Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Ebert: Thumbs down on SWEP2:AOTC (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Ebert: Thumbs down on SWEP2:AOTC
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-10-2002 07:44 AM      Profile for Mark Ogden   Email Mark Ogden   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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


 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-10-2002 08:28 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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

 |  IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 05-10-2002 08:49 AM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ebert also gave a thumbs down to Spider-man.


 |  IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 05-10-2002 08:51 AM      Profile for Jerry Chase   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.


 |  IP: Logged

Arthur Allen
Film Handler

Posts: 99
From: Renton, WA, USA
Registered: Aug 2001


 - posted 05-10-2002 09:52 AM      Profile for Arthur Allen   Author's Homepage   Email Arthur Allen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 05-10-2002 11:13 AM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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)


 |  IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 05-10-2002 12:23 PM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 05-10-2002 01:19 PM      Profile for Michael Gonzalez   Email Michael Gonzalez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But Harry from AICN gave it a good review and we know how un-bias and honest he is.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-10-2002 03:02 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-10-2002 03:06 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-10-2002 03:21 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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


 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-10-2002 04:26 PM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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

 |  IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001


 - posted 05-10-2002 06:06 PM      Profile for Charles Everett   Email Charles Everett   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"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."


 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 05-10-2002 07:31 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.


 |  IP: Logged

Will Morrow
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2001


 - posted 05-10-2002 09:24 PM      Profile for Will Morrow   Author's Homepage   Email Will Morrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

:-(

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.