This user has been banned.
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.
dp
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.
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.
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
- massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
- 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).
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.
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
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.
I mean the head art director for episode 7 was Doug Chiang, the same guy that did Episode 1.
EDIT: And the other prequels as well I believe.
I guess this shows that the film director is the real head art director, since the same art director that gave us some visual variety in the PT gave us slightly repainted TIEs and X-Wings in the ST.
EDIT: I won’t doublepost again, I had a brain fart.
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.)
DominicCobb said:
As for how people on this site “cope” with the problems you mention, well a lot of people here just ignore the prequels, which are the cause of the majority of continuity problems with series to begin with.I’d argue that the ST betrays the spirit of the series more than the PT did though. And that’s a larger problem than things like why Owen didn’t recognize 3-P0.
TFA is a waste of 200 million dollars because it copies a movie but makes it worse (And the argument that the first Disney SW movie needed to feel “familiar” is moot, since TFA locks the entire trilogy into a “big bad Empire vs. scrappy rebels” redo, complete with locking in the stale aesthetic/art direction), and TLJ writes Luke so incredibly OOC that he can’t be considered the same character who said “You’ve failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”You made this thread to talk about (seemingly) continuity errors. If the ST doesn’t fit your personal canon, I think we already have a thread to discuss that. If not I don’t know what to tell you.
Not exactly continuity errors, but more “How are we supposed to believe that all these movies have happened in the same universe when some filmmakers/showrunners are at war with sections of the saga”. And it even applies to things like TLJ throwing JJ’s mystery boxes into the garbage.
Well in that case I think you’d find not everyone agrees with your interpretation of what’s going on there (to say the least).
On a macro level, some fans have been disagreeing with the direction of the franchise since 1980. Every time something new comes out, someone’s going to say it doesn’t mesh with their perception of the series. The solution is simple, of course: take what you like, forget the rest. Don’t worry about “everything taking place in the same universe” or whatever.
Right, but at the end of the day, these movies are being sold as episodes 1 through 9 of a continuing story.
How can a movie be “Episode 7” if it hates, say, Episode 3? It feels like a lie.
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.
Also, Chewielewis I appreciate your comments, I just don’t want to doublepost. I agree that at the end of the day it’s kind of a “You can make it work in your head, or you can’t” type of thing.
DominicCobb said:
As for how people on this site “cope” with the problems you mention, well a lot of people here just ignore the prequels, which are the cause of the majority of continuity problems with series to begin with.I’d argue that the ST betrays the spirit of the series more than the PT did though. And that’s a larger problem than things like why Owen didn’t recognize 3-P0.
TFA is a waste of 200 million dollars because it copies a movie but makes it worse (And the argument that the first Disney SW movie needed to feel “familiar” is moot, since TFA locks the entire trilogy into a “big bad Empire vs. scrappy rebels” redo, complete with locking in the stale aesthetic/art direction), and TLJ writes Luke so incredibly OOC that he can’t be considered the same character who said “You’ve failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”You made this thread to talk about (seemingly) continuity errors. If the ST doesn’t fit your personal canon, I think we already have a thread to discuss that. If not I don’t know what to tell you.
Not exactly continuity errors, but more “How are we supposed to believe that all these movies have happened in the same universe when some filmmakers/showrunners are at war with sections of the saga”. And it even applies to things like TLJ throwing JJ’s mystery boxes into the garbage.
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.
DominicCobb said:
As for how people on this site “cope” with the problems you mention, well a lot of people here just ignore the prequels, which are the cause of the majority of continuity problems with series to begin with.
I’d argue that the ST betrays the spirit of the series more than the PT did though. And that’s a larger problem than things like why Owen didn’t recognize 3-P0.
TFA is a waste of 200 million dollars because it copies a movie but makes it worse (And the argument that the first Disney SW movie needed to feel “familiar” is moot, since TFA locks the entire trilogy into a “big bad Empire vs. scrappy rebels” redo, complete with locking in the stale aesthetic/art direction), and TLJ writes Luke so incredibly OOC that he can’t be considered the same character who said “You’ve failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”
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 |opinion on the franchise’s history| that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.
Yoda being CG might strain the link up with the OT, but the strain doesn’t come from what my thread is about, which is how we can consider this all to be one universe if creators are passing judgement on the quality of the depiction of supposedly equally canonical events.
NeverarGreat said:
-Every character in these movies is more compelling than any character in the prequels.
Do you really believe that?
Now, this is somewhat contradictory since I have things that I personally don’t like in Star Wars, but I still think this is a big problem.
A large part of the Star Wars (and many other) fan communities seems to be picking a better or worse version of a thing or installment of a thing.
For example, I was just watching TLJ and I got to the scene with Yoda. Yoda is a puppet in TLJ when he was CG in the PT. The problem for me is that these movies are supposed to be installments in the same story, and yet that illusion is shattered into a million pieces when things like puppet Yoda or TFA being like the anti-prequel in much of its approach are pretty much rebuttals of earlier installments.
Another thing is the whole “TCW Anakin vs PT Anakin”. Regardless of which one you like better, it’s (IMO) a universe destroying problem when people perceive the two characters as different enough to like one and dislike the other, when TCW is supposed to be a continuation of Attack of The Clones.
So I guess my problem is, how can the fact that people can’t stop picking and choosing elements they like and don’t like from the movies (that goes for fans and creators alike) not completely destroy the illusion that ALL of these events from ALL of these movies and shows take place in the same universe? I mean, I definitely have movies that I would delete from the canon, but the canon itself isn’t really a canon if different pieces within the canon are taking stands against other pieces, or being different while claiming to be the same, like with Yoda or Anakin. (This second one is both the fact that TCW Anakin maybe should have been closer to Hayden, but also that they aren’t really AS different as Hayden detractors claim, and late season Lanter Anakin was as “unlikable” as Anakin ever was, especially in arcs like the second Clovis arc.)
This was kind of a ramble, but it’s something i’ve been wanting to get off my chest for a while. Any thoughts?
I have no real skill with editing, but I am going to try my hand at an (initially anyway) simple goal- reinserting the Biggs/Tosche stations scenes into the movie. That’s my primary goal and i’d be happy with just that.
My “stretch” goal, so to speak, is to cut out another scene that the Biggs scenes mostly make redundant- the “It’s only one more season” dinner scene (at least the parts that repeat the information from the Biggs scenes).
I’ve become convinced (this might be a common filmmaking thing, I don’t know) that Lucas had multiple scenes telling the audience similar information (not only the two i’ve been talking about, but also the redundant information in the Han/Jabba SE scene) in order to be able to really shape the film in the editing room by giving himself multiple attack vectors.
It is for this reason that I think some of the dinner scene can go without losing anything- I think it was designed to.
Any thoughts on my ideas?
P.S.
The other two stretch changes I would make would be to delete the Jabba scene (I’d be working off the Blu Ray), and to alter the colors to make them look less garish.