Hasn't the EU been chock full of them?
Marvel sort of beat George to the punch though.
Where were you in '77?
For the sake of completeness, here's the other teaser going around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1_nQrM1g9I
This one's my favorite of the bunch. You can see PZ-4CO and Ello Asty if you look closely.
Looks like they finally solved the old issue of where does the X-Wing stepladder go when they land in the middle of nowhere? ;)
Where were you in '77?
joefavs said:
For the sake of completeness, here's the other teaser going around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1_nQrM1g9I
This one's my favorite of the bunch. You can see PZ-4CO and Ello Asty if you look closely.
And the Falcon. :-)
The poster is a cluttered mess, and as soulless a piece of digital hackery as I'd ever hoped not to see. Makes me sorry I was so hard on Struzan's mediocre (but still not completely soulless) D23 poster.
I honestly don't get the fatalistic comments I hear about how we "can't" expect this film to have a good, painted poster in the classic style of the OT posters. Why the hell not? Is it a question of money? Does a talented, classically trained illustrator cost much more than some cut-and-paste hack with a Mac? And, what with all of the other overtures having been made to old school filmmaking techniques on this production, was expecting that philosophy to extend to the film's poster really so unreasonable?
I'm also deeply disappointed that Starkiller Base is really nothing at all more than a third Death Star. I mean I knew it kind of was conceptually already, but the disappointment is much more visceral now that I see that even on a visual level it is nothing more than (yet another) copy and paste job. I agree with the analogy to the A-Bomb on the one hand - yes, there's no practical reason why a super-weapon design would be completely jettisoned when it has proven effective in the past. But come on, we're talking about a Space Fantasy saga where creativity and spectacle have trumped practicality in such delightful fashion, giving us such wonderful impractical implements of war as the AT-AT Walker and, well, the lightsaber.
Let's hope the trailer delivers a bit more reason for optimism. But, as old-timers who've lived through the bad days of the PT, let's continue to keep any such optimism cautious.
"These deadly rays will be your death..."
Mike O said:
ANOTHER Death Star? Patter recognition is not strong with this one...
Don't you mean pitter-patter recognition?
Akton said:
I'm also deeply disappointed that Starkiller Base is really nothing at all more than a third Death Star. I mean I knew it kind of was conceptually already, but the disappointment is much more visceral now that I see that even on a visual level it is nothing more than (yet another) copy and paste job. I agree with the analogy to the A-Bomb on the one hand - yes, there's no practical reason why a super-weapon design would be completely jettisoned when it has proven effective in the past. But come on, we're talking about a Space Fantasy saga where creativity and spectacle have trumped practicality in such delightful fashion, giving us such wonderful impractical implements of war as the AT-AT Walker and, well, the lightsaber.
Aesthetically, yes, it is more like the Death Star than I had hoped. From what I'm reading, though, it sounds like it's actually a hijacked planet? That could allow them to do something fairly different with it, not that they necessarily will.
Maybe it really is a small moon this time? ;)
Where were you in '77?
I really don't think anything will please some people, no matter what they put out it would have it's detractors. Struzan has his detractors. The old saying you cannot please everyone. It's all subjective and not scientific fact anyway.
There will be plenty of fan made Blu Ray covers to choose from anyway. :)
Where were you in '77?
Whether or not it's a good idea narratively speaking to bring another superweapon into this, I do like that the Starkiller planet seems to be encased in some kind of energy field. Something that's bothered me since details about Starkiller started turning up is that if this thing is supposed to travel through interstellar space to get to new targets, the surface is going to be uninhabitably cold between systems, and then the whole planet's going to thaw out once you're back within a certain range of a star (not to mention that the whole idea behind the device is presumably to destroy the star it's orbiting, so it's going to be abruptly plunged into cold and darkness by design). All the parade grounds and airfields and stuff on the surface in the second teaser would be ludicrously impractical if the base didn't employ some means of climate control.
Of course, I guess we don't even know that it travels. It could stay in one spot and take out targets from a distance. Maybe it can fire an energy beam through hyperspace.
Sevb32 said:
I really don't think anything will please some people, no matter what they put out it would have it's detractors. Struzan has his detractors. The old saying you cannot please everyone. It's all subjective and not scientific fact anyway.
Good heavens, yes! If even an uninspired photoshop hackjob complete with copypasta mirrored stormtroopers won't please these fussy, Tom Jung-loving nitpickers, then literally nothing on earth will!
Here's to the only kind of complaining permitted (and regularly engaged in) by the positivity-at-all-costs crusaders: complaining about complaining.
"These deadly rays will be your death..."
Akton said: positivity-at-all-costs crusaders: complaining about complaining.
Thanks for standing up to them. "Better than the prequels" doesn't tell me that something's good, it tells me that something's so horrible that it has to be compared to something even worse in order to look good.
towne32 said:
Akton said:
I'm also deeply disappointed that Starkiller Base is really nothing at all more than a third Death Star. I mean I knew it kind of was conceptually already, but the disappointment is much more visceral now that I see that even on a visual level it is nothing more than (yet another) copy and paste job. I agree with the analogy to the A-Bomb on the one hand - yes, there's no practical reason why a super-weapon design would be completely jettisoned when it has proven effective in the past. But come on, we're talking about a Space Fantasy saga where creativity and spectacle have trumped practicality in such delightful fashion, giving us such wonderful impractical implements of war as the AT-AT Walker and, well, the lightsaber.
Aesthetically, yes, it is more like the Death Star than I had hoped. From what I'm reading, though, it sounds like it's actually a hijacked planet? That could allow them to do something fairly different with it, not that they necessarily will.
Like maybe smash it into another planet, Doc Smith style? ;
“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”
This new trailer better have a bit of meat and potatoes in it. I'm sick the short sudden shots that really give you very little indication for the film is like.
I don't mind what they have released up until now but if it is yet another bunch of snippets laced together, I will not be buying a ticket until I hear a review as it's starting to feel a bit misleading of what this film really is. I don't mind surprises and I don't want the plot handed to me on a plate in a trailer. But I want to see a few actors acting with one another not constantly seeing people with furrowed brows and panting in a cold sweat.
That looks like a hot sweat to me.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
Ronster said:
This new trailer better have a bit of meat and potatoes in it. I'm sick the short sudden shots that really give you very little indication for the film is like.
I don't mind what they have released up until now but if it is yet another bunch of snippets laced together, I will not be buying a ticket until I hear a review as it's starting to feel a bit misleading of what this film really is. I don't mind surprises and I don't want the plot handed to me on a plate in a trailer. But I want to see a few actors acting with one another not constantly seeing people with furrowed brows and panting in a cold sweat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH9z8se3Aho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6YwN2pDCM
Where were you in '77?
I WILL NOT BE BUYING A TICKET THAT WILL SHOW THEM
Well they seem very keen on teasing, I am just hoping it will be out of that teaser phase after this new trailer get's released and we can grasp a bit more about it.
I am excited but I hope the teaser phase is over as of trailer release and they don't continue to pursue this style, too many dangling carrots.
SilverWook said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH9z8se3Aho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6YwN2pDCM
Man, that Revenge Of The Jedi trailer is rife with awesome avatar possibilities. I made four that I can't believe have never been used here. Perfect 80s cheese, and I mean that as a compliment.
Ronster said:
Well they seem very keen on teasing
Hence why these are called "teasers."
Whether it's a teaser or a full length trailer, the goal should be the same: communicate to viewers the overall vibe of the movie, and instill a desire to see the film, without actually divulging any plot details which might otherwise ruin the actual filmgoing experience.
Based on that criteria, I'd say the trailers we've seen to date have been successful.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
corellian77 said:
Whether it's a teaser or a full length trailer, the goal should be the same: communicate to viewers the overall vibe of the movie, and instill a desire to see the film, without actually divulging any plot details which might otherwise ruin the actual filmgoing experience.
Based on that criteria, I'd say the trailers we've seen to date have been successful.
If they wanted to make TFA look as your usual Hollywood-style blockbuster, they did it right. Except that's not what I'm looking for.
The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201
Star Wars has been synonymous with "Hollywood blockbuster" since 1977. What else would one want it to look like?
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
corellian77 said:
Star Wars has been synonymous with "Hollywood blockbuster" since 1977. What else would one want it to look like?
Maybe he expected Star Wars to remain frozen in time, and the sequels to emulate late 70s / early 80s blockbusters.
Given that time has passed, it's an unreasonable expectation.
Look, as far as I can tell, Star Wars was a milestone for what became known as "Hollywood blockbusters". Even if it drew from a lot of difference sources, there never was a movie like Star Wars before it.
Fast-forward 38 years, films have changed, though inspired by movies like Star Wars.
Now, do you want Star Wars to become exactly like all the new blockbusters (with same patterns, same basic plots, same over-the-top cgi effects, and so on...), or try to stay true to the originals and/or try something different like it did back in '77? Do you want the Star Wars movies, the ones that changed films, to be changed by films?
The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201
