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

"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

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

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

- 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.

"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

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."

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.

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.