|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-29-2005 01:27 PM
quote: Adam Wilbert
okay dave, what's your take on leia talking about her mother at the end of Jedi. Who the heck was she talking about?
How does killing the emperor at the end of Jedi suddenly make Vader okay in the eyes of the force? Isn't killing your master what every good Sith is supposed to do?
Leia said of her mother, when asked by luke, that she only remembered images really, and that she was sad, and also that she died when she was very young. As a person with the force, as leia is, she would be able to have this impression, even as a baby. Organa would not have done anything to lead leia to any other truth as it would lead her to quest for her lineage, leading her to vader.
Luke however did not remember his mother, probably because as a male species he does not have the estrogenic emotional response that the female species has.
As for Vader bieng all good again, if there was a Jedi Council he would have been tried and executed for his crimes, even though he killed the emperor. Now recall that the Sith lust for power, and all good sith destroy thier masters, however Vader did not kill the emporer in a lust for power, he killed him to save his son, something that would only have appealed to the good that both Padme and Luke felt that was still with him. Master Windu felt much confusion with Anakin, and he would have always been a threat even after his reconversion, however he was dying at the end of jedi, not because of electrical malfunction, that could be fixed, but rather because like Padme, he knew it was dangerous for him to continue living, dangerous for luke, and for the future of the jedi.
Padme passed not for the grief of the loss of anakin, but rather because she knew that she was a deadly connection to her children, that her children could not survive if she did. She surrendered her life to save her children.
quote: Greg Mueller
If you're hovering over a river of lava you'd be toast. You wouldn't need to wait until you fell on the lava river bank to burst into flames.
The platforms they were on were shielded, that was the blue emminations from the bottom of the platforms. Plus they are jedi, they don't become toast unless they are weakened, as anakin was after losing his appendages.
quote: Greg Mueller
There's no air in space, so aerodynamic flight is not possible, Opening up wings and spoilers and flaps makes no difference when you go into attack.
But it does help if you are preparing to or have the possibility of entering an atmosphere nearby, or just want to spread out your firing cannons a bit to get a better target lock.
quote: Greg Mueller
Also because there is no air, when things come loose from your ship, they are not swept away, they just continue along with the ship unless the are propelled away by an external force
This is of course unless there is a nearby gravity field from a planetary body or one created artificially by a ship, as you continue to propell but the item in question is now no longer attached it would appear to float off.
quote: Greg Mueller
Maybe physics doesn't work the same in a galaxy far far away?
It never does. Plus what do we know of physics? When we can cross the threshold of the known universe maybe then we might know all there really is to know.
And also, it's a fantasy. We go to let go of the real world and fantasize about... "what if". Even those of us who actually do understand our physical world around us can let go without wanting our fatasies to equate to reality.
Ciao
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-30-2005 10:36 AM
I don't think people from high priced art schools are the problem with the quality (or lack thereof) in CGI these days. Really there's far fewer people even bothering with formal art schools when pursuing any commercial arts job. More people are just learning computer applications and listing them on resumes to get work. Many who don't invest $50,000 or more in an art school degree are going to be willing to work for much less. For a lot of print and web related stuff, I have to wonder if the employers even bother looking at a portfolio. I wonder if they simply ask, "are you willing to start for $6 an hour?"
I think this problem is even pervasive in the 3D CGI field. Granted, it is more difficult to land a position in a film effects company than it is to get a printing job at Kinkos. You at least need to have a decent reel of 3D work to show. I think more importance is being placed on how well someone knows Maya rather than how well the person can visually conceptualize things. There's lots of computer graphics people who freely admit they don't know how to draw or paint at all. I think that's a big limitation. Much of the best talent out there can create art using both "analog" and "digital" methods.
Also the pool of really good talent only goes so far. And those guys are going to go where the better paychecks can be found. Many don't get paid shit when doing film work. A lot of the best 3D guys are now working in the gaming industry, and making more money there. Some start up their own effects studios. They're going to make a better living being the boss than an employee. And they may get a larger role in doing the creative development for a movie or game.
You also have the issue that CGI doesn't seem to be a very pioneering thing anymore. In movies like "The Abyss" or "Jurassic Park" the filmmakers were doing things that had never been tried before. I think they took a great deal more care in testing and preparing shots to make sure they would look great or even "real." The CGI stuff then was a lot more expensive in real dollars, expensive enough that Warner Brothers chose to crash a real train in "The Fugitive" since a CGI train crash would have been more expensive. Today, any major film will have CGI work done by many different firms -all on competitive bids, with cost cutting being a driving force. In the cost cutting and time crunching I'm certain a lot of CGI stuff gets done on "auto pilot" or "just good enough" mode. You even see this in the hardware being used. Back in the "Jurassic Park" days, a studio would spend $30,000 on an SGI workstation and double that cost on software (the versions then of Softimage and Alias Power Animator) all for one computer. Now you have a bunch of Linux-loaded Dell render farm PCs producing a Maya-crafted shot from a run of the mill Dell Workstation.
In years past, I've thought seriously about getting into the 3D animation thing. But I'm not sure I would get much of a return on the investment. And even with that, back in the 1980's before I started art school, if I knew the field would be the way it is today, I might have chose to study something else instead. The American commercial arts industry is in some serious trouble. I think the best graphic design work is happening over in Europe now, not here. I've known very talented American graphic artists who quit and took jobs selling real estate or something else like that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-30-2005 11:50 PM
quote: Michael Schaffer
What I meant is the actual design. At least to my eyes, the design does not have much to do with the design world we saw in the original trilogy. Obviously, I did not expect to see the same things, because these prequels take place at an earlier time and in some different places, but for me, the general feel of the design does not match the world we saw before even remotely.
This is a good point and I agree with it in part. However, the area where I see the most inconsistency is in the sophistication and complex nature of effects shots in the prequels. The opening traveling CGI shot in Episode III is quite a virtuoso piece of modeling and animation. It had to take a crushing amount of compute cycles to render the shots in that opening battle.
As great as opening battle looks, it seems completely out of place with any of the opticals of the original trilogy. Even the effects in beginning of the climactic battle in "Return of the Jedi" are nowhere near as complex -and those are visuals that still look great to this day. It all sort of makes Episodes IV, V and VI seem to pale in comparison, even the "special edition" versions. Still, I love the concepts and design of the original trilogy. It was real innovative, ground breaking stuff. And then you had the more familiar characters and performances to boot.
I can see the logic behind the move to make the prequels' visuals much more complex. The studio needs these prequels to seem as current and sophisticated as any new movie being released. Look at all the Massive-driven effects of the LOTR trilogy, with many thousands of creatures and warriors on the battle field. The guys in charge don't want these expensive movies to look dated.
Ultimately the area where they fail just a bit is in not having faith that some well designed effects shots with not quite so many objects will satisfy fans just fine. This is where the importance of graphic design, shot composition, visual dynamics, what ever you want to call it will pay off. I still get a thrill watching the opening shot of "Star Wars" (Ep IV) with the Blockade Runner flying into frame and being pursued by that huge Star Destroyer. That's just two spaceships flying above a planet. Very simple, yet very dynamic. A few really cool looking objects will do just as good as many thousands of already familiar looking ones.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 05-31-2005 03:36 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Ultimately the area where they fail just a bit is in not having faith that some well designed effects shots with not quite so many objects will satisfy fans just fine. This is where the importance of graphic design, shot composition, visual dynamics, what ever you want to call it will pay off. I still get a thrill watching the opening shot of "Star Wars" (Ep IV) with the Blockade Runner flying into frame and being pursued by that huge Star Destroyer. That's just two spaceships flying above a planet. Very simple, yet very dynamic. A few really cool looking objects will do just as good as many thousands of already familiar looking ones.
The same also goes for people and action. The picture below is from "Return of the Jedi" (as if I would need to tell anyone), in my opinion one of the strongest and most concentrated moments in the original trilogy - indeed, as far as I am concerned, in movie history. The moment when Luke and Vader clash for the last time has all the visual and athmospheric power needed for a key scene in the trilogy when the fate of the two main characters fulfills itself. The action of the characters, the setting they are in, the textless humming choral music - look how simply yet effectively it was done. Very strong and expressive stuff, the stuff that myths are made of. Then look at the jump-and-run-video-game-bullshit that Anakin's and Obi-Wan's duel is.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic