PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars fight leaked?


macphisto
Jan 27, 2004, 02:00 PM
Hey, has anyone seen or know where to dl the Star Wars Ep. III fight scene that was leaked a couple of days ago. Many fans have said that it rocks. Anyone have a link?

Thanks for your help.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 27, 2004, 02:07 PM
Who was fighting?

I don't know if I'd want to see it myself - I'll wait for when the movie comes out. :D

D

000111one111000
Jan 27, 2004, 02:34 PM
I've seen it. :)

It had Obi-Wan fighting two people in green screen suits and Obi-Wan and Anakin in their final duel.

Besides that, it was just a bunch of random crap. It was a little thing put together by Lucasfilm for their marketing meeting with Target.

Dark Horizons (http://www.darkhorizons.com)

Dark Horizons had it in their "News Bites" section from either Monday or Friday. But be warned, the site that has it on there is REALLY REALLY slow.

enjoy :)

enoch

krimson
Jan 27, 2004, 04:14 PM
i just saw this one on another board i waste my work time on .. LOL

http://mthigh.com/pub/zap.wmv

iMeowbot
Jan 27, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by macphisto
Hey, has anyone seen or know where to dl the Star Wars Ep. III fight scene that was leaked a couple of days ago.

Uh yeah, saw that. Maybe it's because the scenes were shown without the effects applied, but I couldn't help thinking it looked really silly, a lot like the "star wars kid" video that was floating around the net a couple years back.

rainman::|:|
Jan 27, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by iMeowbot
Uh yeah, saw that. Maybe it's because the scenes were shown without the effects applied, but I couldn't help thinking it looked really silly, a lot like the "star wars kid" video that was floating around the net a couple years back.

couple years? it was like september d00d! losing track of time, or what?

:)
paul

iMeowbot
Jan 27, 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
couple years? it was like september d00d! losing track of time, or what?

:)
paul

Okay, I see in the archives it started circulating around April '03. Yes, it was a very long year :D

LethalWolfe
Jan 27, 2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by iMeowbot
Uh yeah, saw that. Maybe it's because the scenes were shown without the effects applied, but I couldn't help thinking it looked really silly, a lot like the "star wars kid" video that was floating around the net a couple years back.


All fight scenes look silly until they are completely finished in post.

Heck, you look at any raw footage for any movie and you'll be amazed at how different it looks than the finished product.


Lethal

themadchemist
Jan 29, 2004, 08:52 AM
Star Wars? Is that still around? Bah, all I'll need is a ROTK extended edition fix, and I'll be good to go.

It's really too bad that someone can't keep pulling Lord of the Rings storylines out of his ass, because then we might have a franchise as profitable as Star Wars. Of course, the scripts would be covered in crap, but I'm sure the actors could hide that with their own crappy performance.

Guys, this series has gone down the drain in the last few movies. I don't know why anyone even cares anymore.

Le Big Mac
Jan 29, 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by 000111one111000
I've seen it. :)

It had Obi-Wan fighting two people in green screen suits and Obi-Wan and Anakin in their final duel.

Besides that, it was just a bunch of random crap. It was a little thing put together by Lucasfilm for their marketing meeting with Target.

Dark Horizons (http://www.darkhorizons.com)

Dark Horizons had it in their "News Bites" section from either Monday or Friday. But be warned, the site that has it on there is REALLY REALLY slow.

enjoy :)

enoch

its been taken down:

http://www.movieweb.com/media/news/01_04/sw3_vid.html

kettle
Jan 29, 2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by themadchemist
It's really too bad that someone can't keep pulling Lord of the Rings storylines out of his ass, because then we might have a franchise as profitable as Star Wars. Of course, the scripts would be covered in crap, but I'm sure the actors could hide that with their own crappy performance

The Prof. did his bit properly. They could have made 6 really good films out of the story. Too late now.

Loads of other stuff to do, just a little too risky for film studios who think we all have pea brains. Presumably they have evidence to support this. I know themadchemist goes along way to support their presumption.

P.S. the films we got were really good, it's just they were a little wasteful with the gift of Lord of the Rings.

Dros
Jan 29, 2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by kettle
The Prof. did his bit properly. They could have made 6 really good films out of the story. Too late now.

Loads of other stuff to do, just a little too risky for film studios who think we all have pea brains. Presumably they have evidence to support this. I know themadchemist goes along way to support their presumption.

P.S. the films we got were really good, it's just they were a little wasteful with the gift of Lord of the Rings.

I think you mistook which films themadchemist was saying are going downhill. He was referring to the Star Wars series. He was also saying that any other LOTR films would probably be bad because the writers would be more on their own. Why is any of this worth calling him a pea brain?

themadchemist
Jan 30, 2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Dros
I think you mistook which films themadchemist was saying are going downhill. He was referring to the Star Wars series. He was also saying that any other LOTR films would probably be bad because the writers would be more on their own. Why is any of this worth calling him a pea brain?

Thanks for understanding what I was saying. While my utter lack of intelligence may be blatant, I still take offense to being called a pea brain.

Originally posted by kettle
The Prof. did his bit properly. They could have made 6 really good films out of the story. Too late now.

Loads of other stuff to do, just a little too risky for film studios who think we all have pea brains. Presumably they have evidence to support this. I know themadchemist goes along way to support their presumption.

P.S. the films we got were really good, it's just they were a little wasteful with the gift of Lord of the Rings.

You're right. The prof DID do his bit. I find it a little bit harder to agree that stretching the material into six films would have been as satisfying. I was certainly frustrated to find that there was distortion of the original storyline. However, in some cases, one must recognize its necessity: Too many fans of the books (I consider myself a fan of the book, btw) fail to see the inherent difference between the art forms of literature and film. They are different, and the purpose of a literary adaptation film is not simply to recreate the literature, but to itself become a unique and well-developed piece of art. It is not all mechanical and there is a great deal of additional nuance and beauty to it. Of course, I would argue that the brilliance of the books cannot be overshadowed by the splendor of the movies, but the splendor of the movies is nothing to deride.

Thus, I think it would have been difficult to preserve the quality of the movies over six films. First, that organization is not how most people recognize the books. Second, the division into six books leaves certain books extremely less satisfying and interesting (from a film-perspective) than others. For example, I would argue that Frodo and Sam's trek to Mount Doom is not as exciting, complex, or noteworthy for dialogue and description as are the tasks and accomplishments of the rest of the Fellowship during this time. To have given that segment its own film would have been excrutiating. No, I think the trilogy was quite an appropriate way to approach the series.

I will not entirely defend the actions of the film makers, though. Despite the overall high quality of the films, there were certain aspects that are truly unacceptable. By unacceptable, I mean that they were modifications that 1) were unnecessary, 2) did not enhance the art of film, and 3) were motivated by mundane commercial stimuli. Chief among these was the totally inaccurate distortion of Boromir's character. Faramir, in The Two Towers (text) did NOT even remotely desire the ring. However, Peter Jackson felt that this important comparison of brothers Boromir and Faramir and this essential characterization of a significant supporting character were less critical than a creation of "suspense" in the scene. What follows it the typical, trite, poorly-orchestrated sequence of a man desiring power and an eloquent, sappy speech that pricks his conscience. It is an old formula, filled with older variables. Moreover, the acting was below par, but little else can one expect when the work of Tolkien is juxtaposed with a half-hearted addendum by less brilliant writers than he. This was the low point of the entire trilogy. It made me cringe. There were other "additions" that distort the nature of the political milieu of Middle Earth in the Lord of the Rings and each was terribly excrutiating. It is often more understandable and bearable to omit than to add. Though I said that it is the purpose of the film to establish itself as a distinct artistic work, it cannot do so without loyalty to the text: Film makers must remember that the life of their art was born of the existence of the text. Logistically, visually, dramatically, certain changes are understandable: Tom Bombadil, for example, is a character far more suited for the confines of letters than for those of film. Thus, his absence from the films is important to their success as artistic works.

My initial point, which you unfortunately did not seem to grasp, was far different. My dismay would have been in the fabrication of Lord of the Rings-esque plot lines to continue the franchise indefinitely. One could fashion imitations, loosely drawing from the chronologies of the appendices to tell the tales of Aragorn's tenure as King, of the adventures of Samwise Gamgee's line, and so forth. The strength and majesty of the films, though, would be lost.

This is what I believe has happened to Star Wars. Its stock was never as rich as that of the Lord of the Rings. Star Wars did not have the elaborate history and wealth of background that the other work did. It was a script, and as such, it was rather hollow. Indeed, after the initial success of the films, several authors fleshed out the history and events of the Star Wars 'realm.' It became richer in history and perhaps this could have allowed it to flourish. However, this history was never canonical or cohesive. It was a patchwork quilt of the imagination of many authors. Never was a real attempt made to incorporate all of this into one telling, consistent throughout.

When it came time for the new rounds of films, it was clear that commercialism continued to poison the minds of the writers. Emphasis was placed on scenes of battle and show, on forced and clichéd love scenes, and on over-dramatized rubbish without substance. Even that disconnected history that did exist was not thoroughly employed. The events of the script could not truly be analyzed and traced as a deeply complex culmination of previously assumed "historical" events. It was an even more shallow series than before.

To make it worse, the films were simply poorly written. Dialogue in Episode I and Episode II were horrible. The plot was flimsy. It was not a good start for the actors.

The actors, too, were unbelievably poor. Casting was a fiasco. Those hired failed miserably at sophistication. It was difficult to sit through.

What I see as the failure of Star Wars lies inherently, I believe, in the overstretching of an already weak idea. George Lucas is attempting to squeeze every last dollar out of his franchise, unfortunately at the expense of its legacy. The movies are devoid any artistic merit and there seems no motivation to pursue the art. It is a jaded pocess and this fact is seen in the movies themselves.

Movies aren't being made because great scripts, great stories, and great imaginations have emerged. No, no, mediocre scripts, stories, and imaginations, at best, have converged to produce a series of movies that must be made. That they will be made is the constant; their quality is quite variable. The process should be reversed: The decision to produce a film should be predicated on the brilliance of the script and storyline.

This is my point. I hope it seems less that of a 'pea brain' to you. If it does not, I make no apologies. You may perceive this small, unimportant matter any way you like.

kettle
Jan 30, 2004, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by themadchemist
This is my point. I hope it seems less that of a 'pea brain' to you. If it does not, I make no apologies. You may perceive this small, unimportant matter any way you like.

I am very pleased to have read your reply. I was not wrong to draw certain conclusions from your "It's really too bad that someone can't keep pulling Lord of the Rings storylines out of his ass" and "Of course, the scripts would be covered in crap, but I'm sure the actors could hide that with their own crappy performance" comments. I was wrong to assume that your dumb comment was dumb, rather than dumbed down.
My main point was that the storylines came from Tolkien and not from Jackson and his gang. Any storyline contamination will have been from Jacksons working practices, brought by himself or otherwise. Modifications made to Tolkiens work were not not just editing down to size but actual additions that changed the story. If these less than adequate" bolt ons" had been worked on with a similar level of excellence, there would have been little objection from Tolkien die hards. There was a feast of story line only hinted at in the books and these threads would have made extremely exciting cinema, if rather tedious to constuct with words.

Having said that, I also keep in mind that Jackson was willing to make TLOTR in one movie and was delighted with three. Imagine if the risks had allowed for six, I only wish that someone else is allowed to have a go.

As for the multi dimensional character that is themadchemist, I am pleased to experience this alter ego. I have enjoyed the exploits of the two I have read so far and am hoping the creator/producer of them both will understand the enjoyment found in "action reaction" type games. The enjoyment I come to expect in Macrumor threads are largely driven by the various contributors own abilities in providing energy through potential difference. Trust me when I say that, if I had really thought your brain was a pea I would have left you in your pod. Offence or not I recieved an excellent response, thank you, well met indeed.:)

themadchemist
Jan 30, 2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by kettle
I am very pleased to have read your reply. I was not wrong to draw certain conclusions from your "It's really too bad that someone can't keep pulling Lord of the Rings storylines out of his ass" and "Of course, the scripts would be covered in crap, but I'm sure the actors could hide that with their own crappy performance" comments. I was wrong to assume that your dumb comment was dumb, rather than dumbed down.
My main point was that the storylines came from Tolkien and not from Jackson and his gang. Any storyline contamination will have been from Jacksons working practices, brought by himself or otherwise. Modifications made to Tolkiens work were not not just editing down to size but actual additions that changed the story. If these less than adequate" bolt ons" had been worked on with a similar level of excellence, there would have been little objection from Tolkien die hards. There was a feast of story line only hinted at in the books and these threads would have made extremely exciting cinema, if rather tedious to constuct with words.

Having said that, I also keep in mind that Jackson was willing to make TLOTR in one movie and was delighted with three. Imagine if the risks had allowed for six, I only wish that someone else is allowed to have a go.

As for the multi dimensional character that is themadchemist, I am pleased to experience this alter ego. I have enjoyed the exploits of the two I have read so far and am hoping the creator/producer of them both will understand the enjoyment found in "action reaction" type games. The enjoyment I come to expect in Macrumor threads are largely driven by the various contributors own abilities in providing energy through potential difference. Trust me when I say that, if I had really thought your brain was a pea I would have left you in your pod. Offence or not I recieved an excellent response, thank you, well met indeed.:)

Thanks. Fair enough. I'm glad you see now that my initial response was purposely dumbed down. I suppose I've been somewhat of a schizophrenic in this thread, though. If you'll see other threads in which I post, you'll often get the excessive ramblings and meanderings of Personality #2. Nevertheless, your points or well taken, and I think we are in accord.

I still have some reservations about six movies...They could be great as a visual chronicle of the texts, but I've noticed that literary adaptation films that take the approach of following books exactly tend to fail miserably at being good movies. Thus, it might help the LOTR fan visualize the story to have all six books transformed into movies (or it might frustrate those of us who take care to develop a careful visual representation in our minds, only to find ourselves destroying it and adopting the movie's version). However, a few of the movies will be weaker, less profound, and less evocative. Despite the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings, one often has to sit tight through several difficult passages in order to get to the good stuff, so to speak.

If there were six full-length films, though, you are right, there would be more time for consistency. Theoden would not be exorcised, but rather convinced. Gimli would not be comic relief, but rather a stout and brave soul whose place in the book is only peripheral. Arwen would not take the place of, was it Glorfindel? Yes, the movies could have been done better. Six movies, though, would be done worse, in my opinion.

As far as "action reaction" games, I am a fan of biochemistry and am working in a laboratory studying ion channels of brain cells in the basal ganglia, so as you might imagine, I find actions, reactions, and potential differences interesting enough...However, this doesn't mean that I understand any of these things. In fact, I'm quite in the dark.

But the game was fun, and I'll have to try it by interjecting asanine (or controversial) attitudes in other threads. I just have to make sure I don't border on becoming a troll. I often play devil's advocate in large-group discussions about anything. Stoking the flames is fun in person, but tends to get you wastelanded around here. I wonder why...:D