Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ebert: Thumbs down on SWEP2:AOTC

This is topic Ebert: Thumbs down on SWEP2:AOTC in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000515

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 05-10-2002, 07:44 AM:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-ebert10.html

Twelve weeks at seventy, huh? Hah! And it looks bad, on top of that!

For the New York Times review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/10/movies/10STAR.html

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-10-2002, 08:28 AM:

And I slept through the last one too! When the film is strictly dependent on the effects it always turns into a bore....what more can one say.
Mark

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-10-2002, 08:49 AM:

Ebert also gave a thumbs down to Spider-man.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-10-2002, 08:51 AM:

I love it! Ebert described exactly what I saw in Amelie, only better (hey, he gets paid more).

"But I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown. The images didn't pop out and smack me with delight, the way they did in earlier films. There was a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power."

Perfect. This is the problem with the current generation of digital, and Ebert nails it on the head.

"Later I went on the Web to look at the trailers for the movie, and was startled to see how much brighter, crisper and more colorful they seemed on my computer screen than in the theater. Although I know that video images are routinely timed to be brighter than movie images, I suspect another reason for this. "Episode II" was shot entirely on digital video. It is being projected in digital video on 19 screens, but on some 3,000 others, audiences will see it as I did, transferred to film."

I wonder how many Hollywood types have been lured to the dark side of digital by viewing rushes on a computer monitor or video display and assuming that film would look even better?

"How it looks in digital projection I cannot say, although I hope to get a chance to see it that way. I know Lucas believes it looks better than film, but then he has cast his lot with digital. My guess is that the film version of "Episode II" might jump more sharply from the screen in a small multiplex theater. But I saw it on the largest screen in Chicago, and my suspicion is, the density and saturation of the image were not adequate to imprint the image there in a forceful way."

Where did he see the film? Anyone here know?

"Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that. Two weeks ago I saw "Patton" shown in 70mm Dimension 150, and it was the most astonishing projection I had ever seen--absolute detail on a giant screen, which was 6,000 times larger than a frame of the 70mm film. That's what large-format film can do, but it's a standard Hollywood has abandoned (except for IMAX), and we are being asked to forget how good screen images can look--to accept the compromises. I am sure I will hear from countless fans who assure me that "Episode II" looks terrific, but it does not. At least, what I saw did not. It may look great in digital projection on multiplex-size screens, and I'm sure it will look great on DVD, but on a big screen it lacks the authority it needs."

OK, all you letter writers, time to invite Ebert to visit film-tech. I give him two big thumbs up.

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 05-10-2002, 09:52 AM:

Ebert isn't much of a gearhead in terms of movie projection. He always gets details wrong in reviews of movie theater movies such as Cinema Paradiso. He tells his readers to complain if a projected image is too dim, but the way he describes it is that it's is as easy to fix as turning up a dimmer switch.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-10-2002, 11:13 AM:

He may not get all the technical details 100% correct, but he knows what good film looks like, so if he complains about digital projection, maybe his complaints will carry some weight.

This whole rush to digital projection is a farce, and Lucas should be ashamed of himself for leading the charge even though he knows fully well that the technology is not ready yet. Not to mention that he's now hell-bent on creating these CGI "films" that destroy the illusion of reality that the 1st three films had. He has the money and the power and the desire to use these toys to make his high-tech videos and that's really all he cares about. If he REALLY cared about advancing the art of movie projection, he would be waiting for the technology to catch up with film in terms of resolution and lack of artifacts.

Everything in Ep2 is going to look fake. Enjoy your $120M video. (Or whatever it cost to make)

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-10-2002, 12:23 PM:

Or... perhaps one could look at George Lucas as a "mad scientist" type. Although the technology is still experimental, he's willing to "drink what's in the test tube" himself and sacrifice his biggest cash cow in order to demonstrate his committment to advancing this technology. Compare this to Steven Soderberg... who decided to use a "prosumer" camcorder for his movie rather than the newest, most advanced video system he could find and/or push his people to invent for him.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-10-2002, 01:19 PM:

But Harry from AICN gave it a good review and we know how un-bias and honest he is.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-10-2002, 03:02 PM:

Arthur, Actually Roger is VERY critical of projection and much prefers 70mm projection over anything else. He may not get the article right but then again there may be an editor at work that goes over his stuff too. Rodger is a big supporter of what he thinks will "give the best quality image". He seems to be pretty much on the same wavelength with most of us here on Film-Tech. As far as the films content I have not seen it yet but I can pretty much rely on him to tell us if the script is memorable or not. I dispise films that rely solely on the special effects content to make things flow. The forst three Star Wars films had great scripts....why don't these last two have at least the equivelent? It would be alot more fun and there would be alot more repeat customers like the first three had. They were amazing films!
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-10-2002, 03:06 PM:

The same old crap. <huge yawn>

- The critics hate it.

- The geeks love it.

- The casual fans say the original three movies were better.

- Non-fans can't understand what all the hype is about.

- The acting and dialogue are terrible.

- The special effects are awesome.

- The theatres have to play it far longer than they should have to.

- The terms are awful.

- It grosses mega-bucks and sells a bajillion videos.

- Lucas defends all the bad reviews be saying "Whaddaya want...it's a kid's movie."

- The stores all get stuck with stacks of unsold action figures.

The only new wrinkle this time is that all-digital photography, which is just another Lucas tool to further his digital agenda, image quality be damned.

At least Ebert is noticing the defects in the picture! That's more than you can say for 99% of the critics.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2002, 03:21 PM:

From what I saw at ShoWest and in the trailers, the movie will satisfy and be enjoyed by its target audience (me included :-) ). But despite the great digital effects, I really miss the rich and detailed image quality I enjoyed with "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" as 70mm prints on a huge screen.

"The effects are thrilling, but (IMHO), digital is still weak."

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-10-2002, 04:26 PM:

This actually reminds me of when production started on the original MATRIX. They had this story, and things they wanted to do, and no idea how to do them. They had to invent the technology needed to make it work. Compare that to this new star wars movie, where they have this technology, all these things they want to do with it, and now all they need is a story to wrap it all together.

Dave

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 05-10-2002, 06:06 PM:

"But Harry from AICN gave it a good review . . ."

Michael G: Lucasfilm flew Harry Knowles to Skywalker Ranch just so he could review Episode 2 there. That's why he fawned all over Episode 2.

Box Office Mojo calls Episode 2 "a bag of chocolate covered peanuts -- if you worship chocolate and are allergic to nuts."

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-10-2002, 07:31 PM:

Greg, George Lucas has contributed (past tense) enormously to the advancement of motion picture technology, not to mention making a few of the best films of all time (for me anyway). Now looking at the present, I'm can't figure out why he has done an about-face and wants to dumb-down image quality. It makes no sense for the same man who single-handedly strong-armed many theaters to upgrade to 70mm and Dolby Stereo in the 70s and 80s, and formed THX which raised the presentation awareness level among exhibitors and the general public, to now be pushing digital cinema projection technology that is inferior to even "average" 35mm film. The technology isn't ready yet. Yes, digital imaging is a fancy new high-tech toy for him to play with and maybe it's good that someone wants to lead the way. But he should not be casting his lot with digital cinema yet, for the reasons we all know. (No comment on his booking terms, as I flunked Theater Economics 101.)

Maybe Lucas should be requiring that every theater have a good film cleaner and a bottle of Film-Guard and be trained in how to use it.

As far as Ep2 & Ebert's review, I just read it. I suspect he's nailed this one. The dialog and acting in Ep1 was also stilted and insipid (it's not easy to get a forgettable performance out of good actors like Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Natalie Portman, but Lucas managed to do it, and I bet Ep2 will be more of the same). There was not a single memorable scene in Ep1, except possibly for the pod race sequence, and it sounds like Ep2 will be a repeat of that. Yes I will go see it, and I hope to enjoy it as much as, say, Empire (What a great movie!) and not obsess over the digital imaging behind it. I will keep my expectations very low and hope to be favorably surprised.

Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 05-10-2002, 09:24 PM:

Everyone, help me. I am almost at my 2nd year anniversary as a projectionist, and I am appauled at what I saw this past Tuesday. I attended a press screening of AOTC, and right away I saw major artifacting. It reminded me of when I purchased my first (and thus far, only) DVD player. When I put at DVD into that 350 dollar Sony, the black immages didn't look like an original Nintendo game image, like they same image looked on the 125 dollar APEX machine. My point? WHY WAS A FILM MAKING ME WISH I HAD MY SONY DVD PLAYER???

Video gamers know of this little thing called "anti-aliasing"...its a trick game developers use to smooth out the jaggies...I am assuming that is why so many thing look so blurry in EP2??? Am I correct?

I mentioned this in the other another thread, but you will notice glares strategically placed on things that, if you look really closely, lack serious detail.

Lucas pushed too fast, and now he is left with a movie that will probably make its money back, but shoule be viewed as an embarassement to his career.

Also, about the dialogue...it is very stale...C3PO is the wittiest, freshest character in the movie.

As a fan of the first three, this one simply makes me sad.

:-(

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-10-2002, 09:53 PM:

Does this have the "1-800-PHONE-THX" tag at the end? If so, I wonder how many calls they will get from people complaining about how "the movie was out of focus"....

Personally, I'm still looking forward to it, but my expectations for image quality are not high, based on the trailer and what I have read here and elsewhere. I just don't get Lucas's fascination with all things digital...I mean, cost is clearly not an issue for him, yet he seems to be willing to compromise quality for it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-10-2002, 10:46 PM:

Lucas is God how dare you question anything he does!!!!

quote:
David said:
Maybe Lucas should be requiring that every theater have a good film cleaner and a bottle of Film-Guard and be trained in how to use it.

Hmmmmmmmmm........

That would have been good. But that would prove that film can run great and wouldn't do much for his "digital is better" argument.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-11-2002, 07:17 PM:

Uh Charles, you do know that I was being sarcastic about the Harry Review. The

should have been a dead giveaway.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-11-2002, 07:18 PM:

Cool a hundred post. Now I am an "Expert" Film Handler!

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-11-2002, 10:59 PM:

>>Does this have the "1-800-PHONE-THX" tag at the end?<<

Yep, and in three colors to boot!

As a matter of fact, the credits run in the traditional 'Star Wars Blue' until you get to the logos for some of the technologies... then you get red, silver, white, blue, green...

-Aaron

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 05-12-2002, 01:17 PM:

According to Richard Neer of WFAN/New York, all the New York critics are saying "Thumbs Down" on Episode 2. The NY Daily News ran its negative review today on page 3 with a tease on Page 1.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-12-2002, 05:23 PM:

I am taking most of these reviews with a grain of salt. Star Wars bashing is starting to become a national pastime and ripping on the movie is the "current" thing to do. I think that we might start to see more of this on these big budget Event Pictures as consumers grow tired of the hype for each and every movie. A backlash is coming.

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 05-17-2002, 10:09 AM:

Ebert may have done a flip-flop on Star Wars Ep II on digital:

A technological triumph for few

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-17-2002, 01:54 PM:

I may have to side with the conspiracy theorists who believe that George has intentionally made the film image fuzzy so that the digital image would look better by comparison.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2002, 01:59 PM:

On a 30-foot screen the film was extremely sharp. Only the live-action stuff looked like it was lacking the finest detail, and even that wasn't awful. It will undoubtedly look worse as the screen gets larger though.

Posted by Tal Marks (Member # 175) on 05-17-2002, 07:08 PM:

Speaking of reviews...

Following a report on the EPII frenzy in Manhattan, the local evening news had a reporter critique the film. Not quoting, she said something to the likes of: it lacked plot, there was horrible acting among everyone except Ewan McGregor and the film took an hour and a half to get anywhere. In closing, she mentioned it was a dud and since the last big scene was good, she gives it * * *1/2 out of * * * * stars?!

I, personally, have not seen the film being I work in a loews theater in Manhattan so I can't say much about it. I guess you can talk all the crap you want about a George Lucas film on the local news, as long as you give it a high rating at the end. Believe me, you don't want Lucas & co. coming at your knees with a bat after you trash his film.

-my money's on spiderman when all said & done.

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 05-19-2002, 12:11 AM:

My favorite part is the NY Times review where it says SWEII:AOTC is a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for giving some of the worst line readings of their careers.