Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

Spoonman75

A new tweet from JJ and maybe some sort of hint?

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-episode-7-droid-hand/



The hand looks like a droid's. Threepio's maybe?

Eileen Down

Or maybe it's Luke's right hand!

Spoonman75

Eileen Down wrote: »

Or maybe it's Luke's right hand!

I'm hoping its not!

I've read some rumours online about that and I hope it isin't true. Considering that JJ knows that I don't think he'd be encouraging a true potential spoiler.

The hand looks too large and bulky to be a prosthetic hand. I reckon its a protocol droid of some sort.:D

Eileen Down

The blackened hand of C3P0, how ominous is that.

david75

Luke never lost his prosthetic hand though..he lost his real hand..

pixelburp

Whatever about the owner of the robotic hand, it looks like Skellig Michael in the background so it's certainly a safe bet it's something to do with Luke. It looks much more primitive than the prosthetic hand he got in Empire, which was pretty much like a real hand, so presumably it's just a droid.

pixelburp

Sorry to double-post, but some sneaky set photos also popped up showing

interior sets for the Millennium Falcon, as well as a mysterious corridor set. The Falcon looks fantastic though, so lived-in, so tangible.

(decided to spoiler-text, jusssst in case)

http://www.mintinbox.net/Actus/14-08/1208SWVII_MFCockpit

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

Sorry to double-post, but some sneaky set photos also popped up showing

interior sets for the Millennium Falcon, as well as a mysterious corridor set. The Falcon looks fantastic though, so lived-in, so tangible.

(decided to spoiler-text, jusssst in case)

http://www.mintinbox.net/Actus/14-08/1208SWVII_MFCockpit

Eeeeeee!

Please please please let them ditch the hyper clean look of the prequels and go back to lived in worlds like the originals.

py2006

krudler wrote: »

Eeeeeee!

Please please please let them ditch the hyper clean look of the prequels and go back to lived in worlds like the originals.

I believe that is very much the plan!

Theboinkmaster

py2006 wrote: »

I believe that is very much the plan!

Yeah looks like that's what they're going for, thank god. And more sets & costumes and less green screen/CGI.

david75

so exciting to see the falcon

py2006

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Yeah looks like that's what they're going for, thank god. And more sets & costumes and less green screen/CGI.

Looks like they are using puppetry as opposed to cgi too.

Although I am sure there will be a certain level of CGI. Just not 100% CGI like the previous trilogy.

Adamantium

People love to jump on the prequel trilogy and I'm not sure they understand themselves why they didn't like it (it was the writing and only the writing imo) , but each individual prequel film had more models and practical effects than the entire original trilogy combined.

I truly think there was some "unhandiness" in the way Lucas, McCallum etc. "promoted" the effects. Focusing on CG effect in documentaries was logical (since it was new, models had been there for a long time) but it also helped creating the illusion that the Prequels were "all CGI".

Lucas even went to Mt Etna in Italy at the time to shoot a real volcanic eruption and lava plumes for Ep III, and it is there in the Anakin Vs Obi Wan showdown


This is the thread showing the insane amount of enormous sets and real effects on the prequels. So impressive

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/


















Almost everything outside of space scenes is real.


Coruscant and the height of the decadent and opulent Republic also lead to a cleaner look because that was the story being told. I really enjoyed that contrast in particular with ROTS and the dark tone of that.

The sets were poorly shot and lit if anything and under ultilised and the actors poorly directed (which if done well might have made up for the sub-par writing). Shooting on digital tends to lose what a certain texture or reality that sets tend to have. Its a little too clear and crisp not because of shoddy workmanship.

So while I applaud Abrams, he's doing doing anything that remarkable (that other filmmakers Del Toro, Brad Bird or hell even Ronald D Moore of BSG wouldn't have already done) in terms of sets that wasn't already on the previous films (in particular Ep1) and Disney are more than happy for fans to fall for the bait and have us think how novel this is. An accepted selective narrative as fallen into place regarding the prequels and it doesn't stand up or correlate with the facts at all.


Abrams, Kevin Smith the OT actors, the entire internet all seem to be more than happy to fall into the seductive narrative because some people look for things to blame if they don't like the films. You can blame lots of things but saying "It's all CG and nothing but green and blue screens" is not one of them.

I have no doubt we'll have a better written story for the sequel trilogy, but I doubt nothing will come from the minds of the new generation of filmmakers, that were as creative as the ideas that Lucas was brave to do and say these things are now part of this/my universe. Lucas opened that world so much. Think about the prequels they are almost as iconic in their ideas, images. I'd love to see an amalgam of the storytelling that was attempted in the prequels with stellar writing.

In fact I think we might even get it, If the Original Trilogy was analogous to World War II and the prequels the rise of fascism prior to WW2, then I should think that the Sequel Trilogy will follow a Cold War narrative of sorts.

I do look forward to these films and Abrams will be impressive, Rian Johnson even more and I wonder who'll be directing Ep IX, David Fincher, Brad Bird, Matt Reeves (I'd like to see that one after Dawn)
Watching Super 8 yesterday and I was damn impressed by the character work in that

But I actually have a feeling we'll be seeing much less practical sets than in the prequels (as computer tech is now genuninely seamless in a way that even in 2005 it wasn't). I mean that thread I linked and the photos it contains are just gold. JJ and ILM's last collaboration (ST: Into the Darkness) was a pretty thoroughly CGI affair from everything i've seen (particularly anything involving ships and cityscapes)

The sheer irony of the publicity for this movie in terms of real sets: As far as I know, filming model spaceships with motion control cameras is simply not done anymore. Combine that with the fact that ILM's miniature department was spun off and has since gone out of business after Revenge of the Sith (believe it or not), the prequel trilogy could go down in history as having certain practical effects that the sequel trilogy does not.

I'm sure 35mm film will give Ep VII a texture that will make the sets pop and hopefully they don't colour grade it to hell. That's what people are pissed about, films from the 70's and 80's look less manipulated

For the prequels, THIS is what what lost in the process

In fact rewatching the Original Trilogy some of the effects are genuinely cringeworthy. The actors complained that they had nothing to against and almost forgot how to work on a normal set.

A great quote from that link:

VII gets announced as shooting in "real" locations and it's like it never happened since 1982. The PT shoots in "real" locations but somehow that's ignored or mitigated somehow.

Tipsy McSwagger

Watched TPM again last week and it's just a really really bad film. The only saving grace is Duel of the Fates and Darth Maul was actually a pretty good character. It was all about money for Lucas and the prequels were made just for him to create a load of new toys. It's funny because it's a kids film with a plot about trade embargos that kids won't understand. I got the blu ray box set 2 years ago and still can't finish the prequels.

py2006

krudler

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Watched TPM again last week and it's just a really really bad film. The only saving grace is Duel of the Fates and Darth Maul was actually a pretty good character. It was all about money for Lucas and the prequels were made just for him to create a load of new toys. It's funny because it's a kids film with a plot about trade embargos that kids won't understand. I got the blu ray box set 2 years ago and still can't finish the prequels.

The tone of TPM is bizarre, it starts with quite possible the most boring introduction to the Jedi they could have concieved, from what we're told in the OT they were protectors of the galaxy, fierce warrior monks etc, and how do we first meet them? Attending a trade union dispute like some sort of galactic SIPTU or something.

Tipsy McSwagger

krudler wrote: »

The tone of TPM is bizarre, it starts with quite possible the most boring introduction to the Jedi they could have concieved, from what we're told in the OT they were protectors of the galaxy, fierce warrior monks etc, and how do we first meet them? Attending a trade union dispute like some sort of galactic SIPTU or something.

I was a bit shocked in just how bad Ewan McGregor is in it. It's actually a worse performance than Jake Lloyd who gets loads of flack.

krudler

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I was a bit shocked in just how bad Ewan McGregor is in it. It's actually a worse performance than Jake Lloyd who gets loads of flack.

Lloyd is really bitter about the whole thing as well.

pixelburp

Adamantium wrote: »

People love to jump on the prequel trilogy and I'm not sure they understand themselves why they didn't like it (it was the writing and only the writing imo) , but each individual prequel film had more models and practical effects than the entire original trilogy combined.
[...]

Yes, the script was a professional disgrace, but by no means can it be said it was the only problem with the prequels. Not sure either about the claim that people don't 'understand' why they didn't like the films.

While yes the prequels used physical props and sets, the direction, cinematography and use of FX around them was just as subpar as the script. The direction and cinematography throughout the trilogy was frequently dull, insipid and lacking any kind of competent pulse. Action scenes were dull and drowned in CGI, removing any sense of physicality and threat, and outside of those scenes? Hoo-boy. Red Letter Media's Plinkett review touched on it, but nearly all the non-action scenes consisted of tedious shot-countershot, or dull pans as characters sat or walked slowly across a room. I'd never claim that I could do better if handed the reigns of a production, but it's hard to think I could have made the prequels look so boring.

Anyway, seems like every week or so the prequels get trotted out and flogged in public. On to more recent events: apparently Harrison Ford is already back walking under his own weight & will return to the shoot. That's good news if true.

Adamantium

A fanmade poster:

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

Yes, the script was a professional disgrace, but by no means can it be said it was the only problem with the prequels. Not sure either about the claim that people don't 'understand' why they didn't like the films.

While yes the prequels used physical props and sets, the direction, cinematography and use of FX around them was just as subpar as the script. The direction and cinematography throughout the trilogy was frequently dull, insipid and lacking any kind of competent pulse. Action scenes were dull and drowned in CGI, removing any sense of physicality and threat, and outside of those scenes? Hoo-boy. Red Letter Media's Plinkett review touched on it, but nearly all the non-action scenes consisted of tedious shot-countershot, or dull pans as characters sat or walked slowly across a room. I'd never claim that I could do better if handed the reigns of a production, but it's hard to think I could have made the prequels look so boring.

Anyway, seems like every week or so the prequels get trotted out and flogged in public. On to more recent events: apparently Harrison Ford is already back walking under his own weight & will return to the shoot. That's good news if true.

There's a cool snap zoom shot in Episode II that really stands out, the camera is focused on something going on then a gunship with a bunch of clones flies past and it zooms in to them, it's a very un-Star Wars looking shot but it really worked. I don't particularly have a problem with how much of the prequel was filmed as I like the wide frame look of all the Star Wars movies.

I just hope it's not wall to wall lens flare..

Tipsy McSwagger

Hamill looks badass in the above photo and Ford is just naturally a cool dude. I'm worried about Carrie Fisher though. She seems to be in a galaxy far far away for the last 30 years that has got nothing to do with Star Wars.

Adamantium

krudler wrote: »

There's a cool snap zoom shot in Episode II that really stands out, the camera is focused on something going on then a gunship with a bunch of clones flies past and it zooms in to them, it's a very un-Star Wars looking shot but it really worked. I don't particularly have a problem with how much of the prequel was filmed as I like the wide frame look of all the Star Wars movies.

I just hope it's not wall to wall lens flare..

I'm a big fan of the classic wide frame look too, you feel like you have a time to contemplate and think about what's going on.

Leisure is looked down upon in films these days

pixelburp

I like a wide frame too, heck I even have a softspot for the much-maligned wipes used throughout the franchise, but Lucas did nothing with the frame, only ever shooting flat, uninspiring scenes with almost nothing visually appealing going on anywhere in shot. God, the dialogue scenes were excruciatingly bad, they annoy me just thinking about them. And it's not a question of 'leisure' either, nothing wrong with a still or quiet shot if it's at least somewhat visually arresting. Lucas' compositions wouldn't have looked out of place on Fair City.

Damnit, there I go again, ranting about the prequels. They really are an easy target. There should be a mod warning on this thread, for anyone bringing them up

Theboinkmaster

Problem with the cgi in the prequels is it ages them so badly - I re watched recently and they're far worse than I remember, like a computer game.

Then I re watched empire strikes back and it looks like it could have been made yesterday, effects are that good.

Zubeneschamali

I was flipping around on TV caught a bit of Star Wars IV: A New Hope Special Edition or whatever it's called on UTV recently. Luke, Ben and the droids were arriving at Mos Eisley.

Jesus, the added effects looked terrible. One shot looked as if my 10-year-old had drawn the speeder in by hand. Shocking stuff.

Tony EH

krudler wrote: »

The tone of TPM is bizarre, it starts with quite possible the most boring introduction to the Jedi they could have concieved, from what we're told in the OT they were protectors of the galaxy, fierce warrior monks etc, and how do we first meet them? Attending a trade union dispute like some sort of galactic SIPTU or something.

If they got rid of Jar Jar and the Gungans, dropped those wretched "Roger Roger" droids, got a better child actor for Anakin, abandoned the mediclorian nonsense and just darkened up the piece generally, 'The Phantom menace' would have been an ok (just ok) introduction to the new set of films.

But, Lucas actually went about 100 steps further into bad territory with the sequel, 'Attack of the Clones'.

Even from the name, I knew that was going to be bad, I just didn't know how bad. It's actually unwatchable.

Too many sycophants around Lucas, afraid to say no to his sillier ideas and that awful Rick McCallum pretending to be interested in the series, when all he gave a fuck about was the shillings.

And I WILL say, that if I had access to everything that Lucas had during the making of the prequels, I would have made master pieces.

In comparison, anyway.

Tony EH

Adamantium wrote: »

I'm a big fan of the classic wide frame look too, you feel like you have a time to contemplate and think about what's going on.

2:35.1 is the only way to shoot film, imo. At least a film like Star Wars anyhow. I don't think anything comes close.

1:85.1 is ok, but more suited to intimate drama than something epic.

Tony EH

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Problem with the cgi in the prequels is it ages them so badly - I re watched recently and they're far worse than I remember, like a computer game.

Then I re watched empire strikes back and it looks like it could have been made yesterday, effects are that good.

Well, let's not get too carried away. There are some very dodgy stop frame moments in 'The Empire Strikes Back', even for the time. There's a few scenes with Tauntauns that are...quaint, to say the least.

Modern CGI can be good for hardware, but needs a good animator to keep everything grounded and make it look like it has weight.

But, in general, CGI should be incidental and not used for anything organic, especially when a sense of physicality is needed. All too often, the temptation to have characters lepping about in gravity defying, nonsensical, fashions becomes too hard for directors to resist.

Yoda, I'm looking at you :mad:

Tony EH

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I was flipping around on TV caught a bit of Star Wars IV: A New Hope Special Edition or whatever it's called on UTV recently. Luke, Ben and the droids were arriving at Mos Eisley.

Jesus, the added effects looked terrible. One shot looked as if my 10-year-old had drawn the speeder in by hand. Shocking stuff.

That's why I can only watch the originals, in their original form. Although 'The Empire Strikes Back' escaped relatively unharmed, thank god.