|
rear end Catchcum posted:I wish the people who want to talk about the prequels had their own thread. There's nothing preventing you from talking about the new film in here, you know, as long as you had something interesting to say about it.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
MrMojok posted:What was everyone's take on the "bring balance to the Force" thing? Luke was the first to transcend the false dichotomy by defeating Vader with rage and anger after Vader threatens Leia. But, at the last moment, he doesn't destroy Vader. Luke here clearly "started down the dark path", in the sense that Yoda meant it during his training, but it did not "forever dominate his destiny" as Yoda said it would. Luke was able to pull back from his anger and let compassion guide him again. To me, this means that Luke was able to defeat Vader in the lightsaber duel not by using "Dark Side" powers, but by simply using the Force guided by his true emotions. Similarly, Vader was able to reject his role as a Sith when he kills the Emperor to save his son. With all true believers in the light/dark dichotomy dead, and Luke and Vader now having rejected the false dichotomy, the Force becomes "balanced". Unfortunately, in Episode VII, it seems that Luke didn't learn the correct lesson here, and attempted to re-establish the Jedi order, and thus the concept of there being a light and dark side of the Force. We don't yet know all the details, but I think it's a safe bet that if he hadn't done this, Kylo Ren would not have emerged out of Ben. The Force does not allow something like the Jedi to exist without also creating a countering Sith-like equivalent. EDIT: I think it's also telling that it is always Jedi who mention "balancing the Force" as a good thing. They clearly mean that they think the Force will be balanced when the Light Side completely conquers the Dark Side, which is a weird way to interpret "balance". Inferior Third Season fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:More mirrors for the Force Awakens VFX video since they keep trying to hide it (contains spoilers): This looks interchangeable with any of the "making of" prequel videos with the amount of CGI and practical effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Lucas' official stance is that Vader brought balance to the Force at the end of RotJ, when he turned away from the Dark Side and struck down the Emperor. This is the interpretation that makes the most sense if you watch the films in 123456 order, since it completes Vader's character arc - and it's the explanation that makes the most sense diegetically. This is the only correct interpretation. This whole thing about Good and Evil needing to exist in equal measure is garbage. The "two Jedi, two Sith" theory is also garbage. The idea of a "Gray Jedi" is ridiculous and is for 13 year olds who fantasize about using force lightning. The Force is inherently good, and the Dark Side is an aberrant form of it. The Force Awakens thankfully did the right thing and said outright that without the Jedi, there can be no balance in the Force. The Gray Jedi/Dark Jedi are the villains. Return of the Jedi is about Luke resisting the temptation to the Dark Side. It is not about how using it in small amounts is okay, "everything in moderation" kind of thing. Yoda and Obi Wan outright tell Luke to confront Darth Vader and the Emperor, which is the correct course of action. Episode 3 also gets this correct, "Destroy the Sith, we must." The Emperor is pure evil incarnate, pretty much literally the Devil, and an abomination. Vader has that glimmer of hope to be redeemed, but if he refuses it he should be destroyed as the servant of the Emperor. At the very least, Luke must "confront" them, see them face to face, and defeat them in some way. Luke is not a pacifist, neither are Obi Wan or Yoda. He's not refusing to fight or to kill. (See - the movie beginning with him murking dozens of Jabba's goons.) The important thing is that he's refusing is striking down Vader or the Emperor in his anger. This is why the Emperor starts to have mastery over him - he can make him angry by taunting him, goading him, and threatening his friends, the rebel fleet, and so on. He finds out that the Emperor wants Luke to kill him, because his devotion to evil is so total that he would rather have Luke kill him in anger and fall to the Dark Side than stay alive. The Emperor is also a pragmatist - if he can get Luke to slay Vader and be his new right hand man, that's just as good if not better. When Luke ignites his lightsaber and attacks, notice that he's actually swiping it away from the Emperor. You can see in his face that he's saying "let's get this over with." The Emperor laughs because making the contest physical means that it is that much easier for him (or Vader) to sway Luke to anger. Luke tosses aside his saber because he realizes, as Admiral Ackbar did, that this whole thing is a trap. The most important thing he can do for his own soul and that of his father is refuse to participate and stop playing the Emperor's game. If he cannot kill them without doing it out of revenge, or selfishness (attachment,) it is better for him to die. To go into the cave without weapons. This is why Luke is assigned to confront Vader before he can be a true Jedi. It's "the trials," a continuation of the scene with the cave on Dagobah. He doesn't need to do it out of some tactical realism assassination mission, where blowing up the second Death Star with them on it isn't good enough. "Soon I'll be dead, and you with me." The important part is Luke's own spiritual progression, even if he dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:"I thought TFA was being done like Star Wars '77 all practical effects, saving us from the awfulness that was the CGI-only prequels." yeah but it doesn't have jar jar ergo
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:"I thought TFA was being done like Star Wars '77 all practical effects, saving us from the awfulness that was the CGI-only prequels." It really doesn't if you know what you are talking about. Look for example how the Stormtroopers were done in AOTC and how they were done in TFA. Besides that the main complain about the CGI in the prequels was that it tried to do too many things without having the right technology yet and why a lot of CGI has aged very badly and very fast. This doesn't mean TFA is perfect, Snoke and Maz are also lacking for me and actually remind me of some bad prequel stuff but overall they did a much better job in blending the CGI with everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
The Force Awakens got Oscar noms for Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Film Editing, Visual Effects, and Score. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:More mirrors for the Force Awakens VFX video since they keep trying to hide it (contains spoilers): Huh. Snoke kind of looks like a melted Benedict Cumberbatch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:What was everyone's take on the "bring balance to the Force" thing? Because that was lovely, lazy writing. Prophecies always are. They're amateurish plot devices and tend to make stories less interesting. We have no idea what it means because we don't know enough about the intricacies of the force to understand what it being in balance looks like. We can only make assumptions based on what we've seen in the films. However, when writing the prequels Lucas was kind of a prisoner of what was already on film in the OT; so, he had to write around events that already happened and what happened was that all the Jedi save one are dead and all the Sith are dead. "Balance," insofar as far as what we understand what the word to typically mean, would be an eternal war between light and dark with each side none more powerful than the other. It was just a nonsensical plot device intended to give a reason as to why the Jedi would train Anakin and why they would be content to be tools for Palpy to maniuplate. "Well, there's a prophecy, you see, so we're all basically idiots now. Jesus take the wheel." So, one living Jedi means there's balance? If this is is true then Yoda tells Luke to pass on what he's learned because...? There's no coherent vision for the Jedi or the Force; it's all plot devices created to tell the story Lucas wanted to tell, which fits with his pulpy, space opera storytelling. It's not supposed to make sense and it doesn't really need to unless you start thinking to hard about it, which you probably shouldn't if possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Soggy Cereal posted:This is the only correct interpretation. This post is rad and good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:What was everyone's take on the "bring balance to the Force" thing? The prophecy was accurate. Anakin balances the Force at the end of ROTJ when there are no Sith or Jedi left. Obi-Wan and the rest of the Jedi incorrectly assumed that "balance" just meant the light side (Yoda has some misgivings that about training Anakin, just not for the right reasons). TPM starts with the Force out of balance. There are tons of Jedi and only the two Sith. Anakin destroys the Jedi Order, which significantly balances the scales. During the OT there are only two Jedi and two Sith, and by the end of ROTJ there is only Luke, who may call himself a Jedi but, after rejecting the Jedi teachings in ESB, is not at all like the old Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Loyalty and love is the force, a good stat sheet. I don't know why "species: apparition" cracks me up but it does. What's that from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
teagone posted:The Force Awakens got Oscar noms for Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Film Editing, Visual Effects, and Score. How in the world is this movie nominated for best film editing? It's probably its worst element, and while the Oscars are a joke every year, this one just baffles me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:I wish the people who want to talk about the prequels had their own thread. Come post about force awakens in GBS. the crazies get chased out of there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Soggy Cereal posted:This is the only correct interpretation. This is correct. The Dark Side can't be completely destroyed, but it's not a yin-yang thing where they're supposed to exist in equal measure or anything. The Dark Side is an imbalance in the Force, and too much of it causes the Force to be imbalanced in general. It seems like Palpatine was himself so powerful that he was imbalancing the Force. Noam Chomsky posted:Because that was lovely, lazy writing. Prophecies always are. They're amateurish plot devices and tend to make stories less interesting. I disagree entirely. There are so many interesting things you can do with prophecy in fiction, because prophecy represents forbidden knowledge. Obviously if prophecy and destiny are utilized in a simplistic way, where it's only brought up to explain why a hero is a hero, that's one thing. But tons of of great works of art and fiction utilize prophecy in a much more interesting way than that, just look at greek tragedies or Macbeth. The interesting thing about prophecies in fiction is how the characters react to it and the question of whether it's true or not, and the prequels do that in a really interesting way. If you're watching the prequels and you've already seen the originals, it is inescapable that you already know Anakin DOES destroy the Sith. No prophecy is going to spoil that for you. So if you're watching them in a release order, the prophecy serves as a device to see the characters reacting to what we know will happen, in their future. It adds dimension to the dramatic irony of the prequels, because neither the Sith nor the Jedi fully understand what's going to happen, but they have a basic idea, and it guides them to their detriment a lot of the time. We see Jedi reacting like some in the audience do to Anakin, "This is the guy who will destroy the Sith? Really? He doesn't seem cool enough or badass enough or trustworthy enough, etc." Then we learn that maybe the prophecy really was wrong. Maybe the Sith created Anakin, and he's actually a Frankenstein's Monster type of figure that turns on his creator(though it's not Palpatine, but Plagueis who would have created Anakin, so the Sith are his creators in the sense of that organization, Palpatine's more like Igor.) Again, while I'm not saying George Lucas is Shakespeare or an ancient Greek storyteller, this is typically how prophecy is used in those kinds of stories. It heightens the dramatic irony, gives us an interesting glimpse into how these characters react when they know a portion of their own futures, and makes us question if the prophecy would've even come true had they not known about it. Frequently, audiences watching or hearing these stories back in those days also knew the historical events or myths they were based on, and thus the comparison is further strengthened, I think. As for those watching the movies in chronological order, they get a different experience than the other people. They still get to see how the prophecy guides the Jedi and troubles them, but they don't know if it's actually true or not. They might suspect it will come to pass because usually in fiction if you make a proclamation like that it will be true in some way, but it's not a sure thing. And then Revenge of the Sith totally makes it seem like the prophecy was wrong. We see that even the upper echelons of the Jedi now doubt the prophecy's accuracy, Palpatine alludes to the Sith creating Anakin rather than the Force itself, and Anakin becomes a mangled flunky of the Sith, imprisoned in armor that keeps him alive. If you watch the movies in chronological order, from III through to the end of VI, you're probably thinking that if the prophecy is true at all, it was actually about Luke all along, until there's another twist and Anakin actually does fulfill the prophecy. In either case, Lucas keeps it ambiguous whether or not Anakin was created to fulfill the prophecy, or if he's a Sith creation that who incidentally fulfills the prophecy. What makes prophecy in fiction interesting isn't the fact that someone or something said that it would happen and then it did, it's all the stuff in between and the way the prophecy influences the actions of the characters, plus the twists and turns that can be introduced about whether it's true or false, whether it's only true because there were people actively trying to make it happen, it makes some characters aware of their own mortality in a way that haunts them, etc. Beeez fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Sense and Motion posted:How in the world is this movie nominated for best film editing? It's probably its worst element, and while the Oscars are a joke every year, this one just baffles me. They want people to watch, and have to nominate the film for some stuff. The score is really good, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
I haven't gotten a chance to watch this one but here is another video about the Force Awakens FX (an interview don't get excited): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg8_tnFR-Mo
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Balance means harmony and harmony generally means coexistence without being assholes. Which both the Jedi and the Sith are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:"I thought TFA was being done like Star Wars '77 all practical effects, saving us from the awfulness that was the CGI-only prequels." For most people, who know nothing about how CGI or even movie effects in general really work, complaining about "all the lovely CGI" in the prequels is really just an imprecise way of saying they dislike their overall aesthetic, or thought too many scenes had an off-putting look to them. Almost nobody actually cares what % of a movie is or isn't CGI. So "proving" that the prequels used models or TFA used CGI doesn't really address the underlying criticism at all. It's literally correct, but misses the actual source of the complaints in favor of declaring victory on the semantics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:For most people, who know nothing about how CGI or even movie effects in general really work, complaining about "all the lovely CGI" in the prequels is really just an imprecise way of saying they dislike their overall aesthetic, or thought too many scenes had an off-putting look to them. Almost nobody actually cares what % of a movie is or isn't CGI. So "proving" that the prequels used models or TFA used CGI doesn't really address the underlying criticism at all. It's literally correct, but misses the actual source of the complaints in favor of declaring victory on the semantics. If you come upon me smacking a frying pan with a metal ladle and you ask me to quit making such a goddamn racket and I tell you that I'm practicing the violin and you say THE HELL YOU ARE, would you accept my saying Yes I am, I'm really just doing it imprecisely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
I wonder how teenagers view the whole CGI debate. I know for myself I have a nostalgic attachment to techniques like matte painting and miniatures, but I wonder if someone who didn't grow up with that stuff would prefer it in any way to even mediocre CGI. Or maybe they wouldn't even make a distinction between the different techniques other than what is effective and what isn't. Matte paintings aren't the most immersive technique, for the most part you can tell when they're being used, but I just have a taste for them. A younger person might just say "looks like a painting" with the same derision as they might if they were talking about lovely CGI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wonder how teenagers view the whole CGI debate. I know for myself I have a nostalgic attachment to techniques like matte painting and miniatures, but I wonder if someone who didn't grow up with that stuff would prefer it in any way to even mediocre CGI. Or maybe they wouldn't even make a distinction between the different techniques other than what is effective and what isn't. Matte paintings aren't the most immersive technique, for the most part you can tell when they're being used, but I just have a taste for them. A younger person might just say "looks like a painting" with the same derision as they might if they were talking about lovely CGI. A lot of 80s stuff looks incredibly garish, although I'm not sure if that's not meant to be the point. The PT in general is trying to give off the feeling of a matte painting (especially in Coruscant) so I doubt that would improve things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:"I thought TFA was being done like Star Wars '77 all practical effects, saving us from the awfulness that was the CGI-only prequels." I've literally heard zero people assume the film had no CGI. The film has quite a bit of practical effects, obviously it's going to have CGI effects, but the use of matte paintings, models, practical costumes, and physical sets and locations is entirely real and commendable. Basebf555 posted:I wonder how teenagers view the whole CGI debate. I know for myself I have a nostalgic attachment to techniques like matte painting and miniatures, but I wonder if someone who didn't grow up with that stuff would prefer it in any way to even mediocre CGI. Or maybe they wouldn't even make a distinction between the different techniques other than what is effective and what isn't. Matte paintings aren't the most immersive technique, for the most part you can tell when they're being used, but I just have a taste for them. A younger person might just say "looks like a painting" with the same derision as they might if they were talking about lovely CGI. I was a teen in the '00s, andvI still found CGI overuse obnoxious. I've talked to friends of my age or younger about TFA and they also praised the use of practical effects. The idea that a disdain for CGI overuse is a generational trait is as much a falsehood as CGI being inherently bad. You don't neer to be an old fart to prefer a physical presence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
Generational difference doesn't mean that no one in different generations likes/dislikes [thing]. For example, you can probably find young people who enjoy Jello Casserole, but that doesn't mean it's not an old person thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
It's more of a nerd thing, really
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I've literally heard zero people assume the film had no CGI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNJ51ghzdY
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I was a teen in the '00s, andvI still found CGI overuse obnoxious. I've talked to friends of my age or younger about TFA and they also praised the use of practical effects. I think part of the generalized CGI hate is that with puppets or matte paintings or models a layperson can at least roughly grasp the craft that went in to producing the final visual: "Oh ok the AT-ATs are all jerky and look kinda fake, but that's because its some dude minutely adjusting a little model for days on end." Or "That Yoda puppet was sorta creepy and doesn't look alive, but it's just some rubber with a guy's hand in it, pretty cool nonetheless!" Whereas with CGI people have no concept of how difficult it is to produce a given image or effect, and just sort of blanket assume that because it's in a computer, you can make it do exactly what you want, to the last detail. Like editing a Word doc. Which is true, in principle, but with any practical time frame you have to make tons of compromises. But when CGI doesn't look perfect, all you can fall back on (if you don't know how it works) is "well, they didn't perfect it enough! It's a computer image, infinitely malleable, so why didn't they make it good enough? After all, they had complete control."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Nobody I know (young person here), gives a poo poo about practical vs cg or whatever. It's just like, does it look good. Actually, funnily enough a friend watched through the original trilogy recently and messaged me about how impressive the effects were. I had to explain the whole Lucas Edit thing, he had no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Nobody I know (young person here), gives a poo poo about practical vs cg or whatever. It's just like, does it look good. When you watch the OT, do you feel l like the puppets used in it(Yoda, Jabba, etc.) look good? Just curious to hear the opinion of someone who would have been able to see the OT and the PT at the same age versus someone who grew up with the OT and then had to wait like 15 years for the PT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
People can't even tell if it's practical vs CGI. The issue for me is a final cut jam packed with motion, flashes, and danger all around while the actors look like they overdosed on xanax and horse tranquilizer because they can't focus their eyes on anything in the "scene" Compare Luke walking into the throne room in ROTJ with Quigon in his yellow submarine looking straight through jar jar and not reacting in any way. And that's just a dialogue scene where you can tell liam has no idea wtf is going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:When you watch the OT, do you feel l like the puppets used in it(Yoda, Jabba, etc.) look good? Just curious to hear the opinion of someone who would have been able to see the OT and the PT at the same age versus someone who grew up with the OT and then had to wait like 15 years for the PT. Yeah they're cool, I definitely think of cg Yoda first when I think of Yoda but none of it seems particularly out of place. I mean to a certain extent the first time I saw all those movies I was young and like, I definitely remember puppet Yoda sticking out more to me but not in a big way, hard to say what my original thoughts were though just bcuz at this point it's like, y'know, they're both kinda fake looking. I'm going along with the movie either way. I will say that same friend (who saw 4-6, then Force Awakens, and after a bit of 2) immediately remarked that he thought Yoda looked better when he saw him in 2. I can't remember the exact phrase, something like, "Whoa Yoda looks way less janky now" or something? Can't remember the wording but the general sentiment was almost kinda that Yoda looked clearer, if that makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Using lots of greenscreened CGI backgrounds allows you to stick closer to your concept art, but you're also sacrificing spontaneity in the process. Sometimes good stuff happens when not everything goes according to your plan. And there are aspects of acting that even the actors don't necessarily do intentionally, but just sort of happen as a result of them interacting with each other in a real environment. When you remove this element, you have to make sure that whatever you're putting in its place is worthwhile. IMO the impressive environments and shots that appear throughout the PT were not a big enough tradeoff. YMMV. Also sometimes it just looks too fake or cartoony because of the uncanny valley and all that, but by and large, that is not a major issue in the PT. And what I described above is by no means exclusive to the PT either. It's happening in lots of movies, and would not be particularly notable in the PT except by comparison to the OT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:What was everyone's take on the "bring balance to the Force" thing? "Christianity is much more atheist than the usual atheism, which can claim there is no God and so on, but nonetheless it retains a certain trust into the Big Other. This Big Other can be called natural necessity, evolution, or whatever. We humans are nonetheless reduced to a position within the harmonious whole of evolution, whatever, but the difficult thing to accept is again that there is no Big Other, no point of reference which guarantees meaning." -Zizek Vader is the incarnation of the Force, and brought balance to it (himself) by killing it (himself). The result is a more authentic version of Han's assertion: "there's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny." Instead of asserting that it never existed, it is necessary to believe that the Force died. Every other interpretation - including Han's cynicism - relies on the Force to some extent (even Han displaces his belief onto those he sees as dupes - 'subjects supposed to believe'), because it is very difficult and scary to believe otherwise. So essentially, everyone both in the films and outside of them is reacting to the death of God. What's interesting about the last few pages is in how weird these interpretations can get. Like, the one dude was effectively saying God's Not Dead, and the lesson of Christ is to murder all satanists. Neurolimal posted:I've literally heard zero people assume the film had no CGI. Most of the effects in that showreel would have been done with miniatures in the early 2000s. Obvious examples include Maz's castle and the part where the ground splits apart. The makers of TFA have used advanced CGI to largely eliminate practical effects from Star Wars. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
What's the canon explanation for why Palpatine became ugly after the Mace Windu fight? I see conflicting reports that "that's what lightning does, except when done to Luke", "he always looked like that and the lightning broke his Force Illusion", and "if you become weak for even a moment, the dark side ravages your face"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
When I rewatched the original trilogy before TFA, I was surprised to find myself way more distracted by all of the janky puppets* and obvious bluescreening and matte paintings in Return of the Jedi than I remembered-- maybe it was just because I hadn't seen it in HD before. Or maybe it's just that RotJ was my least favorite of the three. *The 1997 cgi in Jedi Rocks was probably even worse, but the clash between the two styles called even more attention to the shortcomings of both. I haven't seen TPM in a while, because I have better things to do than watch an extremely long movie I don't enjoy, but IIRC the CGI looks way better than the special edition stuff from just a few years earlier, which is impressive and cool. Jar Jar Binks looks better than Sy Snoodles. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:What's the canon explanation for why Palpatine became ugly after the Mace Windu fight? I don't believe there is one. Its the moment when his façade finally falls away for good and he truly becomes the Emperor, but as for the literal reason why the lightning had that effect I don't think its ever been explained.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:What's the canon explanation for why Palpatine became ugly after the Mace Windu fight? I'm going to go with "one of the mysteries of The Force".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:When you watch the OT, do you feel l like the puppets used in it(Yoda, Jabba, etc.) look good? Just curious to hear the opinion of someone who would have been able to see the OT and the PT at the same age versus someone who grew up with the OT and then had to wait like 15 years for the PT. I saw the PT first so I'l answer: they feel more believable as existing in the same universe as the character. They have more limited range of movements (though practical effects mobility have come a long way and have benefitted immensely from cheap 3D printing; take a look at the practical effects video for The Thing remake). Their limited mobility is accounted for by their designs; yoda is a slow moving, contemplative wise master, while Jabba is a hedoniatic and lathargic slug. Growing up with the PT I didn't even know there were two trilogies; the revelation came from watching a commercial advertising the DVD sets for the "new" trilogy and "original" trilogy. Loving fantasy and sci-fi as a kid I desperately wanted to like the PT, to like what I thought was Star Wars, but every time all I could take away was boring shots of people talking. quote:Most of the effects in that showreel would have been done with miniatures in the early 2000s. Obvious examples include Maz's castle and the part where the ground splits apart "Has quite a lot of practical effects" does not equal "forces practical effects into every aspect of the film even when uneccessary". Miniature scenery can easily be replaced with CGI precisely because they have exactly the same interaction with the flesh and blood actors: none. Same for the earth splitting; a practical attempt would still require a compound shot. quote:The makers of TFA have used advanced CGI to largely eliminate practical effects from Star Wars Incorrect; the producers in Hollywood have used third world union-less computer artists to crudely replace practical effects before they were ready to compete with practical effects. The makers of TFA have integrated more practical effects than most modern producers would approve of; they are returning to their roots, and the legacy of the OT gives them the clout necessary to keep the few remaining practical effects studios in america alive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Its the moment when his façade finally falls away for good and he truly becomes the Emperor, Yeah... in the novelization, after Anakin makes his choice Palpatine is checking out his new look in the mirror, and says "And so, the face becomes the man" or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
I think CGI hate/love is less "generational" than it is a (relatively) new phenomenon entirely. I doubt in the early days of special effects when you saw people fighting stop motion dinosaurs/skeletons or could almost make out the strings on the spaceships (or the compositing lines in the original Death Star sequence) that people were so unsophisticated that they thought "wow that looks so real!" They probably certainly appreciated when something reached a certain level of fidelity, and poked fun at especially cheezy stuff, but I think the current trend to bash on CGI is because honestly, this is the first time in history where we could achieve such a consistent level of fidelity even in the most over-the-top fantastic situations. I don't think people in the 60s were worried about their "immersion" being ruined by a bad special effect. A friend who does 3D modeling work for movies posted this video, which shows how much CGI is used that we really don't notice/comment on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24 He also pointed out how he has been part of several projects where the plan was to do a practical effect, but it looked so bad that they needed to use CG as a last resort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:29
|
|
