Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith...now with added spoilers


Recommended Posts

http://www.sfedora.com/star%20wars%20logo.jpeg

 

Well, what do you people think? Anybody else looking forward to this movie?

 

I'm hearing some really good things about it.

I didn't get a chance to read the review, but the Chicago trib just gave it 4 stars.

 

I think it's going to be one of, if not the best Star Wars film released yet. I have a theory, bare with me.... ;)

 

This will be the best Star Wars because, it's supposed to be perhapes the darkest of the series, and Lucas has always done very well with dark.

 

Villians are Lucas's strong point. Humor is his weak point. When ever he trys to be funny, it comes off looking corny. But whenever he shows us the villians, it's always the most effective part of the film.

 

So since this film is about the rise of the villians, I think it has to be the best of the films.

 

What do you guys think? Am I right or wrong about this?

 

I was ten years old when the first Star Wars came out, and I've been a fan ever since, so obviously I'm boneing to see this movie. :thu:

 

Discuss...

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Trailer is Sick. I will wait until the hoopla dies down. These kids around here will drown out the sountrack...with their ooha and ahhs and applause.

 

I understand that a billion hours of editing were performed...sounds non fathomable.

 

Million maybe...

 

(At least the radio mook said this..and emphisised with a "b")

 

Did it cost a billion as well?? I hear that...

Bill Roberts Precision Mastering

-----------Since 1975-----------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be sure to get there early to see the previews! I did my first "Theatrical Trailer" showing before the film. I worked on the Sound Design and editing for the video game trailer "Advent Rising" and my friend Tommy did the score. We mixed at Todd-AO with Eric Martell.... :)And I can't wait to see the film!

 

Rob King

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the new eps suck visually. George got a boner for CGI just because it enabled him to realize his visual ideas better and not only that, it seems he went forward with the prequels in terms of conceptual design... the only explanation, as much as I refuse to accept it, is that... in Episodes 4 - 6, we see a kind of post-apocolyptic, technology breakdown, from the kind of tech that existed before (Eps 1 - 3).

 

I haven't seen any of the new eps from beginning to end, just not interested because Lucas compromised so much. I'm really only interested in the story, but it's kinda like saying "back in 1935, in my 500 HP Ferrari...) and then you're in 2000 and you're driving 1960's cars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Super 8:

Lucas has always done very well with dark.

Villians are Lucas's strong point. Humor is his weak point. When ever he trys to be funny, it comes off looking corny.

I never viewed his villians as being serious,more cartoonish and lite and just as corny as his humor.I like some of the visuals on these films, but then tire of it after about ten minutes.
"A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bill Roberts:

Those low ratings are fuel for the fire. I gamble it will break records, above Jurrasic.

 

First week, 140 mil box office?

But money is not an accurate way of telling how many people actually bought a ticket. When Jurrasic Park came out, tickets were cheaper. Ticket prices go up all the time. I wish they would go by ticket sales instead of revenue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA Today gave it 3 1/2 outta four, and also proclaimed it the best of the six.

 

I saw I, didn't bother with II, but I may pop a buck and go see it at the second-run moviehouse.

 

Sad, really, I was a RABID fan of IV-VI - of course, I was 5, 9, and 11, respectively, when those three films came out... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Slowly (AKA Kcb:

The first three releases were great, for me it was downhill after that. The pod races were the only memorable parts after that. Kcbass

Yep! Although this one does look interesting given the whole dark thing going on. It beats the hell out of fairies, dragons, a little hobnobbers...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Great comments!

 

Like you, Super, I was 10 when Star Wars was released. I still say it's the best movie in the series. The characters and story jump off the screen. They're compelling because it was well written, acted and produced. The special effects are hard to judge now. If you watch a version pre-CGI cleanup you can easily see density differences between areas of stars with space ships and the background. At the time it looked seemless.

 

But I have to agree with Phait. CGI has turned out to be the worst thing to happen to the Star Wars franchise, IMO. It should have further cemented their place in movie history. Instead, the technology looks too slick, the CGI versions of characters who, for all their muppet ancestory, came alive in the first 3 movies, actually makes them seem cartoonish. Why add the lost scene between Han Solo and Jabba the Hut, only to make Jabba appear tiny? He was literally bigger than life in Return of The Jedi. :rolleyes:

 

I have high hopes for Revenge of the Sith, but I just hope it doesn't have the glossy coating each CGI, Star Wars movie before it has had.

 

There are many movies with CGI that don't lose their ability to suspend our belief in such worlds and technology because there's just enough hint of our own world to make devices that fly through space or light weapons seem realistic.

 

As for his humor, I think there was great humor in the first three, especially the original. A lot of that has to do with the writers and a lot has to do with the wonderful portrayal of characters like Han Solo. No one will ever come close to Harrison Ford's deceptively natural acting in Star Wars. Corny? Absolutely! But it was fun.

 

I can't wait, but I'm hoping they'll put it in the IMAX. I have tickets just burning in my pocket to see this epic on a really large screen.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Episode I-- violently worthless CRAP.

 

Episode II-- Not bad, really-- just not good either.

 

Episode III-- I really think this will be his crowning achievement-- despite the vapid surfer-boy/idiot emptiness of the main character's actor-- there's too much good buzz from those who have seen the thing already for me to believe otherwise.

 

The originals were great and all, but I am not a Star Wars "fan"-- I've only seen them a few times over the years. I just never got into it.

 

I can't wait till this Monday afternoon (I despise opening nights/weekends at movies)...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

--Aristotle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by mdlestrat:

Episode I-- violently worthless CRAP.

Everyone hates EpI, and I'll admit that it has a host of problems. However, I have to say that EpI was a better movie than Return of the Jedi, in my opinion.

 

I enjoyed EpII. I thought the pacing was much improved from both EpI and ROTJ. Nice balance between story and action.

 

Regarding CG effects. I guess people love em or hate em.

I cannot imagine Lucas releasing another movie based on stop action ships, and puppets.

Yoda, who looked pretty convincing in Empire was totally out of place in EpI. The CG Yoda in EpII wasn't perfect, but I found him just as convincing as the puppet Yoda in Empire. They both look somewhat fake.....just in different ways.

 

I love CG for the spaceships, and for all of the cool backgrounds and worlds they have created. The stop action ships and mat paintings they used in the original films looked good, and not as good as CG.

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Super 8:

...Regarding CG effects. I guess people love em or hate em...

You see, Sup, this is exactly the misunderstanding I tried to clarify.

 

It's not that some people hate CG effects. It's that the CG effect have looked completely out of place with the story, characters, etc. of what could otherwise have been engaging movies. And then there's the movies where special effects wizardry are all the movie has to offer.

 

The CG ships in the past two Star Wars films look like comic book drawings. Slick, beautiful, but not real.

 

Between the look and sound design on the original three films, I could imagine being onboard the Millennium Falcon. Even when you compare the junkiness of the old freighter to the immaculately clean Death Star, you still feel like both could be real.

 

You need only go back to Jurassic Park to see CG used in a way that truly blends into the real background. CG ain't the problem. It's settling for CG that doesn't look right. Jabba the Hut, as I already mentioned, was HUGE in Return of The Jedi. The CG they used to add him to Star Wars made him look puny. Not just his size, either. The "performance" just wasn't there. The reason the muppet Yoda and Jabba puppet worked is because the Henson puppeteers know exactly what's necessary to make foam and cloth come alive through performance. Many CG artists have accomplished this level of work. I have yet to see it done in a Star Wars movie.

 

I want to see Sin City, even though it is supposed to look like a comic book, because most every scene was filmed against green screen with completely CG backgrounds and effects added.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin City is a great movie, IMO. It is also very very sick, and probably the most violent film I've ever seen.

"All conditioned things are impermanent. Work out your own salvation with diligence."

 

The Buddha's Last Words

 

R.I.P. RobT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prequels have been utter disappointments to me. Absolutely terrible. I agree with Super 8, villians was a strong point for Lucas. Darth Vader, IMO, is one of the greatest villians/tragic heroes ever created, which makes the prequels all the more horrid. In NO WAY can I believe that this punk whiny kid Hayden can become Dark Vader. I just flat out don't buy it. And I don't blame Hayden for the catostrophe. The direction of the character is totally off base and inconsistent with the character/vibe/energy/etc. of episodes Iv -Vi. My main complaint with the prequels is it seems the soul of Star Wars is totally nonexistent. All of the philosophical overtones and telling of old myths are nowhere to be found. It's like Lucas has no direction in theme. And for the record, that pod race was the most predictable boring overhyped and overbudgeted scene in the 21st century. It just flat out sucked. Ok I'll stop now. Me and the kid are going to check it out on Saturday, maybe Lucas can work a miracle. I hope so, but I seriously doubt it. And yeah, I agree the CGI is just God awful in the prequels.

"All conditioned things are impermanent. Work out your own salvation with diligence."

 

The Buddha's Last Words

 

R.I.P. RobT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CGI in the first two Episodes made me gag. They were just not life-like. They seemed like a cartoon version of Star Wars. Also, George Lucas may be a pioneer, but a screen writer he is not.

 

The dialogue in EP 1 and 2 were so wooden, it hurt. The Hayden characters in either film both deserved a good spanking, and some acting lessons. And that excruciatingly long race sequence was sooooo obviously a trailer for the accompanying video game. Yuck.

 

I agree with fantansticsound, the ships in the orginal series of fliscks were much more realistic. Plastic beats cheaply textured renderings any day.

 

All that to say... I felt robbed after paying for two tickets to each of Ep1 and Ep2 (and I have been reminded how bad they were by my Star Wars hating wife), but I will surrender another $20 to George Lucas just to complete the circle I started 28 years ago.

There is no substitute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

The CG ships in the past two Star Wars films look like comic book drawings. Slick, beautiful, but not real.

 

Between the look and sound design on the original three films, I could imagine being onboard the Millennium Falcon. Even when you compare the junkiness of the old freighter to the immaculately clean Death Star, you still feel like both could be real.

You can't compare the Queen's Naboo cruiser to the Millennium Falcon. One is luxury ship, and the other broken down freighter. They are supposed to look different. It was intentional.

 

The Trade Federation Ships looked as real as the Death Star, in my opinion.

 

Obi-wan's little fighter, and the Slave I looked as good as anything I saw in the original trilogy.

 

Jabba the Hut, as I already mentioned, was HUGE in Return of The Jedi. The CG they used to add him to Star Wars made him look puny. Not just his size, either. The "performance" just wasn't there.

They replaced the 'Special Edition' Jabba for the DVD release. I haven't seen it, but I'm told it was a big improvement.

 

The reason the muppet Yoda and Jabba puppet worked is because the Henson puppeteers know exactly what's necessary to make foam and cloth come alive through performance. Many CG artists have accomplished this level of work. I have yet to see it done in a Star Wars movie.

And yet, the muppet Yoda looked silly in EpI, but the CG Yoda looked much more believable in EpII.

 

The Clone battle at the end up EpII looked believable, and was completely CG. All of the Clone Troopers were rendered in CG. They never even made a real costume for reference, yet they looked like people in costumes. I was surprised when I found out they weren't real.

 

I want to see Sin City, even though it is supposed to look like a comic book, because most every scene was filmed against green screen with completely CG backgrounds and effects added.

I don't know what your threshold for violence is, but I really enjoyed Sin City.

I saw it opening night and there were a lot of younger people there. When we were leaving, many of them looked three shades whiter than when they came in. Some of them thought the violence was just too gratuitous. It didn't really bother me, though. There was enough humor and cartoonishness about it to keep it from just being gross-out gore.

 

I'd like to see it again.

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always felt I had to suspend disbelief when watching Star Wars films. It's the same for me with most Scifi and fantasy.

 

I really tend to focus on the story.

 

I wasn't too dissapointed with Ep I and II because I wasn't expecting much besides a bit of a visual joy ride.

 

Face it, there is no stellar acting or dialog in any of the films. Well, Sir Alec, Harrison Ford and Ewan McGregor did pretty credible jobs, and probably saved the films between them. But the rest of the acting is wooden and the dialog is all predicatable. I mean, even good actors like Sam Jackson and Jimmy Smits are like cardboard cut outs.

 

I can't really fault the actors, though. It's gotta be the director. I don't think Lucas knows how to get a good performances out of an actor. He's lucked out by picking some actors(like those above, but not excluding Ron Howard and Richard Dryfuss) that rose above his lousey dialog and coaching skills.

 

It's all about Lucas.

 

Even so, I enjoy the adventure

I really don't know what to put here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Super 8:

Originally posted by mdlestrat:

Episode I-- violently worthless CRAP.

Everyone hates EpI, and I'll admit that it has a host of problems. However, I have to say that EpI was a better movie than Return of the Jedi, in my opinion.

 

I enjoyed EpII. I thought the pacing was much improved from both EpI and ROTJ. Nice balance between story and action.

 

Yes! I despised ROTJ then, and I do now. Phantom is definitely better, and except for Lord Maul, I didn't really care for that one, either. And for what it was supposed to provide (the bridge between his childhood and Vaderhood), EII is a cool movie. I actually liked it a whole lot.

 

As far as the CGI...eh, it doesn't bother me. Funny thing is that he only decided technology was ready to make his vision after he saw what his boys did with JP. I like Yoda as a puppet. I like him better as a CG character.

 

I anticipate this one will rank with Empire as the two best Star Wars films. New Hope only ranks as high because of a) sentimental value, and b) it was truly the only semi-complete movie (they were NOT sure if there would be any more SW films).

 

I have tickets for the 12:01 showing on the IMAX screen (dubbed Giant Screen since it's not a true IMAX film like my much anticipated Batman). The sound alone will be killer, of course, much less the overwhelming visual display. When they started showing regular films there, they stunk. Now they show pretty damn good. So thus my ticket money went to it. I can't wait!

Peace

If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking 'til you do suck seed!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q for Aliengroover. Are you saying this is a 35mm film being shown on as much IMAX as possible? That will suck!

 

There are 3 kinds of IMAX films. True IMAX, filmed in IMAX on 70mm film, Transferred IMAX release (somehow they transfer the 35mm print to 70mm to fill the screen) and simply showing the 35mm print as large as possible (about 2/3 of the screen).

 

I pray it ain't the last. Why the hell didn't they make this an IMAX film? Hell, we saw Harry Potter, Polar Express and Robotz in IMAX. And Polar Express was in IMAX 3D! :thu:

 

What a waste if this isn't a 70mm print. :rolleyes:

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't like Sin City, as it was way too out there in terms of sequence and violence - but Carla Gugino topless is a thing of beauty.

 

Lucas filmed the whole movie in HD quality digital cameras (they eat up something like 10gb a minute in storage!), and all the CGI effects were added later. It then got transferred to film. He sure knows how to apply technology to making movies. Unfortunately it also means that you can "overdo it" very easily. Like others mentioned everyhting in the first 3 movies was either sets, stop animation, or puppets; so it looked real because it was actually being filmed, not added later. Whenever I see Terminator 2, I relaize that movies now are way to overdone with CGI effects - T2 was perfect in the fact that only 2 or two characters were CGI enhanced, so it was almost seamless (and the movie is 14 years old!). Can't say the same for anything new.

Live 6, Battery 3, Project 5, Atmosphere, Albino 2, Minimoog V, Oddity, Nord 2X, Proteus 2K

 

***I can't play for sh*t, but I can sequence like a muthaf*ck*r***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with watching a Star Wars movie is the baggage of previous Star Wars movies.

 

Suppose Star Wars had never come out in 1977. There was no trilogy. George Lucas never did anything significant.

 

Then, one year, The Phantom Menace just appeared out of nowhere from some director named Bob Smith or whatever. I bet people would have flipped out (although they still would have hated Jar Jar, and rightly so!).

 

No one else in the movie biz has done anything near as ambitious, reached so far, or pushed the state of the art with such reckless abandon. Of course it all didn't work. But how could it? No one had done it before. The first Star Wars was shot with, I believe, a budget of $8 million. That's amazing. It made a bona fide star out of Harrison Ford, and remember, was all done outside of the Hollywood system. This is like someone from "Big Surfer Boy" records in San Diego selling a zillion copies of an album made in someone's bedroom. Ben Burtt did a lot of the sound on a TEAC 3340.

 

Who else in the past several decades has charted a six-story epic that evolved over a 28-year period? The closest is Coppola's Godfather. For all the flaws of the Star Wars movies -- and there are many, and yes, Jar Jar and the Ewoks suck -- they are at worst, the product of someone whose reach exceeds his grasp, and at their best, producers of moments of pure magic.

 

As to Return of the Jedi, it has some genuinely vapid moments. But in the climactic scene when Luke decides he can't fight his father, and gains true power as a result...with Williams's score reaching the loudest level in the entire movie, and the message of redemption of the father by the son...with Luke turning his back on all that's wrong, and Vader's soul returning...you can't doubt the sincerity of the messages these movies convey, or the way they provide the same functions that the myths of, say, the ancient Greeks provided for their society.

 

George Lucas? More power to him. He didn't do it with focus groups and committes. He had a vision, and he made it happen. Yeah, the dialog isn't Shakespeare. His talents lie elsewhere, in creating an alternate reality of breathtaking beauty, true evil, and where loyalty, integrity, and friendship mean something. A place where even the good can be turned to darkness from anger, and redeemed by love.

 

Go George. I'm sure Revenge of the Sith has plenty of flaws too. So do we all. I love what he has to say and most of the time, how he says it. But more than that, I admire what he has been able to accomplish, and I'll always support his movies as a way to support him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...