What didn't you like about TFA? SPOILERS — Page 48

TheHutt said:

I didn’t like the TFA textcrawl. The Star Wars logo’s yellow edges were too thick. The font for the episode title felt wrong.

Many people from this very site would have done a better job.

The logo has changed thickness throughout the saga. The OT having a thinner logo than the prequels. At least they got the lettering style right closest to that of the OT (the wider top of the “A” for example) , unlike the prequels did. The TFA title is the same thickness of the prequels but with the lettering almost identical to ESB and the colour closest to that of of ESB’s too.

(Top left =TFA, top right =ESB, bottom left =AOTC & Bottom right =ROTS)

As for the font on the crawl, well that changed too even in the OT. They have gone with the font style closer to that of ESB for the episode title (with the more rounded “R”), while the prequels went with a font closer to that of ROTJ

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

As I said, empty filler to bind the crap together.

Even if it were filler (somehow) how does that make the plot not about Luke? If so what the hell is the plot about? I know it isn’t about blowing up SKB because that was pretty much skipped over.

IMO the plot was about finding Luke, the main problem though is the empty filler consisting of:

-Han’s freighter
-Maz’s Cantina
-The Starkiller Base

The movie started out strong with a concise goal, but after escaping Jakku the movie makes a turn downwards. If those 3 sections of the movie were cut out you’d have plenty of space to do anything else with, for instance having Luke actually in the movie doing stuff. It’s like in TPM were the movie stops for a pod race, or the mostly useless speeder chase in the beginning of ATOC. George wasted so much time in the 1st 2 prequels he had to cover a lot of bases in ROTS making for an overall mediocre PT, and that’s on top of all the other things wrong with them.

I could go into detail about all the other things wrong with TFA, but this thread has enough lists and walls of texts in it all ready. I am still pissed that they promoted the practical effects so much, only for them to be mediocre at best compared to what was accomplished 30+ years ago. Overall effects wise TFA is just another Hollywood CG wankfest to me, and I think the lack luster practical effects were just an excuse to not bother with them in VIII.

Kepling said:

Lord Haseo said:

imperialscum said:

As I said, empty filler to bind the crap together.

Even if it were filler (somehow) how does that make the plot not about Luke? If so what the hell is the plot about? I know it isn’t about blowing up SKB because that was pretty much skipped over.

IMO the plot was about finding Luke, the main problem though is the empty filler consisting of:

-Han’s freighter
-Maz’s Cantina
-The Starkiller Base

The movie started out strong with a concise goal, but after escaping Jakku the movie makes a turn downwards. If those 3 sections of the movie were cut out you’d have plenty of space to do anything else with, for instance having Luke actually in the movie doing stuff. It’s like in TPM were the movie stops for a pod race, or the mostly useless speeder chase in the beginning of ATOC. George wasted so much time in the 1st 2 prequels he had to cover a lot of bases in ROTS making for an overall mediocre PT, and that’s on top of all the other things wrong with them.

I could go into detail about all the other things wrong with TFA, but this thread has enough lists and walls of texts in it all ready. I am still pissed that they promoted the practical effects so much, only for them to be mediocre at best compared to what was accomplished 30+ years ago. Overall effects wise TFA is just another Hollywood CG wankfest to me, and I think the lack luster practical effects were just an excuse to not bother with them in VIII.

I agree.

Lord Haseo said:

Though it was a good way to establish Han’s character this was filler

The way Han and Chewie were introduced wasn’t bad, but after they step off the MF it just goes down hill.

I disagree. Remember the name of the film is The Force Awakens so not only is it about finding Luke; the plot of the film is also about a lowly scavenger finding she has this immense power within her and her flashback alongside her interrogation at the hand of Kylo Ren was her first step into a larger world. Now the destruction of SKB was filler.

I can agree with that, but it’s another case of being poorly written, could have been handled better.

Personally I don’t care about the amount of practical effects they used in TFA or lack thereof because most things looked real. Which is something no one can say for the prequels.

When I find time this weekend I can probably find more examples, but off the top of my head without re-watching the BR:

Giant pig creature on Jakku - Bad practical effect
Unkar Plutt - Bad practical effect mixed with bad CG
Maz Kanata - Bad CG
Rathtars - Bad CG
Snoke - Bad CG
The creature on the mechanical steed that captures BB-8 - Bad Practical Effect
The “space” battles over Takodana and SKB - over the top misuse of CG
During the battle over Takodana, when Finn stops to watch the dogfight, the end of that sequence some storm troopers in front of a wall get blown up by a X-wing - Really bad and noticeable CG

CG itself isn’t bad, but time and time again modern directors have proven their lack of restraint when using that tool. The SE’s and PT’s are prime examples of this, as are tons of other modern movies like the LotR trilogy, Marvel and DC movies, Transformers, etc. Also look at the move from hand drawn animation to completely CG animation, Disney even went as far as firing all the old animators in favor of CG everything. It’s getting to the point where I’m expecting people to start arguing that the Mona Lisa would have been 10x better if it was made in Photoshop.

The old tools are just as relevant as the new, but artists need to learn good judgement as to when and where it is appropriate to use either. Unfortunately it seems that many in the industry are less concerned about making art in favor of milking a cash cow, and given the budget allowed to TFA they very well could have made it in a very similar manner as the OT was made. Instead we got another blockbuster “CG wankfest” as I put it, since everything these days has to be “over the top,” “so awesome,” and “aww, so cool.”

Now if you excuse me, I need to get back to yelling at clouds for a bit.

Am I just blind? I didn’t notice any effects that stood out as “bad”. Then again I barely remember anything from the movie, but the effects were never one of my complaints after seeing TFA.

I’m pretty sure the giant pig creature was CGI, the early leaked photos of it was the stand in used on location. That hardly looked like it was capable of moving the way it did in the film.

Having seen the movie twice in 70mm Imax, the CGI creatures held up pretty well. (I saw details in Maz’s face I did not see in digital projection.) Better than anything I saw in the prequels. Snoke might be the exception, but we really only see him as a hologram.

SilverWook said:

Better than anything I saw in the prequels.

I think that should be expected, considering 10 years technology difference. But I would even say that surprisingly some CGI still look more convincing in PT (of course it comes down to opinion). Anyway, I am not the type to complain about CGI in general and TFA has way bigger problems than CGI.

It also helps that TFA doesn’t do unnecessary things like all CGI troopers.

SilverWook said:

It also helps that TFA doesn’t do unnecessary things like all CGI troopers.

Well I would gladly take unnecessary CGI if I could trade it for an actual good story and characters.

As much as I enjoyed Harrison Ford’s performance – I think it’s his best in a long time – I still felt that his sudden involvement seemed a little off. It didn’t bother me while watching, but in hindsight I didn’t quite understand. I am glad though that he was a main character for his final SW film.

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Better than anything I saw in the prequels.

TFA has way bigger problems than CGI.

I think the point I’m trying to illustrate is that many of the problems in TFA stem from the fact that they leaned on the crutch of CG too much. The OT didn’t have this luxury and ultimately became a work of art that still stands today. Can the PT say that? What will we say about the special effects in TFA 10 years from now?

"If you end your training now - if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did - you will become an agent of evil. " -Yoda

I would like to clear up a few things. First, CGI is an art too. Good CGI is not as easily made as people think. It not cheap either. The main advantage is that it gives the writers/artists ability to create what they envisioned, which could be impossible to realise with stages or miniature models. I prefer good miniature models based SFX to CGI when it comes to film, but CGI itself doesn’t bother me.

It is extremely hard to say it but, bad story/characters/dialogue/acting aside, PT is a revolutionary film and a milestone in film history due to its CGI use. Whether that is a good or bad milestone entirely depends on individual opinion towards the use of CGI in film.

Is there any effects house left that still makes physical models and shoots motion control today?