Jesse Straub

Sorry, i'll cut it out.

Yeah, damn. I just saw that. I'm not really that invested in these Disney Star Wars movies so i'm not personally disappointed, but shakeups like this are always fascinating. Anyway, I don't deny that the prequels aren't perfect, but my thing is that I don't think they are executed any worse than his first three films. (THX, Graffiti, and Star Wars). I think my confusion stems from the fact that people always feel the need to quality positive praise of the prequels, when they don't with A New Hope, when I can't see any difference in filmmaking prowess. Now Empire Strikes Back is probably technically better, but Lucas didn't direct that. And Return of The Jedi feels about on par with Lucas' six films skillwise. It almost feels like he directed it.

He didn't necessarily change it to make it more in line with audiences, I think he changed it merely because it was somewhat underwritten the first go-round. Whether this is true or not, George has talked about the fact that people maybe expected a more traditional/predictable reason for Anakn to fall (i.e. just turning rotten with power or someone killing Padme and him going on a rampage etc), when that was never his plan. The first cut was mostly Palpatine driving a political and personal wedge between Anakin and the Jedi. The final film was changed so that his primary motivator is Padme's imminent death, with the Jedi vs. Palpatine loyalty stuff somewhat cut down and now used to supplement the Padme angle. I might be being unfair, but i've always felt that if Disney or some studio had been the ones to tell the story of how Darth Vader became Darth Vader it would have been a much more conventional drunk on power/revenge scenario. As Lucas said, the real "revenge of the sith" is Palpatine's.

Huh. I guess it depends, then. Because one of the most interesting bits of filmmaking I know of involves George Lucas completely reshaping Anakin Skywalker's motivation in Episode 3 in post production, with reshoots, rewrites, ADR, creative editing, etc... And unlike most people (apparently- I was rather shocked when I found out that the prequel trilogy wasn't looked at as fondly as the first trilogy), I think it works and that the movie is better for it. But I agree about the Hobbit films. They feel less like Middle Earth than the LotR films. However, I think the biggest problem there wasn't shot composition or staging IMO, it was the use of RED cameras. They shouldn't have used something that screams digital for a world that's so organic. The Alexa would have been better.

What do you mean by this?

Interesting fact about the Minority Report Blu Ray- it's lacking the bleach bypass look of the film as it was in cinemas. I'm not exactly sure what happened to it, but it looks more like a normal movie on Blu Ray.

Aren't DCP's bigger than 4KBD's, filesize wise? Also, is HDR and 10 bit color the same thing? I've been wondering that.

I'm sure it'll all look great, I saw Interstellar in 70mm and even the 35mm parts looked great. Though that may be because i've never seen a film print that I can remember. I saw them as a child of course, but by the time I got into caring about image quality the digital projection switch had happened.

Wow, that's a lot shorter than I was expecting for a Nolan epic/large scale story.

An example of bad GoPro footage for me would be in the second Hobbit movie during the barrel chase.

"Blue Is The Warmest Color" is a good lesbian movie.

Well I think it's more subjective than that. Collateral looks good to me not only because of the fact that it required digital cameras to shoot the way they did at night, but because (i'm a layman) what I assume to be a high ISO creates heavy digital noise which, in Collateral at least, looks beautiful, and the appeal for me is similar to the appeal of heavy film grain in movies like Man of Steel or Minority Report. Similar appeal, but a distinct look.

I think the other thing is that digital has its own unique aesthetic as well. Look at Collateral by Michael Mann, you couldn't do the movie that way on film. So I think both film and digital should co-exist, but I don't think film is necessarily superior. I get the feeling that a couple of you guys would rather 100% of movies were still shot on film (correct me if i'm wrong).

You seem to think that Lucas thought that film would die in less than a year or something. 17 years isn't a long time at all, and Attack of The Clones clearly started the trend. And as for The Force Awakens being film, I counter that Rogue One was digitally shot. The new trilogy being shot on film is purely a nostalgia move, Like how the "PRACTICAL EFFECTS!!!! REAL SETS!!!!" marketing for The Force Awakens was. Ironically, The Force Awakens used CG where it really would have counted to go practical- space ships. And things like Maz Kanata and the Rathtars not being puppets. Or Maz's Castle being CG. etc etc etc. They don't care about film and they don't care about practical effects. The Han Solo movie is also being shot digitally.

As far as "it took a really long time to get there", Episode 3 looks drastically better than Episode 2 (and it's not because Episode 2's Blu Ray has lots of issues, I have a much less mangled HD version of Episode 2 and Episode 3 still looks much better) Episode 3 on a digital projector looks very very good. For my money, Revenge of The Sith looks about as good as Prometheus, shot on RED in 2012. (Other than resolution. I am aware of the resolution difference, but lets face it, when even the resolution that Revenge of The Sith is shot at looks great and crisp on a regular movie theater screen, it's really in no danger of becoming obsolete, unless we all start having IMAX screens in our houses) Which leads to my other point. I think 2016 is a bit off as far as the digital switch goes. Hell, Cameron shot Avatar digitally in 2009, X-Men went digital in 2011 (Singer himself much earlier, with Superman in 2006) , Fincher went digital in 2007, Deakins made his comments a few years before 2016, etc...