×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Episode I 3D Release Date Announced

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the ruining-your-childhood-in-3d dept.

Star Wars Prequels 313

TheBrakShow writes 'Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox announced today that the 3D theatrical launch of Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace now has an official release date — February 10, 2012!' Are enough fans interested in watching the weakest films of the trilogy again just to experience them in 3D?"
I for one am looking forward to a new and improved Jar Jar experience.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

313 comments

Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384054)

It would be an interesting debate to have on what is the WORST part of The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar? That little kid who couldn't act and was thrown into laughably implausible situations (like a bad straight-to-DVD Disney movie where NASCAR lets an 8-year old join the circuit just because the movie's called "The NASCAR Kid")? The introduction of Mitaclorians, which pretty much undermined everything Yoda taught Luke in Empire? The creepy child molester vibe Queen Amadalia was giving off talking to the aforementioned non-acting little kid?

I'm going to go with the fact that they brought Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Samuel Jackson into this godawful shitfest--actual talented actors with long resumes of much better films. It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours. No amount of overpriced popcorn could make that any better.

But now I get to see her raped in 3D, and pay twice as much for the privilege. Look Aunt Wanda, we get to keep the glasses! Awesome.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384088)

I think the worst part was the part between the "paragraphs flying through space" opening and the end credits. The best part, by far, was the end credits.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384158)

You have it all wrong!

The best part was the *opening* credits ... before your hopes were dashed.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384138)

Dude, you had me all excited that there was a real film about an 8 year old racing in NASCAR.
 
If you're going to troll at least keep it on topic.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384192)

I've already pitched it. I fully expect a greenlight any day now. Then I'll just have to convince Justin Bieber's little brother to take the part, and we're good to go.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1, Offtopic)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384260)

A Volkswagen Beetle in a NASCAR race has already been made. Talk about unrealistic!

60hp versus 800hp. Yeah right.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

Zcar (756484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384384)

Well, HPA Motorsports did make 500+ HP AWD V6 twin turbo beetle not too long ago with a 4 second 0-60.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384458)

But was it naturally aspirated? Did it use a carburator? Or even have a suspension from the 1950s?

Clearly this car you speak of would be far too modern and high tech for NASCAR.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384408)

Funny thing is both of them are similar in a lot of ways, naturally aspirated and carburated and all that. Outated is what I really mean. NASCAR needs to update, oh and stop going around in circles.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384570)

oh and stop going around in circles.

They do road course hereabouts at Infineon/Sears Point. I never go, but it's interesting that all of the big points leaders on the Left Turn Circuit get their asses wiped there.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384334)

Yeah but that turned into a kickass video game, so I'll allow it.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384144)

Good list of 'wtfs'. Thanks for reminding me how much I hate the new movies. Sometimes I forget.

"The introduction of Mitaclorians, which pretty much undermined everything Yoda taught Luke in Empire? "

Of all the WTF's in the new set, this has to be the biggest.

It's as though these new movies were written by a completely different author. Maybe that's what wealth does to you.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384154)

It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours.

    Yes, it's exactly and precisely like that.

     

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384226)

No, I like Samuel Jackson way better than her. She wasn't even in Pulp Fiction.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384198)

well raped in 2.5D since they never shot the original with a stereoscopic camera... so its paying 2x for the worst star wars movie of the series cut into flat planes artificially placed at guesstimated "depths" to annoy your eyes since the focus is controlled by the movie and not your Cillary muscles the bend and flex your (eyeballs) lenses.

Its hard to believe a man who created such a wonderful universe of fantasy hasn't had an original appealing idea in the last 10-15 years

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384244)

While I'm glad you're excited, you are going to have to return those glasses when the movie is over.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (2, Insightful)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384318)

Jar Jar could have been a decent character if during the raid he stopped being a completely worthless and became a useful fighter. Preferably with some variant of capoeira, or some sort of flashy fighting style (from how we walks it seems like it would be something he would do).
Yes he's the goofy comic relief and that is fine, but the bigger problem was he was worthless and provided nothing else.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384322)

pedobear approves of this post

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (5, Funny)

asn (4418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384418)

It was like watching your favorite aunt get raped for 2 hours. No amount of overpriced popcorn could make that any better.

So that would be a thumbs down?

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384470)

I vote for the midichlorians as the worst thing from Episode 1. I remember how I felt and how everyone in the theater reacted on the first day of showing when Liam Neeson was explaining the midichlorians. It was like getting punched by your best friend after he told you he slept with your sister.

I hope in another universe Lucas didn't make Episode 1-3, and left Episode 4 in their original state where Han shot first and Hayden Christensen was not the ghost at the end of Episode 6.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (4, Interesting)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384474)

If you havn't already, I highly recommend RedLetterMedias free youtube reviews of Episode I, II, & III. Each review is nearly as long as the movie and tears them a new asshole.

Re:Wow, Jar Jar and that shitty kid actor in 3D! (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384506)

Have some towels handy for when your ears start bleeding. If there's one thing that's more annoying than Jar Jar, it's Mr. I-Wanna-Be-Buffalo-Bill.

Cardboard acting in 3D? (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384082)

Too bad technology can't improve acting and dialog, because that's the real reason Star Wars I, II and III are forever stuck in the second dimension.

Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384262)

"...Star Wars I, II and III are forever stuck in the second dimension."

Ignignokt: Here on the moon, our film making is far more advanced.
Err: Yeah, Jar Jar sucks!

Re:Cardboard acting in 3D? (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384392)

To be fair many of the actors have done great work before and after the prequels. I just don't think that they could do much with a bad plot and bad dialogue. RedLetterMedia's critique of the movies brought a great point: There is no protagonist in any of the films. All three were a loose collection of characters. While having a single character as the central character isn't always necessary, it generally works better in some plots. Robert Altman's films do well without a central character but his movies focus much more on storylines and plot.

Horse (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384096)

The Horse is dead, you can stop beating upon its carcass.

Re:Horse (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384200)

When all you have is horse bones you either retire and live of the millions you already made or sell horse nuggets.

Re:Horse (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384320)

No, you carve the horse bones into crossbow bolts to train your hunter before switching him over to marksdwarf.

Re:Horse (5, Funny)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384296)

They are gonna keep trying to bleed those films dry as long as the return is positive. It's kinda fun to see how far they'll take it as long as you don't spend any of your own money on it. I predict that the final release before they put this to bed will be the uber-enhanced ultra-digital 3D edition with unseen footage, enhanced audio, product placement (the Jawas will be selling droids with a marlboro red hanging off their lower lip, eating cheetos and wearing Nikes), and a special audio commentary by Jar Jar across all 6 episodes.

Re:Horse (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384516)

Star Wars fans have been kicking it for thirty years. I can see how it would have been an amazing experience in the 70s. I don't understand why they haven't fucking moved on in three decades.

star suckers (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384122)

GL releases a "new" version of these movies every few years to get money from the fans and they keep paying. next there will be another blu ray release with 3d and digital copy when he could have done it for the upcoming 2011 release

D'Uh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384222)

GL releases a "new" version of these movies every few years to get money from the fans and they keep paying. next there will be another blu ray release with 3d and digital copy when he could have done it for the upcoming 2011 release

D'uh, ya tink!?!

D'uuuuuuhhhhhhhhh, I don't know. D'uuuuuhhhhhhhhh, I like Star Wars! D'uuuuuuuuhuhhhhhhhhhhh.....

D'uuuuhhhhhhhhh, I'l watch anytink Geeeorge Luukas puts out!

D'uhhhhhuuuhhhhhh - I'm a Star Wars Fan!

D'uuuuuhhhhhhhhhh................

Re:D'Uh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384484)

Like Steve Jobs but I suppose at least he rips off other peoples ideas and does something a bit different every now and then.

Re:star suckers (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384356)

After Portman's performance in Black Swan, I fully expect GL to come out with a new version with a digitally-inserted Mila Kunis as one of Padme's handmaidens...including a shower scene.

I'll be in my bunk.

Sounds like an interesting movie (5, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384142)

I've never heard of this "Phantom Menace" thing before. I'm sure if George Lucas was behind it, it must be humorous, entertaining and dramatic, with characters we can identify with for generations to come, just like the Star Wars trilogy we all loved as kids!

I'm so glad that somebody with the integrity of George Lucas is responsible for shepherding this loveable trilogy through the years. That way I can introduce these movies to my own children without having to worry about somebody coming along and pooping all over the memories of my childhood. You know, the temptation to edit or re-issue movies to capitalize on their enduring success might be quite extreme, but George is one of those guys who knows when to say "it was good enough 30 years ago, let's not mess with a good thing".

A lesser man might have, for example, decided to edit away some of the age-inappropriate roguishness of Han Solo in an effort to merchandize schlocky toys to kids. But not George, no.

I'm not really sure what this whole 3d thing is about though. I'm sure it's a sincere effort to make a genuine artistic statement that just happens to be set in that Star Wars universe we all know and love.

Thank god for George Lucas.

Re:Sounds like an interesting movie (0)

gaderael (1081429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384500)

Now I need to go and get some paper towel, because the sarcasm is dripping down my monitor and all over my desk!

Weakest? (1)

rknop (240417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384212)

Weakest of the three? Perhaps, but the competition is strong!

Re:Weakest? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384280)

Personally I'd rather watch Phantom Menace again than whatever the third one is called. But I definitely won't be rushing out to watch it in 3D.

Ok. Why weak. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384218)

i dont understand this exaggerated bashing of the last 3 films that are made. stories are not so lacking in these last 3 movies. all that people show are jar jar binks, and some sloppy acting on part of the woman who played queen amidala. if you look at it, there were worse characters than jar jar binks in the early 3 movies, and on top of it, they were puppets. and there were actors who were more stiff than amidala in those films too.

i was of rather the same opinion until i watched the first 3 movies by chance again. i saw that, they are now 'too 1980s' for my standards. from hairdo, garment style to various jokes and whatnot. at least, hollywood is not retaining the 'fit the contemporary fashion/hairdo into films' mistake anymore, and there is much concentration on originality and realism. back before 90s, there was a habit of fitting whatever contemporary fashion or hairdo at that time into even historical movies.

i think this bashing of late 3 films and rather exaggerated praise of early 3 is more due to the fact that we grew up with the first 3 films, and they were dear to us. not only that, they shaped our expectations.

Re:Ok. Why weak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384250)

You should check out the RedLetterMedia reviews on youtube.

Re:Ok. Why weak. (1)

pinkj (521155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384444)

I agree completely. I watched The Phantom Menace again not long ago with my 3 year old with the assumption that I was going to hate it as much as I hated it the first time I saw it when it came out. Surprisingly, I didn't find it as bad as I remembered it and the acting reminded me of the wooden acting of the original trilogy as well. Was Marc Hamill really that much better as the centre role? Is Jar Jar really that much more annoying than C3PO? After an hour or so, my son was disinterested (especially during the dialogue scenes) and I actually coaxed him to watch the rest of it because I was still curious to see rest of the film!

Re:Ok. Why weak. (1)

thepike (1781582) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384502)

I agree. I mean, the prequels aren't the best movies of all time, but the originals are pretty campy too. I love them though; probably largely because I watched them every week for the first 10 years of my life and played the video games and all that. I predict that my kids (who I will force Star Wars upon) will probably like all six of them, as they'll grow up watching all of them, and won't be surprised if they like the prequels better because they have better special effects.

The same thing goes for the new Indiana Jones. People are all "Aliens, in Indiana Jones?! That's not okay!" but it really isn't any less believable than a guy pulling out someone's heart through their chest.

Complain about the acting, hate on Jar Jar, whatever, but Mark Hamill couldn't act either, and C-3PO is annoying in all 6 movies.

Re:Ok. Why weak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384558)

People are all "Aliens, in Indiana Jones?! That's not okay!" but it really isn't any less believable than a guy pulling out someone's heart through their chest.

You're missing the point of that complaint; it's not because aliens are "unrealistic", it's because aliens don't really fit into the series, thematically speaking.

Don't you have to FILM in 3D First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384230)

I was under the impression that you need to film using a special camera? Did Lucas actually film the last three movies in anticipation of a 3D release?

Re:Don't you have to FILM in 3D First? (2)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384478)

That's if you want to do it right, but since Lucas didn't get anything right with the prequels to begin with, he might as well do it in 3d wrong.

There's another way to make a movie shot in 2d into a 3d movie. It doesn't work very well and it looks like crap because a movie actually shot with a 3d camera (which is essentially 2 cameras stuck together at a specific distance) has each camera seeing a slightly different angle of the scene. It's that parallax that makes actual 3d look. . well. . not good, but better than fake 3d, in which they essentially just drag a copy of elements of the scene slightly to the right and then project it through the right-eye filter (either polarized or color depending on what tech they're using). You end up with something that looks almost, but not quite, entirely unlike real life.

Since there are 1.5 times more dimensions... (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384248)

Will it suck 1.5 times more? Is that even possible?

Patton Oswalt said it best: "If I had a time machine, I would go back to around 1993 or 1994 and kill George Lucas with a shovel."

Karma Killer: I Like Jar Jar (2)

trydk (930014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384258)

OK, I am going to kill whatever goodwill (and karma) I may have had with these statements:

* I actually liked Jar Jar Binks -- he was the not so bright, but well-meaning, comic sidekick
* I think Jake Lloyd performed much better than Hayden Christensen
* I think the chemistry between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen was as hot as the chemistry between gold and nitrogen at 0 Kelvin
* I do not think that Anakin's shift from good to evil is very convincing

But no matter what, the movies are not worth another ticket to me, 3D or not.

Re:Karma Killer: I Like Jar Jar (2)

Homburg (213427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384568)

I would think only the first of these would be particularly controversial. Jake Lloyd was an averagely annoying child-actor, while Hayden Christensen was a complete black-whole of charisma, removing any possibility of drama from any scene he was in; this explains the third and fourth point, too, although I think the script has to take a fair amount of blame for them, too ("You're smooth, not like sand").

So what we've got here (3, Funny)

Crash McBang (551190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384266)

Is a 3-dimensional projection of a 2-dimensional movie with 1-dimensional acting.

mmmm, can't wait....

"Improved" Jar Jar? Must be less Jar Jar! (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384278)

The only room for improvement here is to reduce the scenes with this thing to a minimum. I can only remember one really funny scene, when Qui-Gon grabs his tongue during the meal with Anakin's family. Maybe there are one or two more, but besides that, JJB is just a plain annoyance that makes the movie even worse than it would have been without it.

C3PO was mostly funny, so they knew how to do it right. Why did they screw it up so much with that unfunny and annoying creature?

$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384282)

$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way!

Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384394)

No one is requiring you to get the popcorn or pop.

Admittedly, no one is requiring you to get the ticket either, but even if you did, you wouldn't be required to get the rest.

(Me, even if they paid me $20 they couldn't get me to go the movie.)

Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384434)

Popcorn and pop aren't compulsory.

You should try a movie without them sometime, it's much better without those distractions.

Re:$15+ a ticket + $5 popcorn + $4 pop = no way! (1)

SirMasterboy (872152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384460)

Your theater just rips you off. It's $6.75 for a matinee (yes even 3D too) where I go and I just bring in my own snacks or eat a meal before.

For the record... (5, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384308)

I thought Attack of the Clones was by far the weakest:

ESB
RotJ
SW
TPM
RotS
...
Care Bears the Movie
Sex and the City
...
AotC

Same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384512)

I was going to comment about how in the Star Wars universe, I'd put the Ewok movies above AotC. But you have Care Bears the Movie in there, so I guess you've covered that.

Re:For the record... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384526)

Why are you hating on Care Bears? They're leagues above TPM and RotS... come on...

Re:For the record... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384534)

Yeah, the only thing in AotC worth watching is that midway point with the Obi-Wan/Jango Fett fight in the rain, and maybe the strangely hot tall alien chick who's in there for five minutes. The rest of AotC is more poorly written than Phantom Menace.

  OTOH, it's hard to top smarmy child actor's presence, and full-blown Jar-Jar obnoxiousness. Ep 1: Balance of the Force fixes most of that, though. I wonder if anyone knows of a really good fan edit of Ep 2 that makes the plot less meandering and dull, and perhaps chops out the worst dialogue (like that awful romance plot?)

OMG! OMG! OMG! (4, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384350)

I'm so freaking excited about this! I'm actually giddy just thinking about the day this comes out! I cannot wait to stay home and completely ignore it!

Could be great! (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384368)

The beauty of 3D is that the Z axis works both ways. They could take Jar Jar and sink him into the BACKGROUND until he's gone.

Re:Could be great! (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384582)

Too bad audio is not 3D so we still have to hear Jar Jar bitch at full volume from his little speck body.

Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384382)

So does this mean we can watch Natalie Portman, naked and petrified and covered in hot grits IN 3D?

Train wreck in 3D (4, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384398)

A train wreck in 3D is still a train wreck... it just looks more like you're going to get hit by the caboose.

Loved Ep. 4, 5, 6. Deeply despised 1. Still haven't seen 2 and 3, as by all indications Lucas still hasn't learned that clowns do not belong on the battlefield (and, in fact, trivialize any sense of heriosm or sacrifice or tragedy present in the non-clowns), Western audiences don't like the idea that galactic domination is genetic, a bad movie with eye candy is still a bad movie, and that sullen teenaged angst is only entertaining to sullen teenagers.

Will not buy or download.

Re:Train wreck in 3D (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384596)

Episode 2 and 3 were much better. Episode 3 actually was decent. George Lucas should redo the first two, but hes too arrogant and greedy.

Crap sucks. Crap in 3D sucks in multiple dims (1)

losman (840619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384412)

Seriously, let me see how many suckers pony up for this crap in 3D.

The only way (5, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384420)

The only way I'll watch this is if Natalie Portman reaches out of the screen and gives me a hand job.

Re:The only way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384552)

True story.

I disagree with the premise of your question (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384438)

To say Phantom was the worst implies the other two were any better.

Why not discuss how horrible 3D technology... (2)

andyr86 (1942246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384440)

The quality of Episode 1 has been discussed so many times its nearly boring as the film. Lets discuss how bad 3D technology is! I'll start. 30% less colour, ruined focal length and shot clarity. Illusionary pointy things in your face. Headaches. Its bad.

Lucas has outdone himself this time (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384446)

Was Episode I not bad enough by itself??? I understand that converting 2D movies to 3D is probably the second worst thing to happen to cinema, but you don't need to combine them! There is no prize for worst movie idea.

Jar jar... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384452)

Aside from being an annoying character - some of you wouldn't realize how annoying many thought C3PO were in the first movie...

However - it's important to realize that sometimes you have to have the annoying side characters - they make the experience more real. Even real life is full of annoying people in one form or another.

Then you can look at Jar Jar from another perspective - what he looks like is well within what an alien may look like if we are to encounter them.

February 10, 2012! (2)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384472)

So this will be the day people will rise up and take power, where we all agree to a little bit less, so everyone can have some and we tear down the walls of our manufactured lives, cause let's be honest: What The Fuck.

There may be an upside... (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384480)

Perhaps George in his "wisdom" will fuck with this release even more than he did for the re-release of the original trilogy. At the very least redoing the voice overs could improve this movie. Hell, it's hard to imagine that any changes to it could make it worse.

Uh, never mind. This was the guy that was somehow able to take a series that I enjoyed during my youth and managed to turn it into what feels more like a Deliverance style ass rape'in. Somehow he could make it even worse.

I have 2 words for this movie and Lucas. (2)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384488)

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=free%20hat%20southpark&hl=en&meta= [google.com.au]
Free Hat (you NEED to see the episode if you like Star Wars or Indiana Jones)

"Free Hat" is episode 88 of the animated series South Park. It originally aired on July 10, 2002. The episode ridicules Lucasfilm's digital altering of George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy and Steven Spielberg's E.T.. The episode also shows huge criticism towards remake movies.

Never forget the truth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384490)

Jar jar shot first!

Jar Jar or the Will Smith family (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35384522)

Jar Jar or the Will Smith family?!

RealD is a two-plane gimmick (2, Insightful)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35384536)

We've got to be only a year or two from realizing that RealD is a dumb gimmick...

RealD Cinema [wikipedia.org], the technology used in all of these films, uses alternating frequencies of light which get filtered differently by each polarized lens of the glasses it requires. This gives up to two planes of vision at a time, which can move relative to each other. For whatever reason, we are calling this 3D (I'll use the term "biplanar" for the rest of this post). Disclaimer: this is a simplification and I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I think it hits the point.

All this biplanar vision is good for is superimposing a flat view of something in front of (or behind) the main action. That's it. I saw Avatar and was impressed by a few scenes (specifically, the captions used in the diary entries ... which were 2D), but it was almost wholly a gimmick; neat trick, but a novelty that faded before the movie finished. Captions and other flat items can add to things, but (in their current state) they do not justify the extra cost or the need to wear sunglasses in a dark theater.

That's not to say we've exhausted the limits of what biplanar movies can do; I expect explosions and other instantaneous effects can benefit greatly from this; each frame of the explosion moves slightly closer to the audience on the Z-axis, and since it emits like a wave, there is no need to continue to display previous frames in their own dedicated Z coordinate. The same goes for anything opaque that's coming right at you, so long as it has no component that requires a different depth (so a car --or spaceship-- is out because the windshield is farther from you than the fender; turn your head and the perspective shows a 2D image). In fact, the only things I can think of that fit this bill are explosions and other things that move so fast the you don't have time to move and see their flatness plus anything that is so flat it has no depth, like maybe a propeller-driven device whose propeller is so big you can't see anything else, or a wall that the first-person perspective is driving into head-first (though those two examples are pretty lame and limited).

Re-releasing old hits (a generous term for the Star Wars prequels) won't do much unless you have a fanbase that will buy anything you make (in which you might as well stick with snorting commentary tracks and back-patting featurettes).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...