When are you going to see The Revenge of the Sith?

[offline]

I guess nobody cares about the technical milestone.
This "film" didn't use any film during production.

This has been a 20yr. goal of G Lucas and the video production industry.

Hmm.. and we all know the other technical milestone. No acting
skills were used in Ep 1, 2 and likely the same for Ep. 3. :P

[edDV]

Hmm.. and we all know the other technical milestone. No acting
skills were used in Ep 1, 2 and likely the same for Ep. 3. :P

Some films like this one are intesting just as a technical milestone even if they might lack plot and/or acting.

Others that come to mind (in their time)

Disney's original Fantasia -- 30yrs before it's time.
Citizen Caine -- a different way to direct and light a movie
2001 -- in Cinerama
Roger Rabit -- for mixed animation and live actors
One from the Heart -- Copola's experiment with through lens live video and adapting video offline editing.
Toy Story -- 3D rendered animation.
Blair Witch Project -- all MiniDV, cheap production, marketing coop
Titanic -- major scenes and much of the set was 3D rendered
The Matrix -- "bullet time" effects
Collateral -- most of film, all night exteriors shot HDTV (Sony 1080p CineAlta)
Sin City -- Shot 100% Ultimatte green screen HDTV

Many of these films are best watched with the sound off or with the effects director commentary.

[offline]

Roger Rabit -- for mixed animation and live actors

Dot the Kangaroo: At least ten years prior to WFRR
and there have been a number of all digital films already shot
without "film".

[mpiper]

I just saw Episode 3 last night with my 10 year old.

It had the best computer graphics of the films, and was actually VERY good.

Was the story as good as the original three movies? Well, honestly were the first three really masterpieces of writting and dialogue, or just fantastic films that spoke to us. The dialogue, story and detail consistency was just like ALL his Star Wars films, but it was fun to see it at the midnight showing!

I personally think this was one of his best films.

I will be seeing it again Saturday night with a group of family and friends.

My 2 cents?
Go See It.

Laters,
Mike

[ozymango]

I guess nobody cares about the technical milestone.
This "film" didn't use any film during production.

I thought that no film was used during the creation of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"? Also in Sky Captain, every actor was shot in front of a green screen, not one "real" set whatsoever. If that's indeed the case, I would give the "milestone" status to Sky Captain.

But no afront to Lucas and the entire Star Wars sextet!

And no offense, but zillions of people care about the technical milestones advanced by Lucas' films (both as an organization and series of movies) -- there are plenty of places to find such praise in the media.

But this does not mean that it's not also fair to recognize the limitations of the Star Wars films, either, in terms of other things that go into a good movie. Of course, what makes a "good" movie nowadays is in the eye of the beholder.

However, I will argue that you are much more likely to find a movie made nowadays where the technical competence far, far exceeds the artistic competence, than the reverse.

Others that come to mind (in their time)

Cool list. My own comments in italics--

Disney's original Fantasia -- 30yrs before it's time.
Brilliant animation, excellent sound, something of a musical mixed-blessing however: Musical pieces were heavily edited to "fit" the animation, instead of the reverse, which to music afficionados can be very grating.

Citizen Caine -- a different way to direct and light a movie
Profoundly great movie, holds up on every level today.

2001 -- in Cinerama
Vaguely misleading here -- if we're talking milestones, the first Cinerama feature film nod goes to "How The West Was Won." Cinerama as a photographic process was dead by 1968 -- "2001" was shot in anamorphic widescreen (Panavision? probably) and then exhibited in some theaters in "Cinerama." Close, but no cigar.

Roger Rabit -- for mixed animation and live actors
I'll have to give this one to Mary Poppins for doing it first. Roger Rabbit was more technically accomplished, though it's somewhat relative to the technology of each time.

I could go on for a while on this kind of conversation, I'm both a writer and film major and I just love this stuff.

Many of these films are best watched with the sound off or with the effects director commentary.

I'll agree, sort of, but I am most fond of those films which I can watch on multiple levels, a strong story being a very important part of the whole.

Not to be silly here but I'll offer "Ghostbusters" on DVD as a wonderful sample of the best of both worlds, a movie that's a blast to watch simply on a "movie" level, and one that's equally enjoyable to listen/watch the commentary for the "technical" side of things.

That sorta begs a variation on a thread -- movies with very limited technology but so great to watch that you don't notice the wires!

[canadateck]

[

Roger Rabit -- for mixed animation and live actors
I'll have to give this one to Mary Poppins for doing it first. Roger Rabbit was more technically accomplished, though it's somewhat relative to the technology of each time.

I thought "Song of the South" was first to do this effect?

[edDV]

I shouldn't have implied by "milestone" that these were the first use of the technology but intended it as most influential use of the technology, at least to me.

I put "2001" in there because that was the first (and last) time I saw a film in Cinerama, in Calgary after a hiking trip no less. Sure high wow'd me.

[hexxisoft]

sorry to burst your bubble, but the Matrix was absolutely not the first film to use bullet time. John Woo makes use of it long before the Wachoski(sp?) Brothers. Watch his films like Hard Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow... even that movie Face Off.

Also, Blair Witch was shot on Hi8 and 16mm.

[edDV]

No bubble to burst.

At least we are talking movie tech.

Btw, I forgot to mention motion controlled cameras. Next to the Ultimatte process, tracking cameras have made modern layered computer movie effects first possible and then realistic. So add "Wallace and Gromit" to my list.

[offline]

That sorta begs a variation on a thread -- movies with very limited technology but so great to watch that you don't notice the wires!

Film making is like most other pursuits; there are few really original developments. Most are based on previous discoveries and just enhanced or used in a different way.

I'd have to say most of my favorite films have no special fx whatsoever. However, thanks to the genius of a few like Harry Hausen, miniature modeling, scene painting and animation has been darn good for a long time now.

Although there are notable exceptions, technology tends to break films rather than make them, imo

[yoda313]

Hi,

Although there are notable exceptions, technology tends to break films rather than make them, imo

Well I don't know, without technology STAR WARS would not be possible. AND Lord of the Rings would have been IMPOSSIBLE to make without the current level of cgi.

Kevin

[ROF]

Well I don't know, without technology STAR WARS would not be possible. AND Lord of the Rings would have been IMPOSSIBLE to make without the current level of cgi.

That's all a matter of opinion. I personally think the Lord of the Rings cartoon is better than the Peter Jackson films, which is of course my opinion.

Star Wars Episode 4,5,6 were much better before Lucas decided to add more CGI to them, not to mention all his other changes for political correctness and such.

The new Hitchhiker's Guide is another example of how CGI or technology advances didn't make a better film. In my opinion, the BBC Series is way better and more "real" even if Zaphod's second head was just a mannequins head.

Technology certainly doesn't make a better film, but even that is subjected to the viewers opinion.

[yoda313]

Hi,

not to mention all his other changes for political correctness and such.

What are you getting at??? I've seen the special editions dozens of times and have the dvds. What pc corrections are you referring to??? The ONLY one I could possibly imagine is the Han Solo- Greedo shooting scene.

Kevin

[offline]

Well I don't know, without technology STAR WARS would not be possible. AND Lord of the Rings would have been IMPOSSIBLE to make without the current level of cgi.

Impossible? No. Different? Yes. Better? With star wars special effects are pretty much mandatory I'd admit.

The Lord of the Rings is a different story. CGI was used quite cleverly to stitch up the huge holes in what was a selective interpretation of the books. This was more the limitations of the medium and commercial requirements, rather than a question of CGI usage imho.

Regardless, I'd consider both star wars and Lord of the Rings to be “notable exceptions” as mentioned in my previous post.

[ozymango]

(speaking of the integration of live actors and animation)
I thought "Song of the South" was first to do this effect?

Yeah, I'll bet you're right on that -- I've only seen "Song" once, when I was a kid (middle 70's? It was in a movie theater) and I know it pretty much disappeared after that ... I don't remember it much, though I seem to recall it was more separate animation intercut with live action?

But in any case, I do specifically remember at the end where Uncle Remus is walking along with Brer Fox and Brer Bear (and Brer Rabbit?) so yup, they definitely had some interactivity there.

So I suppose Disney gets the nod in all three of these movies! "Song of the South" for being the first time, "Mary Poppins" for being first to heavily combine animation/live action, and "Roger Rabbit" for technical processes that were really astounding.

[ozymango]

I shouldn't have implied by "milestone" that these were the first use of the technology but intended it as most influential use of the technology, at least to me.

Oh yeah, no problem, that's cool, I hope I don't come across as one of those high-school grammarian types who wanna whack people's knuckles for using "who" instead of "whom"! I just love yakking about movies.

Back to 2001: It still is fair, I think, to consider this a true "milestone/touchstone" movies, in lots of ways, and definitely in technical ways. Like the fact that this may be the only science fiction film made yet with "perfect" effects, in that all scenes involving any space flight or scientific activity are 100% in compliance with what we know about technology and physics. Plus every composite shot in the picture is hand-matted, meaning there are no matte lines visible in any effects shot. Of course this could also be an arguement that the film is also, ironically, the last of its kind, technically -- it's no longer cost-effective to do that kind of technical work, due to our current "state of the art." Back then, it was cheaper labor versus limited technology!

My wife hates listening to the commentary tracks on most DVDs because when she hears so much of the "behind the scenes" stuff, it distracts her (her words) from the experience of the movie, it "pulls her out of the imagination." For me, it's the reverse -- the more I know, the more I find my imagination soaring. Differ'nt strokes!

[EddyH]

i *Was* going to go see it in a double bill with Hitch-hikers, with a friend..... then something came up that batted the only available time slot clear out of the park. now i guess we'll both be catching those two on DVD. Probably in a couple years time.

can't be arsed with first run movies any more unless they're really, really special. didnt go to see Clones either. the last one to really enhance my life was the matrix, i think, and that includes getting to see the first available dubs of Castle in the Sky and Spirited Away through a competition..

why else do we have DVDs?

[edDV]

The best version of Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy remains the original BBC radio series. The CGI of your imagination far exceeds what has been attempted with TV and film versions.

The books come second.

[ozymango]

The best version of Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy remains the original BBC radio series. The CGI of your imagination far exceeds what has been attempted with TV and film versions.

The books come second.

Did you know the books literally come second? That is, it was actually a radio show first and then he turned it (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) into a book? So for the optimum experience, the original radio show does set the benchmark for all to follow!

I haven't seen the movie yet but I very much enjoyed the books but I love the radio show! I may be biased because I got to hear it first (at an SF convention in Seattle, circa 1980) on the "house" radio network and we were howling our heads off. And you know how it often is, the first time you hear/read/see something, that becomes a favorite.

But for those of you who haven't heard the orginal radio series, check it out, it's great! Available on CD!

[edDV]

Yes I knew that.
We got first gen reel to reel dubs* from a buddy at the BBC (Radiophonic Workshop) back in '79-80. The radio series rules supreme.

* first gen off dub master that is. That makes it third gen from the release master.