Star Wars: Rogue One - * Non Spoiler Discussion Thread * — Page 17

emanswfan said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

What does this mean for aspect ratio? I kind of liked the idea of the non episodic films having a completely unique visual style, even down to the AR

I’m pretty sure, much like in this trailer, they are simply cropping the sides off so as to not make the image smaller when projected onto a 2.39:1 screen.

A while back there were also rumors, Disney is considering a limited 70mm film theater release. If those refurbished old-school 70mm projectors are still sitting around from The Hateful Eight release, a full 2.76:1 film print could be viable. I’d be so stoked if they did that. Seeing TH8 that way was an unforgettable experience for me.
Yeah, the roadshow experience for The Hateful Eight was unbelievable. Freaking loved every minute of it. Loved hearing the projector and the back and seeing the god-tier crisp detail on that film.

Just saw the teaser. Colour me intrigued. Can’t wait to see where this film goes within the universe.

I would think they may have laser scanned the original model to get the CGI version just right. And there must be tons of photos of the miniatures in their original filming state in the Lucasfilm archives.

The Death Star looks spot on as well.

Isn’t Felicity Jones’ character supposed to be Han Solo’s ex girlfried? He was a gentler man back then, but their break up caused him to build the tough guy exterior and selfish personality we saw in Episode 4…

(#manthosebookswereterrible)

Agreed about the cgi. Some star destroyer shots in TFA were pretty obvious CG but the star destroyer simply looks stunning!!

Just a reminder we have a thread for spoilers now.
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Rogue-One-Spoilers-Thread/id/49191

Tobar said:

Mavimao said:

Isn’t Felicity Jones’ character supposed to be Han Solo’s ex girlfried?

Nope, that was Bria Tharen. Felicity’s character’s name is Jyn Erso.

Some are speculating that she might be the mother of Rey with Luke.

I know they’re not the same character. I just had a flashback to my constant eye rolling when reading that trilogy.

canofhumdingers said:

ZkinandBonez said:

One of the things that really stands out to me in the trailer is how amazing this shot of the Star Destroyer looks.

It looks so much like the miniature ships from the OT, however I can’t find any reason to rationalize this effect as being anything other than CGI.
It could of course just have to do with the resolution of the trailer, and maybe when I see it on the big screen it’ll look more like the CG ships in TFA, but maybe they’ve done something somewhat different. This is really just a wild speculation (based off one shot at that), but maybe they’ve done something similar to what was done in Star Trek: Insurrection, where they photographed the miniature of the Enterprise from the previous film and then made a 3D CG model out of those photos to make it look more convincing. Maybe they’ve done something similar with one of the old Star Destroyer miniatures?
Or maybe it’s just an exceptionally good CG shot, I just thought it look strangely better than the AT-AT’s in the trailer, as well as all of the spaceships in TFA (both the film and trailers).

It’s definately NOT an old miniature. The original Star Destroyer model still exists and goes on tour with other props (I’ve seen it in person twice) but it has been damaged and repaired (the “X” shaped antenna has been re-attached lying flat, matching the later star destroyer models from ESB)

It IS an extremely faithful, but much more detailed recreation of that original model from '76. Which is awesome because that model is significantly different from all other Star Destroyers featured in the films. The most obvious detail being the upright “X” antenna atop the bridge, and a couple others being the radar dish things at the forward corners of the large hangar bay and the three cannons lined up on the spine of the ship just ahead of all the conning tower stuff.

As for what is the model, my guess is pure cgi. Though I do agree it looks GREAT. But so did a lot of TFA’s cgi ships (watch that shot of the Falcon in space leaving Jakku and tell me it’s not amazing! It looks VERY much like another shot of that ship leaving a desert planet from the 70’s…)

Although TFA had a lot of great CG shots (the opening shot with the darkened Star Destroyer really stands out to me) I never really felt that any of the shots were too convincing to me. Good, yes, but not as realistic as they could have been. This one shot from RO looks much better though, and I find it hard to believe that RO should have managed something that TFA didn’t.
That’s why I thought that they might have scanned an old miniature from ANH, not used it, but scanned it to get the dimensions right, and maybe even used the photos to create a more realistic texture to the 3D model. Also Star Destroyers don’t move that much do it wouldn’t require that much digital trickery to make a few photos look convincing on screen.
Anyway, we’ll have to wait until the movie is released to see just how good these Star Destroyers actually look.

I can’t believe after 36 years there still isn’t a decent photo of Captain Needa’s shuttle. The consensus seems to be that the TIE Bomber model was repurposed for that scene. If you look at the scene in HD, it does look like one as it turns towards Vader’s ship.
https://youtu.be/5tSa3xLVYgM

Funny, a “drag-and-drop”-superlaser ^^

To mount the primary weapon, the essencial component, as last part of the whole station is rubbish. It is only to look cool.

And i hope they find another main character actress.
She is kind of plump.

The Dark Empire said:

She is kind of plump.

Huh? First, there’s nothing wrong with people being “plump” and second, where are you from? Somalia? She doesn’t look “plump” at all…

That, coupled with the immense popularity of Harmy’s work, I’d say. Despite a fan having every reason to prefer the OUT, maybe the Despecialized edition brings in a good deal of people who just can’t stand things in Star Wars that deviate from the super familiar.