|
Bongo Bill posted:The prequels used mostly practical sets. I should clarify, I really liked the blurry backgrounds and foregrounds of Ep VII, more like a 70s/early 80s movie. The prequels tended to have everything in sharp focus, whether CGI or practical.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
hhhat posted:Tartovsky whatchamacallit was fun enough. Clone Wars first few seasons were rough but yeah it got good after a point. Which is probably why it actually got to stay on as canon in this universe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Vader had tantrums as well. At least Kylo doesn't kill his subordinates whenever they disappoint him. Kylo is also brave: Rey senses fear in him, but so far that hasn't stopped him from facing danger. Kylo Ren smashing apart his own ship controls because he doesn't get what he wants or someone mentions his daddy's name or something just indicates his lack of control. "Every little thing to go wrong will send me into a frothing rage." I can't this guy leading troops very well. I have to imagine Hux doing HR damage control half the time just to keep the Order functional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
teagone posted:So who do we blame for them mostly looking like poo poo? The DP? or George? Both? ILM? The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith both look really good. Attack of the Clones used early low-resolution digital cameras (it was the first feature film shot digitally), and as a result the digital compositing has artifacts that later filmmakers would be able to compensate for using higher-quality source material and refined versions of the techniques ILM developed for that film. It also made a few CGI goofs, such as using amateur mocap actors for the clone troopers instead of actual soldiers like its sequel. It's more likely that you dislike the generally well-realized aesthetic of that trilogy, where props were constructed with a smooth and bright style, and the shots were lit evenly and framed at a moderate distance like a stage rather than up-close and high-contrast. The result of this colorful, stately design was to make physical effects that looked less "real" than the computer-generated ones, a highly significant decision in a movie about deception and illusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:And yet, it didn't seem to actually stop him from doing his thing. No real sense that he was impaired. No apparent loss of strength. Bad news: you might be bad at watching movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
benito posted:I haven't read the whole thread, but I really enjoyed the cinematography in this. The shallow depth of field shots on real sets vs. just 100% "everything in focus" with the prequels was amazing. Practical sets really made a difference. That's not something that was exclusive to the prequels. The OT makes very conservative use of shallow depth-of-field shots. Everything is usually kept in focus to as great an extent as possible. That's the style Lucas was going for, in a notable departure from his work on THX 1138.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Bad news: you might be bad at watching movies. But how can you gather that without being expressly told that?????
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith both look really good. Attack of the Clones used early low-resolution digital cameras (it was the first feature film shot digitally), and as a result the digital compositing has artifacts that later filmmakers would be able to compensate for using higher-quality source material and refined versions of the techniques ILM developed for that film. It also made a few CGI goofs, such as using amateur mocap actors for the clone troopers instead of actual soldiers like its sequel. I dislike the aesthetic of the prequel trilogy because it mostly looks like rear end. Mostly. Some bits look okay, but for the most part, everything from the flat lighting to the boring, static shot compositions is much, much too bland for my taste. The over reliance on CG in AotC and RotS doesn't help either, and to be honest I can't give Lucas any kind of credit regarding him making a deliberate decision to have things look less real in an attempt to make the visuals be some meta commentary on deception/illusion in the narrative when he's the same dude who made the special editions. teagone fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
We made it two days before we got back to discussing the prequels.  It never ends. Oh hey it just occurred to me that if you like this movie you like Star Wars because they biggest complaint is it is too much like the original Star Wars. Here we are in the thread after years: Star Wars fans like Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
It's kind of hard to believe how much money The Force Awakens is making.Box Office Mojo posted:UPDATE: Disney is reporting as of 2 PM PST that Force Awakens matinees are pointing to a total first day take of $100+ million. That "first day" total includes the $57 million from Thursday night preview screenings, which in and of itself also includes Star Wars marathon ticket sales. As noted below, this would break the largest Friday, opening day and single day records currently held by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 at $91 million. No estimates quite yet on the weekend outside of the appearance the film will top $200 million. The earlier report follows...
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Star Wars fans like Star Wars. Despite whatever ramblings might suggest, this has always been the case.  Terrorist Fistbump posted:It's kind of hard to believe how much money The Force Awakens is making. Hmm, if I were a betting man, I'd put money on TFA taking the top box office gross spot from Avatar and peg it at like $3.x billion worldwide. [edit] I think TFA is in the same situation Avatar was in actually. Both had the same release date in the same month with pretty much zero competition heading into the holidays. This movie gonna make stupid bank for sure. teagone fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Saw this again a few hours ago, this time in 2D. Loved it again. I can confirm that there absolutely is a Wilhelm scream in this movie now. I thought I heard one when I saw it last night but I wasn't sure. But nope, I definitely heard it today. JJ really knew what to take from the original trilogy for this one to make it feel like a Star Wars movie 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
At least this will finally be avenged. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
kiimo posted:We made it two days before we got back to discussing the prequels. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the sequel to Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
teagone posted:[edit] I think TFA is in the same situation Avatar was in actually. Both had the same release date in the same month with pretty much zero competition heading into the holidays. This movie gonna make stupid bank for sure. There's potential for a very, very long tail with this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Oh hey it just occurred to me that if you like this movie you like Star Wars because they biggest complaint is it is too much like the original Star Wars. Here we are in the thread after years: I missed you too dude Terrorist Fistbump posted:It's kind of hard to believe how much money The Force Awakens is making. Yeah I think I'm going to see it at least a couple more times before it's not in theaters. I really want to see it again right now and I just saw it this morning. If I wasn't a part time dad I probably would be at a late show smiling my rear end off. They're gonna run up the score. Usually I don't hear people who don't talk about movies asking other people if they're gonna see a movie, but that's all I've heard the last week. And the reception is already overwhelmingly positive. And everyone stayed the hell away from Christmas once Star Wars called dibs. I don't really care about records but I do care that Disney is happy with their investment so they make more star war. So yay for success. Edit: h8ful 8 opens Jan 1 all over so I guess Tarantino didn't stay the hell away but a limited release on christmas will probably do gangbusters for him anyway. I'm super stoked for anything he does. hhhat fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the sequel to Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. I see you are confused, The Force Awakens is the sequel to Return of the Jedi, not Revenge of the Sith. Consult the episode numbers for further clarification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:The Force Awakens certainly has the same quasi-religious appeal that encourages repeat viewings and activation of people who don't go to movies anymore. This is me. I've already seen it twice. I'll probably see it at least 2 more times in the theater, especially since matinee prices are only $4.50 at my local Cinemark
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:I see you are confused, The Force Awakens is the sequel to Return of the Jedi, not Revenge of the Sith. Consult the episode numbers for further clarification. It is a plot sequel to Return of the Jedi and a thematic sequel, a response if you will, to Revenge of the Sith. There was a big deal made about this in the marketing, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
teagone posted:This is me. I've already seen it twice. I'll probably see it at least 2 more times in the theater, especially since matinee prices are only $4.50 at my local Cinemark   
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:the most disappointing thing about abrams (and this new generation of sci-fi screen writers in general) is that he's so self-aware that we won't get another 'these are not the droids you're looking for' it wasn't as bad as avengers but boy was there way too much snark for my liking
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Danger posted:Kriss's take on Zizek's piece was dumb. Someone on my facebook suggested that he should stick to the opinion pieces and leave the philosophy alone; which is, of course, exactly the problem an anti-Zizek should have. SuperMechagodzilla posted:If it was, he missed a good deal of the point. That article is a good primer on how to read Star Wars, but Kriss gets too proud of the technological terror of the Death Star, and fails to understand the full implications of a suffering Force - the Force as suffering God, with Vader as its incarnation. He also somewhat bafflingly implies that Lucas is unaware that a prequel is really a sequel. Homework Explainer posted:that's forums poster deadken actually Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:It is a plot sequel to Return of the Jedi and a thematic sequel, a response if you will, to Revenge of the Sith. There was a big deal made about this in the marketing, for instance. Calling this only a plot sequel to the original films is ridiculous as the themes are all references or subversions from those films. There was very little tying this film to the prequels. In fact it almost pointedly avoids referencing them in any way. You can draw parallels if you really want such as comparing Kylo Ren to Anakin but Ren's struggle against the light side is more reflective of Luke's temptation from the dark side. I missed most of the marketing, how did it reference Revenge of the Sith? I can't imagine the much maligned prequels would have figured at all in selling this film, a clear resurrection of the original.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
The only real reference I saw was clone troopers vs storm troopers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
I think the point is that by so totally ignoring the content of the prequel trilogy and so deliberately mimicking the structure of A New Hope, as if to say "NO REALLY THESE NEW ONES ARE JUST LIKE THE ONES YOU LIKE, NOT THE BAD PREQUELS", it's hard to read TFA as anything other than a reactionary response to the prequels and the media/pop culture narrative around them I can't deny that makes a lot of sense while simultaneously rolling my eyes at that line of argument because it feels like the gateway to a bunch of people saying this movie is utter garbage compared to the much smarter, more visually interesting, better directed prequels and that's an even more absurd narrative than the one about how the prequels are the worst films ever made
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:Calling this only a plot sequel to the original films is ridiculous as the themes are all references or subversions from those films.  quote:I missed most of the marketing, how did it reference Revenge of the Sith? I can't imagine the much maligned prequels would have figured at all in selling this film, a clear resurrection of the original.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
I really liked the return to simplicity with the lightsaber fights. No more crazy twirling, or flourishes, or random flips. I also loved some of the effects shots, especially in 3D, they did really well. I do echo the sentiment though that a lot of this has been done and there's nothing new here, but I think that was a good safe move for Disney to establish a franchise. I mean, all the new characters just take character traits from the old ones, chop them up and randomly distribute them. Hopefully the sequels try branching out more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
This movie is a lot of fun. I'm glad they went with original stories instead of trying to do EU. Anyone else following the Alamo draft house marathon contest? They have been watching Star Wars for over a day. (The contest started by showing the first 6, then 7, and then repeating 7 until everyone but one person can't take it anymore.) How is the movie in 3d? Worth it or just see it in 2d?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
There was one scene that was really good in 3D but I wish I had seen the rest of it in 2D. So nothing amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
The only original character I thought was bleh was New-Yoda. She exposits stuff that'll only be relevant in future movies and then she's gone. For the sequel I really hope there's less plot and set-pieces, no more Death Stars, and have the film just slow down a little, as Rey's journey gets lost in the shuffle. Half the stuff that happens in Empire doesn't contribute to the story but it's all highly memorable like the Wampa, the Taun-taun, the meteor field, the giant worm, and Vader accepting apologies. I want to see a good Hutt and an evil Wookiee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
I've seen plenty of movies in 3d and before this one the only one I thought that used it effectively was Gravity. Maybe I have a different perspective because I saw it in 2D last night and 3D this morning. The 3D is better. They really did the depth thing where it mattered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Waiting for our dinner and drinks to arrive and the movie to start: You all watched TFA while sitting in a comfy recliner and drinking wine and eating dinner in a room with nobody under 21, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
I ate dinner in an actual restaurant, and THEN went to the movies. It was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Waiting for our dinner and drinks to arrive and the movie to start:
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Is that the electric theatre? Feel like I recognise it
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
I saw this in County Cork, Ireland, and the advertising before the movie lasted 20-cocking-minutes. I can understand why Kylo Ren kills people so flippantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:I saw this in County Cork, Ireland, and the advertising before the movie lasted 20-cocking minutes. I can understand why Kylo Ren kills people so flippantly. Is that not normal? In the states 20 minutes is average for preview time (which is so pointless now that I've seen every trailer I care about or even don't give a poo poo about online a week beforehand)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:I saw this in County Cork, Ireland, and the advertising before the movie lasted 20-cocking-minutes. I can understand why Kylo Ren kills people so flippantly. I'm from Cork if that's at all relevant, and 20 minutes seems pretty normal to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Is that the electric theatre? Feel like I recognise it Cinetopia, just north of Portland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
Just got back from watching this with some old buddies. This is speculation so I don't know why I'm spoilering it but Rey is obviously Luke's daughter, and Snoke is Palpatine, who did not die from being thrown off a bridge in Jedi (I mean really). The trilogy of trilogies aspect makes no sense if it's just some random new big bad. During the original trilogy, how many Sith Lords were there? Were there other active Sith Lords who could replace Palpatine, seeing how his apprentices Maul, Dooku, and Vader are all dead? There is also the Grand Inquisitor and some other characters, so there's lots of Sith about, no?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:11
|
|