I thought that "Order 66" was built into the clones and that they didn't really have much of a choice?
They weren't droids. They have free will. They were just taught contingency orders to prepare for during their growth and training. The order itself was rather innocuous, which is why it slipped past anyone who may have read over them. If Order 66 was given, the clones -- trusting their commanders -- were effectively told that the Jedi were traitors and that they needed to be removed by lethal force.
I believe Wookiepedia has a pretty decent write-up on it if you're interested. I'll see if I can hunt it down.
Order 66
Again, it wasn't a "backstab the Jedi" sinister order. It was conceived of for that purpose, but the actual order isn't written as such. It's little different than a clause detailing the punishment for treason, of which the clones are taught to assume if they receive that particular order.
In effect the order told them that the Jedi had turned against the government and were attempting to overthrow it. It was the clone's duty, as a result, to thwart that plot. And since everyone knows how powerful and deadly Jedi can be, resorting to cheap attacks in the process makes a lot of sense. They are, for all intents and purposes, the equivalence of a weapon of mass destruction. And one that can mess with your mind, too
To sum it up: The clones thought they were protecting their government, not murdering innocents.
I don't care much for Lucas' writing as a whole, but this particular issue is one of the few things I don't have much of a problem with in and of itself. The only problem I have is how it was protrayed. On-screen it did, in fact, look like the clones just blindly went on a killing spree.
I might well deserve that... but the thread had gotten pretty OT anyway.I love it when people tell you to exercise your free will by doing what they do.
I think they're intended to be free-willed, thinking men until Palpatine gives the order. As of Order 66, they're stormtroopers.
Yes, it is. For one thing, the clones were not "fully grown in vats", as AOTC showed. More importantly, however, ideas are not genetic. I know SW is more fantasy than sci-fi, but this is too much. It was even dumber when Enterprise did it, but at least they wrote it into a compelling story.I'm not sure why this is such a controversial notion. We can accept that fully grown soldiers are made in vats, but it's too much of a stretch to think they were programmed?
Yes, it is. For one thing, the clones were not "fully grown in vats", as AOTC showed. More importantly, however, ideas are not genetic. I know SW is more fantasy than sci-fi, but this is too much. It was even dumber when Enterprise did it, but at least they wrote it into a compelling story.I'm not sure why this is such a controversial notion. We can accept that fully grown soldiers are made in vats, but it's too much of a stretch to think they were programmed?
As I said earlier in the thread, there were numerous examples of clones questioned if not outright disobeyed that order, including at least one special forces unit. Those that did were, more than likely, clones that were close to their Jedi commanders. Whereas most of the clones (and this was an army-wide order) only saw them from afar.Even though that order (and the assumptions behind it) fly directly in the face of the real experience these soldiers have of their commanders.
Also, a stylistic quibble: why does CG animation so rarely try to pretend it's regular film? Because of its nature, it can provide roaming cameras to stupendous effect, and while this could of course be overdone, I think it's generally underused. There's just an aesthetic beauty in gliding around many aspects of an environment, West Wing-style.
Finally, at this rate I wouldn't at all mind to see the animators tackle Shadows of the Empire - maybe even with the original voices ? - now that could possibly be truly awesome.
As Spock might say, fascinating. I wonder why that is... I'd assumed that if the same number of pixels were being rendered, at the same resolution, it'd take equal amounts of time. Weird.IIRC, depending on how much you move the camera around, fancy camera moves can significantly increase the rendering time. (They mention something about this on the TMNT DVD commentary when they point out a certain shot that was originally supposed to circle all the way around Raphael and give us a 360 degree view of the NYC skyline. When they were told that that one shot would take a year to render, they replaced it with a simpler one.)
Of course; I should have added "other factors (number/complexity of objects) notwithstanding".Resolution is but one factor (though a fairly big one) in render time; the complexity of the lighting, the number and level of detail of the objects, the size and number of textures, the level of anti-aliasing, and, especially, the number of passes all play a huge role in how long a render takes.
This makes some sense, I guess, though it still seems a bit strange. I guess it's a question of being able to hold over certain portions of the picture with a static camera.The only thing that I can think of is that they wouldn't be able to turn off any of the buildings in the model they were using for the city to cut down on the scene's required memory.
The only thing that I can think of is that they wouldn't be able to turn off any of the buildings in the model they were using for the city to cut down on the scene's required memory.
And no, same number of pixels does not mean same render time. I promise you that.Resolution is but one factor (though a fairly big one) in render time; the complexity of the lighting, the number and level of detail of the objects, the size and number of textures, the level of anti-aliasing, and, especially, the number of passes all play a huge role in how long a render takes.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.