If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TimeOut)   Things we do NOT want to see at the George Lucas Museum. Yeah, Princess Leia's cocaine nail is in there   (timeout.com) divider line 30
    More: Obvious, George Lucas Museum, George Lucas, Jefferson Starship, Wilford Brimley, Shia Labeouf, jake lloyd, Star Wars Holiday Special, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull  
•       •       •

5044 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 10 Apr 2014 at 6:24 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-10 06:31:20 PM
media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-10 06:33:26 PM
Well, this was a good thread.
 
2014-04-10 07:00:01 PM
Darth Vader's jock strap.

Nuts wrapped in leathery burnt bacon.
 
2014-04-10 07:03:40 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

/too subtle?
 
2014-04-10 07:35:55 PM
This thread just sparked a memory from childhood..........I remember the local comic book guy I used to go to religiously had one long nail.  Never really thought about that before since I was pretty young.  Hehe......
 
2014-04-10 07:52:57 PM
A life mask of Mark Hammill before he ate windshield?

Lucas has a cute wife. He himself looks like an elderly wine cask bung.

greysaber.com
 
2014-04-10 08:13:33 PM

Valiente: A life mask of Mark Hammill before he ate windshield?

Lucas has a cute wife. He himself looks like an elderly wine cask bung.


Actually saw him with his daughter in a San Francisco mall once. He was buying her a REALLY gaudy tiger striped couch at Z Gallerie.

/csb
 
2014-04-10 08:35:25 PM

TV's Vinnie: /too subtle?

Nope!


media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-10 08:52:42 PM
I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.
 
2014-04-10 09:03:46 PM

ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.


yeah i mean plays have like painted backdrops or even just curtains

exactly the same
 
2014-04-10 09:15:21 PM

ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.


There's a lot of difference. The effects in a CGI fest like the prequels are done in a computer, when the effects done with a matte painting are still EFFECTS, there is just a painted background. The actual special effects were still real SFX. Besides, CGI still wasn't that good and a lot looked fake. Mostly because there was infinite depth of field, it's why everything looks too 'perfect' in a CGI movie much older than 6 or 7 years. Someone finally figured that out, but it's where the fake look came from once they got textures and stuff fixed.
 
2014-04-10 09:17:42 PM
WTF is this article anyway? Is this a featured partner or whatever? It isn't a list of things that are going in to the museum, hell, most of it's a list if shiat that doesn't really exist. Jesus, now they're hiding the Spam articles...
 
2014-04-10 10:57:34 PM

Mikey1969: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

There's a lot of difference. The effects in a CGI fest like the prequels are done in a computer, when the effects done with a matte painting are still EFFECTS, there is just a painted background. The actual special effects were still real SFX. Besides, CGI still wasn't that good and a lot looked fake. Mostly because there was infinite depth of field, it's why everything looks too 'perfect' in a CGI movie much older than 6 or 7 years. Someone finally figured that out, but it's where the fake look came from once they got textures and stuff fixed.


Not to mention that the original trilogy sets were actually, well, sets.  They had props, furniture, walls, floors, etc.  The computer stations and the people sitting at them were real.  The battle of Hoth had dozens of extras running around in a Finnish winter.  The prequels were little more than soundstages with the occasional couch and backdrop.
 
2014-04-10 11:02:40 PM
I'll be happy when there's no more Star Wars bullshiat.
 
2014-04-10 11:11:19 PM

Flappyhead: Mikey1969: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

There's a lot of difference. The effects in a CGI fest like the prequels are done in a computer, when the effects done with a matte painting are still EFFECTS, there is just a painted background. The actual special effects were still real SFX. Besides, CGI still wasn't that good and a lot looked fake. Mostly because there was infinite depth of field, it's why everything looks too 'perfect' in a CGI movie much older than 6 or 7 years. Someone finally figured that out, but it's where the fake look came from once they got textures and stuff fixed.

Not to mention that the original trilogy sets were actually, well, sets.  They had props, furniture, walls, floors, etc.  The computer stations and the people sitting at them were real.  The battle of Hoth had dozens of extras running around in a Finnish winter.  The prequels were little more than soundstages with the occasional couch and backdrop.


I think the two things th ey messed up besides too much obvious CGI. Was the ridiculously flashy light Saber battles aftermath first 3 movies, and the fact that roughly 20 years before Luke started on his adventures they have touchscreens and transparent monitors, then suddenly it's push buttons and switches that had an actual light bulb in them
 
2014-04-10 11:31:48 PM

sprawl15: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

yeah i mean plays have like painted backdrops or even just curtains

exactly the same


You should probably look into what "matt painting" is before you open your mouth again.
 
2014-04-10 11:46:59 PM

Mikey1969: Flappyhead: Mikey1969: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

There's a lot of difference. The effects in a CGI fest like the prequels are done in a computer, when the effects done with a matte painting are still EFFECTS, there is just a painted background. The actual special effects were still real SFX. Besides, CGI still wasn't that good and a lot looked fake. Mostly because there was infinite depth of field, it's why everything looks too 'perfect' in a CGI movie much older than 6 or 7 years. Someone finally figured that out, but it's where the fake look came from once they got textures and stuff fixed.

Not to mention that the original trilogy sets were actually, well, sets.  They had props, furniture, walls, floors, etc.  The computer stations and the people sitting at them were real.  The battle of Hoth had dozens of extras running around in a Finnish winter.  The prequels were little more than soundstages with the occasional couch and backdrop.

I think the two things th ey messed up besides too much obvious CGI. Was the ridiculously flashy light Saber battles aftermath first 3 movies, and the fact that roughly 20 years before Luke started on his adventures they have touchscreens and transparent monitors, then suddenly it's push buttons and switches that had an actual light bulb in them


I don't see anything wrong with the lightsaber battles. The original thought behind lightsabers was that they were very heavy, but that wasn't entertaining or engaging. That's why they became more energetic starting with Empire Strikes Back.

There's nothing wrong with CGI itself. Simply mix and match between CGI and more traditional effects. That's what Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, the films that really started the CGI revolution, did. Stan Winston didn't say "Fark you, CGI!", he accepted it, and worked with it.
 
2014-04-11 12:01:40 AM

Bith Set Me Up: Mikey1969: Flappyhead: Mikey1969: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

There's a lot of difference. The effects in a CGI fest like the prequels are done in a computer, when the effects done with a matte painting are still EFFECTS, there is just a painted background. The actual special effects were still real SFX. Besides, CGI still wasn't that good and a lot looked fake. Mostly because there was infinite depth of field, it's why everything looks too 'perfect' in a CGI movie much older than 6 or 7 years. Someone finally figured that out, but it's where the fake look came from once they got textures and stuff fixed.

Not to mention that the original trilogy sets were actually, well, sets.  They had props, furniture, walls, floors, etc.  The computer stations and the people sitting at them were real.  The battle of Hoth had dozens of extras running around in a Finnish winter.  The prequels were little more than soundstages with the occasional couch and backdrop.

I think the two things th ey messed up besides too much obvious CGI. Was the ridiculously flashy light Saber battles aftermath first 3 movies, and the fact that roughly 20 years before Luke started on his adventures they have touchscreens and transparent monitors, then suddenly it's push buttons and switches that had an actual light bulb in them

I don't see anything wrong with the lightsaber battles. The original thought behind lightsabers was that they were very heavy, but that wasn't entertaining or engaging. That's why they became more energetic starting with Empire Strikes Back.

There's nothing wrong with CGI itself. Simply mix and match between CGI and more traditional effects. That's what Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, the films that really started the CGI revolution, did. Stan Winston didn't say "Fark you, CGI!", he accepted it, and worked with it.


No, by the end the lightsaber battles got ridiculous. And no, there's nothing wrong with CGI, but when the movie is almost nothing but CGI, you get a little worn out. Well, you did. Now it's better and not distracting like it was. They'd never be able to do Avengers or Iron Man without it, but things have changed just in the few years since Star Wars wrapped the series. They just got carried away with having Yoda bounce of every surface of the planet.
 
2014-04-11 01:42:54 AM
At some point in this atrocity, Jefferson Starship pops up on some hologram video thing to perform a song that is not "We Built This City."

Is the author really complaining that it wasn't "We Built This City"?

Granted, it is a Craig Chaquico song, so I guess any hate you can heap on it is good hate, but worse than We Built This City?  I don't even think anyone in Airplane or Starship actually even wrote that piece of shiat.


Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c67NRXtaZk&feature=kp

All I can say in their defense is Jorma and Jack had left by then and they took a awful lot of drugs.
 
2014-04-11 03:42:20 AM
i understand a coke nail for a guy, but why didn't she just grow out ALL her nails to obscure her habit?
 
2014-04-11 04:21:24 AM
What is a cocaine nail and would googling it bring DEA knocking at my door?
 
2014-04-11 05:27:03 AM

Twist2005: What is a cocaine nail and would googling it bring DEA knocking at my door?


www.theplug.net 

Think of it as an organic coke spoon. For "bumps" of coke.

/never snorted a line in my life. I'm bipolar so people just naturally think I do.
 
2014-04-11 05:36:15 AM

Mikey1969: No, by the end the lightsaber battles got ridiculous. And no, there's nothing wrong with CGI, but when the movie is almost nothing but CGI, you get a little worn out. Well, you did. Now it's better and not distracting like it was. They'd never be able to do Avengers or Iron Man without it, but things have changed just in the few years since Star Wars wrapped the series. They just got carried away with having Yoda bounce of every surface of the planet.


The problem with CGI is when it's used badly and we went through a period after T2 and Jurassic Park (both of which used CGI well) of everyone using CGI even when it looked terrible and they had other options. At the end of Titanic there's a moment where Kate Winslet breathes out and the breath is CG and it just looks drawn on. 20 years earlier the crew would have taken Kate Winslet outside in a cold place and filmed that.

Interesting comparison - In Iron Man, RDJ was generally in the suit. In The Avengers it was done with CG.
 
2014-04-11 06:35:58 AM

Sinbox: Twist2005: What is a cocaine nail and would googling it bring DEA knocking at my door?

 

Think of it as an organic coke spoon. For "bumps" of coke.

/never snorted a line in my life. I'm bipolar so people just naturally think I do.


Huh. Learn something new every day. Thanks!
 
2014-04-11 09:06:07 AM

farkeruk: Interesting comparison - In Iron Man, RDJ was generally in the suit. In The Avengers it was done with CG.


Yeah, but the flying and fighting wouldn't have worked without CGI in Iron Man. The 80s Captain America movies aren't bad because of writing and acting, but because he couldn't DO anything, and the suit looked like crap.Once they were able to do CGI(And get the company that makes the bodysuits they wear for movies), they were able to get what the people expected from a superhero.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, CGI originally had issues making the textures look right, but after they got that fixed, there was the issue of depth of field. nothing was blurry, whether in the background or foreground, they had infinite depth of field, which gave it the same farked up 'to crisp, but something is still weird' look...
 
2014-04-11 09:25:46 AM
You people are insane and just biatch to biatch. Really?? The old SW movies look better than the new ones?? The effects are TOO perfect, so it sucks? You just can't please you goddamned fanbois.

Also FTFA:

Does any actor involved in these movies not regret the decision?

Like...all of them except Christensen? It nearly ruined his career because idiots can't tell the difference between bad acting and bad writing/direction. He's turning it around, but it set him back 20 yrs.

fark you guys.
 
2014-04-11 02:02:47 PM

Bith Set Me Up: Mikey1969: Flappyhead: Mikey1969: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

There's a lot of difference. The effects in a CGI fest like the prequels are done in a computer, when the effects done with a matte painting are still EFFECTS, there is just a painted background. The actual special effects were still real SFX. Besides, CGI still wasn't that good and a lot looked fake. Mostly because there was infinite depth of field, it's why everything looks too 'perfect' in a CGI movie much older than 6 or 7 years. Someone finally figured that out, but it's where the fake look came from once they got textures and stuff fixed.

Not to mention that the original trilogy sets were actually, well, sets.  They had props, furniture, walls, floors, etc.  The computer stations and the people sitting at them were real.  The battle of Hoth had dozens of extras running around in a Finnish winter.  The prequels were little more than soundstages with the occasional couch and backdrop.

I think the two things th ey messed up besides too much obvious CGI. Was the ridiculously flashy light Saber battles aftermath first 3 movies, and the fact that roughly 20 years before Luke started on his adventures they have touchscreens and transparent monitors, then suddenly it's push buttons and switches that had an actual light bulb in them

I don't see anything wrong with the lightsaber battles. The original thought behind lightsabers was that they were very heavy, but that wasn't entertaining or engaging. That's why they became more energetic starting with Empire Strikes Back.

There's nothing wrong with CGI itself. Simply mix and match between CGI and more traditional effects. That's what Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, the films that really started the CGI revolution, did. Stan Winston didn't say "Fark ...


I NEVER, got that impression from the original trilogy. From the moment Luke's lights one up in Star Wars, it's pretty evident it's supposed to be light like a sword. Ditto the scene when he is training with the remote. The battle between Darth and Vader at the end of Star Wars was a dance between two evenly matched opponents that went at it like crazy many years before. Finally, the fights between Luke and Vader . . . Vader was always toying with Luke. Especially in Empire when he held his lightsaber with one hand.
 
2014-04-11 05:07:11 PM

Dwight_Yeast: sprawl15: ParadoxDice: I LOLed at the "entire Episode 1-3" green screen sets. Everyone that complains about the prequel's set effect love to ignore that the majority of the original trilogy were matte paintings. There's not much difference, really.

yeah i mean plays have like painted backdrops or even just curtains

exactly the same

You should probably look into what "matt painting" is before you open your mouth again.


it's when you paint a guy named matt
 
2014-04-11 08:19:17 PM

Sinbox: Twist2005: What is a cocaine nail and would googling it bring DEA knocking at my door?

[www.theplug.net image 200x169] 

Think of it as an organic coke spoon. For "bumps" of coke.

/never snorted a line in my life. I'm bipolar so people just naturally think I do.



*looks at hands*

fark, do people think i'm a cokehead because my pinkies are the only nails that don't break off?


/occasionally file them to be even with the rest, but they grow and the rest break off
 
2014-04-12 12:03:51 AM
ravenlore:

*looks at hands*

fark, do people think i'm a cokehead because my pinkies are the only nails that don't break off?


/occasionally file them to be even with the rest, but they grow and the rest break off


I chew all of mine mine down to the quick.

The worst habit I've yet to tame.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report