Episode I - Jar Jar
Neil Sarver
element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
the film itself...
*sigh*
--
Neil
--
The Bleeding Tree
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
--
"Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
Universe has never seen!"
-- Space Ghost
EvilWookie
characters in the film. Why do you need another? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST USE
ANOTHER WOOKIE? Life ain't fair.
Neil Sarver
> He didn't use another Wookiee because he's been there, done that.
Exactly. And there isn't any reason I can see to include the familiar
Wookiee, like we have the familiar droids.
> I'm a little nervous about Jar-Jar too, though. The whole "my tongue" bit
> really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
> though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
> shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
> standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
> over the place.
Exactly. He struck me like a character from a Tex Avery cartoon or
something, which isn't at all a bad thing in itself, it would simply be
obnoxious grafted into the middle of the Star Wars universe.
> Maybe that's his character, but it almost feels like they
> may have gone a bit overboard with proving they can make a living, moving
> CG character. I'm still guardedly optimistic, since I realize we're only
> seeing snippets, but I'm fairly sure Jar-Jar won't be making my favorite
> SW characters roster.
I'm pretty sure of that, too, but I'm just not sure he won't be quite
bothersome hanging around talking like that and slobbering his way all
through the movie.
> Watto, on the other hand, looks like he's going to be great. His voice and
> gruff demeanor suit the character to a T, and he seems just plain better
> done than Jar-Jar.
Absolutely. He seemed like a kick ass character. I'm absolutely not
complaining about the CG characters as a rule. Just Jar Jar and his
overly stupid quality.
> Just over 51 days to go. Hang on tight.
Yep. It's going to be an interesting wait.
Berserker
They have a clip of him talking. It is utterly disgusting.
Neil Sarver wrote:
> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
>
> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar
> Jar
> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive
> on
> the film itself...
>
> *sigh*
>
Jonathan Chicken
EvilWookie wrote in message <36FF1D...@Nineteen.com>...
>The thing is, you've already got Artoo and C3P0 as the comic relief
>characters in the film. Why do you need another? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST USE
>ANOTHER WOOKIE? Life ain't fair.
The phrase "been there, done that" comes to mind. For Wookiees, that is.
Yes, wookieEs.
Jonathan.
Jonathan Chicken
Chris Pierson wrote:
>
>Watto, on the other hand, looks like he's going to be great. His voice and
>gruff demeanor suit the character to a T, and he seems just plain better
>done than Jar-Jar.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's as though they can't get away from the
'plastic' look of CGI with Jar-Jar--ironic, since with stop motion the
people always look too rigid. Anyway, whatever's wrong with the way Jar-Jar
feels, Watto seems spot-on...perhaps it's the lighter coloring? Maybe it's
George's insisted-upon ears?
Jonathan
alek
>really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
>though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
>shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
>standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
>may have gone a bit overboard with proving they can make a living, moving
>CG character
the tongue bit - i chuckled. i got the humour of it.
i think we've only seen the snippits were he's not still because why would
you show a shot of him just standing still on 60 minutes when you want to
showboat him a little.
Karrde
Chris Pierson wrote in message <7dmt43$m...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>Watto, on the other hand, looks like he's going to be great. His voice and
>gruff demeanor suit the character to a T, and he seems just plain better
>done than Jar-Jar.
>
I must disagree. The CGI on Watto was good, but Jar-Jar is incredible.
Criticism of his character and role in the film may be valid (though I will
withhold judgement until May 19th), but it is far and away the best digital
character to date.
Chris Pierson
I'm a little nervous about Jar-Jar too, though. The whole "my tongue" bit
really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
over the place. Maybe that's his character, but it almost feels like they
may have gone a bit overboard with proving they can make a living, moving
CG character. I'm still guardedly optimistic, since I realize we're only
seeing snippets, but I'm fairly sure Jar-Jar won't be making my favorite
SW characters roster.
Watto, on the other hand, looks like he's going to be great. His voice and
gruff demeanor suit the character to a T, and he seems just plain better
done than Jar-Jar.
Just over 51 days to go. Hang on tight.
In article <36FF1D...@Nineteen.com>, EvilWookie <M...@Nineteen.com> wrote:
>The thing is, you've already got Artoo and C3P0 as the comic relief
>characters in the film. Why do you need another? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST USE
>ANOTHER WOOKIE? Life ain't fair.
>
>Neil Sarver wrote:
>>
>> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
>> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
>> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
>> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
>> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
>> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
>> the film itself...
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> --
>> Neil
>> --
>> The Bleeding Tree
>> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
>> --
>> "Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
>> Universe has never seen!"
>> -- Space Ghost
--
Chris Pierson ** "Now my body is in tumult. It is a colossal moment of joy.
** I would like to be Jupiter and kidnap everybody and lie
Author ** down in the firmament making love to everybody."
Game Designer ** -- Roberto Benigni, Best Actor & World's Most Exuberant Man
Matthew Kennedy
taken out by the bad guys?!?!
For the record, I think he'll be awesome!!!
Neil Sarver wrote:
> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
> the film itself...
>
> *sigh*
>
> --
> Neil
> --
> The Bleeding Tree
> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
> --
> "Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
> Universe has never seen!"
> -- Space Ghost
--
_______ __ __ __ __ _______ |
/\\\\\\\| /\/ /\/ /\\| /\/ /\\\\\\/ | Welcomes you to the
/\/ /\/ /\/ /\/ /\\\| /\/ /\/___ | Dark Side...
/\/ /\/ /\/ /\/ /\\\\| /\/ /\\\\\/ |
/\/ /\/ /\/ /\/ /\\/|\| /\/ /\/ | I have you now...
/\/___/\/ /\\\_/\/ /\\/ |\|/\/ /\/_____ | You Rebel Scum!!!
\\\\\\\/ \\\\\\/ /\\/ |\\\/ /\\\\\\\/ |
"You are beaten, it is useless to resist..."
Come On Over to My Side
http://www.flash.net/~darkdune/
Matthew Kennedy
Why don't you stick a 9-Volt BATTERY on your tongue and maybe we'll laugh at you
too. That'll give you an idea of what Jar-Jar felt when he got caught in the mag
beam of Anakin's Pod Racer. I chuckled.
BTW: I don't recommend that you really try the battery thing, but I guarantee
you'll talk funny too if you do ;)...
Chris Pierson wrote:
> He didn't use another Wookiee because he's been there, done that.
>
> I'm a little nervous about Jar-Jar too, though. The whole "my tongue" bit
> really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
> though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
> shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
> standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
> over the place. Maybe that's his character, but it almost feels like they
> may have gone a bit overboard with proving they can make a living, moving
> CG character. I'm still guardedly optimistic, since I realize we're only
> seeing snippets, but I'm fairly sure Jar-Jar won't be making my favorite
> SW characters roster.
>
> Watto, on the other hand, looks like he's going to be great. His voice and
> gruff demeanor suit the character to a T, and he seems just plain better
> done than Jar-Jar.
>
> Just over 51 days to go. Hang on tight.
>
> In article <36FF1D...@Nineteen.com>, EvilWookie <M...@Nineteen.com> wrote:
> >The thing is, you've already got Artoo and C3P0 as the comic relief
> >characters in the film. Why do you need another? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST USE
> >ANOTHER WOOKIE? Life ain't fair.
> >
> >Neil Sarver wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
> >> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
> >> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
> >> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
> >> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
> >> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
> >> the film itself...
> >>
> >> *sigh*
> >>
> >> --
> >> Neil
> >> --
> >> The Bleeding Tree
> >> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
> >> --
> >> "Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
> >> Universe has never seen!"
> >> -- Space Ghost
>
> --
> Chris Pierson ** "Now my body is in tumult. It is a colossal moment of joy.
> ** I would like to be Jupiter and kidnap everybody and lie
> Author ** down in the firmament making love to everybody."
> Game Designer ** -- Roberto Benigni, Best Actor & World's Most Exuberant Man
--
Derek Kowaluk
As with the other main characters in the original Star Wars trilogy, Jar Jar
probably has a specific role in the movie that we haven't seen yet. I'm sure
Lucas didn't just throw him in their as a bankable commercial character like
the sidekicks in Disney cartoons. He probably is filling a role that will
make sense when we see the movie.
The main cast of ANH had great chemistry because each character was entirely
different from the next and the actors were great at portraying them e.g..
luke: whiny, wide-eyed farm boy
ben: wise old mentor/father figure
han: charismatic rouge
chewie: strong, silent type (Han's pet dog)
leia: bitchy young princess
c3p0 & r2d2: react to action taking place, "narrate the movie via
dialogue to each other"
vader: badass thug
tarkin: evil genius orchestrating an evil plan
stormtroopers: evil minions
The new movie will probably parallel the old
anakin: wide-eyed slave boy
qui gon: wise old mentor/father figure
ben: rouge jedi apprentice
jar jar: weak, yappy type (Ben's pet dog)
amilada: bitch young queen
c3p0 & r2d2: react to action taking place, "narrate the movie via
dialogue to each other"
maul: badass thug
phantom menace: evil genius orchestrating an evil plan
battledroids" evil minions
In the original trilogy Chewie and Leia had a close relationship. It seems
the same for Jar Jar and the Queen.
Also in the original trilogy ewoks were suppose to be wookies but they cut
them in half and switched syllables.
In this new trailer you see a whole army of Jar Jars fighting someone.
So if you think about it,
Jar Jar = Chewie ~= Ewoks
I think the ewoks were the most annoying for two reasons:
1. too cute
2. not believable fighting the stormtroopers
I think that Jar Jar will be a little like Goofy in the Mickey and Donald
gang or Kramer in the Seinfeld gang, likable guy but weird as hell. The only
thing that would make him annoying would be if he talked too much. (We have
C3P0 for that)
Any ways I really like the look of Jar Jar, different but with a "natural"
look.(That shot of him walking with Qui Gon(Liam Neeson) and the
queen(Natalie Portman) in Mos Espa in the first trailer is so good.).
The 60 Minutes piece was great but you superficial ones out there remember,
most of those new special effects shots are "in progress" but are still
better that the crap being put out by lesser effects houses.
I thinks its great what new Computer effects can achieve, compare the new
creatures to the ones in the Cantina. We are now getting a little spoiled
with special effects that we criticize everything that looks "off". The real
challenge in computer generated creatures lies with lighting and the "grain"
of the picture as it blends into the shot. Computer artists have to add
motion blur and lense effects with mathematical models instead of filming a
guy in a rubber mask. We can now have effects of bigger scale and flexiblity
but we loose the "free" realistic look by using tangible objects.
I'm sure that ol' George is just as much a perfectionist as all of us and his
employees probably hate him for it. Imagine having to redo a computer effect
thousands of times having George tell you its not good enough. You've been
looking at those same 2 seconds of footage so many times that it looks good
enough for you, but everyone else sees crap. There then reaches a point when
everyone has to accept what is done, because there are 5000 more seconds to
do, but 4 months later when the movie comes out everyone criticises it.
Effects people can't win because perfection can never be reached.
TPM is going to be great because of :
1. the story
2. the characters
3. the action (faster with more intensity)
4. the music
5. the effects
...and in that order
dDk.
Shay Gordon-Brown
add anything new? I'm getting very tired of reading newbie posts who
just complain about TPM. Why do this? In case none of you are aware
this is alt.fan.starwars not
alt.i.don't.like.starwars.and.will.never.watch.it.
Shay
Tyrannorabbit
soft...@geocities.com wrote:
> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
> the film itself...
I disagree - it looks like Jar Jar is splendidly done. The big thing
that worries me here are the humanoid battle droids - of the extensive
CGI effects, those are the only ones that really look like they're out of
_Toy Story_.
-Brian J. Wright
"MY GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT: Getting out of bed this morning."
-from the biography of Balzac, the Jaws of Death
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dan Bongard
: Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
: add anything new?
Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
How many comic relief characters does one "epic" movie need?
-- Dan
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
> just complain about TPM. Why do this? In case none of you are aware
> this is alt.fan.starwars not
> alt.i.don't.like.starwars.and.will.never.watch.it.
It's crossposted, genius.
--
[Something]
Jevon den Ridder [remove NOSPAM for email]
http://www.angelfire.com/az/kalarba/index.html
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Shay Gordon-Brown (Sha...@uq.net.au) wrote:
>
> : Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
> : add anything new?
>
> appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
> parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
Lame if you're a teenager or geeky adult. I'm sure more mature adults
(ie parents) would look at Jar Jar and just smile or something.
Wolfgang Linsmayer
>
> Hey,
>
> Why don't you stick a 9-Volt BATTERY on your tongue and maybe we'll laugh at you
> too. That'll give you an idea of what Jar-Jar felt when he got caught in the mag
> beam of Anakin's Pod Racer. I chuckled.
>
> BTW: I don't recommend that you really try the battery thing, but I guarantee
> you'll talk funny too if you do ;)...
>
MTFBWY
Ikarus
--
Adm. Ikarus Wolperrn
Fleet Commander 2nd fleet
a.f.s. Rebel Alliance
http://fly.to/2nd.Fleet
ICQ#: 25696932
Thomas Andrews
Neil Sarver <soft...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Chris Pierson wrote:
>
>> He didn't use another Wookiee because he's been there, done that.
>
>Wookiee, like we have the familiar droids.
>
>> really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
>> though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
>> shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
>> standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
>> over the place.
>
>something, which isn't at all a bad thing in itself, it would simply be
>obnoxious grafted into the middle of the Star Wars universe.
>
Yes, the animators need to learn one secret of movie acting, which
is stillness. Small gestures. Yeah, in broad comedy and cartoons,
big gestures are common, but in anything the audience is taking
seriously, the secret is 'economize.' Do stuff if it moves forward
the action or characterization, and don't move if it doesn't.
The problem is, these animators have invested so much time and money
into getting 'motion' to look real, they want to show it off.
--
Thomas Andrews thom...@yahoo.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
Ken Starr: "I think that is an unfair question."
Barney Frank: "You're the expert on unfair questions. If
you're telling me it's an unfair question, I'll withdraw it."
Chris Pierson
Wolfgang Linsmayer <wlins...@teleweb.at> wrote:
>Matthew Kennedy schrieb:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Why don't you stick a 9-Volt BATTERY on your tongue and maybe we'll laugh at you
>> too. That'll give you an idea of what Jar-Jar felt when he got caught in the mag
>> beam of Anakin's Pod Racer. I chuckled.
>>
>> BTW: I don't recommend that you really try the battery thing, but I guarantee
>> you'll talk funny too if you do ;)...
>>
>Ah, 9 Volts are totally harmless...
Yeth, I thee thap ngow.
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Matthew Kennedy schrieb:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > Why don't you stick a 9-Volt BATTERY on your tongue and maybe we'll laugh at you
> > too. That'll give you an idea of what Jar-Jar felt when he got caught in the mag
> > beam of Anakin's Pod Racer. I chuckled.
> >
> > BTW: I don't recommend that you really try the battery thing, but I guarantee
> > you'll talk funny too if you do ;)...
> >
> Ah, 9 Volts are totally harmless...
Look at the kid in Jurassic Park. I'd have to say 9 volts is a joke.
--
[Something New]
Olaf
burns a little, and I guarantee your speech will be 100% unaffected.
The whole jar-jar character bothers the hell out of me, not to mention a
little kid driving race cars and space fighters.
olaf
Matthew Kennedy <dark...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:36FF080A...@flash.net...
TomRipley
wrote:
>Shay Gordon-Brown (Sha...@uq.net.au) wrote:
>
>: Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
>: add anything new?
>
>Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
>appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
>parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
I thought he looked great, and I laughed at the "my tongue" bit both
times I saw it last night. And I'm 31. Some of you here need to
lighten up a bit; this ain't Lawrence of Arabia. It's supposed to be
a fun movie, and it looks like its going to be.
Tom
--
"I never watched baseball on tv. It's slow & boring.
I'm not a fan. Never was." -- Jeff Kent, starting
second baseman, San Fransisco Giants (SI interview)
Jevon den Ridder
>
> A 9 volt battery on the tongue doesnt really hurt at all, it just kinf of
> burns a little, and I guarantee your speech will be 100% unaffected.
>
> The whole jar-jar character bothers the hell out of me, not to mention a
> little kid driving race cars and space fighters.
>
> olaf
Loser. Maybe should watch another film instead.
Furthermore - "Olaf...sing"
I like smoking pot berzer..ker
I like smoking cock berZER..KER
Lupus Australis
> In article <36FEFB...@geocities.com>,
> Neil Sarver <soft...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >Chris Pierson wrote:
> >> I'm a little nervous about Jar-Jar too, though. The whole "my tongue" bit
> >> really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
> >> though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
> >> shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
> >> standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
> >> over the place.
> >
> >Exactly. He struck me like a character from a Tex Avery cartoon or
> >something, which isn't at all a bad thing in itself, it would simply be
> >obnoxious grafted into the middle of the Star Wars universe.
>
> Yes, the animators need to learn one secret of movie acting, which
> is stillness. Small gestures. Yeah, in broad comedy and cartoons,
> big gestures are common, but in anything the audience is taking
> seriously, the secret is 'economize.' Do stuff if it moves forward
> the action or characterization, and don't move if it doesn't.
>
> The problem is, these animators have invested so much time and money
> into getting 'motion' to look real, they want to show it off.
This is exactly the sort of thing I have been dreading....the temptation
to do way too much just to prove you can. Jar-Jar is a large creature,
and will not seem real if he moves like a hyperactive insect.
I don't want to nit-pick. But if, perhaps GL is listening, I want ot beg
him to PLEASE PLEASE be careful with this sort of thing, because IMHO it
does make a difference, and I'm starting to notice a trend. Many of the
FX in the special editions suffered from the same sort of excess.
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
obi-wan Northstorm
Tyrannorabbit skrev i meddelandet <7dniqs$q00$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I disagree - it looks like Jar Jar is splendidly done. The big thing
>that worries me here are the humanoid battle droids - of the extensive
>CGI effects, those are the only ones that really look like they're out of
>_Toy Story_.
the battle droids are one of the coolest CGI effects that I have seen.
obi-wan Northstorm
If you strike me down I shall become more powerful
than you can possibly imagine
ICQ#26929715
sto...@telia.com
Martin Laverdure
> Shay Gordon-Brown (Sha...@uq.net.au) wrote:
>
> : Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
> : add anything new?
>
> Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
> appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
> parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
>
>
In my book, more is always better than less ...especially when "more" is quality-certified.
George Lucas is making the movie that he wants to see. He's living a trip right
now that not so many people can really understand. A one-man vision is actually coming
to life. With that in mind, even the most casual fans should be excited.
"I Had A Dream. I Was A Jedi" - Anakin Skywalker
Dark Helmet
The Phoenix
wrote:
: Matthew Kennedy schrieb:
: >
: > Hey,
: >
: > Why don't you stick a 9-Volt BATTERY on your tongue and maybe we'll laugh at you
: > too. That'll give you an idea of what Jar-Jar felt when he got caught in the mag
: > beam of Anakin's Pod Racer. I chuckled.
: >
: > BTW: I don't recommend that you really try the battery thing, but I guarantee
: > you'll talk funny too if you do ;)...
: >
: Ah, 9 Volts are totally harmless...
but a lot of fun.
--
The Phoenix
"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller
--
BRCOOL990
Preach on brother!!
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Hi Jevon! How's it going?
Super. How about you? *confused*
Jevon den Ridder
> >
> >: Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
> >: add anything new?
> >
> >Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
> >appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
> >parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
>
> times I saw it last night. And I'm 31. Some of you here need to
> lighten up a bit; this ain't Lawrence of Arabia. It's supposed to be
> a fun movie, and it looks like its going to be.
I wish there were more thirty year olds here. Or kids.
Gregory Cook
-
-I'm sure that ol' George is just as much a perfectionist as all of us and his
-employees probably hate him for it. Imagine having to redo a computer effect
-thousands of times having George tell you its not good enough. You've been
-looking at those same 2 seconds of footage so many times that it looks good
-enough for you, but everyone else sees crap. There then reaches a point when
-everyone has to accept what is done, because there are 5000 more seconds to
-do, but 4 months later when the movie comes out everyone criticises it.
-Effects people can't win because perfection can never be reached.
Some of those programmers are pretty perfectionist themselves, though.
#;-}>
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg "Fox" Cook -- Rice University 2000 -- English Major
gfox...@earthlink.net - http://home.earthlink.net/~gfoxcook
Robert Heinlein/The X-Files/Star Wars/Star Trek: NextGen fan
U2/Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd/Tori Amos/The Who/David Bowie fan
"Ahhh!!! I'm gonna die! Jesus,
____ Allah, Buddha, I love you all!" - Homer J. Simpson ____
Harley
It's not the voltage that you have to worry about, it's the amperage. And
before I explain why, I'd better find me a pocket protector.
Harl the Mad
Wolfgang Linsmayer
>
> >Look at the kid in Jurassic Park. I'd have to say 9 volts is a joke.
>
> It's not the voltage that you have to worry about, it's the amperage. And
> before I explain why, I'd better find me a pocket protector.
>
could hurt a lot... ;)
Dale Picolet
>
> He didn't use another Wookiee because he's been there, done that.
>
> really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
> though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no watch"
> shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
> standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating all
> may have gone a bit overboard with proving they can make a living, moving
> CG character. I'm still guardedly optimistic, since I realize we're only
> seeing snippets, but I'm fairly sure Jar-Jar won't be making my favorite
> SW characters roster.
Have to agree with not liking the "my tongue" thing, but for different
reasons. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a fancy version of the Bill
Cosby dentist/Mushmouth bit. Talk about been there, done that, the joke
has got to be close to as old as I am(26 btw).
I really hate to be any bit closed to anything in this movie going in,
but unfortunately, Jar Jar's personality has been completely annoying in
every thing I've seen so far. The "you mean innocent people are going to
die?" bit was immediately noticeable as not typical to most of the fans
I know. The character seems to be too naive, clumsy, innocent, and...
well.. air headed for someone who hangs out with a Jedi. It does appear
he fills the space left by chewie, but at least chewie, though comical,
wasn't stupid.
--
Dale Picolet
Steve
Jevon den Ridder <jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:370005...@cableol.co.uk...
Steve
animated (no pun intended -- what the heck, pun intended) than humans? And
some individual humans ARE very outgoing -- Roberto Benigni, for one!
Now, if EVERY alien creature is flopping about wildly, then your point about
"because you can" would be valid. But let's let Jar Jar be an individual of
an alien race.
Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote in message
news:7doacb$24h$1...@shell3.ba.best.com...
> In article <36FEFB...@geocities.com>,
> Neil Sarver <soft...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >Chris Pierson wrote:
> >
> >> He didn't use another Wookiee because he's been there, done that.
> >
> >Exactly. And there isn't any reason I can see to include the familiar
> >Wookiee, like we have the familiar droids.
> >
> >> I'm a little nervous about Jar-Jar too, though. The whole "my tongue"
bit
> >> really seemed a little dumb. The thing that bothers me most about him,
> >> though, is that he's never still. It was very obvious in the "Me no
watch"
> >> shot on 60 Minutes tonight: here we have Pernilla, Natalie and Liam all
> >> standing pretty much still, and Jar-Jar's twitching and gesticulating
all
> >> over the place.
> >
> >Exactly. He struck me like a character from a Tex Avery cartoon or
> >something, which isn't at all a bad thing in itself, it would simply be
> >obnoxious grafted into the middle of the Star Wars universe.
> >
>
> Yes, the animators need to learn one secret of movie acting, which
> is stillness. Small gestures. Yeah, in broad comedy and cartoons,
> big gestures are common, but in anything the audience is taking
> seriously, the secret is 'economize.' Do stuff if it moves forward
> the action or characterization, and don't move if it doesn't.
>
> The problem is, these animators have invested so much time and money
> into getting 'motion' to look real, they want to show it off.
>
Çheetah!
>
> BRCOOL990 wrote:
> >
> > Preach on brother!!
>
> Quote on brother.
Right on! brother...
=-) Çheetah! (-=
8======##<^>##======8
Play Star Wars Trivia at Virtual Dyslexia!
> http://www.primenet.com/~ccheetah
8======##<^>##======8
Atlantic Puppy Grinding Co. (sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!)
> http://www.breathlessdrive.com/discus
8======##<^>##======8
8======##<^>##======8
> news:alt.crossover
> news:rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
8======##<^>##======8
> "I'm DEAD, Jim!" "...Just shut up & roll-over, Bones..."
> <Spock Thought Balloon> "I wonder if she gives good ear..."
Patrick Dolan
Thomas Andrews wrote in message <7doacb$24h$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
It reminds me of the cab driver sequence from Heavy Metal, where the cop
seemed to be running on perpetual motion....And I'm certain it's for the
same reason you speculate here.... At the time, they were trying to prove
that animation was a real & important medium, and so, IMHO, overextended
themselves trying to "sell" the product.
Gene Williams
Olaf <ol...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3D7872AEE784E6A0.B4C47431...@library-proxy.airnew
s.net...
Neil Sarver
> I really hate to be any bit closed to anything in this movie going in,
> but unfortunately, Jar Jar's personality has been completely annoying in
> every thing I've seen so far. The "you mean innocent people are going to
> die?" bit was immediately noticeable as not typical to most of the fans
> I know. The character seems to be too naive, clumsy, innocent, and...
> well.. air headed for someone who hangs out with a Jedi. It does appear
> he fills the space left by chewie, but at least chewie, though comical,
> wasn't stupid.
I'm not trying to be a crank either. Honest, I'm not. Of all the
things I'm not cranky about it's Star Wars movies. I'm 28 years old and
Star Wars is one of the most truly magical things I've ever
experienced. I am not under the impression that Star Wars is more
serious than it is, but in the experience I have watching and rewatching
the films, I don't recall a character that goofy appearing. Even the
overly cute Ewoks didn't come off as stupid in the way that Jar Jar
seems to from the footage we've seen so far. I'm not one of the people
who complained at the first descriptions or pictures or the first
trailers. The 60 Minutes footage seemed to go too far in my opinion.
He seemed jarringly like a Tex Avery cartoon character that I can't see
how they would fit the tone of any of the original trilogy films. Does
that mean I can't be pleasantly surprised at the way he fits in?
Absolutely not, but my impression so far is not good.
I'll happily watch a Tex Avery cartoon and laugh as hard as anyone.
That doesn't mean you can insert those kinds of gags into any film.
Jar Jar just seems too stupid and self-conciously "innocent" for this
kind of movie... FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN.
--
Neil
--
The Bleeding Tree
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
--
"Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
Universe has never seen!"
-- Space Ghost
Karrde
Phillip A. Kallas wrote in message ...
>You know, my girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!
>
Hey, I think I used to date that girl.
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Preach on brother!!
Quote on brother.
Jevon den Ridder
>
> 34, and I think Jar Jar is great.
Good to hear it. I hope when the 20 year olds grow up they'll change
their opinions on Jar Jar.
Chris Pierson
Çheetah! <Çheetah!@alt.crossover> wrote:
>Jevon den Ridder wrote:
>>
>> BRCOOL990 wrote:
>> >
>> > Preach on brother!!
>>
>> Quote on brother.
>
Oh, brother.
--
Chris Pierson ** "Now my body is in tumult. It is a colossal moment of joy.
** I would like to be Jupiter and kidnap everybody and lie
Author ** down in the firmament making love to everybody."
Game Designer ** -- Roberto Benigni, Best Actor & World's Most Exuberant Man
Dan Bongard
: Dan Bongard wrote:
: >
: > Shay Gordon-Brown (Sha...@uq.net.au) wrote:
: >
: > : Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
: > : add anything new?
: >
: > Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
: > appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
: > parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
: Lame if you're a teenager or geeky adult. I'm sure more mature
: adults (ie parents) would look at Jar Jar and just smile or
: something.
Some adults undoubtedly smile at "Barney the Dinosaur". Do not
be deluded into taking that as a sign of maturity. Some people
simply never develop taste. :)
Heck, the success of "Con Air" pretty much proves that.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
: dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
:> Shay Gordon-Brown (Sha...@uq.net.au) wrote:
:>: Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
:>: add anything new?
:> Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
:> appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
:> parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
:> How many comic relief characters does one "epic" movie need?
: In my book, more is always better than less...
How do you figure? Is Lucas trying to make a science fiction
"Lawrence of Arabia", as he earlier claimed, or is he making
"Jurassic Park III" with fat bumbling scientists and lawyers
in porta-potties? The available evidence unfortunately suggests
the latter.
: especially when "more" is quality-certified.
Quality-certified? Lucas' previous attempt to pander to
children -- the Ewoks in "Jedi" -- pretty much bit. Somewhere
along the line he forgot that you don't have to be stupid
to be funny. "Star Wars" and "Empire" had plenty of amusing
bits to them that didn't generally resort to having cutesy
creatures act wacky for a cheap laugh.
: George Lucas is making the movie that he wants to see.
The unfortunate thing is that he seems to have misplaced
his taste in movies during the last 15 years. "Jedi" was
a bad sign, but Willow? Howard the Duck? The Special
Editions? Ack.
: He's living a trip right now that not so many people can
: really understand. A one-man vision is actually coming to
: life. With that in mind, even the most casual fans should
: be excited.
Bear in mind that Ed Wood was also a man of personal vision.
Personal vision in a director is nothing to get excited about
unless you have confidence that the end result of that vision
is going to be worth watching. A look at Lucas' track
record indicates he hasn't been involved with a truly
memorable movie in nearly a generation -- and nothing in
the trailers suggests that record is about to change.
-- Dan
Chris Harvey
>
> A 9 volt battery on the tongue doesnt really hurt at all, it just kinf of
> burns a little, and I guarantee your speech will be 100% unaffected.
>
> The whole jar-jar character bothers the hell out of me, not to mention a
> little kid driving race cars and space fighters.
Hmmm -- even a little kid with the Force? "When I first met
him (Anakin), he was just a young pilot, but I was amazed at
how strong the Force was with him." Obi-Wan from ANH
(paraphrased)
Chris Harvey
chha...@home.com
Chris Harvey
> Yes, the animators need to learn one secret of movie acting, which
> is stillness. Small gestures. Yeah, in broad comedy and cartoons,
> big gestures are common, but in anything the audience is taking
> seriously, the secret is 'economize.' Do stuff if it moves forward
> the action or characterization, and don't move if it doesn't.
I got the impression that Jar-Jar is just a really agitated
person. You know the type -- they always fidget, can't sit
still, always talk, etc etc etc. It's unfair, IMHO, to
compare him to a Jedi Master and a young Queen, both who
would be used to being still and relaxed and calm. Jar-Jar
just needs to stop drinking the Mountain Dew; I see his
jittery-ness as a facet of characterization.
Chris Harvey
chha...@home.com
rein...@frank.mtsu.edu
cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
> In article <370036...@alt.crossover>,
> Çheetah! <Çheetah!@alt.crossover> wrote:
> >Jevon den Ridder wrote:
> >>
> >> BRCOOL990 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Preach on brother!!
> >>
> >> Quote on brother.
> >
> >Right on! brother...
>
> Oh, brother.
Brother, can you spare a dime?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Phillip A. Kallas
> Olaf wrote:
> >
> > A 9 volt battery on the tongue doesnt really hurt at all, it just kinf
of
> > burns a little, and I guarantee your speech will be 100% unaffected.
> >
> > The whole jar-jar character bothers the hell out of me, not to mention a
> > little kid driving race cars and space fighters.
> >
>
> Loser. Maybe should watch another film instead.
>
> Furthermore - "Olaf...sing"
>
> I like smoking pot berzer..ker
> I like smoking cock berZER..KER
You know, my girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!
--
Phillip A. Kallas, Master Thespian.
"I understand now!!! ...Violence is wrong...It's like, against society!!"-
Alex from A Clockwork Orange.
"Men rise from one ambition to another; first they seek to secure themselves
from attack, and then they attack others."- Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi,
1531
Go Gators! Go Colts! Go Maple Leafs! Go Home!(huh?)
Jedi Master Ewok
Think of it this way, you will probably see Jar Jar die violently in
one of the other two Prequel films. Heh.
Dylan Bryan Dolman
> Çheetah! <Çheetah!@alt.crossover> wrote:
> >Jevon den Ridder wrote:
> >>
> >> BRCOOL990 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Preach on brother!!
> >>
> >> Quote on brother.
> >
> >Right on! brother...
>
> Oh, brother.
brrrrrr...
Çheetah!
>
> In article <7dpd1i$8...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
> > In article <370036...@alt.crossover>,
> > >Jevon den Ridder wrote:
> > >>
> > >> BRCOOL990 wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Preach on brother!!
> > >>
> > >> Quote on brother.
> > >
> > >Right on! brother...
> >
> > Oh, brother.
>
He ain't heavy, he's my brother...
Çheetah!
>
> Jevon den Ridder <jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:36FFBA...@cableol.co.uk...
> > Olaf wrote:
> > >
> > > A 9 volt battery on the tongue doesnt really hurt at all, it just kinf
> of
> > > burns a little, and I guarantee your speech will be 100% unaffected.
> > >
> > > The whole jar-jar character bothers the hell out of me, not to mention a
> > > little kid driving race cars and space fighters.
> > >
> > > olaf
> >
> > Loser. Maybe should watch another film instead.
> >
> > Furthermore - "Olaf...sing"
> >
> > I like smoking pot berzer..ker
> > I like smoking cock berZER..KER
>
> You know, my girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!
In a row? Or all at once?
Harley
>> > >> > Preach on brother!!
>> > >>
>> > >> Quote on brother.
>> > >
>> > >Right on! brother...
>> >
>> > Oh, brother.
>>
>> Brother, can you spare a dime?
>
>He ain't heavy, he's my brother...
>
Sister. Sister, yooooohooooo, sister...
Harl the Mad
Jevon den Ridder
Exactly. Just watch how much he'll learn when he's training to become a
Jedi knight during the next ten years.
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Phillip A. Kallas wrote in message ...
> >
Jedi bitch. Man, why do you always have to tell that fucking gay story
for?
Man, shut up.
You shut up, you fat fuck.
name
I would have to agree. I realize the wanton desire to satisfy the young-
er audiences, but I really hope it doesn't ultimately end up reminding
one of a traditional Disney film.
Whereas in the original, you had at least the semblance of clever wit, it
seems with Jar Jar that there's nothing but the cheap attempt at humour.
For instance, when viewing 60 Minutes, I noticed the 'hand-slap' (give me
five) sequence. That alone made me cringe. As did the whole 'tongue'
episode.
I -really- hope that every alien race represented isn't made to look like
the typical buffoon (Abbot and Costello; Gomer Pyle; or Goofy pop to
mind.) What partially made the original three more believable to me
-was- the fact that you had different beings interacting in a very 'normal'
way. I would cite the 'Cantina' scene as a perfect example (look at all
of the various patrons at the bar.)
It was a bit more menacing (laugh) and more typical of what one would
expect to find in a galaxy a long, long time ago (or now; or the future.)
Still, my -main- gripe, and it's not directed towards STs alone, is why
-all- alien species resemble the human form? As in, 2 eyes, 2 arms,
a mouth, ears, etc. -That-, to me, is the most annoying aspect. It's as
if no one considers the possibility that, indeed, there may be other and
more exotic lifeforms which have or are presently existing. Very mun-
dane and arrogant thinking, IMO.
For the people wishing to jump on me for what I've said, some advice:
Chill -- I'm a fan of SWs and will definitely see the prequel. I'm also of
the belief that one can and should discuss a subject objectively and
constructively criticise what he or she feels is wrong or right with the
topic at hand. Not a damn thing wrong with that! :)
-name
29, Chicago
Rich Handley
> Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
> just complain about TPM. Why do this? In case none of you are aware
> this is alt.fan.starwars not
> alt.i.don't.like.starwars.and.will.never.watch.it.
Wel, in case YOU'RE not aware, it's cross-posted to several groups.
And in any case, it's also not
alt.I.only.post.positive.opinions.about. starwars. Negative reactions
are just as welcome here as positive reactions.
Sincerely,
Rich Handley (Card...@NO-SPAMunix.asb.com)
Thomas Andrews
Chris Harvey <chha...@home.com> wrote:
>Thomas Andrews wrote:
>
>> Yes, the animators need to learn one secret of movie acting, which
>> is stillness. Small gestures. Yeah, in broad comedy and cartoons,
>> big gestures are common, but in anything the audience is taking
>> seriously, the secret is 'economize.' Do stuff if it moves forward
>> the action or characterization, and don't move if it doesn't.
>
>I got the impression that Jar-Jar is just a really agitated
>person. You know the type -- they always fidget, can't sit
>still, always talk, etc etc etc.
Even actors who play fidgety characters play them smaller. And
when that fidgetting would distract from the scene, either the
actor stops, or the character isn't shown much.
Jar-Jar seems more like 'Robert Benigni' and 'Jerry Lewis'
than 'Jeff Goldblum' or 'C-3PO.'
> It's unfair, IMHO, to
>compare him to a Jedi Master and a young Queen, both who
>would be used to being still and relaxed and calm. Jar-Jar
>just needs to stop drinking the Mountain Dew; I see his
>jittery-ness as a facet of characterization.
>
Well, I'll wait and see, but it seemed to me to be a bit of showing
off by the animators, instead.
J-P Bewers
demographics. I'm 26.
Jevon den Ridder wrote in message <370013...@cableol.co.uk>...
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> 34, and I think Jar Jar is great.
>
>Good to hear it. I hope when the 20 year olds grow up they'll change
>their opinions on Jar Jar.
Jevon den Ridder
>
> I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
> demographics. I'm 26.
There are exceptions to every rule.
simon
<tyrann...@hotmail.com> writes
>In article <36FEF4...@geocities.com>,
> soft...@geocities.com wrote:
>> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
>> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
>> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
>> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
>> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
>> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
>> the film itself...
>
> I disagree - it looks like Jar Jar is splendidly done.
Well said, brian.
> The big thing
>that worries me here are the humanoid battle droids - of the extensive
>CGI effects, those are the only ones that really look like they're out of
>_Toy Story_.
>
I tink the battle droids are great. The mechanical killer is quite un-
nearving. Think of the Darleks or the terminator.
--
simon
Bill Halverson
> Ok, it's official... I was trying hard to stay optimistic about every
> element of Episode I, but I just have to say that the footage of Jar Jar
> on 60 Minutes was utterly awful. I understand that the tradition of
> cute and amusing extends from Threepio, Artoo and Chewie as well as
> Ewoks, so I can be ok with the idea in theory, but I don't see how it
> can possibly be dramatically productive or avoid being just intrusive on
> the film itself...
>
> *sigh*
>
I concur. Boy was that dissapponting. My wife and I could not believe it.
It looks like Lucas made a muppet-movie. He went the way of the Ewoks, CGI
style.
I'll still plop down the bucks and go see it, but I no longer have the
same expectations...which is good actually.
--
Bill
Martin Laverdure
> J-P Bewers wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
> > demographics. I'm 26.
>
> There are exceptions to every rule.
Tell us more, Mister Professor.......
"I Had A Dream. I Was A Jedi." - Anakin Skywalker
emckinley
get a grip people, i'm sure there is a different side to the character
we haven't seen yet, let's just all chill and wait out the next 49
days....patiently...
sipping on his mountain dew....
ERiAN
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
www.erian.com --> star wars & mp3's, what more could ya want??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Jevon den Ridder <jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
> > J-P Bewers wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
> > > demographics. I'm 26.
> >
> > There are exceptions to every rule.
>
> Tell us more, Mister Professor.......
That's about it. Actually, why don't I just go ahead and quote Star Wars
as usual.
"I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. Chewie! Take the
professor here and plug him into the hyperdrive."
Harley
>you all are insane
I most certainly am! Every one of me.
Harl the Mad
Matt Martinez
> J-P Bewers wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
> > demographics. I'm 26.
>
> There are exceptions to every rule.
I'm 19. The line about "This is gonna be messy! Me no watchin'!"
cracked me up.
--
"I guess it all comes down to a simple choice: get busy livin' or get
busy dyin'."
--The Shawshank Redemption
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Matt Martinez
> I disagree - it looks like Jar Jar is splendidly done. The big thing
> that worries me here are the humanoid battle droids - of the extensive
> CGI effects, those are the only ones that really look like they're out of
> _Toy Story_.
Anyone else think the battle droids kinda look like Snoopy?
Matt Martinez
> I concur. Boy was that dissapponting. My wife and I could not believe it.
> It looks like Lucas made a muppet-movie. He went the way of the Ewoks, CGI
> style.
I give Lucas credit for trying to come up with creatures that look more
alien. I think it's much better than the Star Trek-esque actors in Halloween
masks.
Phillip A. Kallas
Jevon den Ridder <jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:370106...@cableol.co.uk...
> J-P Bewers wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
> > demographics. I'm 26.
>
> There are exceptions to every rule.
Like me. I'm 20, my name is Phil Kallas, and I think Jar-jar looks cool. (We
might as well turn this into an AA-type meeting.)
The Phoenix
wrote:
: > The problem is, these animators have invested so much time and money
: > into getting 'motion' to look real, they want to show it off.
:
: This is exactly the sort of thing I have been dreading....the temptation
: to do way too much just to prove you can. Jar-Jar is a large creature,
: and will not seem real if he moves like a hyperactive insect.
:
: I don't want to nit-pick. But if, perhaps GL is listening, I want ot beg
: him to PLEASE PLEASE be careful with this sort of thing, because IMHO it
: does make a difference, and I'm starting to notice a trend. Many of the
: FX in the special editions suffered from the same sort of excess.
Name one instance where you think that something completely CGI was
addes to the SEs and looked like crap strictly beacuse it was shown
off by the ILM guys, or in your terms was a "hyperactive insect."
--
The Phoenix
"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller
--
The Phoenix
: >Look at the kid in Jurassic Park. I'd have to say 9 volts is a joke.
:
:
:
: It's not the voltage that you have to worry about, it's the amperage. And
: before I explain why, I'd better find me a pocket protector.
Indeed, its not how wide a river is but how fast the current is (if ya
catch my meaning)
The Phoenix
<paka...@coruscant.net> wrote:
: You know, my girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!
Damn, I LOVED that movie!
The Phoenix
<jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
: J-P Bewers wrote:
: >
: > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
: > demographics. I'm 26.
:
: There are exceptions to every rule.
Mark another one down pro-Jar Jar. I'll be 20 in August, of course I
may hate hum by then.
Dan Bongard
: you all are insane, how can you judge a cgi character from a trailer?
There are several million people who have made judgements about
the movie based on those trailers. That is the whole _point_
of trailers, you know.
: get a grip people, i'm sure there is a different side to the character
: we haven't seen yet,
Why on earth would you be "sure" of that? There is no evidence
for it. There wasn't a "deeper" side to the Ewoks.
-- Dan
TomRipley
<paka...@coruscant.net> wrote:
>
>Jevon den Ridder <jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:370106...@cableol.co.uk...
>> J-P Bewers wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
>> > demographics. I'm 26.
>>
>> There are exceptions to every rule.
>
>Like me. I'm 20, my name is Phil Kallas, and I think Jar-jar looks cool. (We
>might as well turn this into an AA-type meeting.)
"My name's Tom. I'm 31... and I like Jar-Jar."
Heh.
Tom
--
"I never watched baseball on tv. It's slow & boring.
I'm not a fan. Never was." -- Jeff Kent, starting
second baseman, San Fransisco Giants (SI interview)
Harley
>"My name's Tom. I'm 31... and I like Jar-Jar."
>
*cue Harley's collective voice*
HELLO TOM.
Harl.
The.
Mad.
Jevon den Ridder
>
> Jevon den Ridder wrote:
>
> > J-P Bewers wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
> > > demographics. I'm 26.
> >
> > There are exceptions to every rule.
>
> cracked me up.
Same here.
LGr4849206
Jason
LGr4849206
Jason
Velya
TomRipley schrieb in Nachricht <3701abd0....@news.usit.net>...
>>> J-P Bewers wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I don't have a problem with Jar Jar and it has nothing to do with
>>> > demographics. I'm 26.
>>>
>>> There are exceptions to every rule.
>>
(We
>>might as well turn this into an AA-type meeting.)
>
>
>
>Tom
My name is not Velya, I'm not 31 or 20 or 26 years old, but I'm glad to be
here, Oprah.
Velya
Mad TIE-Defender Pilot
ICQ: 10390531
Ve...@gmx.net
Patience leads to contentment, contentment leads to happiness, happiness
leads to StarWars. (by jason)
Jamie Locus
>
> Well, well, well, look what "Phillip A. Kallas"
> <paka...@coruscant.net> wrote:
>
> : You know, my girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!
>
> Damn, I LOVED that movie!
Wouldn't it be funny if he wasn't talking about Clerks?
HA!
der...@table.jps.net
The Phoenix (Gra...@mediaone.net) wrote:
> Name one instance where you think that something completely CGI was
> addes to the SEs and looked like crap strictly beacuse it was shown
> off by the ILM guys, or in your terms was a "hyperactive insect."
Can I interject?
Although I think the Star Wars CGI Dewbacks were far from being crap,
I did find them distracting. I felt sorry for the Stormtrooper riding
the Dewback, because it seemed like such a harsh ride. I think I
would've been more convinced if it rode more like an elephant, rather than
a bucking bronco.
To my eyes, they looked over-animated, more like a great Disney cartoon
character, with "takes", and an emphasis on dramatic motion. They
look fantastic, but they just don't fit, I think that's the complaint.
Jar Jar looks incredible, but he is animated too gracefully, and far too
kinetic to be in a picture where most of the real people are just
standing around looking cool in nifty costumes.
It's like when you see a completely computer generated picture.
It looks more like a picture of a real object if you add "noise"
and other imperfections to it. Somehow, your brain picks up that
noise as the complexity of the real world. I mean, they shouldn't
animate CGI characters as they SHOULD move, but model them on how
familiar things DO move. That way, it's a more seamless integration
of real 3D and CGI 3D, and becomes much easier to win over a jaded
audience.
-ET
Ionesco
der...@table.jps.net () wrote:
*snip*
>
> It's like when you see a completely computer generated picture.
> It looks more like a picture of a real object if you add "noise"
> and other imperfections to it. Somehow, your brain picks up that
> noise as the complexity of the real world. I mean, they shouldn't
> animate CGI characters as they SHOULD move, but model them on how
> familiar things DO move. That way, it's a more seamless integration
> of real 3D and CGI 3D, and becomes much easier to win over a jaded
> audience.
I agree with your statement.
Also, I think a lot more is involved in make realistic looking CGI
characters/creatures. For example, the first T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park
was effective not just because it had really nifty CGI. It worked because
the CGI was used to supplement full-scale models, plus good direction, plus
good lighting, good camera work, good editing, good acting, etc. The CGI was
unobtrusive because you were so caught up in the movie that you believed the
T- Rex was real.
Dragonheart (in which the dragon was a much more sophisticated and complex CGI
creature) on the otherhand, failed because it had bad direction, bad camera
work, bad editing, bad script, etc.
IMO the thing that will make or break SW: TPM will not be the quality and
complexity of the CGI, but how they are integrated with the rest of the
movie. We will believe the creatures/characters are real based on how well
they blend in with the rest of the movie. If they are noticeably different
than the rest of the movie, we will fail to suspend our disbelief, and the
movie will not work as effectively. There are a lot of factors that will
determine this. Will the actors interact believably with the CGI characters
creatures? Will Lucas' direction combine the elements effectively. Is the
editing convincingly done? Etc.
I agree that we will have to wait to see the whole movie to determine whether
or not the CGI works. Based on the first trailer, I would have said yes.
Based on the second trailer, I'm more skeptical. Maybe it will work in some
scenes, but not in others. But I will have to see the finished product before
I say yes or no.
Gerry.
L'enfer c'est les autres...
...à moins qu'ils soient rhinocéros...
...et puis il faut courir très vite.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
n(m)
[snip]
> It's like when you see a completely computer generated picture.
> It looks more like a picture of a real object if you add "noise"
> and other imperfections to it. Somehow, your brain picks up that
> noise as the complexity of the real world. I mean, they shouldn't
> animate CGI characters as they SHOULD move, but model them on how
> familiar things DO move. That way, it's a more seamless integration
> of real 3D and CGI 3D, and becomes much easier to win over a jaded
> audience.
>
> -ET
They did that in "Jurassic Park", IIRC -- they had to go back and
"noisify" (my brand-new word) the CGI dinosaurs because test audiences
thought they looked a little too crisp.
--
n(m)
"The Holocaust was a horrible period in our nation's history.
I mean, in our century's history.
We all lived in this century.
I didn't live in this century."
--Dan Quayle
The Phoenix
: Distribution:
:
: The Phoenix (Gra...@mediaone.net) wrote:
: > Name one instance where you think that something completely CGI was
: > addes to the SEs and looked like crap strictly beacuse it was shown
: > off by the ILM guys, or in your terms was a "hyperactive insect."
:
: Can I interject?
Please do, all comments are welcome, as long as you ain't a troll.
: Although I think the Star Wars CGI Dewbacks were far from being crap,
: I did find them distracting. I felt sorry for the Stormtrooper riding
: the Dewback, because it seemed like such a harsh ride. I think I
: would've been more convinced if it rode more like an elephant, rather than
: a bucking bronco.
:
: To my eyes, they looked over-animated, more like a great Disney cartoon
: character, with "takes", and an emphasis on dramatic motion. They
: look fantastic, but they just don't fit, I think that's the complaint.
What we have here is a simple disagreement. Not that I think that the
Dewbacks added to the movie, but to be honest I didn't see them in the
original, so I kinda liked them in the SEs except for that one time
when one walks right in front of the screen right before Ben uses the
mind trick--"these aren't the droids you're looking for."
: Jar Jar looks incredible, but he is animated too gracefully, and far too
: kinetic to be in a picture where most of the real people are just
: standing around looking cool in nifty costumes.
It is possible that that is how the Gungans move. They could be a
figitey people, I won't really decide until after I see the movie. If
this is the case, then I think that ILM went overboard.
: It's like when you see a completely computer generated picture.
: It looks more like a picture of a real object if you add "noise"
: and other imperfections to it. Somehow, your brain picks up that
: noise as the complexity of the real world. I mean, they shouldn't
: animate CGI characters as they SHOULD move, but model them on how
: familiar things DO move. That way, it's a more seamless integration
: of real 3D and CGI 3D, and becomes much easier to win over a jaded
: audience.
I do know what you are saying here and I agree. One of the instances
of noise is like how real objects tend to blur when they are in motion
on a film, I think somebody commented that ILM had fixed that for
Trailer B. Another instance is how some real objects can be out of
focus when not the center of attention, like objects in the
background. Now if ILM can't figure out how to have Battle Droids in
and out of focus depending on their position, that may be distracting
to the eye as well.
Just a few more useless thoughts.
Werner Spahl
> Although I think the Star Wars CGI Dewbacks were far from being crap,
> I did find them distracting. I felt sorry for the Stormtrooper riding
> the Dewback, because it seemed like such a harsh ride. I think I
> would've been more convinced if it rode more like an elephant, rather than
> a bucking bronco.
Speaking of elephants, I think the Dewbacks have much too thin legs for
animals of that size. Especially if you compare them to our own biggest
lizards the warans and remember that they are living in a sand desert!
They looked completely unrealistic to me beause of this...
--
Werner Spahl (ui2...@sun1.lrz-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy!" Vorlonships
Werner Spahl
> Tyrannorabbit wrote:
>
> > I disagree - it looks like Jar Jar is splendidly done. The big thing
> > that worries me here are the humanoid battle droids - of the extensive
> > CGI effects, those are the only ones that really look like they're out of
> > _Toy Story_.
>
> Anyone else think the battle droids kinda look like Snoopy?
Nope! I think they look really cool (at least in the close ups) and prove
to me that there are still gifted designers around. But then I don't like
the design of the Jedis starship (which looks like a TIE fighter clone).
Michael Urban
The Phoenix <Gra...@NOSPAMmediaone.net> wrote:
>
>I do know what you are saying here and I agree. One of the instances
>of noise is like how real objects tend to blur when they are in motion
>on a film, I think somebody commented that ILM had fixed that for
>Trailer B.
It is worth noting that ILM invented `go-motion', which
is the technique of moving models in stop-motion animation while
the shutter is open, to produce more realistic motion blur. It
was first seen in "Dragonslayer" (a worthwhile film in its own right).
>Another instance is how some real objects can be out of
>focus when not the center of attention, like objects in the
>background. Now if ILM can't figure out how to have Battle Droids in
>and out of focus depending on their position, that may be distracting
>to the eye as well.
The first time I recall seeing CGI with depth-of-focus simulation was
the stained-glass man waving his sword close to the virtual camera in
"Young Sherlock Holmes" (a rather less worthwhile film, IMHO). That
was quite a while ago, so I expect that the technique is pretty well
understood.
Lupus Australis
> On 31 Mar 1999 der...@table.jps.net wrote:
>
> > Although I think the Star Wars CGI Dewbacks were far from being crap,
> > I did find them distracting. I felt sorry for the Stormtrooper riding
> > the Dewback, because it seemed like such a harsh ride. I think I
> > would've been more convinced if it rode more like an elephant, rather than
> > a bucking bronco.
>
> Speaking of elephants, I think the Dewbacks have much too thin legs for
> animals of that size. Especially if you compare them to our own biggest
> lizards the warans and remember that they are living in a sand desert!
> They looked completely unrealistic to me beause of this...
I generally assume that in the typical SW planet gravity tends to be
somewhat less than our own. It tends to help explain oversized animals
with undersized builds.
That said, I agree that the CGI dewbacks look somehow *wrong* in the SE.
For me, at least, they were not incorporated seemlessly and realistically
into the film. I agree that the STs rough ride looks bizarre, promting
one to ask "Why the hell is he riding it anyway???"
This is one of the dangers of too much show-offy, in-your-face detail --
the result has an "oh Lucas just made that up its not real" look to it.
Sometimes power of suggestion and appeal to the imagination works better.
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
Matt Martinez
> Nope! I think they look really cool (at least in the close ups) and prove
> to me that there are still gifted designers around. But then I don't like
> the design of the Jedis starship (which looks like a TIE fighter clone).
Are you referring to the Sith Infiltrator, shown in the new trailer, or the
Queen's chrome ship? If it's the first one, it's not used by the Jedi, and
apparently in the Star Wars universe, it is designed by the same person who goes
on to design the TIE Fighters.
Shannon and Scott Opiela
up? <g>
Jevon den Ridder wrote in message <370013...@cableol.co.uk>...
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> 34, and I think Jar Jar is great.
>
>Good to hear it. I hope when the 20 year olds grow up they'll change
>their opinions on Jar Jar.
Jane Lumley
<jde2N...@cableol.co.uk> writes
>TomRipley wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:34:47 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Shay Gordon-Brown (Sha...@uq.net.au) wrote:
>> >
>> >: Hey why the fuck didn't GL just redo the first three movies again. Why
>> >: add anything new?
>> >
>> >Something _new_ would be nice. Jar-Jar is just a hairless Ewok --
>> >appealing if you are around 8 years old and actively pestering your
>> >parents for Star Wars toys, but lame if you are an adult.
>>
>> I thought he looked great, and I laughed at the "my tongue" bit both
>> times I saw it last night. And I'm 31. Some of you here need to
>> lighten up a bit; this ain't Lawrence of Arabia. It's supposed to be
>> a fun movie, and it looks like its going to be.
>
>I wish there were more thirty year olds here. Or kids.
Well, my son (four) really likes Jar-Jar, and has already made up a
whole story about him. I know the fans don't think he's cool, but my
son does. I like him too.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some of you are so eager to cast off
your childhoods that it's become your sole aesthetic criterion for
judgement - 'kids liked Ewoks, so they must suck' 'kids didn't like
something else, so it must rock.' Just calm down. You were children
once, long ago. And I think there'll be enough in TPM for all ages.
Nor are we all going to like all parts of it equally.
--
Jane Lumley
R2 ÅstròMëch
don't like Jar Jar thus far are making a rash judgment, IMHO
Simon H. Lee
Ewoks the story about:
>>I wish there were more thirty year olds here. Or kids.
>
>Well, my son (four) really likes Jar-Jar, and has already made up a
>whole story about him. I know the fans don't think he's cool, but my
>son does. I like him too.
>
>Sometimes I get the feeling that some of you are so eager to cast off
>your childhoods that it's become your sole aesthetic criterion for
>judgement - 'kids liked Ewoks, so they must suck' 'kids didn't like
>something else, so it must rock.' Just calm down. You were children
>once, long ago. And I think there'll be enough in TPM for all ages.
>Nor are we all going to like all parts of it equally.
Adding to the "pleased with Jar-Jar" category, I completely
agree with the last post... Star Wars is meant to appeal to everyone,
and that includes the children that all of us were at one point.
--
(-o-) A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E ! <*>
| __ |
| (__ * _ _ _ _ "Consistency is the last refuge of |
| __)|| | |(_)| \ the unimaginative." --Oscar Wilde |
|___________________________________________________________________|
Zuben
>Well, my son (four) really likes Jar-Jar, and has already made up a
>whole story about him. I know the fans don't think he's cool, but my
>son does. I like him too.
>
>Sometimes I get the feeling that some of you are so eager to cast off
>your childhoods that it's become your sole aesthetic criterion for
>judgement - 'kids liked Ewoks, so they must suck' 'kids didn't like
>something else, so it must rock.' Just calm down. You were children
>once, long ago. And I think there'll be enough in TPM for all ages.
>Nor are we all going to like all parts of it equally.
>Jane Lumley
Amen, Sister. I have found that struggling to maintain some of that
sense of intense childish appreciation for things cute, fantastical,
and silly has been a deeply healthful project.
Tell your kid he has a fan. I'll toast him with a stout mug of diet
coke when I watch Jar-Jar do his thing on screen!
Dave