Saw Star Wars...

[crimsonson]

The movie was mediocre at best. the dialogue, plot development and acting was just plain horrible. Though the productin value and FX shines - I guess that is typical Hollywood movie. Worth only seeing, because non of us have a $50,000 speaker system and large size silver screen.

Regarding the image quality - I honestly think that if you saw and was not aware of the instrument used to record the image you would think its film, unless you are some experienced DP. An average viewer definetly would not know. My girlfriend, who is very knowlegeable about movies, only noticed the slight softness of the image. DoF did not play much role since most where G/B screens and many of the framing did not involve fore/background actors.

[basstruc]

"The movie was mediocre at best. the dialogue, plot development and acting was just plain horrible."
Like every starwars I saw. What were you waiting for ? A masterpiece ???
Matt

[crimsonson]

A movie and not just a light show.

[basstruc]

Light show makes money, Lucas wants moey, Lucas does light shows
Matt

[handcranked]

You aslo should take into consideration that much of what you see on screen was generated on a computer before or after the actors did their jobs. Much of the time the only filmed in real time were the actors in front of a greens screen. Even if Lucus did film his actors in 35mm, you wouldn't be seeing much of what he captured since much of the movie was then scanned and output back onto film. The whole process reeks of mediocrity. The day when real filmmakers with real budgets substitute 24p for film without one digital effect may be still years away, but if they were to do so at the moment, it like settling for second or third best. Lots of DP's for hire (hemroid and soap commercials) Disney channel hacks now swaer that "on TV you can't tell the difference." With that attitude the film industry might as well take a step back and smile sheepishly.

[crimsonson]

Actually, there has been several films shot in 24p without any FX. "Jackpot" in particular was often shot without a lighting crew. To boot it recieved good reviews from critics and DPs alike.

"Even if Lucus did film his actors in 35mm, you wouldn't be seeing much of what he captured since much of the movie was then scanned and output back onto film. "

I dont understand how this affects the substantive quality of the film?

"Lots of DP's for hire (hemroid and soap commercials) Disney channel hacks now swaer that "on TV you can't tell the difference." "

I assume you know something they don't? Many ASC (or hacks as you call them) members work on commercials with varying production value.

[Guest]

I broke down and took my son to see the latest Star Wars projected digitally at our nearby Showcase Cinema. I have to admit I was surprised by the brightness of the image and the overall sharpness. Anyone who can not tell the difference from film, however, belongs to the category of individuals who can not tell the difference between Pepsi and Coke IMHO. My son does not share my passion for film, has never even picked up one of my cameras, nor did he know the film was going to be projected in a different manner than he was used to at the movies. I wanted to see if he had an unbiased opinion. His comment was, "It looked as if you were watching a DVD at home." I couldn't have said it better. I do not see how this particular film could have been made effectively any other way mind you, but for the average film I do not see any advantage. I missed the lushness of the film image on the screen. Pearl Harbor might not have been a great film, but the Technicolor process print shown in the same theatre as Star Wars was true eye candy. In fact, my only complaint with that film was the unrealistic digital aircraft sequences. They stood out like a sore thumb compared to the sequences using actual aircraft... I'd hate to see all movies made Digitally. I think there would be no need to go to the theatre when you will get the same experience watching a DVD copy on your TV. By the way, except for seeing the wonderful Chrisopher Lee and a few cool sequences, the movie sucked. 8)

[Guest]

Actually, there has been several films shot in 24p without any FX. "Jackpot" in particular was often shot without a lighting crew. To boot it recieved good reviews from critics and DPs alike.

"Even if Lucus did film his actors in 35mm, you wouldn't be seeing much of what he captured since much of the movie was then scanned and output back onto film. "

I dont understand how this affects the substantive quality of the film?

"Lots of DP's for hire (hemroid and soap commercials) Disney channel hacks now swaer that "on TV you can't tell the difference." "

I assume you know something they don't? Many ASC (or hacks as you call them) members work on commercials with varying production value.

The Disney people also said that the Patterson film of " bigfoot " could not have possibly been faked. And we all know the truth behind that one now!