Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon. — Page 2

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation, so all i’ll say is that I find it odd that so many older fans can’t see what is going on.
You all can be so diplomatic and measured when it comes to the ST, and yet I read something by another longtime user here that said “The Ewok movie characters are all better than the PT characters.”
I submit that the reason why Star Wars is broken beyond repair as far as being a cohesive universe goes is the one-two punch of

1. massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
2. massive double standard between the PT and ST

And it’s all because the ST reminds you all of your childhood/the “good ones” more than the PT.
It’s why Mike Stoklasa didn’t rip into the terrible character writing of TFA like he did for the PT.

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

The PT was my childhood. I love the OT, I love the PT, I am loving the ST.

Not trying to make you angry, just trying to help you love Star Wars for what it is and to not think it is “broken beyond repair”. People have been saying that for a long time, but I don’t think that is the case!

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.
Just look at the Thrawn trilogy. We should have gotten an actual continuation of the story that addressed the Rebels becoming the dominant power in the galaxy. But JJ gave us a soft reboot. It’s genuinely insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation, so all i’ll say is that I find it odd that so many older fans can’t see what is going on.
You all can be so diplomatic and measured when it comes to the ST, and yet I read something by another longtime user here that said “The Ewok movie characters are all better than the PT characters.”
I submit that the reason why Star Wars is broken beyond repair as far as being a cohesive universe goes is the one-two punch of

1. massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
2. massive double standard between the PT and ST

And it’s all because the ST reminds you all of your childhood more than the PT.

The irony of this post is that it is in response to me, a person who saw the PT when he was a child.

And if I could venture a guess, the hypocrisy is that you seem to be more forgiving of the PT because it reminds you of your childhood (presumably).

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation, so all i’ll say is that I find it odd that so many older fans can’t see what is going on.
You all can be so diplomatic and measured when it comes to the ST, and yet I read something by another longtime user here that said “The Ewok movie characters are all better than the PT characters.”
I submit that the reason why Star Wars is broken beyond repair as far as being a cohesive universe goes is the one-two punch of

1. massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
2. massive double standard between the PT and ST

And it’s all because the ST reminds you all of your childhood more than the PT.

The irony of this post is that it is in response to me, a person who saw the PT when he was a child.

And if I could venture a guess, the hypocrisy is that you seem to be more forgiving of the PT because it reminds you of your childhood (presumably).

1. You also most likely saw the OT as a child.
2. My opinion on the PT is not as clouded as you might think, since I went through a Plinkett phase and thought that the PT was absolutely terrible for a few years. But then it kind of hit me that I didn’t actually believe that after I watched ANH for the first time in a long time and found that it was very recognizably made by the same man who made the PT.
   Mike’s TFA opinion only confirmed that my taste was subjectively objectively subjectively objectively correct.

BiggsFan44 said:

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.

Man, most Star Wars fans would’ve really disagreed with you that it built off the themes of the OT back before we ever knew we were getting more movies. I agree with you that it did, but it has taken a lot of time for more people to come around to that. But the situation with the ST is different? I don’t really think so.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. We’re talking about subjective art here. Many thought that the PT was as great a transgression from what had been established as you do TFA (if not moreso). Just because you think the opposite doesn’t make it a fact.

My comparison is spot on.

Just look at the Thrawn trilogy. We should have gotten an actual continuation of the story that addressed the Rebels becoming the dominant power in the galaxy. But JJ gave us a soft reboot. It’s genuinely insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

I will tell you I’ve looked at the Thrawn trilogy and did not like what I saw. Turns out not everyone has the same opinion of what constitutes the “Star Wars spirit.”

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. We’re talking about subjective art here. Many thought that the PT was as great a transgression from what had been established as you do TFA (if not moreso). Just because you think the opposite doesn’t make it a fact.

My comparison is spot on.

Just look at the Thrawn trilogy. We should have gotten an actual continuation of the story that addressed the Rebels becoming the dominant power in the galaxy. But JJ gave us a soft reboot. It’s genuinely insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

I will tell you I’ve looked at the Thrawn trilogy and did not like what I saw. Turns out not everyone has the same opinion of what constitutes the “Star Wars spirit.”

If you think TFA is better than a story that actually logically follows from RotJ, then I think we are on too different of wavelengths to converse further.

I agree with you Dom. I really like Thrawn, but I think the new films are much more tied to the themes of all of the other films than the Thrawn trilogy was.

EDIT: ROTJ to TFA would be weird if they were like 5 years apart, but it’s been three decades, longer than the Galactic Empire even existed. Things have happened in between these two films, and TFA begins in medias res, just like ANH did.

DOUBLEEDIT: BiggsFan, you mentioned for awhile how you really disliked the Prequels after watching the Plinkett reviews and reading other online opinions. I was the same way, and even rewrote the prequels. Overtime I came to accept the Prequels flaws and come to really appreciate the story it was trying to tell, and it sounds like you were just the same.
I think if you give it some time, eventually you might finds things you like about these new films too.

RogueLeader said:

I agree with you Dom. I really like Thrawn, but I think the new films are much more tied to the themes of all of the other films than the Thrawn trilogy was.

How do you figure? TTT was not really thematically rich, but it was a logical contiuation. IMO the ST flows neither logically (The New Republic as an organization dies with a handwave) or thematically (Luke unlearned the lessons he learned in the OT).

Things have happened in between these two films, and TFA begins in medias res, just like ANH did.

IMO the big problem with this is that unlike ANH in 1977, TFA is a sequel to movies that exist. It feels artificial to muddy the A to B when the A already exists.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation, so all i’ll say is that I find it odd that so many older fans can’t see what is going on.
You all can be so diplomatic and measured when it comes to the ST, and yet I read something by another longtime user here that said “The Ewok movie characters are all better than the PT characters.”
I submit that the reason why Star Wars is broken beyond repair as far as being a cohesive universe goes is the one-two punch of

1. massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
2. massive double standard between the PT and ST

And it’s all because the ST reminds you all of your childhood more than the PT.

The irony of this post is that it is in response to me, a person who saw the PT when he was a child.

And if I could venture a guess, the hypocrisy is that you seem to be more forgiving of the PT because it reminds you of your childhood (presumably).

1. You also most likely saw the OT as a child.

So? You seem to suggest that the only reason I like the ST is that it reminds me of my childhood, and the only reason I dislike the PT is because it doesn’t. Clearly that’s not the case. You suggest that the ST reminds me more of my childhood than the PT, which is literally impossible.

2. My opinion on the PT is not as clouded as you might think, since I went through a Plinkett phase and thought that the PT was absolutely terrible for a few years. But then it kind of hit me that I didn’t actually believe that after I watched ANH for the first time in a long time and found that it was very recognizably made by the same man who made the PT.
   Mike’s TFA opinion only confirmed that my taste was subjectively objectively subjectively objectively correct.

That’s all well and good (personally I’ve never let youtube reviews determine my personal opinions), but just know that you shouldn’t go around throwing claims of nostalgia goggles without being prepared to take the same heat.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. We’re talking about subjective art here. Many thought that the PT was as great a transgression from what had been established as you do TFA (if not moreso). Just because you think the opposite doesn’t make it a fact.

My comparison is spot on.

Just look at the Thrawn trilogy. We should have gotten an actual continuation of the story that addressed the Rebels becoming the dominant power in the galaxy. But JJ gave us a soft reboot. It’s genuinely insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

I will tell you I’ve looked at the Thrawn trilogy and did not like what I saw. Turns out not everyone has the same opinion of what constitutes the “Star Wars spirit.”

If you think TFA is better than a story that actually logically follows from RotJ, then I think we are on too different of wavelengths to converse further.

Yes we are on different wavelengths! Don’t you see that’s been my point the whole time? If you can’t appreciate or stand what one piece of the canon does, just ignore it. That’s all it takes.

I don’t know why we can’t converse further though?

dp

DominicCobb said:
That’s all well and good (personally I’ve never let youtube reviews determine my personal opinions)

Rude, honestly.

I don’t know why we can’t converse further though?

Because there is no point.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:
That’s all well and good (personally I’ve never let youtube reviews determine my personal opinions)

Rude, honestly.

Really more of a running joke here. Probably rude though, yes.

I will say in general though I’ve been pretty nice to you so far. If that’s the rudest this thread has gotten (which I don’t think it is, you were fairly rude to me as well), then it’s the least rude thread on the whole forum.

OutboundFlight said:
Both succeeded

I’ve made my opinion on TFA very clear, but TLJ did not do what you claim, since Rey did not join Kylo. The movie chickens out and even trots out a super laser for good measure.
Also as far as Anakin goes, like I said, I think there is a double standard there too, since Anakin by the end of the show is identical to RotS Anakin, besides the deeper voice. Anakin is just as “unlikable” in the second Clovis arc as he is in the movies.
It’s early TCW Anakin that is the odd man out.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation

Jeez. Triggered much?

DuracellEnergizer said:

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation

Jeez. Triggered much?

Yeah.

BiggsFan44 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation

Jeez. Triggered much?

Yeah.

I remember when I used to get triggered over stupid, irrelevant crap. For instance, I absolutely hated Stargate SG-1 and couldn’t stand the thought of anyone liking it more than the original movie. Then I grew up.

DuracellEnergizer said:
I remember when I used to get triggered over stupid, irrelevant crap. For instance, I absolutely hated Stargate SG-1 and couldn’t stand the thought of anyone liking it more than the original movie. Then I grew up.

You seem upset.

BiggsFan44 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:
I remember when I used to get triggered over stupid, irrelevant crap. For instance, I absolutely hated Stargate SG-1 and couldn’t stand the thought of anyone liking it more than the original movie. Then I grew up.

You seem upset.

Damn. I was striving for “snide”.

DuracellEnergizer said:
Damn. I was striving for “snide”.

I mean, people like you are why the ST is a stale rehash, so I don’t think my strong opinions are rooted in what you claim.