This is topic Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000322

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-26-2002, 10:58 AM:
 
Deep Thoughts about Ep1 & Star Wars in general.

My living room. Sony 53" HDTV-capable rear-projection TV in 16:9 enhanced mode. Sony progressive-scan DVD player, component video out. Dolby Digital 5.1 with sub.

I think I saw this twice in theaters. Can't really remember for sure. In fact, I couldn't remember much at all about the movie except the pod race. The movie left pretty much no impression on me. Since I kind of like Ep2, I decided to pick up the Ep1 DVD and give it another try.

Watching this in my living room, I was able to get into the story much better than I had previously. Ep1 and Ep2 both are so rich in technical image wizardry etc. that on the first couple of viewings, I tend to focus completely on the wizardry and not on the story. And both Ep1 and Ep2 have plenty of story detail that demands the viewer pay attention to that as well. So, as for the story, I think Lucas has actually done a great job at turning the clock back to the beginning and telling a tale that holds together well with everything we already know.

Now as far as why Ep1 was hated by so many, I believe that comes down to 2 things: Jake Lloyd's performance as the young Anakin, and Jar Jar Binks.

Naturally I was paying close attention to Jar Jar and the Gungans in general. When the movie first came out I didn't hate Jar Jar and I find that 3 years later I still don't hate Jar Jar. All the talk about racial stereotyping etc. seems like a bunch of baloney to me. Yes he's obnoxious, but he adds a comic touch to the film that it needed (and which may be missing from Ep2). Call me crazy if you want but I like Jar Jar's contribution to this movie.

I remember a lot of people were critical of Jake Lloyd's performance as Anakin. Like Jar Jar, I have no problem with him either. He's kind of obnoxious and precocious (sp?) but so what? I mean, he's going to grow up to become Darth Vader for crying out loud! He was a good choice for the role.

The DVD image quality is fantastic. I saw not a single white or black speck anywhere. Colors are rich, detail is excellent, etc. Sound quality is also first-rate and the mix is similar to Ep2 (should be since it's supervised by Gary Rydstrom & Ben Burtt, same as Ep2). This DVD will put your home theater system to the test.

One other thing I want to mention is Lucas's frame composition. Scene after scene in this movie use the ENTIRE width of the scope frame. I love that, wish more directors would shoot their pseudo-scope movies that way. Lucas obviously likes a true widescreen visual experience.

Ep1 ties in well with Ep2, and it's remarkable how similar they are in "look". I expected Ep1 to already look dated compared to Ep2 but that is definitely not the case at all.

If you had problems with Ep1 and also haven't seen it lately, give it another try and see if your opinion changes.

[Oh yeah, I think I like the digital Yoda in Ep2 better than the analog Yoda]


 


Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 05-28-2002, 10:01 AM:
 
Two Saturdays ago (May 11, I believe), I showed Episode 1, 4, and 5 to some people. It was two days after my new 57 inch 16:9 TV came in.

Episode I looked fantastic after SVM was disabled in the set ("Pro" mode, unlike previous Sony sets where "Movie" mode disables it). That did away with the artificial-looking edge enhancement. The pod race scene is the most requested scene for demonstrating the set, and everyone has commented on how great it looks.

I liked Episode I. It was the first Star Wars movie that I got to see in theatres when it was actually released for the first time. Back in 1997, I saw the Star Wars special editions in theatres when they were released and to be honest, I never cared for any of the Star Wars movies until January 31, 1997 when I saw Star Wars twice that day in two different theatres (Madison Square 12, free (a Silicon Graphics thing where they bought out an auditorium and gav e tickets away to local sysadmins that used SGIs), and Hollywood 16). After that, I loved the Star Wars movies.

Although I tremendously enjoyed Episode I, it is hard for me to just "chunk it into the same basket" with Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. The first three movies felt like they belonged together, but Episode I does not have the same "look and feel" at all when compared to the first three, which is understandable, since 16 years of special effects technology separated them. Episodes I and II feel like they belong together, so it will be interesting to see if Episode III can somehow be a transition that will make the new episodes transition into the look and feel of the older ones.

As for the Jar Jar issue, although the overwhelming majority of the population hates the character, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. He seems to be there for comic relief -- to make some scenes more comical and less tense. Or maybe he was there just so Lucas could show off his ability to make a totally computer-generated character that interacts fairly intimately with other characters. Who knows?


------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site


 


Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-15-2002, 01:56 PM:
 
quote:
maybe he [Jar Jar] was there just so Lucas could show off his ability to make a totally computer-generated character that interacts fairly intimately with other characters.

I would bet that's the case. Lucas keeps saying that digital actors will never replace humans, but I think he lives for that day.
 


Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-10-2012, 02:18 AM:
 

It has been 3526 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-10-2012, 02:18 AM:
 
Note this review is for the 3D re-release.

Cinemark Movies 14, Mishawaka, IN
Auditorium 14, RealD 3D
Presentation: Good, except for the low volume level of the feature. This thing needs to be CRANKED.

What more can one say about this movie? As for the 3D version: it was subtle 3D and cool at times but really added nothing great to the overall experience. The sound mix was good but the volume of it was much too low. The trailers that preceded the feature all sounded great and very dynamic. A few notches up on the fader would have fixed this.

Overall, it's still Star Wars on a big screen where it belongs. Keep them coming!

AJG
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-10-2012, 04:21 AM:
 
I noticed that as well with the sound - horrible mix where the other channels were overpowering the center channel..

Looked like they dug up an original print stock that had started to fade when they did this conversion-so much red tint in the image.

My original 1999 film presentation looked tons better than this bloated 3D gimmick nonsense.

But "wow!" .. Now opened seven Star Wars movies on their opening day - from 1977 and continuing tonight with the mids.

-Monte
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-10-2012, 04:36 AM:
 
I was really disappointed the sound wasn't redone for 7.1 (wasn't it originally a 6.1 anyways). The sound did not get my attention at all.

I agree about the 3D as well. I really expected the pod race to look amazing in 3D, but I was very underwhelmed. This is not going to make a strong case for the other 5 movies being released in 3D.

I have not watched Episode I for a few years and I had forgotten just how pitiful the dialog was in much of the movie.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
But "wow!" .. Now opened seven Star Wars movies on their opening day - from 1977 and continuing tonight with the mids.
What about the Special Edition releases in 1997? If you're counting this 3D release, you have to count those.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-10-2012, 10:18 AM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
I really expected the pod race to look amazing in 3D, but I was very underwhelmed.
Isn't this sentiment par for the course with "Star Wars" in general these days? Frustrated expectations..?
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-10-2012, 11:09 AM:
 
quote: Justin Hamaker
Special Edition releases in 1997
Yep..forgot about these releases - had issues back then where I was working at the time and pushed that out of my memory ..

True, 10 "Star Wars" openings.

They should have let Legacy do the conversion as they did with the Disneys instead of this Prime Focus group.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-10-2012, 12:55 PM:
 
I saw a clip somewhere online, I think Entertainment Weekly, in which George talked about not liking gimicky 3D, but rather having it be more subtle. He definitely got that, and some shots did look pretty cool. Overall though, that depth effect I was hoping for, especially in the pod race, was just not there like the Lion King had.

I'm going to see it again in 2D, and this time ask the theatre to turn up the volume for the feature. As it was last night, my Blu-ray and LaserDisc both beat the pants off of the audio experience in the cinema.

AJG
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-10-2012, 10:42 PM:
 
With trailers still being mixed way too loud, any theater that doesn't invest in at least some sort of halfway decent automation will suffer the fate of this Cinemark.

As you have stated, this lack of proper fader control will ultimately be the death of theaters because you said it yourself...the sound presentation was better at home!

BTW does anyone know if George is now stating that he WISHED he could've shot Star Wars in 3d, but the technology just wasn't there at the time to support his vision?
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-10-2012, 11:50 PM:
 
Here's the link to the aforementioned story.

quote:
George Lucas talks 'Phantom Menace' in 3-D and how James Cameron and Robert Zemeckis helped to make it happen -- EXCLUSIVE VIDEO
by Dalton Ross

If you’re excited to see The Phantom Menace in 3-D when it opens in theaters tomorrow, then perhaps you have James Cameron and Robert Zemeckis to thank. According to George Lucas in the exclusive video below, it was the three men’s joint desire to see updated theater projectors that ultimately led Lucas to adding a third dimension to his space saga. “I was trying to get digital projectors in the theaters,” explains Lucas. “Bob Zemeckis and Jim Cameron came and said, ‘Look, we want to get 3-D into the theaters and now that you got digital theaters you can actually do that. Would you join us in showing the theater owners that you can do 3-D?’” Lucas agreed only so that the theater owners would face increased pressure to upgrade to digital projectors. But then: “When I saw the test that we did — which was about five minutes long — of Star Wars in 3-D, I realized how great it was.”
Audiences will get to see for themselves starting tomorrow. Click on the video below to hear more of George’s thoughts on 3-D (“I don’t like the gimmick part of it. I don’t like things coming out into the audience.”), and why he’s excited about a whole new generation getting to see Star Wars on the big screen.

The whole thing is unfortunate because every movie I've seen in there since the switch to digital has had no sound problems. I have noted that the re-release films I saw last year and this year (Lord of the Rings, Lion King, and now Episode I) all had mixes mixed much lower than the trailers.

AJG
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-11-2012, 11:46 AM:
 
Sounds a little to me like people playing with the fader levels at the theater.

For instance, I pretty much don't see movies at theaters when visiting Colorado Springs anymore. It doesn't matter if it is Carmike or Cinemark. They all turn down the sound way the hell too low so it has the dynamics of a 19" black and white Philco TV set.

Colorado Springs' population has a pretty large percentage of older, right wing conservative, evangelists in its demographic. IMHO, certain people in this group are more likely to raise hell if the theater audio is running at anything above talking volume. Lawton has a decent percentage of the same people here and they do the same "you're going to destroy my hearing" bitching if the sound is dynamic. The difference is the Carmike theater here plays the movies much closer to reference level, despite the complaints. In Colorado Springs theaters you'll be struggling to hear what anyone is saying since the sound is so freaking low.

Much of the problem would be solved if those assholes making the movie trailers and TV commercials would tone down the sound in those things. But they won't do it. The same damn thing occurs in television broadcasts. You're watching a show in HD with DD 5.1 audio. Then it goes to commercial and you have to turn down the sound because the TV spot is too damned loud.

If anything has changed in the last year or two in Colorado Springs I wouldn't know about it. I confined my movie-going to the Cinemark's IMAX theater. But since that screen has gone LieMAX "digital" I won't bother with it anymore either.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-11-2012, 01:49 PM:
 
trying to figure out where to see this, the Barco 3D system over at Fairfax Corner is nowhere as bright as on the XD screen at the Egyptian. The audio on the ETX screen is amazing on Tysons screen, but the brightness can be hit or miss. Uptown's screen is decent since it's 2.35, but the bowing edges bother me. hmmmm... where should I go??

Yes Justin, the DVD and bluray are encoded in 6.1 sound, why a 7.1 mix couldn't be created for this release is befuddling.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-11-2012, 09:20 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
the Barco 3D system over at Fairfax Corner is nowhere as bright as on the XD screen at the Egyptian. The audio on the ETX screen is amazing on Tysons screen, but the brightness can be hit or miss....

Definitely bulb changes were needed for this opening to get the best on the screen...
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-14-2012, 11:26 PM:
 
Just curious... How hard would it have been to release this with the 9.1 (SDDS 8 and ES/EX) soundtrack from the original release? Could anyone have played it that way? Could any system have handled it?
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-15-2012, 04:31 AM:
 
You just need to see it in a proper theatre with proper projectionists that still give a shit...

From me in the Feature Info forum:

>>Fox Fanfare is recorded WAY too soft as is the opening theme.

I'm running the Fox Fanfare on 9.0, dropping back to 8.0 for the opening title and crawl and going down to 7.0 for the rest of the feature at the end of the crawl just before the spaceship comes on screen. Works well. <<

BTW, trailers run on 4.0 and the Dolby tag goes through at 6.0
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-15-2012, 09:30 AM:
 
Sorry, John. I meant 9.1 channels.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-16-2012, 02:32 PM:
 
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Just curious... How hard would it have been to release this with the 9.1 (SDDS 8 and ES/EX) soundtrack from the original release? Could anyone have played it that way? Could any system have handled it?
hmmm, five front goodness would have been cool.

Saw this over on the ETX screen at Tysons and wasn't disappointed - the brightness level was excellent and the sound was top notch. However the 3D was so inconsistent I just phased it out of my mind a quarter of the way through it. The only problem I had with the image is the same way I thought of the bluray, it has a softness that is inherit to the original 35mm photography.
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-16-2012, 02:38 PM:
 
IT always was the worst looking of the 6 films.
I mean once it came out it took that position and kept it.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2012, 05:46 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
it has a softness that is inherit to the original 35mm photography.
Yes, because 35mm photography is known for its extreme low resolution. Actually, Lucas softened/muddied up the image for the Blu-ray and this release to make it look more consistent with the two movies that follow which were shot on video.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-16-2012, 06:49 PM:
 
In regards to the sound...

I'm pretty decided it's a problem with however they did the DCP, because if it is the same mix as the Blu-ray, it simply does not have that problem.

In regards to the image...

There were a few shots that looked nice, crisp, and 35mm. Most of the feature, however, looks like upscaled shit.

I'd love to see one of the original 35mm prints and how it compares.

AJG
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2012, 06:53 PM:
 
I think the original looked a little soft. And it's probably even softer still being artificially converted to 3D. SW: EP 1 was shot using Arri cameras fitted with Hawk anamorphic lenses. Why Lucas chose to do this, I don't know.

Generally, movies shot in the anamorphic 35mm process generally turn out much better when shot using Panavision cameras and lenses. Panavision has built their film cameras with the anamorphic process in mind. I read somewhere that Arri changed their viewfinder design to copy what Panavision has been doing for a long time. Panavision has a larger variety of anamorphic lenses, including a number of custom one-off lenses. A cinematographer can test and cherry-pick a series of lenses that are going to deliver the best results.

I don't know much about Hawk anamorphic lenses, but I can guess they don't have the variety or match up with various camera systems as well as Panavision. If they did, I would see far more film credits attributed to Hawk. Yeah, Panavision does have the big recognizable name. But Arri is pretty recognizable too, although it's a little more complicated to say "filmed with Arri cameras and Hawk anamorphic lenses" than "filmed in Panavision."
 
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-16-2012, 08:29 PM:
 
I don't think the camera makes that much of a difference, I have been on set with an Pana/Arriflex 35 mm camera set up, the noticable difference is that the Arriflex is converted to run on 24 volts rather than the German factory 12v. Obviously Panavision lenses were used as the whole rig was suppied by Panavision.

I was talking several months ago to the Kodak rep who worked on the Star Wars films. The reason the prints looked soft on 35mm was because Lucus wasted a generation. Instead of making several DI out negatives and making the prints from them. Lucas decided use 1 DI and make internegs from that to make the prints. A cheaper option but no wonder the early version of Digital Cinema looked ok in comparison.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2012, 11:14 PM:
 
I'm in total agreement with John Wilson about the Fox fanfare and the opening crawl. We are running the Scrat thing at 4.0 because it's a trailer and we run all our trailers at 4.0, then up to 8.0 for the fanfare/opening crawl, then to 7.2 for the actual movie.

It bugs me that there is less than a second between the end of Scrat and the fanfare. There should be four or five seconds of black.

I think I might have watched Episode I when it was new, but don't remember much about it. Tonight I watched the pod race sequence because I'd read somewhere that Lucas took a lot of ideas from the Ben-Hur chariot race for the sequence. I could really see that influence in a lot of places. The 3-D was OK but I enjoyed listening to the sound a lot more than watching the picture. Cool sound mix. If the whole movie was as good as this sequence then they'd have really had something.

The acting by some people in the movie (especially the kid and the black dude) is so bad I could tell even with the office door closed.

I agree with others that the picture looks kind of soft in this.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2