ABC news ran a story Saturday nite about the conversion Hollywood is making to digital....(don't flame me, I'm just repeating the story). According to ABC, the conversion is coming. The holdup is due, in part, to the $150,000 cost of digital projectors that movie theaters don't want to cough up. Again, according to the story, Star Wars episode 2 was made entirely in digital, which is natural since there are a lot of special effects. EP2 was transcoded to celluloid because of distribution problems to theaters that don't have these hi $$$ projectors.

They interviewed several movie-goers after the screening of EP2....none of them could tell the diff between digital and celluloid....which proves a point, eh? The general movie-going public doesn't know, doesn't care, and does still pay.

Yes, Ep 2 was entirely shot in digital with regular run o' the mill high definition video cameras in 24p mode. Then it was cropped to obtain the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, so it lost even more resolution. I don't know what resolution the digital effects were rendered at, but just about everything in the movie is a digital effect except for the actors themselves. Look closely and you can see some anti-aliasing. If you look in the darker scenes you will see compression artifacts. Check for it when you see the movie. 99% of theaters will be running film and you will still be able to see this. It probably looks a bit better in DLP since it originated in digital.

I thought the trailer looked great on Europes biggest screen ;-D

"They (the audience) are not goin to watch the foreground. They are not going to watch the background. They will be listening to the music..."
- George Lucas

George Lucas actually said that?

Yeah, when I go to the movies, I watch what's in the background. I never even notice the actors. And I just hum along with the music as I'm doing it. :)

By the way, the music isn't anything special this time. I didn't notice anything new worth buying the soundtrack for. Episode 1 had "Duel of Fates" and Episode 2 uses that same theme briefly on a wide shot of something. But no new exciting music that I noticed.

Just heard a report on NPR by some folks that made side-by-side comparisons. They said the digital appeared to better, or at least as good, but that the celluloid version wasn't an optimal showing. What's an "optimal" showing? In most theaters, I wonder if the celluloid showings in the last week or two of a run look anything like the first? I'm guessing that many operators don't really care, since there is always a line outside with money in their fists.

Video is getting better, and the cost vrs appearance gap is getting shorter. HDTV and Film both look dynomite, and in the next couple of years digital projection will make DV a more common choice I presume. I mean, its all tools in a toolbox. Movies can suck shot on film or video, and with the new technology will come a whole slew of new techniques and professionals.

There goes the resolution. I might as well watch it on TV in 2 years.

Honestly you really can't compare Star Wars Episode 2 on film to Star Wars Episode 2 on DLP. The film has very low resolution due to the limited source material. That's like converting your DV project to film and saying the TV version looks better, sharper and more vivid (which it would). Is that the fault of film? Definitely no. Now compare Star Wars Episode 2's picture quality on a 55 foot screen to Dude Where's My Car's picture quality on that same 55 foot screen (both projected with film). Dude Where's My Car will have much better image quality. Sad, isn't it?

I just don't like to spend the $$$ to look at the DV look via the big screen. This is just personal taste.

Maybe DLP is good enough to fool most audiences. Does that mean they should just leave it at that, make it a standard and that's as good as movies will ever be? That's like saying VHS is good enough for most people (which it is) and just leaving it at that. Why do you use MiniDV if VHS is good enough for everybody? Please explain. NTSC is plenty good enough for everybody, so what the hell are we doing trying to make HDTV a standard? We must be fools! Hey, if it's good enough for the masses, then it's as good as it'll ever need to be, correct? That is your logic. I could go on and on but I'd get bored.

New technology makes me angry too. That, and that gosh darn rock and roll music.

I think I can safely say that when Episode III comes out, the majority of theaters will still be completely DLP-free. Regal Cinemas, who happens to be the largest theater chain in the world, will certainly not be making the change any time soon because they're incredibly loathe to sacrifice money to something so insignifigant as a better theater-going experience for it's patrons. (Debates on DLP quality aside - I haven't seen it firsthand)

I'm a projectionist at a 20-plex in Florida and Regal wouldn't even dish out for the Dolby Digital EX (with a 7th overhead/rear channel added) that was created by Lucas/THX for Episode 1. Not even for one unit!

And as far as digital artifacts, I notice them all the time on TV and occasionally on DVDs but as many times as I've seen the Episode II trailer on our 54 foot screens, I've never noticed any artifacts at all, so I think that Lucas probably isn't sacrificing as much quality as a lot of these posts imply. I mean, damn, it looks nice.

-Shawn

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Percival :

So I think that by the time EPIII comes out we'll see a good chunk of the theaters on digital projection. Even if films are shot on actual film it will be much cheaper to transfer to digital and then distribute digitally to the theaters. Economics will win in the end. And don't go quoting film resolution figures. 20% the resolution of film? Come on. -->>>

In ten years maybe, but not three years. Too much cost for too many systems in too short a time. I think that Lucas is blowing a little smoke, hoping to prod the industry on digital projection. If there aren't significant increases in digital projection houses by the time of Ep III, no way is he going to hold the movie out of the film houses. These movies cost to much to make to sacrifice all that potential box office.

Dale...

Well, in fact Lucas has already shown his commitment by distributing EP2 on celluloid....eh? He' s not stupid. Now, if the studios decide to subsidize the purchase of digital projectors with the money they save on distribution right now, it'll happen in less time than 10 yrs.

mark makes a good point...

I cant predict the future, though economics will have its way.
Though i do know I support Lucas's role in the industry and whom
might fallow along. Im chose to see EP2 on a digital projected theatre for
two reasons...

1. to support the advancement and technologically evolved ideas in any sort
of industry inculding film. (im still inspired by retrospective creativity and ideas.)

2. and to experience a flawless picture for the first time in big theaters.
By flawless i mean by ways of clean picture free of pops and scratches
heavily infested in projection reels.

Ive read some posts on here before stating that film projection shouldnt be
scratched or damaged if kept under the right care. Ive yet to see a flawless
peice of motion picture film, atleast the theaters ive been to. Though ive always thought of these things as more or less part of the films organic and visual experience. anyone ever think of this in that way? I know i have.

redone...

I agree...and, apparently, others must too because so many NLE plugins are available that offer film effects like scratches, hair, dust, etc.

Just because something seems better isn't typically reason to keep it around -- if so, we'd still have Beta, LPs, mass produced tube- type audio amps, etc. The driver in this will be the cost. If digital can be proven to cost less in the long run to deliver, scratchy film will be a thing of the past. Reality is the bottom line -- perceived quality will be only a secondary consideration. Most won't even care.

Here in Seattle, the DV equipped Cinerama has sold out far in advance of Thursday's opening. Due to the massive audiences, I won't likely see it until we're well into the screening iterations. I guess there is some small comfort in knowing it will look as good as the first showing, even if it isn't a "real movie".

Purists don't pay the bills. My guess is that celluloid is ultimately doomed.

I would agree that film is ultimately doomed. But DLP v.1.0 isn't going to do it. Not when a DLP movie has to be up-sampled for HDTV broadcasts.

It's something new. When sound came out in the early 1900's the quality of movies dropped for awhile because of all the problems with sound film technology. However, as time dragged on the equipment got better and so did the movies. Some directors refused to shoot sound, while others embraced it. However, the only thing film left in making movies today is the workprint. Most pictures are digitized for editing and special effects, then someone conforms the workprint. If I was making a movie and I could save a couple million shooting on hdtv, then another couple million uploading the print over the internet to theaters I would probably lean towards shooting on video. But for the next decade we will probably have dual distro (both film and Digital)

I've worked as a projectionist, and also in video production. I love my new miniDV Canon, and I continue to handle 35mm film, as well as collect DVD's. Occasionally, I shoot on 16mm FILM as well as video. New technology doesn't scare or anger me. I'll embrace any format which allows me to create what I want.

There's no doubt that digital projection will one day replace film. The quality will continue to improve. But the bill of goods that's being sold to the public right now seems a bit unrealistic. From an exhibitor's standpoint, the cost is prohibitive, as technology improves, one would have to upgrade their display equipment--and we all know how digital hardware changes. Anybody reading this on a Commodore 64...?

Upgrading film quality involves threading the latest Kodak print stock through the same ole' projector. And as long as common sense care is taken with the film and projectors, film needn't ever become scratchy or dirty. I've seen such presentations. It helps to have someone qualified running the show. These days, it's often someone from the candy counter threading up. Just imagine the havoc the average popcorn-jockey can possibly wreak on a $130,000 DLP!

Well Jedibugs is right, Regal has no intention of ever going with digital projectors. (this is where I would put one of those little emoticons that rolls his eyes) ;-)

The revolution will be tele-digitized, but not all that quickly... I know of some theaters in Texas still using World War Two surplus Brenkerts with changeovers, and no plans to upgrade anytime in the forseeable future.

Eeeewwwww Brenkerts! I had to use those as a projectionist at the Telluride Film Festival. They made me LOVE Christies when I didn't think much of them before. Though they do work. :)

Personally I think they should improve DLP image quality to slighty better than 70mm resolution. THEN they should make it a major force. Imagine seeing every movie in 70mm quality! That would kick ass! I'd be all over it, then. My main issue is that the technology is not mature, is still way too expensive (130,000 per screen so the STUDIOS can save $$$???) and that independent theaters (art houses) will suffer. When the quality goes up and the prices come down (which they will) then this will be a realistic issue.

Well I guess only time will tell, it's totally a guess on my part, but I'm williing to put money on anything. However I'm actually not ballsy enough to put a grand on it, but I will put $100 on it. But we need to lay out the rules first.

In response to Hillary about the havoc a popcorn-jockey could have on a DLP projector I completely agree, but there's a good chance he'll never have the chance to get his grubby hands on it. If its digitally delivered there's the possibility that the popcorn-jockey could be completely eliminated from the picture. Here's a quote from a wired article

"Enthusiasts for the technology think they have the right person in billionaire Phillip Anschutz, who couldn't be reached for comment. He controls 5,800 screens at United Artists Theatres, Regal Cinemas and Edwards Theatres, making him the most powerful exhibitor in the country. He also happens to be the largest shareholder in Qwest Communications, whose fiber optic network spans more than 104,000 miles globally.

For the past year, speculation has been rife among digital cinema buffs that Anschutz wants to install digital projectors at some of his theaters and use Qwest's fiber to download digital product directly from studios to theaters. "

If he could pull that off it would cut the distribution cost astronomically. Plus it would be so simple, someone types in the showtimes and on schedule the computer kicks each showing off. But if it actually happens is another story.

Anyways, all this is a total guess on my part. I don't think anyone can be sure with technology. But I'm willing to put up the $100 that by the time EPIII comes out that 2000 theaters are going to show it digitally. I'm not sure the exact figures but EPII is supposed to be on about 3000 screens. So 2000 digital for EPIII would probably be the majority. So thats the bet. $100 says that EPIII will be shown on 2000 digital screens in the US.

Either way, this thursday I get to see it on digital, should be cool to see how it really looks.

Mark

This much I do know: by the time Episode III is released, the current HD camera technology is going to be renting out at a significantly reduced rate for low-budget features, since the state-of-the-art is going to blow away the current specs. HDCAM as a format is not sufficientas a capture medium for the film industry due to the compression--regardless of Lucas successfully making this picture. I would be surprised if he used a Cinealta if he started shooting a project tomorrow.

The new buzz is on raw data stream from the camera. Phillips showed a system at NAB that upped the resolution from around 2.5 million pixels to 8 million pixels, and record out to drives as raw data. I saw with my own eyes what I thought was a long way off for video: overexposed sections of the frame brought down into proper exposure AFTER capture. It's dreadfully clunky at the moment, between the umbilical and the drives and the field processing station (imagine that being hauled over the dunes of Tunisia!) but it is clearly the future.

The relevant question to this discussion is whether or not these super high resolution files, which can easily be output to film to deliver a competitive image, will throw a monkey wrench in the projection debate. That technology will be under pressure to improve as the capture medium improves, and there's a good chance of obsolesence with the current DLP projectors, expensive as they are. No wonder the exhibition industry is dragging its feet!

I agree totally that economics will play the primary hand in driving these decisions, but sometimes economics are based not on the cheapest technology but on market pressure.

p.s. Also heard that in response, Sony is closing in on a Foveon-type chip, reputedly larger and higher resolution and reluctantly bypassing its beloved HDCAM recording to compete with the Phillips...crazy times ahead. Anyone want to buy my hot-rodded Arri 2c...? Gotta sell before it becomes an expensive footrest!

"....but sometimes economics are based not on the cheapest technology but on market pressure. "

Indeed!!! whether it's a "perceived" market pressure or real makes no difference....and market pressure can change overnight, depending on technology announcements, and fads. Inertia is a survival technique in an industry that makes things obsolete before the sticker shock has worn off.

<< Charles: "The relevant question to this discussion is whether or not these super high resolution files, which can easily be output to film to deliver a competitive image, will throw a monkey wrench in the projection debate. " >>

I don't know where this will end up from a digital-to-film perspective. But it sure sounds like I should be buying (stock in) the top hard disk manufacturers!

I believe Lucas actually recorded most material as raw uncompressed data via the HD cameras digital outputs to SGI stations. The HDCAM tape format is very limited (7:1 compression) in terms of blue screen work. So what we are watching on screen is (mostly) uncompressed 1080p cropped to 1:2,35 scope.

Anyway; I'm of to the premiere of Episode II which opens one minute past midnight here in Sweden. I believe Episode II is perhaps the most important technological break through in movie making since sound. Sound wasn't perfect in the beginning. That didn't stop people from making "talkies". In a few years there is no point in staying analog.

This hardware issue is one with which I have a little experience. I used to think that hard drive manufacturers would be a good investment....Seagate, in fact. As it turns out, hard drives have a MAJOR limitation in that they're mechanical devices, subject to all the unreliability that precision mechanical things have. I don't believe celluloid will ever entirely disappear until some major issues are solved, not the least of which is permanent and reliable storage media. To this end, I will put my money on something like non-volatile bubble memory. The day will come when data will be stored on media at the atomic level....research is already being done...but NOT by the HD makers. The storage media of the future will not likely come from these folks....but from a chipmaker like Intel.

wow atomic data storage...

sounds interesting...
have any literature on it???

redone...

this is the kind of thing that hasn't even made it into company literature, yet. The closest available thing to it is memory cards, ala digital still cameras. In the atomic version, however, the bits of data, i.e, the zero's and 1's, will be stored as an electron circling a particular atom...or not. Can't pack data bits much more densely that THAT.

I saw Episode II yesterday. My expectations where not very high. I was chocked. It's the best film in the saga.

I wathced it at our local AMC cineplex on a 35mm print. Our AMC is supposed to be Scandinavias most high tech 35mm projection theater. It was built last year according to THX standards. What really bugged me was the the projection was unsharp. HD is soft as it is blown up to 35mm. And the print had jitter. The prints are done in the US and then shipped here to Sweden where we do laser imprinted subtitling onto the prints. These subtitles had relatively little jitter which proves the jitter is not made in projection but in fact "created" in the lab. No projection in the world can stabilize this. There were also scratches of course (on the world opening). There is no doubt in my mind that this film looks better in digital projection.

I went and saw the 12:01 Episode II show last night (on 35mm) and then after I threaded up a projector and watched it again with a theater all to myself at about 3:30. I really wasn't disappointed in the quality of the presentation at all.

Both prints were nicely scratch-free, I saw absolutely no evidence of any compression artifacts, and I didn't experience any of the "jitter" mentioned above. As far as the "softness" that was mentioned, I think that might just be the way the folks at ILM blend the actors with backgrounds that involve bright daylight. I remember a lot of the same thing in Episode I. But other than those scenes, I didn't notice much fuzziness/softness.

I did, however, notice slightly more film grain than I'm used to seeing. I just assume that's ILM in post production trying to make the HD look more like film and perhaps overcompensating a little.

All in all, it was a good experience and a DAMN GOOD movie. Now after Powerpuff Girls, I can kick back and wait for The Two Towers, because the summer will have fulfilled me.

-Shawn

I just came back from the watching a digitally projected EP2.

Technically (DLP projection):
I saw the compression. I know that ILM made filters that had to simulate (instead of the standard film grain) HD compression. I saw it in plenty of places. Most of the time you can see it on wide shots when a HD filmed person was comped on top of a digital backdrop. I also noticed a lot of stair stepping and popping during pans.

I think I'll have to see it with a 35mm print to make a comparison.

The DLP was super clean but...

--IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ SOMEONE'S OPINION STOP HERE--


Aesthetically:
I didn't like the way it looked. EP1 looked a little better. The whole movie had this very plastic "Star Trek The Next Generation" look. It felt fake and it looked fake.

I don't think it's the best of all the films. I think it's the worst. I was very disappointed. I didn't have much expectations but... it was even worse than I thought it would be. Nothing in the film made "story" sense, it was all over the place, random. Horrible dialogue, bad characterization. EP1 had a better sword fight.

For the life of me I can't understand why people like this one better than the rest of the films. The crowd I was with, pretty much didn't like it. Lots of groans. Again I was disappointed but I think it's par for the course with EP1.

--SPOILER BELOW--




The only thing I liked was Yoda's sword fight. Not the fancy stuff before the sabers but the saber dueling. That was fantastic. INCREDIBLE. But that's it. I can't point to anything in the rest of the film that I liked.

Of course this is all MHO.

I'm sure many prints were scratched the first time they were ran. That's because that particular theater only employs morons in the booth (ask the manager, I bet he/she will happily confirm this). Did you complain to management about the scratches? I hope so. Because if no one ever complains then they are not obliged to improve.

Seeing Episode 2 on film will look softer, but seeing Episode 2 on film is not a good way to compare film to digital. Remember that the film was transferred off of the same digital master you watched in DLP. The DLP will definitely look better. But if you watched Lord of da Ringz in DLP and Lord of the Rings on film I bet you would notice quite a difference.

I thought Yoda's battle was hilarious. I've never seen a muppet (albiet a digital muppet) jump around like such a spazzed out bastard. I thought it was cool and all, but couldn't help but chuckle. It was like watching my grandma move slowly around the house all day with her cane, barely able to do anything. Then out of nowhere she's doing backflips and kicking all ass. When she is done she suddenly needs her cane just to walk again. Hilarious!

Decided to add my observations to the mix.

I'd been looking forward to seeing Clones with great anticipation and was often at the Star Wars website downloading the videos. The video preview material was all great, especially considering the fact that it was all compressed in QuickTime and scaled down in size.

My experience in the theater yesterday afternoon, however, was quite a let down from a technical standpoint. The image was indeed a bit unclear, as already mentioned in other posts. It was distracting because I kept feeling like I needed to squint or clean my contact lenses or sit closer or something. But even more distracting was the feeling that the whole thing was underexposed and too contrasty. In many scenes the background was good but the actors appeared flat, contrasty, and too dark almost like they were silhouettes. Many shots of the actors' faces looked like the person in charge of lighting during principal photography forgot to use a fill.

I was wondering if maybe it was a projectionist issue and not the film itself, but then I thought of the trailers that preceded the main feature and I don't recall them being especially dark.

The closest digital projection theater in about 3 hours away, so it's not likely I'll be able to see it in that format anytime soon. I may visit a few other standard theaters to compare images - maybe it was a projection issue, after all? But in the long run, since the same scenes in the QuickTime videos look fine, I'm hoping the DVD release will be much better and will be released soon.

Looking for a brighter digital future,
Tim

I'm wondering how many people would complain, actually see
any difference if they hadn't known it was shot digitally. Ofcourse
I haven't seen the movie yet and it might be very obvious. But
people also tend to want to find problems if they believe there
are problems (not trying to start a war here against anyone,
just stating a fact)... because it sounds like it is really bad. I've
seen Vidocq (a french movie) that was shot with the same
camera and it looked brilliant. Although it featured a very strange
(deliberate) color palette, I noticed no other problems....

ahhh...beauty is in the eye of the beholder....and influenced by the color of the glasses he/she is wearing.

Martin:

Do you have any resources that describe the uncompressed recording that Lucas used? I couldn't find anything on the web...

Charles, I don't think it was uncompressed. Primarily because I know ILM had to make a "compression look" filter to blend their digital effects plates with the live plates.

Am I the only one who saw a DLP screening?

I think most people won't notice the difference, but I have yet to see the EP2 35mm projection.

I saw the DLP last night.

In my opinion it was the most amazing picture ive seen....very crisp and clear.
i was very impressed with the picture quality..it would be hard to go and view
the 35mm version after seeing that. Definatly a giant step for technology.

The movie (as if you want to read another critical opinion) was good.
Better than EP1 but maybe a bit too much foreshadowing, stupid comical
pun's and unrealistic action scenes. Other than that it was great!!!!!
very impressed.

I recomend watching the DLP version if you can...very very nice!

<<<-- Originally posted by steadichupap : Martin:

Do you have any resources that describe the uncompressed recording that Lucas used? I couldn't find anything on the web... -->>>

I don't know if there is any web resources on this. A guy at SGI told me this. It makes sense. You don't shoot a 100% FX shot film like this to HDCAM tape as your original source for FX work. Ever tried to do chroma key work on DV (5:1 compression)? Well, it's worse on HDCAM (7:1 compression). Not everything was shot "uncompressed". Whenever I do chromakey from a DV camcorder I always go out S-video to a mac with an Igniter uncompressed card in 4:2:2 in stead of 4:2:0 DV/PAL. It really makes a HUGE difference when doing comps. Stairstepping is kept to a minimum.

By the way; the term "uncompressed" is not very easy to define. Lucas (and Tattersall) was working in 4:2:2 as far as i know but in 1:1 to disk compression. This still means the image does not contain all the information it should. Real uncompressed would be 8:8:8 in 1:1 1080p. The problem with this format is that it would take up 1, 6 GB per second (!). D6 is the only tape format that can store it. And those babys are extremely expensive. Regular HDCAM is 135MB/sec. Most HD cards (like the Kona and Digital Voodoo) will easily capture 230MB/sec (transfering more information).

_redone_

I agree the projection was great. And I'd love to see more films like this. I think a film with less special effects and comp work might show better. Or a film that's pure digital. Toy Story looked great in DLP.

Martin_M
I've pulled mattes from DigiBeta, with AE (which worked better than Ulttimate at the time and for our particular footage). A lot of EP2 reminded me of the problems we had in that process and noticed the type of problems that we had.

Granted it was much better than what we did. I did notice a shot where Amidala's (I think it was her) stray hair was severely compressed against the background plate.

I probably see these things more than other people, because I'm just used to seeing Star Wars stuff with noticeable pixels. The text crawl in the beginning looked exactly like the crawls we would render at high res. I could see the pixels and squarish stars in the DLP screening.

But again, I think the DLP screening was fantastic. Bright, clean and steady. I was mostly upset at the "artistic" values in the film. I didn't like the design and the story. Remember when characters had ideas, dreams, goals? I didn't see any of that in EP1 or 2. Oh, Anakin is a brat, I guess that's character development.

Maybe I'm just sick of Star Wars and have become a bitter man.

BTW, the Goldmember and Matrix Reload trailers were fantastic. So maybe there's hope for me yet...

The cool thing (production wise) of making Episode II the way they did is that ten or even five years ago you would never in your wildest dream do a film that way. Remember the matte work on the first Star Wars movie? Great work considering the tools they had to use but you can't even begin to compare that work with what's in Episode II. The mattes in the first Star Wars films are aging - real fast. In those days you couldn't even think of comping a shot containing footage of hair. In five years hair won't be a problem at all.

The future looks bright. I love it.

i agree...

i think the design was good...yet all the random alien characters got old.
they just put "weird" creatures in there just for the purpose of having
"wierd" creatures in the film....and the design of some of them werent that
great. The Fett family, father and son thing was way overplayed. Love story
was necesary yet plastic, no real emotion especially from Natalie Portman.

anyway i could go on for ever, though i am now intersted in seeing alot more DLP films.

Yeah, it's very exciting right now. You don't even need to do blue/green screen work. It's easier of you do, but hell, anything is possible.

The one thing that I miss, is reading about all the practical model and camera work that went into a shot. I read the Blade Runner and Star Wars Cinefex's over and over again. Plus the photographs were just so cool.

Unfortunately, now most of the time you have pictures of people looking at their computer screens.

The future does look great.

I've got some scripts that can only be done with a huge amount of digital work. I hope to start some work this winter.

More sitting in front of a computer for me...

<<<-- they just put &quot;weird&quot; creatures in there just for the purpose of having
&quot;wierd&quot; creatures in the film....-->>>

Come on! It's Star Wars! Not The Unbearable Lightness Of Being. It's a roller coaster ride. You could critizise the first film for doing the same thing. If you don't like the Star Wars concept, that's fine. But don't expect deep emotional drama and real people.

Justin,

you wrote "Oh, Anakin is a brat, I guess that's character development."...

WARNING SPOILER!



Annakin Skywalker: -"They are animals. And I slaughtered them all like animals. Not just the men, but the women and the children."

I'm greatful I don't have those kinds of brats running around in my neighbourhood. Yikes! ;-)

Yeah and I liked Natalie Portman's response to that comment. It's basically as if she said "That's nice, dear. Now give me a hug." She didn't seem to care at all. Wouldn't people with emotions be at least a bit bothered? Oh yeah I forgot, Lucas does not direct his actors so that they display emotion. The movie would have been much better if Lucas got someone else to direct it like he did with Empire Strikes Back.

Hi Everyone,

I'm planning on viewing the movie again tonight at a different theater (35mm again) to see if I notice the same dark, contrasty image. Will inform everyone of my experience.

Tim

i agree it is Starwars for the purpose of various creatures at random times..

yet in the old movies the creatures had organic sense, a reason to be, plus a a story behind the face... it seemed like they threw characters in just becuase they could so easily due to technology. And in my opinion, the old movies
had good acting! and emotion.. I agree that Anakin had a good sense of
evilness to him and was well demonstrated. The Starwars story is so great
it seems to override the small flaws in the new movies...

I was also pleased to see that C3PO was the source of comic relief as in the old movies, other than Jar Jar. I loved the set design too, I think the yin tends to out balance the yang in this one.

The good stuff is just too good to forget, unlike the bad.