Down in Front Blog

Press.

2010-10-04T15:21:00.000-07:00

Hey everybody, Teague here. I've compiled some of the press-related stuff that we've accumulated, if you're into that sort of thing.

Interview with Teague in CultureDeluxe Magazine

Well, holy shit. Click here to see the three-page spread.

Interview with us at Nerds in Babeland

Teague, Brian, Dorkman and Trey were interviewed by the lovely Stephanie Wooten for Nerds in Babeland. We have a lot of fun and cover a lot of ground, the interview is over an hour long. You can download it here or stream it below.

Interview with Trey at FilmNut

Trey was interviewed about "Ark" and his other projects, including Down in Front, in a nifty video piece over at FilmNut. Apparently he's a likable guy, because his interviewer, Jeff Schubert, followed him home to Down in Front and appeared on our Orgazmo commentary.

Interview with Teague and Ryan at The 3Dots.

Teague and Ryan were interviewed about the show for the 3Dots podcast. Eventually the interview became a semi-drunken conversation about working in the visual FX industry, but perhaps you'll find it entertaining nonetheless.

Down in Front Quotes at Zarban's House of Commentaries.

Zarban is both a man and a myth. The man hides in our forums, protects our children, and occasionally appears momentarily so rumors of his existence never die. The myth is even more interesting: apparently, he also catalogs everything funny that we say. Almost all of our episodes have quotes listed here, and many episodes have several.

My favorite, from The Terminator, is something Brian said.

"Somewhere in this club, Lea Thompson is having sex with a duck."

Review of Down in Front over on PodcastSquared.

PodcastSquared reviews podcasts, and gave us the second-highest rating available. The mark against us? Two hours is too long for a podcast. *shrug*

Shout-Out for Down in Front over on InsideOutcast.

This is really sweet. Three minutes and forty seconds of people saying we're alright at this. (We're professionals at other things, after all.)

Shout-Out for Down in Front over on Couch Surfing.

John over at Couch Surfing included a bit in this episode about Down in Front that is very complimentary.

I've snipped out just that portion if you want to listen to it, it's about six minutes, downloadable here or streamable below.

Thanks sir, really appreciate the shout-out.

We are press whores, if you'd like to get an interview with any or all of us about the show for your magazine, podcast, or online publication, let us know at downinfrontshow@gmail.com.

Star Wars 3D

2010-09-29T10:52:00.000-07:00

Hey folks, Teague here.

This has been a big season for Star Wars fuckwithery, and George-hating licenses have been temporarily suspended for a new system where we can just be mad all the time. News, uproar. News, uproar.

Star Tours is gone now, they're fully underway installing hardware and finalizing footage for the 2.0 version of the ride. News, uproar.

The Blu-Rays are coming out, featuring tweaked special edition cuts of the movies. (I'm not being redundant - tweaked versions of the special editions.) No original release in Blu-Ray. News, uproar.

And now, an official announcement about the nature of Star Wars in 3D. ~~Next year~~ In 2012, they run The Phantom Menace theatrically, worldwide, (presumably with some FX tweaks) in fully converted 3D. Based on the success of this exercise, the rest of the movies will follow. (I'll skip doing a footnote and just say it: no, he's doing all six regardless, he's a technologist and wants the default purchase for a new 3D TV owner to be the Star Wars box set for $250.)

So why the Phantom Menace first? ...honestly, that's kind of a good fucking question, even for George, who is plainly proud of his prequels. I follow the logic out of context, it's the first movie. But re-releasing in 3D to make money - not judging! - you'd think he'd start with Star Wars, guaranteeing half a billion at the Box Office and headlines of success. My best guess for why The Phantom Menace comes first is, he knows you're going to see Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi when they come out - and if you saw them first, you'd never go back to watch Phantom, Clones, or Sith afterward.

Fans of the show know that I'm an apologist of The Phantom Menace, it remains my favorite prequel, despite it objectively being the shittiest movie of the saga. (Followed by Clones, Sith, and Jedi, respectively.) It came out at the right time in my life, and it has a grounded reality to its aesthetic. It has Darth Maul. Come on.

My forgiving stance on the movie makes me an easy mark for accusations of slavish fanboyism, but let me be clear: this is not why I'm already sold. Barring death or losing my ass somehow, that ass is in the seat already. And it's not because I miss Jar Jar.

I'm not a fan of 3D in general, it doesn't bother me, I don't experience the headaches that folks sometimes complain about and the dimness isn't a big deal - it just doesn't add much to my experience, seeing a new movie. I'm of the popular opinion that it works best when the project was shot with 3D cameras, or animated in 3D to begin with, and post-conversion is an expensive way to emulate that effect to varying degrees of success.

But I've never been in a situation where a movie I already know intimately from a decade of television viewings is being re-released in full 3D on a giant screen with Dolby surround.

Reason I'm sold number one: imagine the fanfare and logo as a bombastic 3D experience.

It doesn't matter which film you're watching until the scroll comes up - that first moment I want to experience as soon as I possibly can, and if that means midnight ~~a year~~ two years from now, sign me up. If you're not a little excited, you're not imagining it.

Reason I'm sold number two: the podrace.

This has been the "maybe that part will be okay" statement on Twitter for the past 24 hours, and of course it will be okay, it'll be fucking awesome. It's the only good part of the movie. (Allowing that it has any legitimate reason to be in the movie to begin with, which it doesn't.)

Reason I'm sold number three: I'm a big, floppy, sentimental child.

Here's the thing about this. The prequels, while boring to an adult, do a good job of entertaining children. (Clones and Sith more than Phantom, but Phantom worked on me as a kid, as has become obvious.) They're poorly written, poorly acted, poorly conceived stories. But they're imaginative as hell, there's distant planets and aliens and monsters and sword fights and chase scenes, they're a rockin' action adventure fantasy that's safe for even young kids.

I'm a deeply cynical, terrible person, but my cynicism doesn't extend too far into what counts as Star Wars, especially what counts to an eight year old. If I had children, I'd bring them with me to see this movie in 3D, because frankly, they'd like it. Way more than you do. And while I'd frown upon them favoring the prequels past puberty, I would never rob them of having as much Star Wars as possible as they're growing up. I would have killed for the prequels when I first discovered Star Wars, and if you watched the Ewok movies just to get a little more of that universe when you were a kid, you would have, too.

Of course The Phantom Menace is a bad movie. But how many times as a child did you stop and ask yourself if TRON was really all it was cracked up to be.

(However, it is worth mentioning that smack dab at the end of The Phantom Menace: 3D is a grinning man with a ~~Machiavellian~~ villainous moustache.)

: 3D

Down in Front Glossary

2010-03-14T22:54:00.000-07:00

It's helpful to know some of our shorthand, especially for new listeners. Many of these terms are culled (or paraphrased) from existing screenwriting jargon, and many are of our own invention. If you have questions, ideas for additions, or comments, here's the ongoing glossary discussion in the forums.

"Footprint in the Snow" Moment

Introducing a visual element in association with an action, object, or sound; this visual may not ever be shown again but will be assumed, by the audience.

The term is named for an apocryphal story about “The Empire Strikes Back.” The story goes that when they created the stop motion animation for the AT-ATs, it would have been impossible to create a puff of snow every time the machines took a step. Instead, the first show we see of an AT-AT is its foot coming down in the snow and puffing up snow. From that point on, no further footprints actually produce puffs of snow, but the audience assumes that they are there and may even remember them later.

As it turns out, the initial shot of the walker’s food does NOT produce a puff of snow, but the term is still useful and applicable.

For example, the transformations in the “Transformers” films are always accompanied by a particular kind of sound effect. When, later, the audience hears this sound effect without seeing a transforming robot, it is understood that a transformation has taken place off-screen without having to be shown, allowing the filmmakers to save money and time by simply cutting to a car instead of showing the transition.

Magic Beans, One Piece of Magic

The aspect of the world of the film, different from the world we live in, which we as the audience are asked to accept -- generally without justification -- for the purpose of being told the story. Or as Trey says, "You're allowed one thing in your story that doesn't make any damn sense."

Example: In “Liar Liar,” Jim Carrey's character is incapable of telling a lie for 24 hours, because his son makes a birthday wish. This would never happen, but because the movie is funny and engaging, no one cares.

It is worth noting that this does not necessarily refer to actual “magic;” the magic bean of “Jaws” is the existence of an unusually large, unusually vicious great white shark hunting in the shallows of an island resort. Sharks do not generally behave as the shark in the film does, but it’s scary and effective and no one cares.

The general rule of thumb is that a story functions best with only one “piece of magic," and that it is likely to fall apart when more than one is introduced. (See "Up," where Carl creates a house that magically floats away on balloons, and later encounters a group of dogs with technology that magically allows them to speak.) A film which violates this rule is said to contain multiple pieces of magic, or in Save the Cat terminology, to be engaged in Double Hocus Pocus.

Wonderland

A specific subset of the “piece of magic” concept, in which the piece of magic we are asked to accept is an entire new “world” in which the story takes place; individual divergences from how our world works are not additional pieces of magic, but rather expressions of the primary piece of magic (the world they inhabit).

Examples: Alice in Wonderland, obviously. Harry Potter. Avatar.

It is still theoretically possible to wind up with multiple pieces of magic if a new element violates the established rules of the Wonderland (if, for example, space aliens invaded Hogwarts in the last Potter movie), but the rules can be established so broadly up front that it’s very rare.

Save the Cat (Blake Snyder)

When it comes to non-franchise movies, an audience typically comes in cold, not knowing who to root for and who to root against. A “Save the Cat” moment is an opportunity for a character -- typically the scene in which s/he is introduced or very soon after -- to do a good deed and cue the audience that this person is the one we should root for.

Example: In “Dark City,” John Murdoch saves a goldfish right after we meet him, cueing the audience to his goodness and getting us to like him, despite the other characters referring to him as a murderer. (Inspector Bumstead has a related moment: when he sees the goldfish in the tub he questions what kind of murderer would have stopped to save it. We now know he is smart, that he is seeking the truth and not relying on preconceptions like all his colleagues. We like him, too.)

Kill the Cat

The inverse of a Save the Cat moment, an opportunity for a character to do something evil and announce him/herself as the villain.

Example: Darth Vader chokes a bitch and we know what's up.

Sometimes also utilized in the introduction of an anti-hero. The difference is typically that the villainous characters are actively malicious or cruel, whereas the antihero’s actions are self-serving or morally indifferent.

Example: In “Book of Eli,” the titular character literally kills a cat -- for sustenance -- in the opening scene.

Goldblum

An informal metric for measuring acting performance, indicating over-acting. From the notion that Jeff Goldblum represents a constant, known-quantity of line delivery.

Usage: "This actor is running at about two Goldblums right now."

Walken

As in "Goldblum," informally taken to mean the quantity of Goldblum squared.

Usage: "This actor is approaching Mach Walken."

Drew Barrymore Syndrome

A Hollywood star, who has taken perhaps a month of kung fu lessons, trying to come off as a credible, highly skilled ass-kicker.

Primary Example: Drew Barrymore in "Charlie's Angels"

Shark Brain

An audio/visual element that is there because the average audience member expects it to be there, not because it ought to be - otherwise, something that is done wrong for illustrative purposes.

Example: Teague once had a supervisor who was instructed to add a disembodied human brain to a graphic of a shark on the Discovery Channel, so the audience could see "where the shark's brain is." The brain of a shark is more of a loose grouping of nerve clusters that looks nothing at all like the tightly-packed human brain, but the audience would not understand that if shown, and Discovery Channel apparently had no interest in explaining.

The tendency of science fiction movies to have sound in space is also an example of a “shark brain.”

Hero's Journey / Monomyth

The archetypical story of a hero's rise from obscurity to action, conflict, and conquest. Popularized by the comparative mythology work of Joseph Campbell.

Example: Just about everything, according to Campbell. Wikipedia article on Monomyth.

Surrogates

Sci-fi film released in 2009 that, based on its trailer, appeared to rip off literally every trope or moment from science fiction cinema and literature throughout history. Generally referenced ironically, by accusing other films (especially those made decades prior) of ripping off “Surrogates,” rather than the inverse. Such an accusation will often be made even if no similarity actually exists in “Surrogates.”

Example: "This scene in BLADE RUNNER, about tears in the rain? Totally ripping off SURROGATES.”

Hanging a Lantern

When a film openly acknowledges an unanswered question, apparent logistical error, or other potential “plot holes,” usually by having a character point it out. Generally done to prevent the audience from becoming distracted by the question. The question may not be answered, but the audience is reassured that the storyteller is aware of the issue and asking them to go with it, as opposed to simply incompetent.

Example: In “Terminator,” Sarah asks why the machines’ time portal works the way it does, to which Kyle replies impatiently “I didn’t build the damn thing!”

An extreme example occurs in “The Emperor’s New Groove;” when the heroes arrive at the villains’ lair, they discover the villains awaiting them, despite the fact that the heroes had a tremendous headstart and the villains at one point fell into a bottomless pit. When questioned, the villains can’t explain how they got there first, and openly acknowledge that “By all accounts, it doesn’t make sense.”

Asimov-ian

Refers to a story in which an artificial intelligence or other construct embarks on a path to become more “human” (and often involves asking the question of what, precisely, that means).

Example: "A.I.".

Perfect Movie

A film that pays off every set-up that arises in the story and character development, leaving the audience with no questions, no loose ends, and usually a sense of satisfaction. Note that one does not need to like a movie, subjectively, to acknowledge that it objectively fulfills these criteria.

Example: "The Princess Bride."

"As You Know" Scene

Generally a hallmark of lazy screenwriting, in an "As You Know" scene characters exchange information which they already know, solely for the benefit of the audience.

Example: Characters in UNDERWORLD spend a great deal of time reminding each other about “the Covenant” and “our ways,” frequently beginning with some variation of “you know it’s forbidden to...” then explaining what they’ve just pointed out the other character already knows.

Note: a scene is not an as-you-know scene -- even if it actually begins with the phrase “As You Know” -- if the mutually known information leads to information which is new to one or more of the characters.

Example: “As you know, drug trafficking activity has spiked significantly in the last few months. We think we may have finally discovered why...”

"Going to the Mansion"

When a movie abruptly shifts its focus, tone, theme, or otherwise seems to take a sudden divergence from its setup, most frequently in the third act, almost always to the detriment of the film’s cohesion.

Example: “Sunshine,” when a contemplative, tense sci-fi abruptly becomes a slasher movie.

The term was originally coined in reference to another Danny Boyle film, “28 Days Later,” when an intense survival horror film becomes a social commentary about the military-industrial complex. For the history of this term, check out the Sunshine commentary, 00:03:30 in.

Going Back to the Hobo

Watching a new installment of a franchise, of which the previous film or films have been of questionable/declining quality or outright bad, possibly in the vain and irrational hope that maybe this one will be better. Much like an amusing hobo at the bus stop, you find it’s not as entertaining the second time around, and may even be depressing.

Example: “Transformers 2.”

Fridge Logic

A logical issue that the audience is unlikely to notice while watching the film play out, and will only realize on later reflection -- e.g., while getting a snack out of the fridge. Technically a plot hole, but one so well-concealed that it isn’t apparent until afterward, and therefore somewhat more acceptable for not taking the audience out of the film.

Examples: In “Star Trek (2009),” if a single drop of Red Matter is enough to create a planet-imploding black hole, what in the hell did Spock need SO MUCH of it for?

In “Independence Day,” why did the aliens hijack Earth’s satellite systems to coordinate their attack -- making interception of their signal possible -- rather than just “synchronizing their watches” at the mothership and simply attacking when the internal countdown ran down?

If the Terminators in “Terminator” are designed specifically to kill people, why don’t they have built-in weapons?

In “Transformers,” the Autobots learn English from the “world wide web.” But Megatron was frozen something like a thousand years ago, and he wakes up speaking English. How did HE learn it?

Et cetera. We could do this all day.

The Plinkett Test

From the RedLetterMedia review of The Phantom Menace, a test used to gauge the strength of a character by "describing the character WITHOUT saying what they look like, what kind of costume they wore, or what their profession or role in the movie was." The more you can say under those restrictions, the stronger the character.

Examples: He provides several. For instance, Han Solo is a rogue, he is dashing, he's actually kind of a bad guy but he has a heart of gold and comes through when his friends need him to. Meanwhile, Qui Gon Jinn can only be described as "...stern?"

The Teague Law of Sympathy

Even if a character hasn't been established to you, if they're completely fucked, you like them.

Example: The spooning couple in 'Titanic,' Andy (the rooftop gun guy) in Dawn of the Dead (2004), etc..

The Amazing Stokes

2009-12-03T01:26:00.000-08:00

Hey everybody, Teague here.

Modesty may forbid Trey from coming over to tell you about this, but it certainly doesn't prevent me from doing it: this week he was featured on TheStream.tv's Filmnut podcast in an hour-long interview spanning his career and most recent projects, Pink Five and Ark. And, as you might care, a little podcast called Down in Front.

You'll notice that right off the bat the interviewer calls him "Trey - the Amazing! - Stokes," a name that I pulled out of my ass on episode one of this show and have since referred to him as because...well, it's never become less funny to me, and at the very least has a nice ring to it. This is independent confirmation that I do in fact have an influence on the universe.

In related "I apparently have influence on external matter" news, last week the shutting-down of Geekza.com (home of my previous podcast, co-hosted by Chris Hanel and our own Brian, even occasionally Trey and Dorkman) left a very faint but apparently meaningful ripple in the pond of sad internet existence, and podcast directory (and frequent bookmark of us here at DiF) Zarban has taken it upon themselves to actually host the commentaries we did. You can find the Geekza commentaries here, and for a hoot, check out our listings in their memorable quotes section, apparently we're kinda funny. Maybe. On paper.

And in related interview news, in case you missed it, frequent guest Ryan W and myself were interviewed about the show for the 3Dots podcast. Eventually the interview became a semi-drunken conversation about working in the visual FX industry, but perhaps you'll find it entertaining nonetheless.

Edit (9/17/10): John over at Couch Surfing included a bit on today's episode about Down in Front that is very complimentary.

I've snipped out just that portion if you want to listen to it, it's about six minutes, downloadable here or streamable below.

Thanks sir, really appreciate the shout-out.

Edit (9/26/10): Stephanie over at Nerds in Babeland did an awesome interview with us! It's an hour long bit of audio discussing the show, fellatio, and nerd culture. You can download it here or stream it below.

And last but not least, we got a wonderful little shout out from the Red Centre guys on their podcast, episode #51, right at the end. They say nice things about us, and we'll definitely return the favor - for independent film enthusiasts and RED users (or folks interested in RED cameras) their show is a wonderfully produced talk-radio format commentary on the goings on in that beautifully high-rez little slice of the digital film world.

(Dorkman's Note: RED Centre is actually a podcast covering the entire spectrum of digital filmmaking innovations and considerations -- they've covered the Canon 5D and 7D, underwater housings, ARRI digital camera announcements, lenses, workflows, productions, etc. It's not just RED camera news and commentary. The hosts are very talented, experienced, and entertaining creative and technical professionals, so even if you're not particularly interested in RED stuff, anyone interested in a regular look at the state of the art will find it well worth a listen.)

Also, real quick - "down in front" is an expression going back into the 19th century, and yet, when you Google it, the first return takes you here. I'm very, very excited about that.

Until next time!

Teague

The Alternate Prequels

2009-11-23T13:38:00.000-08:00

Hey guys, Dorkman here.

Regular listeners will recall that back when we did our MATRIX: RELOADED commentary, the guys also turned the mics on post-show so I could drunkenly blather out a pseudo-pitch to an alternative storyline -- in essence, the way I would have done the movie had someone asked me. If you missed it, you can listen to it here:

Since the "MATRIX: REWRITTEN" sprang from my dissatisfaction with how the story was handled, it should come as no real surprise that I have gone through the same exercise with the Star Wars prequels. It helps me practice my story-crafting skills as a writer, and gives me a more constructive outlet for my frustration as a fan.

I've spent a lot of time on these internets of ours bewailing what they did wrong, so I want to put my money where my mouth is and share my thoughts on one way I think they could have been done "right."

Whether they are an improvement or not will ultimately be up to the reader, but either way I hope you guys enjoy them. It was fun to do.

STAR WARS: THE ALTERNATE PREQUELS

What the hell is a gigawatt?

2009-11-10T16:02:00.000-08:00

Hey everybody, Teague here.

You may have noticed something is different about the website. If you haven't, you're new, and it's important that you know that this site has always been this freaking awesome and it did not go through a long phase of simply being a Wordpress blog. That did not happen.

Anyway, here we are, with a shiny new site that will presumably be full of problems. If you ever encounter an issue with anything, send an email to downinfrontshow@gmail.com and we'll get it worked out right quick. If you have questions, concerns, or god forbid compliments, the same email can be used for those. We really prefer compliments, so. Try to stick with those.

In the meantime, you'll need to register at the new (hopefully permanent) forum, and we hope that you do. The forum was just starting to really hop on the old site, and hopefully this new one is a bit more user friendly and can operate with a heavier load of intelligent, handsome users like yourself.

You'll also notice that we have a new logo, and corresponding merchandise. We'll be adding merch as we go along, and if you have any ideas (or artwork submissions), downinfrontshow@gmail.com is the place to pipe up.

Hopefully this is a zero-downside transition for you, and in the future it's even easier to get a hold of your favorite god damned commentary podcast through this site.

Last but not least, many thanks to Holden Hill for helping to get this site up and running.

Leave Star Tours alone.

2009-11-04T17:45:00.001-08:00

5/30/11 EDIT: It's been nigh two years since writing this post, and the ride has been completed and is being opened currently. My opinion at this time is less reactionary and disappointed, and more apathetic - and early reports are that the new ride is "just fine," or "amazing," depending on who you ask. I'm not going to boycott it or anything like that, I'm not a "for the sake of it" sort of hill-battler. I'll always treasure the original, and hopefully YouTube bootlegs remain accessible for the forseeable future.

I feel I come on too strong in this post. But rather than deleting it and re-writing history, I simply addend - here, at the beginning - and let you make of my old opinion what you will.

Hey everybody, Teague here.

Last week, SlashFilm reported that Star Tours was officially being re-imagined. In the spirit of the prequels (and hopefully to the same overwhelmingly positive response from fans), the ridefilm adventure that has been installed at Disneyland since 1987 is to be stricken and rebuilt into a brand new adventure, with a brand new CG destination, as yet undisclosed. As I cannot find any reason think otherwise, I currently operate under the impression that this means the original film and motions will be replaced wholesale with a new experience.

Most will probably continue in their lives unhindered by this news; another repetition-worn rolling of the eyes in George’s direction, maybe, the same shake of the head at the continued fingering of what used to inspire you. The revelation that Star Tours is to be disassembled and replaced with a prequel probably doesn’t affect many of the remaining fans in any specific way.

I am one to whom it does.

The actions of George Lucas spanning the gap between this year and 1997 seem to indicate he is of the opinion that he really, seriously does not owe me anything. (As many have said, we’re the ones who see his movies, and this attitude on his part may be unfounded.) (To say the, you know, complete fucking least.) Arguments so levied, it is still the case: we got the Special Edition releases, and then we got the prequels.

Astounding, the impact of what is contained in such a small sentence. It took you two seconds to process the information that Star Wars was raped right in front of you. Two seconds to review what took an excruciating ten years to experience. We walk away from it with little more than the cold, awkward understanding that this all means more to us than it does to him – and for many, that fire of love and inspiration that came at the hand of Star Wars has shrunk to an ember, and for some, one which has long since burnt out.

I was one for whom it hadn’t. Because I had freaking Star Tours.

As far back as I can remember, Disneyland has been a part of my life. My first memory is one of Disneyland, getting popcorn next to the outdoor cafeteria in Tomorrowland. (In that plaza at the foot of Space Mountain, next to where Captain E.O. used to be and Honey I Shrunk the Audience now is.) (Unfortunately.) The same day I rode Star Tours, and fell completely in love.

I ran all the way down the ramp, past the vacation posters depicting Tatooine and Dagobah, through the Star Wars store you have to walk through after exiting the ride – completely oblivious to the tall, shiny helmeted black suit man and the little green guy with giant ears – and back outside, in front of the ride, to see if I could see the next ship taking off and going out to space. I always just missed it, my five year old brain reasoned, and I’d try to run back outside faster the next time. It was the reason to go to Disneyland.

My mom later told me that they had made a whole movie out of Star Tours. My five year old brain reasoned, again, this time that I could pop in the movie and watch it from the plush rocking chair in our living room, and just rock the chair around to simulate the movements of the ship. Alas, it was not Star Tours the movie; it was Star Wars.

Insert the story of everyone’s childhood here. Everyone who saw Star Wars at a young age was completely changed by it, and I came to it through Star Tours.

The ride itself may be the single most impressive optical compositing accomplishment of all time. As with ‘Bohemian Rhapsody,’ it is to this day the most complicated example of its kind, due to a staggeringly complex use of old methods right before the dawn of a new technological era. Over four minutes of continuous, unbroken optical compositing, playing out a wild, first-person dogfight in the Star Wars universe. A seamless experience, every moment visually tied together to form a cohesive stream of events built entirely from the ground up.

Maneuvering through a hangar filled with ships, out into space, leaping into lightspeed and coming back out again, blasting past a moon and into a field of icy comets, one of which you actually tunnel through for several seconds, out the other side into the waiting tractor beam of a Star Destroyer, only to escape into the chaos of space battle, exchanging fire with the massive swarm of spaceships, being chased low across the expansive surface of the Death Star and around into a trench, over and under trusswork, delivering a fatal blow to the battle station before leaping back into lightspeed and nearly crashing upon re-entry to yet another hangar, complete with a live, tracked comp of a flustered technician staring you in the face.

They really did this. In one shot. With models.

Something that has lasted all these years, still unfucked by George Lucas. I’ve almost completely circumvented the feeling of an important connection to your childhood being taken from you in the Special Edition/prequel mess, because…as many changes as he could ever make to the original films, as many horrible sequels he could ever make to lessen their impact, it wouldn’t change Star Tours. For me, Star Tours is what’s really special about Star Wars.

I got a chance to experience the ride for the first time since I was very young a couple of months ago. Not only did it completely hold up for me – an adult, a visual effects artist, a discerning patron of many ridefilm projects in the years since first experiencing Star Tours – it was still a spectacle changing the lives of children, blissfully unaware as I was that they were simply watching an incredible work of art, not actually flying out into the galaxy. If you think I’m being overly wistful, I am, but consider this: a little boy behind me, as much a Calvin as I was at his age, experiencing Star Tours for the first time, actually said “this is SO much better than going to Endor!” upon being detoured into battle.

Yeah.

When it’s gone, it’ll really be gone. In retrospect, I wish I had predicated my entire life on the existence of the original trilogy – at least you can still watch those and try to forget the Special Edition releases and prequels exist. I’m never going to get to experience Star Tours again, and not because the park decided the space it occupies would be better used as a restaurant…but because, as we’ve all learned; Lucas can’t just keep his dick out of the things we love.

Teague Chrystie is a visual FX artist in Hollywood, California.
Follow his Twitter, or email him at teague.chrystie@gmail.com.

IMAX Digital: Just the Facts

2009-11-04T16:29:00.000-08:00

Here at Down in Front, we know an awful lot about movies. We spend most of our free time talking about them, and all of our equitable time making them. Big, fancy real ones. Some days, we just sit around and know things about frame formats. It’s actually a hobby for us.

So when alarmist, uninformed people on sites like Digg start talking about what is and is not IMAX, and what qualifies their opinions, we tend to react as we’re used to around alarmist, uninformed people (we call them ‘producers’), and that’s with utmost patience and respect, veiling extreme weariness.

“The bottom line assessment by me and others in the know is that a good IMAX Film presentation beats a new IMAX Digital presentation, which in turn beats a standard 35mm equivalent digital presentation.” – anonymous source, very close to this issue

Historically, “IMAX” has simply referred to the branding of 70 mm (65 mm) film or analogous digital files, not the screens. True enough, IMAX Corporation has made some compromises with the new IMAX Digital system. They’ve reduced the screen-width to 55′, and depending on the aspect ratio of the film, reduced the height as well. For many folks, the impressive size of the screen is a major factor in their understanding of IMAX, and naturally most mainstream theater chains don’t have the behemoth IMAX screens still found in many special theaters. (It’s worth noting that it’s hard to decieve someone into thinking that a visibly small projection theater could contain a traditional IMAX screen. Just saying.)

The IMAX Digital system is based on the use of two projectors, overlaying two instances of slightly different information, resulting in a percieved resolution of far higher than the 2k resolution of either projector. Both projectors display 2k images scaled down from the same 4k file – however, they do not display the same pixels. Each uses a different 2k subset of the original 4k image’s pixels, offset by less than one pixel-width as measured on the screen, resulting in a boost of crispness, brightness, and – yes – resolution. Inherently lossy as it is, this is not the same as watching a 4k projection. It is, however, effectively much higher resolution than 2k – and every other film playing in the multiplex.

When you start qualifying what you are and are not getting when you pay for your ticket to subjectivity like screen size – even when the film is being presented at a much higher quality, often with a much more expansive sound system – you’re walking the edge of a slippery slope. Why not qualify your ticket price based on number of individual scratches on the film? Why not find the percentile of overall image lost to the several inches of projection that wash onto the curtain above and below the screen?

Of course, at the end of the day, what your extra five dollars is worth is completely subjective. If the only thing worth five dollars is a larger screen to watch the movie on – and sure, I understand – then yes, you’re out five bucks. However, your money is certainly not being arbitrarily eaten up due to a branding scheme. IMAX Digital facilitates a quantifiably better film watching experience.

“Been following this today, along with the original comedian who started this firestorm. I tend to agree with him. I don’t care about resolution honestly, it’s the perception of size that matters. If a screen is so big my field of vision has to work to take it all in, to me that’s IMAX. I was in the bathroom before I saw Trek last weekend and I overheard 2 guys who had just come out of the IMAX showing (this was a Regal theater with the 55′ wide “fake IMAX” screen) how hugely disappointed they were and that they too felt ripped off. Doesn’t matter if what you’re saying is technically correct, it’s a function of perception.

People will stop buying tickets to the “fake IMAX” theaters and the system will fail because people will have the sensation of being ripped off.”

I certainly understand the disappointment you can feel when you expect one thing and get another (you need look no further than our Phantom Menace commentary to see proof of that), but it’s only in situations where what you expect is congruent with reality that will I accept disappointment as an argument. I hate to belabor the point, but seriously: IMAX screens are huge. Walking into a small theater expecting a huge screen is perhaps acceptable as a folly of misplaced attention, but that’s not the theater’s fault.

Of all the things I take issue with in this argument, it’s the expression “ripped off” that confounds me the most. Even if you bought a ticket online with no way to see that there was clearly no giant screen at your theater, at any point up to the beginning of the screening – from the parking process up until finding a seat – you could have exchanged your ticket for free, so by no account are you held to your original confusion, and even so: you actually experienced the movie in far higher definition, with a better sound system, than you would have anywhere else. And yet, they owe you something?

In terms of branding, it may be misleading (as previously “IMAX” seemed to be an all-inclusive term that brought together several improvements in traditional film presentation quality, and now it’s a term that still does that minus one), but you didn’t pay for a ticket to an IMAX presentation of the movie, you paid for a ticket to the IMAX Digital presentation of the movie. A new term gets a new definition; that’s why they don’t use the old term.

I’m confused as to why people don’t see this as a good thing: it’s not trying to be the same experience as watching a movie on a screen the size of a building, it’s a new technology like any other technology we didn’t ask for (for instance, 3D releases) that allows us to watch some movies with extra clarity. That’s all. I’m sorry you were confused, but it’s not beneficial to be angry at HD movies because you didn’t know what you were paying for the first time you saw one.

Or, in the words of my grandmother, don’t punch the hooker because she didn’t come with coke.

Thanks to the anonymous source quoted above for his additional help in preparing this article.

Teague Chrystie is a visual FX artist in Hollywood, California. Follow him on Twitter, email him at teague.chrystie@gmail.com.