent, low-budget filmmakers to produce non-mainstream work and actually have a chance at distributing it to a mass audience........Call me a daydreamer if you will, but I believe that technology has the potential to empower people to accomplish feats that were previously impossible. I believe that we may one day live in a world driven by content, not corporations. When the music industry, the television industry, and finally, the film industry wake up to the fact of improved technology combined with easy worldwide digital distribution, they will either start producing better content or lose their place to the newly-empowered masses who will......God, what a rant!....I choose to wait and see.
-
I live in the UK and I saw Episode 1 on a pirate this week. (normally I wouldn't do this but the tempatation to see it 4 weeks before it opens was just too much)
I've watched it twice & I can't wait till it opens so I can see it on the Big Screen.
I must admit I was worried about seeing it following reviews and internet postings but after i saw it i realised - YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT! - IT'S GREAT!
Admit it - if TPM had been the first film in 1977 and Episode 4 was released in 1999 all the critics would be saying A New Hope was crap.
Face it TPM was never going to blow thw world away the way the original did as Big FX laden films are the norm these days.
TPM can hold its head up with the original trilogy.
Roll on Episode II
-
(the first one, I mean, it was great). I admit to being disapointed with TPM the first time, but I've seen it 2 more times already and it gets better each time. My only real gripe, and the gripe of a lot of people I know, is that in between the opening 15-20 mintues, the pod race and the final battle there's a LOT of gabby borring talk. But, the best parts more than make up for it. (get to see it again after exams, yahoo)
-
Well, here's my question to those who saw the digital screening...Why do you think the sound is better? It shouldn't be. You may be thinking traditional film prints are shown with an optical track for sound, that runs along side the film, which is true for some films, but not for films with THX. Those have a digital soundtrack, not an optical track, so any more clarity that you heard, well, you heard in your own digital mind.
But here's another question...You say the colors are more vivid. Now, I admit I haven't seen a digitally projected film, but I know for a fact that the digital medium cannot support as many colors as traditional film can, not yet, anyway. Even HDTV is only comparable to 16mm film. If I am correct (and I think I am) digital colors range in the hundreds of thousands, while in film it is in the millions.
Okay, last point, last gripe. I was reading something that Ebert wrote, and he quoted a social psychologist (did anyone else read this?) who speculated that the reason why digital projection would not work was that it engaged a different part of the brain than film projection does, film triggering the dream portion of the mind, and digital a state of mind closer to hypnosis. Does anyone else know anything about this? What was your viewing experience? I am curious.
Thoughts from the machine. -
My complaints on Mr.Jar-Jar Binks
As they look over the world's painful panorama of war and terror, some people conclude that it is too late, that no amount of information or activity could possibly exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. But those who take that pessimistic view understand neither Mr. Jar-Jar Binks nor his current rung on the ladder to total power. But before I continue, allow me to explain that Jar-Jar's pronouncements are based on prejudices and preconceived notions. It should come as no big shock to anyone that he can out-reason the most pugnacious beatniks you'll ever see but not anyone else. I would like to put forth the possibility that Jar-Jar labels everything that conflicts with his established way of thinking as eccentric alcoholism-prone propaganda. This theme is stated in one form or another in every one of Man's great religions.
If you think about it, I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Jar-Jar more vehemently. The essential point, however, is the following: His hypersensitive comrades befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion for no better reason than to be above someone on the social ladder. On a similar note, Jar-Jar should think for himself. Reckless cowards like him tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation.
Granted, Jar-Jar's politics must not go unchallenged. But Jar-Jar is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications. All such combinations of audacity with ignorance would be supremely ridiculous but for one consideration: When it comes time to take a stand, he invariably dives for cover. During the first half of the 20th century, mercantalism could have been practically identified with racism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called insincere cretins.
As far as I can tell, a lot of people may end up getting hurt before the final spasm of Jar-Jar's rage is played out. I unequivocally find Jar-Jar's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most disdainful. What do you think of this: Creating needed understanding is best achieved in a calm, rational environment?
While Jar-Jar might not usher in the rule of the antichrist and the apocalyptic end times per se, Jar-Jar's remarks provide a vivid example of how we have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. I know that no matter how much his bons mots are rationalized, they still tip the scales in his favor. You know that. But does he know we know that? In a larger context, his dictatorial amoral jeremiads remind us that acts of racialism continue in our midst. When I say that this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that it disturbs me that these wretched flag burners have so little tolerance for differing points of view, I consider this to mean that for Jar-Jar, egotism is indubitably the name of the game. The "facts" he has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most ruthless is his discussion of dirty lackadaisical troglodytes.
Take this example: Let's say that the conclusions that his forces are so proud of are woefully foul-mouthed. Now let's say that the only way I can possibly forgive Jar-Jar is if he tells the truth and makes restitution. Does that mean that separatism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions? No, because snooty unregenerate escapism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are petulant! His prank phone calls are so jejune that if allowed to go unanswered, their final cost would be incalculable. Imagine getting a dollar every time Jar-Jar said he wouldn't purge the land of every non-juvenile person, gene, idea, and influence, but did so anyway. You'd doubtlessly be very, very rich.
On the surface, it would seem that he trumpets nerdy gnosticism laced with mindless frotteurism. But the truth is that he tends to forget what matters most. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that he argues that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. To maintain this thesis, Jar-Jar naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that his biases can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. There can be no doubt that he can't discuss anything without talking about denominationalism. I sometimes joke about how I regret not writing this letter sooner. But seriously, I don't think it would be unfair to say that there are no easy solutions for dealing with disorderly misfits ("easy" being defined as a solution that will not practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of sinful death cult).
Needless to say, Jar-Jar's underlings seem to maintain that he can do no wrong. Sometimes it seems foolhardy poseurs are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Jar-Jar would cause an increase in disease, tribalism, crime, and vice if he got the chance. I believe that some of his undertakings raise important questions about future social interactions and their relationship to civil liberties, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which a vulgar turn of mind is impervious.
If a modern Dante were to update the Divine Comedy, he would have to create a special circle in Hell for insidious prodigal ideologues who cater to the basest instincts of audacious self-satisfied smut peddlers. There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that Jar-Jar will fail if we unite. It must be reemphasized that his viewpoints are some of the most ungrateful, bitter, and testy I've ever encountered. Under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, Jar-Jar's ploys actually create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that if we let Jar-Jar make my blood curdle, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.
He wants to pass off all sorts of disaffected and obviously grumpy stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". Is this so he can use both overt and covert deceptions to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior, or is it to shred the basic compact between the people and their government? You be the judge. In either case, one cannot help but notice that his secret police are profoundly influenced by what he says and does. Mr. Jar-Jar Binks' sycophants overthrow democratic political systems, as though it were a disgrace to deal summarily with unconscionable conceited profiteers. And that's all I have to say.
-
... under ideal circumstances. Not only does it have a broader range of colors, but the potential resolution is also greater. While digital projection systems display over a million pixels, the grain density of film is many times that. Unfortunately, real life is rarely ideal. Lots of folks don't know this, but there are actually different "grades" of release prints made of most films. This is because the original negative of a film is considered too valuable to risk damaging. Instead, the prints that most of us see at our local mulitplex are struck from multiple copy-negatives made from positives made from the original negs. Now anyone who knows photography will tell you that this virtually guarantees some degradation of quality. As if that's not bad enough, there can also be a variation in quality during the processing stage which can lead to less-than-perfect color rendition. While not as good as the "exhibition" prints that studios reserve for high-end venues, digital projection does have the potential to eliminate many of the variables that can lead to a less-than-perfect experience. While we're on the subject, I'd also like to straighten out some confusion that seems to exist regarding the term "THX." THX is not a digital recording format like Dolby Digital, DTS or SDDS. When you see the THX logo on the end credits of a film, it means that the sound was mixed in a THX Sound System Theater like Skywalker Sound or EFX studios. When a theater is THX-certified theater, it means that the venue has passed the very strict criteria set forth by the THX Theater Alignment Program which looks at factors including electronics and speaker selection and set-up, sound leakage from neighboring screens and even environmental noise. To confuse issues even further, there is also a home THX certification program for home theater components. You can get all the info you want on THX at their website at www.thx.com. Now I'm sure that this long post is probably going to piss old Yojimbo off. Well too bad! I don't see anything wrong with long posts as long as they are informative, as many of the posts on this topic have been. These are subjects that just can't be explained in a few sentences, and I'd much rather read a long post that's accurate than brief one that's wrong or, even worse, pointless. Yojimbo, if you've read this far, I'd like to apologize on behalf of my fellow "morons" if having to read all these long words makes your head hurt.
-
Hey all. Whoa!! BigLebowski, your essay there totally went over my head there. I guess i don't have the mental capacity to understand all of your critiques. But the one thing that I totally got and have to agree with is your disdain of Jar-Jar. Someone asked the question about how much better the picture quality was. Well, I'm not totally clear on how many colors is actually projected onto the screen, but the overall picture, to me, is beautiful. My jaw just dropped just as it had when I saw an HDTV for the first time. The colors were just so much more vibrant in my opinion. I saw a TPM on opening night, so I would assume the film stock was brand new, so the film shouldn't have degraded that much. So thinking back in retrospect, the digital projection was clearly better than that first viewing in film. Besides, the advantage with digital technology is that the first and last showing are just as clear, vivid, and vibrant as the first. As to the sound, just let me say again how much I hate AMC for wussing out on the volume of their system. Crank that shit up. Oh yeah, thanks to that guy who helped clarify the whole THX thing.
-
Keee-rist, I just came back from the Burbank AMC where I saw the digital screening, then I see this shitfest!! Damn you people like AntiLucas...AL, I understand you have a right to not like this movie, but gawwdamn, do *not* say you are a majority or some shit like 'a LOT of people really hate this movie'....go to the IMDB website, the BEST site on the net for grading movies...TPM is #70 on the best 250 list and NO, its not as high as the trilogy or Matrix, for that matter, but its a whole lot better off than say, Titanic, which didn't even make #250 and that was a gawwdamn popular film...So, you people who didn't like TPM, and I respect your opinions, you are in a very small minority...
Oh, and to the guy who said he hated the digital version, what the fuck?? You must not have been in theatre 12 cause it ROCKED!!!! I can honestly say, like the others who have seen it, that the clarity and resolution are UNSURPASSED!! It IS HDTV on the big screen!! And the colors, simply the best....I noticed things tonight that I didn't notice the first time around just cause everything was so clear and the true colors really stood out...Yeah, I saw where during the day time shots on Tatooine where the screen was white, you could see the fragmentation lines, but shit, if that bothers you then I guess you've never been satisfied by any movie going experience you've ever had to nitpick like that....and yeah, I suppose if you stand up and look at the movie point-blank you could probably see some pixels but from a back of the theatre view, it was picture perfect clear and NO PIXELS!!!
Nuff said... -
Why the hell would you spend time writing a Jar-Jar analysis? Who gives a shit? Really? Big news for you...it's a fucking movie and he's a fucking fictional creature! My God, get over it already! When do you find time to write this tripe? Do you not have a real life to get on with? Is there nothing more important in your life than the fact that Jar Jar sucked? Christ! Next thing you know, People(if thats what they really are) are going to write essays on why Felicity Shagwell sucked. Man, I'm puzzled. I'm really looking foward to seeing Blair Witch Thursday, but you wont hear me bitching because it did not live up to my expectations. I just move on. And so should you fuckers who feel the need to tread a beaten path.
-
To BUCKWILD and SANDERS. Thanks for the feedback on the piracy and quality image issue. Since I am still far from being the techno-savant that I wish to be your info. was well recieved. My friends and I will be argueing for weeks, heh, heh. Touching briefly on the piracy issue, I myself find it hard to resist it, when literally I can walk to the end of my block and secure just about any movie I want and the quality still is very good. The only reason i don't is because if it was my movie out on the street I would definitely be bent. As far as DP goes I don't think the average joe on the street is going to care about it being a "pristine" copy, and will buy it anyway. I heartily agree with you BUCKWILD in that the encoding and safeguards will be tougher that anything we've seen before.
-
Appreciated the concerns of showcase and sanders. It let me know I'm not crazy for being worried about digital projection. What I'm worried about is the psychological effect. We know there is a big difference between film and television, and it's not all about resolution. With film you have 24 pictures seperated by black. Your brain actively fills in the black. Television frames are contantly being replaced by the next image. The idea of sitting through a four hour long movie or a double feature sounds fairly daunting to any movie goer. Yet people can contantly absorb hours and hours of television at a time, since it essentially puts you in a trance-like state. Hell, it fries your brain. I wonder what kind of effect digital projection has on your brain. Maybe my fears are unfounded. The comparisons some of the people who viewed the TPM digital projections have made to DVDs and HDTVs have me worried. Five years from now, will we be paying money to go see television on a huge screen? And, if HDTVs ever become a standard, will the appeal of going to see a movie (can't say film no more) in a theater wither away for Joe Blow Moviegoer, since something of similar quality and experience will be available at the home? If in five years we'll only have digital projection, in fifteen maybe all new productions will simply be broadcast right into your TV set. Will the death of film lead to the take-over of television? Or am I just a paranoid film geek?
-
Hey all, not even sure if anyone is even reaing this talkback anymore. But I just got back from Chatsworth where they are showing the CineComm digital projection. The one that I critiqued before was done by Texas Instruments. But before I start, let me reply to that guy who mentioned how I must have never enjoyed a movie if I'm going to nitpick the pixelization. I have enjoyed many movies in the theater, but as a general rule, I make it a point to watch movies that I'm interested during the first week, when the quality of the film is still decent. I loved the TPM, but I since my purpose was to critique the digital presentation, I felt it was only apt to mention the pixelization and its affect on my movie going experience. Anyways, let me get on with the comparison. The people presenting this digital presentation gave out a little leaflet that gave some technical information about their system: Distance from Lens to Screen-77'; Projector type- Hughes/JVC 12K; Screen Size- 47'X 27'; Brightness- 11.6 Foodlamberts; Resolution 1920 X 1080; Contrast Ratio- 1300 to 1; Image Aspect Ratoi- Anamorphic 2.35 to 1; Audio- Uncompressed 6 Channel; Storage system- Pluto Hyperspace Raid Array 360 Gigabytes Compression ratio of 4 to 1. I'm sure most of you won't even know nor understand what those stats mean, but it's there for those we care. The guy doing the introduction mentioned that their system, when compared to the TI people, is NOT a prototype, you can actually go out and buy one of these systems if you had the 100 grand or so for the system. TI on the otherhand is running a prototype unit (this is what the dude said, is he bias..probably, but I'm assuming he speaks the truth.) Overall, the picture was rock steady, bright, and clear. Unlike the TI system though, CineComm's system did not have the pixelation that was evident in TI's presentation. But at the same time, I noticed that there was slight blurring in many shots, and my friend and i came to the conclusion that this was done on purpose perhaps to mask the aforementioned pixelization. I think both companies have a very marketable digital system on their hands, but I would give the favor to Texas Instruments because their picture was ultr-crisp and clear. If you want to read my critique of the TI system, check the top under 0060, my former ID. The stupid thing is, the 4 areas in the United States that are presenting this digital presentation; New York, New Jersey, and two in southern california, well, the relative close proximity of those theaters on the east coast and the those in the west coast (practically right next door to each other) is a disservice to everyone since only a limited amount of people get to experience this new format.
-
The specs you related were very informative. We now know that the resolution capability of the projector is equivalent to 1080i, the highest of the the HDTV formats. It also seems that I was wrong in assuming that the better sound of the earlier presentation was due mostly to the venue's sound system. I assumed that the sound was recorded in Dolby Digital which uses perceptual coding to compress audio information into less space. According to you information, the soundtracks at these digital presentations use six channels of full-range, uncompressed audio which really should be superior.
-
The reviews were cool guys, well done. You captured for me what was good about TPM - nostalgia. I enjoyed it because I grew up with. Crap acting, corny dialogue - now that's Star Wars, and I love. But you know, now Im a red blooded adult male and all, there are a couple of things that would improve the film 1) Yeah ok, Jar Jar, pain in the ass, gotta go 2)dont kill Darth Maul, he was so nasty, 3)some nudity of Natalie Portman, man for a 15 year old she is goddam sexy... Thanks geeks. The lame one.
-
You say that film is better under ideal circumstances? If that is the case, and it doesn't really matter to you what the format is, why don't you watch TV? I don't want to sound snippy (and I know I do, so I apologize in advance), but the studios can easily afford the cost of a film print to be shown. I realize I had my terminology wrong, it wasn't THX, but the technology is the same for film and video. And you are talking about making the negitives into a film print. These are made off an internegitive, which are struck from the original negitive, and so all prints you or anyone else are seeing are of the same quality, so the film should look the same in any first run theaters, unless they have been used a lot. There is no excuse for digital projection right now, outside of watching a football game at a bar, because the quality quite simply is not there yet. Maybe when it is, I will support it, but as a filmgoer, I demand a quality print for my money, and I don't want to settle for some shitty money-saving digital projection because some exec wants to save a few bucks. They can cut their costs somewhere else. And for all of you who keep claiming to have seen these fantastic colors? Are you talking about technicolor, or what, because you are seeing literally millions less solors on your digital screen! Did you take the brown acid? Okay, I think I've calmed down now. And so, all together..."FUCK DIGITAL PROJECTION!"
-
I saw TPM using the TI digital projector at Burbank today. It was amazing.
I banged on the door of the projection booth, and a TI guy came out to do a little demo; he had the chip with him with the 1.3 million little mirrors, and a couple of display cards. Apparently the prototype projector uses a standard light house, then bounces the light off the mirrors, then goes through an anamorphic (1.9:1) lens onto the screen. The TI prototype system is only 1280x1024, which is pretty lo-res for film, and you could definitely see the pixels from the fourth row. I understand that they're going to 2k in the future, and if they just defocused the projector a little bit; the pixels would go away.
Anyway, my big question going in was "would this eliminate the 'movie magic' that one feels watching a normal film. Would you feel the same, with no flicker, or film weave, or scratches, or reel changes?" I'd have to say that the answer, at least for my theater of people, is 'this is better'. People liked the clarity, the richness of colors, and didn't mind the pixels.
Going in, I questioned whether this would revolutionize the film industry. Coming out, I had no question. It will.
thad -
... I'm willing to give digital projection a chance, doesn't mean I don't care about quality or which format I watch. As a freelance photographer, I have a deep respect for the capabilities and potential of the film medium. In fact, I will always see a film at the best venue available, even if it means bypassing closer, more convenient theaters. The problem I have with your comments is that they seems to imply that the quality of projected images in all theaters is the same. We both know this is not true. Dim, out-of-focus and poorly maintained projectors, can be found in theaters all over the U.S. If you have any doubts, just read some of the posts above by folks who actually work in theaters. As mechanical devices, they are much more maintenance intensive than electronic devices. You're also in error about there being only one kind of print available. For many "big" films, studios create a special "exhibition" quality print that is struck from the original camera negatives. For example, at the Westwood Village theater in L.A. (a personal favorite), a special Kodak Premier print of The Phantom Menace is being shown. The difference between these special prints and common release prints is dramatic. Unfortunately, only a lucky few ever get to see presentation of this quality. You also spoke of internegatives being made from the original negatives. It's not that easy. In photography, you can't make a negative from a negative without first making a positive print first. Getting back to the topic of audio, the formats used for film and digital presentation are absolutely NOT the same. Film projection uses the highly compressed Dolby Digital AC-3 system while digital projection utilizes uncompressed, linear PCM audio. Imagine comparing the sound from a minidisc to a PCM master tape and you get the idea. By the way, Dolby Digital IS recorded optically on film with an optical analog track right next to it so that if there's an interruption in the digital stream, the analog track can take over. If you doubt this, just got to Dolby's website at wwe.dolby.com. Even Technicolor isn't what it used to be. The 3-strip dye transfer system that made all those old epic films so spectacular amd vivid hasn't been used in almost 24 years. The last film that was truly Technicolor in the classic sense was The Godfather. Now all films use simpler single strip color processing. I absolutely agree with you that film has a wider color palette than digital, but I also think you should reserve judgement until you actually have a chance to see digital in action first hand. Sorry again for the long post, but I just had to clear some of these things up.
-
So tell me, how was TPM at the Westwood Village? Man, I love that theater too, and I can't believe that they stopped showing the TPM there. Last I heard, it was only there for a limited amount of time. But alas, I missed it. But even if it was still there, i would be hesitant to watch it because it's been playing there for so long, I'm afraid of the film's detoriation. You mentioned that the film print is there is a "special" studio exhibition print, so would that print also be prone to detoriation? Just curious, since I can understand why studios would want to showcase their movies there, considering how popular that theater is. Also, i just wanted to know in case i miss another opportunity to see a movie there and can only catch it after it's been playing there for several weeks. Thanks again.
-
The Phantom Menace looked and sounded just awesome at the Village, which isn't surprising since it's probably one of the best theaters in the country. I actually live in Seattle, but I travel to L.A. quite a bit and was lucky enough to go see it a short while back thanks to a friend. I didn't even know it's run had ended. Whenever possible, I make it a point to see whatever is playing at the Village when I'm in town. Here in Seattle, I saw TPM at the newly restored Cinerama which is Seattle's top THX-certified theater. It looked pretty good there too, but it still couldn't compare with Westwood. As far as the print's durability is concerned, I don't think it's any different from regular release prints. If it lasts longer, it's probably because the theater is more careful because of its rarity and cost.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 171 total posts 154 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 265 total posts 129 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 129 total posts 129 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 126 total posts 126 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 81 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 62 total posts 62 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 45 total posts 45 posts
- Quint has seen Andrew Dominik's crime thriller KILLING THEM SOFTLY starring Brad Pitt! Cannes 2012! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- The Next Season Of DOCTOR WHO Was Delayed To Fall Just To Build Anticipation?? -- 68 total posts 38 posts