|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Apr 7, 2016 19:14:54 GMT -5
Well Episode 1 used a lot of practical effect and model works... and we still got terrible things like Awful puppet Yoda  Didn't they replace the puppet Yoda with the CG Yoda from II and III? I could be mistaken, but I thought they did that for the Blu-Ray release. And yeah... that puppet model sucked. Yep, in the Blue ray release they removed terrible Puppet Yoda. edit: speaking of... my friend who is a huge Star Wars fan basically said he's pretty much open to anything Disney want to do with Star Wars... but will personally riot if they ever explain what species Yoda is |
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,175 
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Apr 7, 2016 19:21:42 GMT -5
Well Episode 1 used a lot of practical effect and model works... and we still got terrible things like Awful puppet Yoda Yoda, aged 880(ish):  Yoda, aged 900(ish):  For a species that lives that long, he aged the last couple of decades like Ric Flair between 2002-2004. The episode 1 Yoda looks much more 80s-like than the episode V Yoda. |
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Apr 7, 2016 19:26:14 GMT -5
Forgive me for going off on a tangent here, but it's the second time today it's been used in this thread and it's pushed my button for a while. Why do people insist on using "fan film" or "fan fiction" to describe a sequel or spinoff they don't personally care for? It just comes across like a petulant child throwing a hissy fit. It also makes no sense: these things are produced by the owners of the IP, made by professionals working within guidelines to fit in with the official canon. Nobody's saying you have to like it or watch it, but at least act like an adult when discussing it. I've seen it used a lot in criticism of Star Wars ever since Disney bought the rights. Essentially "If Lucas didn't make it, it's a fan film." Horseshit. By that criteria any work of fiction not made by the original creators is fan fiction - including, for example, 99% of every comic book in existence. There's a ton of movies I cannot stand from franchises that I do like, but I'd never be so petty as to describe them as "fan films." I think Batman vs. Superman is one of the worst adaptations featuring either character, but it's still a legitimate entry into the DC canon - albeit a bad one. Why I call The Force Awakens a glorified, albeit an incredibly successful, fan-film is that J.J. Abrams really has no visual style other than a mish-mash of half-baked Spielberg and Lucas references. And most of the narratives of his sci-fi and fantasy materials involve the same tired 'magic box' trope. Can he tell a sci-fi story without relying on a magic box? I don't know, because he hasn't yet, I don't think. TFA is as much of a fan film as something like Superman Returns is a fan film of the Donner/Reeve movies, the only differences being that the former was critically and financially successful. The frustrating thing is that if I wanted to watch A New Hope or the first two live action Superman movies, I'd just watch them, I don't need to watch movies that are cosplaying as them. The first Star Wars movie isn't original, as it is indeed a remix of serials, Flash Gordon, westerns, and Kurosawa, but I think ANH works because it synthesizes all of these disparate things, it produces something new out of all of those references. The Force Awakens is a mash-up of other Star Wars movies and nothing else? It's painfully monocultural, bordering on nostalgia wank (which has been a very pronounced thing in North American culture after 9/11). TFA was disappointing for me, especially when in a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago, you can tell any story you can think up, but we got a remake/reboot/sequel/legacy-quel that hits a lot of the same beats as the first, first film. Case in point, this video that puts ANH and TFA side-by-side to see what was repeated. Whether you think such a repetition is good or bad will depend. www.slashfilm.com/the-force-awakens-and-a-new-hope-comparison/So the issue of the movie fitting or not fitting into canon doesn't make sense to me. Look at Marvel: dancing Groot exists in the same universe as the Kingpin decapitating someone with a car door as Peggy Carter performing a musical number in a dream sequence. Same universe, different stories, vastly heterogeneous in tone and style. But TFA was more of the same old Star Wars I've known since I was a kid. And while I'm not that familiar with the movies of Garth Edwards and Rian Johnson outside of Godzilla and Looper, there are things, especially visual compositions, in those movies that are more affecting, unusual, and interesting than anything I've seen in Abrams' work. And despite looking forward to Rogue One more than I ever did TFA because of its cast and some of the images shown in the trailer here, I'm still not excited that it's another Star Wars movie involving more Death Star stuff, more Darth Vader tie-ins, and likely more Han Solo set-up for his own solo movie a couple years from now. I like the new characters of TFA, but found all the trappings of the movie's self-referentiality to be tedious. TFA is Jurassic World with smarter and actual likeable characters. And even when people proclaim that Disney had to pay homage to the earlier film, because how else would fans go see TFA after the shittiness of the prequels, it sounds like what people are really saying without realizing it is that the business of movies is more important than telling new stories. And given the box office success of TFA, people like that familiarity and are willing to buy in. But perhaps it is foolish to expect something aesthetically and narratively risky from a corporation like Disney. I think Star Wars as directed by Lars Von Trier, David Lynch, or Michael Haneke would be an amazing, if not a very weird film, but it likely wouldn't be a financially successful one as well, at least, other than the first week of release (kind of like Batman v Superman, oddly enough). I don't mean 'fan film' necessary as a derogatory term, as there are fan productions that surpass their originals. To me, Dragonball Z Abridged is my official canon of Goku, Vegeta, and the others, whereas the show and the books are non-canon. There's love put into this series, but I think that there is also a desire to do better than what already exists, otherwise why would the people behind DBZA even bother trying? But Abrams to me comes across like another Kevin Smith or Chris Hardwick type, in which the celebration of fandom for fandom's sake becomes necessary to engage with a movie, TV show, or comic book, in which engagement can't surpass an adolescent infatuation with how cool something looks or how much fun is had. These traits aren't bad things in themselves, but there are other criteria we can use to discuss movies, TV shows, or comic books, but why don't we talk more about these things more? Again, maybe it's my fault for expecting Abrams to deliver a movie that would be above his station, to give me a movie in which I can engage in conversation with others beyond "wasn't that awesome when...?" or "the part of the movie that sucked was when...", fair enough. However, quite literally, J.J. Abrams is a fan of Star Wars who made a Star Wars film. But TFA is also so slavishly devoted to ANH that its existence is kind of pointless when its variety is so superficial, as when people argue over whether DC or Marvel movies are better. It's Coke and Pepsi, it's all soda, fresh and bubbly at first, but flat and stale once the pop wears off. ANH signaled something cultural and global at the time of its release, which is why it is still a touchstone of nerd culture, if not popular culture as a whole, today. But why? Why was Star Wars so popular and successful? Why does it endure? Is it because people desired something, an imagination shown on screen, that was larger than themselves? If so, I don't think TFA carries on that tradition. TFA after the fact, not even four months after its theatrical release, feels disposable and forgettable, like all the junk The Force Awakens toys that are rotting on store pegs... Perhaps, sadly, at a time when that same desire for imagination, for something larger than themselves? Of course, the irony is that the disposable feeling people often have after seeing summer blockbuster tentpole spectacles today only exists because of the success of the first Star Wars in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 7, 2016 19:32:00 GMT -5
speaking of... my friend who is a huge Star Wars fan basically said he's pretty much open to anything Disney want to do with Star Wars... but will personally riot if they ever explain what species Yoda is One of my old co-workers is a senior mod for Wookiepedia (and has hosted panels at SDCC, lucky bastard) pretty much says the exact same thing. After Lucas created the midichlorians to explain the Force, Yoda's species became the rallying point for the "you don't have to explain everything" crowd. And justly so. |
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,560
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Apr 7, 2016 20:04:08 GMT -5
speaking of... my friend who is a huge Star Wars fan basically said he's pretty much open to anything Disney want to do with Star Wars... but will personally riot if they ever explain what species Yoda is One of my old co-workers is a senior mod for Wookiepedia (and has hosted panels at SDCC, lucky bastard) pretty much says the exact same thing. After Lucas created the midichlorians to explain the Force, Yoda's species became the rallying point for the "you don't have to explain everything" crowd. And justly so. Honestly, the midichlorians thing was blown all to hell by Lucas himself anyways, only he probably did not even realize it. After all, Palpatine, who could easily be considered the most powerful Force user in the entire franchise, was born on Naboo. If his power in the Force was a direct product of his midichlorian count, he would have been discovered at birth and trained to be a Jedi. Lucas made that last part canon himself in Ep. 1. Therefore, it isn't all about the midichlorians or Yoda should have been able to hand Palpatine his ass. He could not. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 7, 2016 20:10:39 GMT -5
Why I call The Force Awakens a glorified, albeit an incredibly successful, fan-film is that J.J. Abrams really has no visual style other than a mish-mash of half-baked Spielberg and Lucas references. And most of the narratives of his sci-fi and fantasy materials involve the same tired 'magic box' trope. Can he tell a sci-fi story without relying on a magic box? I don't know, because he hasn't yet, I don't think. TFA is as much of a fan film as something like Superman Returns is a fan film of the Donner/Reeve movies, the only differences being that the former was critically and financially successful. The frustrating thing is that if I wanted to watch A New Hope or the first two live action Superman movies, I'd just watch them, I don't need to watch movies that are cosplaying as them. The first Star Wars movie isn't original, as it is indeed a remix of serials, Flash Gordon, westerns, and Kurosawa, but I think ANH works because it synthesizes all of these disparate things, it produces something new out of all of those references. The Force Awakens is a mash-up of other Star Wars movies and nothing else? It's painfully monocultural, bordering on nostalgia wank (which has been a very pronounced thing in North American culture after 9/11). TFA was disappointing for me, especially when in a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago, you can tell any story you can think up, but we got a remake/reboot/sequel/legacy-quel that hits a lot of the same beats as the first, first film. Case in point, this video that puts ANH and TFA side-by-side to see what was repeated. Whether you think such a repetition is good or bad will depend. www.slashfilm.com/the-force-awakens-and-a-new-hope-comparison/To be fair, I took less issue with your earlier comment compared to the one that came before it, as you weren't plainly dismissive in using it. I also agree with much of your assessment of TFA, even though I disagree with the conclusion. By all accounts, the "Episodes" are intended to maintain an aesthetic and thematic continuity with the previous six films, while the "Stories" seem to be taking a more individualistic approach - Rogue One being an espionage-heist affair. It certainly remains to be seen if Episode 8 forges a new path, or if it follows TFA's lead of borrowing heavily from an earlier entry. However, quite literally, J.J. Abrams is a fan of Star Wars who made a Star Wars film. But TFA is also so slavishly devoted to ANH that its existence is kind of pointless when its variety is so superficial, as when people argue over whether DC or Marvel movies are better. It's Coke and Pepsi, it's all soda, fresh and bubbly at first, but flat and stale once the pop wears off. ANH signaled something cultural and global at the time of its release, which is why it is still a touchstone of nerd culture, if not popular culture as a whole, today. But why? Why was Star Wars so popular and successful? Why does it endure? Is it because people desired something, an imagination shown on screen, that was larger than themselves? If so, I don't think TFA carries on that tradition. ANH captured lightning in a bottle. It was the perfect storm of spectacular, groundbreaking special effects, fantastic score, likeable heroes, an epic villain, and a story as old as storytelling itself. TFA could never hope to do that, because it's hard to offer anything new these days... yet for a whole new generation of children it is their ANH, just as Phantom Menace is the ANH for that generation. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 7, 2016 20:22:37 GMT -5
Ruined forever.  |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Apr 7, 2016 21:34:08 GMT -5
Forgive me for going off on a tangent here, but it's the second time today it's been used in this thread and it's pushed my button for a while. Why do people insist on using "fan film" or "fan fiction" to describe a sequel or spinoff they don't personally care for? It just comes across like a petulant child throwing a hissy fit. It also makes no sense: these things are produced by the owners of the IP, made by professionals working within guidelines to fit in with the official canon. Nobody's saying you have to like it or watch it, but at least act like an adult when discussing it. I've seen it used a lot in criticism of Star Wars ever since Disney bought the rights. Essentially "If Lucas didn't make it, it's a fan film." Horseshit. By that criteria any work of fiction not made by the original creators is fan fiction - including, for example, 99% of every comic book in existence. There's a ton of movies I cannot stand from franchises that I do like, but I'd never be so petty as to describe them as "fan films." I think Batman vs. Superman is one of the worst adaptations featuring either character, but it's still a legitimate entry into the DC canon - albeit a bad one. Why I call The Force Awakens a glorified, albeit an incredibly successful, fan-film is that J.J. Abrams really has no visual style other than a mish-mash of half-baked Spielberg and Lucas references. And most of the narratives of his sci-fi and fantasy materials involve the same tired 'magic box' trope. Can he tell a sci-fi story without relying on a magic box? I don't know, because he hasn't yet, I don't think. TFA is as much of a fan film as something like Superman Returns is a fan film of the Donner/Reeve movies, the only differences being that the former was critically and financially successful. The frustrating thing is that if I wanted to watch A New Hope or the first two live action Superman movies, I'd just watch them, I don't need to watch movies that are cosplaying as them. The first Star Wars movie isn't original, as it is indeed a remix of serials, Flash Gordon, westerns, and Kurosawa, but I think ANH works because it synthesizes all of these disparate things, it produces something new out of all of those references. The Force Awakens is a mash-up of other Star Wars movies and nothing else? It's painfully monocultural, bordering on nostalgia wank (which has been a very pronounced thing in North American culture after 9/11). TFA was disappointing for me, especially when in a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago, you can tell any story you can think up, but we got a remake/reboot/sequel/legacy-quel that hits a lot of the same beats as the first, first film. Case in point, this video that puts ANH and TFA side-by-side to see what was repeated. Whether you think such a repetition is good or bad will depend. www.slashfilm.com/the-force-awakens-and-a-new-hope-comparison/So the issue of the movie fitting or not fitting into canon doesn't make sense to me. Look at Marvel: dancing Groot exists in the same universe as the Kingpin decapitating someone with a car door as Peggy Carter performing a musical number in a dream sequence. Same universe, different stories, vastly heterogeneous in tone and style. But TFA was more of the same old Star Wars I've known since I was a kid. And while I'm not that familiar with the movies of Garth Edwards and Rian Johnson outside of Godzilla and Looper, there are things, especially visual compositions, in those movies that are more affecting, unusual, and interesting than anything I've seen in Abrams' work. And despite looking forward to Rogue One more than I ever did TFA because of its cast and some of the images shown in the trailer here, I'm still not excited that it's another Star Wars movie involving more Death Star stuff, more Darth Vader tie-ins, and likely more Han Solo set-up for his own solo movie a couple years from now. I like the new characters of TFA, but found all the trappings of the movie's self-referentiality to be tedious. TFA is Jurassic World with smarter and actual likeable characters. And even when people proclaim that Disney had to pay homage to the earlier film, because how else would fans go see TFA after the shittiness of the prequels, it sounds like what people are really saying without realizing it is that the business of movies is more important than telling new stories. And given the box office success of TFA, people like that familiarity and are willing to buy in. But perhaps it is foolish to expect something aesthetically and narratively risky from a corporation like Disney. I think Star Wars as directed by Lars Von Trier, David Lynch, or Michael Haneke would be an amazing, if not a very weird film, but it likely wouldn't be a financially successful one as well, at least, other than the first week of release (kind of like Batman v Superman, oddly enough). I don't mean 'fan film' necessary as a derogatory term, as there are fan productions that surpass their originals. To me, Dragonball Z Abridged is my official canon of Goku, Vegeta, and the others, whereas the show and the books are non-canon. There's love put into this series, but I think that there is also a desire to do better than what already exists, otherwise why would the people behind DBZA even bother trying? But Abrams to me comes across like another Kevin Smith or Chris Hardwick type, in which the celebration of fandom for fandom's sake becomes necessary to engage with a movie, TV show, or comic book, in which engagement can't surpass an adolescent infatuation with how cool something looks or how much fun is had. These traits aren't bad things in themselves, but there are other criteria we can use to discuss movies, TV shows, or comic books, but why don't we talk more about these things more? Again, maybe it's my fault for expecting Abrams to deliver a movie that would be above his station, to give me a movie in which I can engage in conversation with others beyond "wasn't that awesome when...?" or "the part of the movie that sucked was when...", fair enough. However, quite literally, J.J. Abrams is a fan of Star Wars who made a Star Wars film. But TFA is also so slavishly devoted to ANH that its existence is kind of pointless when its variety is so superficial, as when people argue over whether DC or Marvel movies are better. It's Coke and Pepsi, it's all soda, fresh and bubbly at first, but flat and stale once the pop wears off. ANH signaled something cultural and global at the time of its release, which is why it is still a touchstone of nerd culture, if not popular culture as a whole, today. But why? Why was Star Wars so popular and successful? Why does it endure? Is it because people desired something, an imagination shown on screen, that was larger than themselves? If so, I don't think TFA carries on that tradition. TFA after the fact, not even four months after its theatrical release, feels disposable and forgettable, like all the junk The Force Awakens toys that are rotting on store pegs... Perhaps, sadly, at a time when that same desire for imagination, for something larger than themselves? Of course, the irony is that the disposable feeling people often have after seeing summer blockbuster tentpole spectacles today only exists because of the success of the first Star Wars in the first place. The thing is, for all of the comparisons made between A New Hope and The Force Awakens, that's exactly what the first installment of this new trilogy needed to be. It needed to remind people of the originals rather than the prequels, it needed to have the Darth Vader tie-ins to establish that these movies matter, it needed to be everything it was. I mean, I remember the "Disney purchased Star Wars" thread and how many people were worried that their beloved franchise was ruined by Disney owning it. Not to mention that, unless you count that weird 2008 Clone Wars movie that they released to theaters for some reason, the last Star Wars movie in people's minds was Revenge of the Sith which, while better than the other two, is still lumped in as being a prequel. So, can we really blame Abrams for using a familiar formula to start the next crop of films, especially when The Force Awakens was the only one he directed? I don't think so. I mean, it's not like he made a shot-for-shot remake of A New Hope; the only way you'd even pick up on the similarities is if you knew about it beforehand, and The Force Awakens is a fantastic movie either way. |
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,545 
|
Post by FinalGwen on Apr 7, 2016 22:16:34 GMT -5
Everything Disney's done with Star Wars thus far has been really good, so I've got high hopes for this. Interesting to see a character seemingly going full-on with the Samurai influences. Brings it full circle in a way, which works well for the pre-A New Hope timing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Apr 7, 2016 23:31:02 GMT -5
Are there really people who are confused and think this is a sequel to TFA?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Spelunker! on Apr 8, 2016 0:10:46 GMT -5
Excited for it.
Oddly, the most exciting things for me were Donnie Yen and Forest Whittaker, who I forgot were going to be in it.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Apr 8, 2016 0:19:01 GMT -5
Are there really people who are confused and think this is a sequel to TFA? I'm sure there will be, especially kids who's first exposure to Star Wars was The Force Awakens. |
|
|
|
Post by crashmatsbazz on Apr 8, 2016 5:45:28 GMT -5
Exactly how many Bothans will die in the film? that's what i would like to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetower52 on Apr 8, 2016 6:41:51 GMT -5
Exactly how many Bothans will die in the film? that's what i would like to know. That's the second Death Star |
|
|
|
Post by crashmatsbazz on Apr 8, 2016 6:50:31 GMT -5
Exactly how many Bothans will die in the film? that's what i would like to know. That's the second Death Star That's what they want you to believe!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 7:07:23 GMT -5
Exactly how many Bothans will die in the film? that's what i would like to know. That's the second Death Star Well, according to writers who were backfilling what is now non-canonical Star Wars history, Bothans actually were responsible for nabbing the first Death Star plans as well: they stole it on behalf of a defecting Imperial commander, who in turn gave it to the Rebels. |
|
|
|
Post by Famous Rocking Chimes on Apr 8, 2016 9:12:16 GMT -5
Exactly how many Bothans will die in the film? that's what i would like to know. None, because it was the second Death Star that led to many Bothans losing their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 8, 2016 11:17:34 GMT -5
That's the second Death Star Well, according to writers who were backfilling what is now non-canonical Star Wars history, Bothans actually were responsible for nabbing the first Death Star plans as well: they stole it on behalf of a defecting Imperial commander, who in turn gave it to the Rebels. There are like, a dozen different stories about how the Death Star plans got stolen in the Legends timeline; most of them contradictory. If anything I'm grateful Rogue One will exist if only to give us a definitive canon story about it. |
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,372
|
Post by Push R Truth on Apr 8, 2016 11:36:22 GMT -5
Well, according to writers who were backfilling what is now non-canonical Star Wars history, Bothans actually were responsible for nabbing the first Death Star plans as well: they stole it on behalf of a defecting Imperial commander, who in turn gave it to the Rebels. There are like, a dozen different stories about how the Death Star plans got stolen in the Legends timeline; most of them contradictory. If anything I'm grateful Rogue One will exist if only to give us a definitive canon story about it. I frankly don't give a shit who does what to get the damn plans. I just want Bothans to die. Many of them. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Apr 8, 2016 11:39:51 GMT -5
There are like, a dozen different stories about how the Death Star plans got stolen in the Legends timeline; most of them contradictory. If anything I'm grateful Rogue One will exist if only to give us a definitive canon story about it. I frankly don't give a shit who does what to get the damn plans. I just want Bothans to die. Many of them. What did the Bothans ever do to you?! |
|
