|
Oh well, that makes sense then. The CGI added to the OT is pretty drat jarring, not because it is bad CGI (thought it hasn't aged well) but because it simply doesn't loving fit with anything else present, for a broad variety of reasons.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well that's what I mean, though: this "what am i supposed to feel?" You're not 'supposed to' feel anything, with any movie. You are free to feel whatever you like, and therefore you have a terrifying responsibility to write truthfully and accurately. Refusing to answer the question is a pretty weaselly tactic too
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
If the child thinks the Jedi are cool and good, then that's an opportunity to have a conversation about a movie with them. You don't have to try to change their mind. You might point out some things that are cool and good about them, as well as some things that are uncool and bad about them. You can ask them to tell you more about what they saw. You might even learn something. Kids can be pretty good at interpreting art because they come into it with fewer preconceptions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Red posted:You know, I was about to say I just didn't really get into the scene of Anakin marching up the stairs with the clone troops, but I do really like that bird's eye shot. https://youtu.be/B4gVcHE2HcU?t=1h16m14s was the shot from Triumph of the Will I was thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The only Hobbit anyone should be enjoying was made by Rakin Bass. That's actually the only one that no one should be enjoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Why would children have a hard time seeing the Jedi as less-than-perfect? Although you phrased that as a rhetorical question, try showing a kid a picture of a cop and a picture of a criminal, and asking "which one is the good guy'. The kid will always pick the cop because that's what they're supposed to say. They're giving the 'right answer' as if filling in the blank on a test. So when a guy says "I'm a Master, listen to what I say", kids go with it - even though their favorite characters will probably be the battle droids. corn in the fridge posted:Refusing to answer the question is a pretty weaselly tactic too No it isn't. Follow the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's actually the only one that no one should be enjoying. Dismissing a film because it's of an inferior medium? Zizek would be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Kids like R2 and Yoda
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Dismissing a film because it's of an inferior medium? Zizek would be disappointed. I don't know the medium you mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's actually the only one that no one should be enjoying. Why? Its tight, keeps the narrative structure, has better songs, etc. Its pretty much perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
I don't think you have any experience of being around children if you think they're just these basic societal programmed robots who only react with responses that have some sort of societal sociological background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
When you say the CGI "doesn't fit," what do you mean? Leaving aside the Jabba scene, there's a bunch of little fixes and cleanups and I am kind of skeptical that people fell in love with those particular errors and nits before they became a bone of internet argument contention. (Other than the stormtrooper who banged his head.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I don't think you have any experience of being around children if you think they're just these basic societal programmed robots who only react with responses that have some sort of societal sociological background. That's not the point at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Oh as a kid the robots were definitely my favorite
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's not the point at all. It kind of is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
The problems with the special editions have nothing to do with CGI. That's just an obvious feature of the scenes that are problematic, and easy to focus on. The added scene with Jabba in Mos Eisley serves no purpose, and just reiterates things we were already told in the Greedo scene. It interrupts the flow of the film for no good reason. The same is true of the Jedi Rocks scene. It went from being a low-key scene highlighting Jabba's temper and foreshadowing Luke getting dumped in the rancor pit to a huge, elaborate, show stopping (not in a good way) musical number that thoroughly overshadows the actually important scene that follows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Although you phrased that as a rhetorical question, try showing a kid a picture of a cop and a picture of a criminal, and asking "which one is the good guy'. The kid will always pick the cop because that's what they're supposed to say. They're giving the 'right answer' as if filling in the blank on a test.    e: 'from my point of view, metroman is evil!'
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
jivjov posted:For all but a handful of the most egregious changes, yes. The cleaned up effects in things like the Battle of Yavin and the Battle of Hoth are worth having blinking ewoks and a Jabba in docking bay 94. The Ewoks were originally supposed to blink. They had this elaborate pneumatic mechanism set-up where the little person actors could squeeze something inside their costume and make the costume's eyes blink once before having to re-set the mechanism. Kenny Baker talks about it on the ROTJ DVD commentary. In fact, he says George felt that getting the Ewoks to blink was the key to making them look like believable living creatures. It was clearly pretty important to him, even back then. The funny thing is, Baker says they were having all sorts of problems getting the mechanisms to work, but he seems to be under the impression that they eventually figured it out. Obviously, in reality, they didn't figure it out, which is why the Ewoks never actually blink in the original version. But they were supposed to. And they would have, if technical issues hadn't prevented it. I can only assume everyone today would be just as opposed to the idea of blinking Ewoks if that's the way it had been back in 1983, like was the intention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:Honest question, do noticeable puppets or stop motion creatures also ruin it for you? Not to the same degree that noticeable cgi does. If I can't notice it I don't care how they did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:02
|
|
bruvs be4 luvs
|
Red posted:Your question isn't directed to me, but: Anything that removes the suspension of disbelief hurts the film-watching experience. It's called a Brechtian alienation device/Verfremdungseffekt, and it owns
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:I know it's hard to follow all the conversations in this thread, but I believe this comment... It would be cool it was possible to buy a bluray of the original copies too Jack Gladney posted:Stop motion and mattes signal a film's historical context--they're marks of it being from a certain time and place. When that context is different from ours, it informs the way we receive the film. I don't like the cg additions because they move Star Wars from 1977 to 1997, and a huge component of my enjoyment of Star Wars is it's 1970s-ness and historical context. I agree with this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Chucat posted:https://youtu.be/B4gVcHE2HcU?t=1h16m14s was the shot from Triumph of the Will I was thinking of. Looks spot on to me - good eye.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:Like, if some cruddy CGI ruins your ability to, temporarily, believe in a movie, I feel deeply deeply sorry for you and all of the good movies and tv shows that you are unable to enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No it isn't. Follow the conversation. I have. You never answered the dudes question. Instead you made up a bunch of meaningless bullshit to try and deflect it back at him. I think you're done here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:It kind of is. No, it isn't. It's a question of context. When a young kid is quizzed by an adult figure, they will respond differently than when they actually play with their toys. For a young kid, identifying someone as a 'good guy' is like identifying a red vehicle with a ladder as a 'fire truck'. corn in the fridge posted:I have. You never answered the dudes question. Instead you made up a bunch of meaningless bullshit to try and deflect it back at him. I think you're done here. Rejecting a loaded question is not dishonesty. The correct answer to "what is a child supposed to believe?" is "I am not talking to a child."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No, it isn't. It's a question of context. When a young kid is quizzed by an adult figure, they will respond differently than when they actually play with their toys. You have no idea what you are talking about. These answers are all dependent of the context of how you present the question to them as well as what age they are. Small children especially will give you completely out of context answers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:I have. You never answered the dudes question. Instead you made up a bunch of meaningless bullshit to try and deflect it back at him. I think you're done here. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
I'm going to try to help you out here. Don't ever respond to SMG. Sometimes he posts genuine and intelligent analysis, sometimes he posts hillarious and subversive readings of things, sometimes he posts meaningless images without context as bait, and sometimes he posts pure insanity. He's a troll, but he's a really drat good one, because he doesn't only post crazy poo poo and bait. But, if he posts something you disagree with, don't bother engaging. If he posts something genuinely thought provoking or intelligent, also don't bother engaging. Either enjoy his posts or don't, but don't ever ever engage with him because it's never going to go loving anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
WHY WONT HE TELL US HOW TO FEEEL?? whats he hiding
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
I feel like the occasional post where someone gets mad about SMG is necessary to keep feeding the beast
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Picklepuss posted:Sometimes I worry there are people out there who would never enjoy a theatrical play if, say, the landscape was obviously painted on wood or possibly nothing more than a black curtain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:No, only the hated fruit of the computer machine has the dark power to Ruin Immersion. Primitive CG doesn't hold up as well as well made puppets and props. Just like Primitive CG in 3D games does not hold up as well as a lot of animation in old 2D games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
I rarely have my immersion shattered by the things that take place in movies (or any entertainment really) because I actively WANT to become immersed in things, rather than resisting immersion. Jedi rocks, for the record, does just totally gently caress me right out of my immersion, but this has far far less to do with the CGI than with... well everything loving else about jedi rocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Primitive CG doesn't hold up as well as well made puppets and props. Just like Primitive CG in 3D games does not hold up as well as a lot of animation in old 2D games. Hold up to what? Father Time? The Last Starfighter has really early cgi, like 1980s early, and that movie rules!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
If the prequels are so good why did Clones make so much less money than Phantom Menace?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:I rarely have my immersion shattered by the things that take place in movies (or any entertainment really) because I actively WANT to become immersed in things, rather than resisting immersion. http://vocaroo.com/i/s1RhKfFhpIjo
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
porfiria posted:If the prequels are so good why did Clones make so much less money than Phantom Menace? If they're so bad, why did Sith make so much more than Clones?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:I'm going to try to help you out here. Trolling is a fake idea. I am the ultimate killing machine. Hollismason posted:You have no idea what you are talking about. These answers are all dependent of the context of how you present the question to them as well as what age they are. Small children especially will give you completely out of context answers. I told you the specific context. We're talking about kids who still talk in terms of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' (~5 years) being quizzed about movies by an adult who appears to expect a specific answer. I even gave the specific example of kids identifying the Jedi as 'good guys' while actually sympathizing with the battle droids (who kill Jedis). But this is getting away from the point that there is no 'should'. The prequels don't tell you how to feel - which is what makes them terrifying and satirical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If they're so bad, why did Sith make so much more than Clones? It made more, but still not as much as TPM--people realized they weren't good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Having recently rewatched Episode III, the effects work really is a grab bag. For instance, I have no problems at all with that opening space battle. Love that clutter. I could gorge on that clutter all day. I actually -- and this is heresy, I know -- have an easier time following the ebb and flow and general events of the Episode III space battle than I did with the Episode VII Starkiller ship battles. But then some of the later shots and effects are just...limp. Effects that should seem really easy and straightforward come out glaringly unnatural instead. Temples and corridors of Coruscant would look distinctive and realistic in one scene and completely plastic in the next. Lightsabers would seem intense and vivid at one moment and then cheap and budgeted in the next. So what the film is basically telling me is that the fabric of its own reality is unstable and prone to glitches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 02:39
|
|
