logo Sign In

Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD** — Page 143

Author
Time

Yes the OT has faults.  Lots of little gaffes.

The PT is entirely faulty because it lacks any connection to the original trilogy.  It is an entirely different franchise as far as I am concerned.  To me, it is like saying Dark Knight and Batman are the same.  We were sold the PT as a continuation of the OT but the PT ended up feeling like a film adaptation of what was once known as the expanded universe.

Lucas could have taken the OT and reverse engineer the PT from it.  What he did instead was he built the PT and then wired it into the OT universe.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

ObiWanKennerobi said:

The prequels to me are no more faulted than the OT, and I don't really consider things faults, like hyperspace issues, etc. So, I don't really play the "prequels are worse" game.

 It's no game, son.

 Nicely done.  Also would have accepted:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The only reason why I don't like the people who come here and start complaining about people not liking the prequels (terrible, terrible films), is that they start to drag every thread off-topic.  And I don't mean fun off-topic, I mean the same tired crap being discussed for years off-topic.

A topic most people aren't even interested in talking about, because they've moved well beyond caring about the prequels.

Just like in this thread.  :(

Author
Time

eiyosus said:

The only reason why I don't like the people who come here and start complaining about people not liking the prequels (terrible, terrible films), is that they start to drag every thread off-topic.  And I don't mean fun off-topic, I mean the same tired crap being discussed for years off-topic.

A topic most people aren't even interested in talking about, because they've moved well beyond caring about the prequels.

Just like in this thread.  :(

Yeah. There's also the self-righteous, sanctimonious DOUBLE STANDARD! of lauding ourselves for being much more "welcoming" and "friendlier" than TFN, and then when someone shows up with a different opinion they have to go through the usual "uh you do know the PT sucks, right?" and "hey go back to TFN, PT-loving troll" bullshit.

Those with thick skin make it through, sure, but do we really have to haze every PT fan who comes through here? I'm sure they'll figure out themselves that 95% of posters here hate the PT when they read any one of the hundreds of threads here dedicated to PT-bashing.

I came here with a certain innocent enjoyment of the PT and defensiveness of Lucas myself as a younger man, and over my time spent here I've learned an incredible amount about Lucas and the PT and the other major players in the success of the OT and have had just about a 180-degree turnaround in regards to how I feel about both, and just look at how much Anchorhead's Star Wars universe has changed thanks to this site. I feel like it would be far more conducive to our message if we didn't automatically reply to people who enjoyed the PT and still think Lucas is the grandmaster behind all that is good in Star Wars with posts telling them to get back to shoving their noses up his rear.

I apologize for contributing to the off-topic responses of this thread, but this has been brewing for awhile now.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

If you come to a site called originaltrilogy.com saying that you love the prequels and they're no more flawed than the originals, shouldn't you expect blowback?

Author
Time

This is the Episode VII thread. The flogging a dead horse about the prequels thread is that a way...

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Hooray!

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

Anchorhead said:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709106/An-island-far-far-away-Filming-Star-Wars-Episode-7-takes-place-remote-Irish-island-veil-secrecy.html

Dont know how trusted a source the Dailymail is, but it looks interesting as a location alright.  Might be some place where you could discover an old Jedi hermit.

The two weeks of location shooting in Tunisia produced almost 18 minutes of footage for the first film. Of course every location shoot is different, but a simple extrapolation would suggest that this location would provide no more than five minutes of footage in Episode 7. Nerd speculation aside, it looks like a fantastic location.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

Maybe a bit late for this thought but it occured to me today so here it is...

Disney is the only studio that could/can make the ST good.

The reason? They are the only studio that doesn't have to compete with Disney. The DC-movie-verse and Sony-SPiderman-verse have struggled and stumbled to try and copy the magic Marvel/Disney formula, instead of just being their own thing. Disney are the only studio that wouldn't want to copy Marvel as they already own that. What they wanted from Star Wars is a totally different property to diversify their portfolio.

:-)

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Haven't been on here in a while but I am really looking forward to this movie when it comes out. I will even be wearing Jedi Robes to the opening night here in Canada. This is my #1 most anticipated movie of 2015.

What’s worse George Lucas changing the OT or selling the rights to Disney

Author
Time

cain spaans said:

Haven't been on here in a while but I am really looking forward to this movie when it comes out. I will even be wearing Jedi Robes to the opening night here in Canada.

 

;-P

Author
Time

Well, now that the non-spoiler thread's been bumped...

I've been debating where I want to see the movie first. The Uptown seems like the natural choice. It's DC's historic movie house (been there since the 30's) and the only one in the area showing Star Wars on 5/25/1977. It's a huge, single-auditorium theater with a balcony and a deeply-curved cinerama screen which was installed in the late 60's and left unchanged even after the most recent renovation in the 90's. Originally it was a Loews and after the AMC merger they wanted to split it up into multiple auditoriums but public opinion kept that from happening. It's always been the traditional lineup spot for stuff like Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.

It was actually the last place I saw RotS on the big screen. I saw Blade Runner there back in '07. The picture nicely filled the large screen although the distortion caused by the deep curve was more noticeable if you weren't sitting farther back and in the center. They apparently made the switch to digital in 2010 just in time to show Tron: Legacy in 3D. They alternate 2D and 3D showtimes for the relevant movies. Interestingly, I've heard it's the only AMC in the country using a Christie projector instead of the Sony 4K's. It has something to do with either the throw or the 3D convergence of the Sony not working well with the screen. I've seen at least one 2.35:1 movie there since then and while the digital projector doesn't quite reach the corners of the screen, it actually makes the distortion less noticeable.

With Episode VII, I'm sure they'll do early screenings the night before the official release (it's become the standard thing for these big movies over the last couple years). My big question is whether or not they'll make that very first screening 3D or not. If they do, I'm of two minds about it. I'd love to be part of the first audience to see it there, but I'd really, really prefer it just be in 2d as the movie was filmed. At the same time, knowing that all the cgi is a native 3D render and that the post-converted live-action will probably look decent kinda takes the sting off of paying the extra money and wearing glasses on top of my glasses that darken the image.

The fact that some of this is being shot in real IMAX adds yet another layer to my choices. Imax is rolling out their new 4k+4k laser system next year. It will replace the 15/70 projectors while still filling the screen. Once again, it becomes an issue of whether they'll even offer 2d as a screening option.

decisions, decisions...

Author
Time

So they're playing the teaser in front of every movie at 30 different theaters across the county.

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-the-force-awakens-tease-theater-list

One of them is in my city. So I guess if I'm going to the movies this weekend I'll have to avoid that theater.

Yes I am avoiding the trailer and spoilers and that is why I am bumping this thread in hopes we can have a discussion about Episode VII without having to worry about being spoiled.

Author
Time

Not a bad idea.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

Oh I've always wanted go to the Uptown - That's a good idea.

Maybe I'll see Hobbit 3 there, I dunno.

 They'll likely only be showing the 24p versions of the movie there. I'm a big proponent of seeing movies in the format (and, in this case, the framerate) that they were shot in. That's why I had no problem with the very first early Thursday night screening there of the new Apes movie being in 3D (although I wish they hadn't cropped the 1.85:1 image to fill the screen).

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

You know, despite what you say about original format, I've had no desire to see any Hobbit in 48

 You're not missing out. I tried it and deeply regretted it. Felt like the film was being sped up most of the time. A thoroughly unenjoyable experience, I never bothered seeing it like that for the second.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Tobar said:

timdiggerm said:

You know, despite what you say about original format, I've had no desire to see any Hobbit in 48

 You're not missing out. I tried it and deeply regretted it. Felt like the film was being sped up most of the time. A thoroughly unenjoyable experience, I never bothered seeing it like that for the second.

 i also hope this is just a novelty and doesnt catch on.  Douglas Trumball had some neat tricks for it - can't find the video - but the speed up motion and lighting just kills it.

PJ says 48 fps makes it easier on the eyes for 3D...and he is correct in that regard.  but it screws up everything else :(  I kept hearing that everything has eye-popping clarity, but i thought everything looked dull, cheap and fake.  In DOS, the Laketown scenes looked horrible.

24fps for me still has a richness to it.

click here if lack of OOT got you down

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Trumbull's Showscan process was actually 60fps. (And 70mm!) What I saw of it at one of the former attractions that used to be at The Luxor in Las Vegas was pretty impressive. Only the specks on the film broke the illusion of live actors on a talk show set.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Honestly I think the real problem is the HFR still being too low in frame rate.  It looks sped up because it is in that weird uncanny valley.  Think about it this way: imagine you saw a plusating light.  A normal slow speed would not even appear as a flicker, it would be comfortable and feel natural.  However speeding it up will cause the light of course to go faster making it start to appear like a flicker or even strobe light.  It feels uncomfortable for your eyes, and you hate that it is sped up.  Eventually, however, if you speed up the light much, much faster the flicker will eventually disappear entirely, allowing you to only see a light coming at you with no pulsation.  Now of course frame rate has nothing to do with flicker (that's refresh rate), but both have a necessary minimum to reach full fluidity.  Low fluidity and full fluidity are comfortable, but in between bothers many.  Try watching a 24hz monitor and you'll ruin your eyes.  But see a 60hz monitor and your fine, since the upper flicker limit is somewhere between 50-72hz.  Frame rate has some limit just like this going from watching a moving picture to seeing a movie that is indistinguishable from a play in a theatre.  Now, I honestly don't know what that minimum frame rate is but it is far higher than 48 or 60fps or even 120fps.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I had done a lot of research on this at a previous point.  The human eye does see a far amount more than the typical 40-60fps people typically claim.  Brain nerves can fire a huge amount of times per second though how much one consciously perceives from the eye is up to debate.