logo Sign In

DuracellEnergizer

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
30-May-2010
Last activity
30-Dec-2020
Posts
24,211

Post History

Post
#1240331
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

BiggsFan44 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Alright, I’ll try to find your “examples” from throughout the thread and respond to them.

First, Yoda:

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

Yoda in TLJ is supposed to look as much like he did in ghost form in ROTJ as possible. He’s a puppet in the end of ROTJ when he’s a ghost. It would, in my opinion, be more immersion-breaking for him to be CGI and appear as he did 20 years before his death. It would be a different story (and an entirely different can of worms) had Lucas replaced ESB/ROTJ Yoda with a CGI model, but he never did. So, chronologically, you see (I) CGI/puppet (depending on the version of TPM you watch) > (II) CGI > (III) CGI > (V) Puppet > (VI) Puppet > (VIII) Puppet. You really think that (I) CGI/puppet > (II) CGI > (III) CGI > (V) Puppet > (VI) Puppet > (VIII) CGI would have been more cohesive when looked at as a full saga?

The Maz Kanata argument is invalid to me because she never appeared in any film prior to TFA, so there’s an infinite amount of freedom in her appearance. You’d have an argument if she appeared in TFA as CGI and was suddenly a puppet in TLJ, or something, but as it stands you’re creating a comparison where there isn’t one.

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.

So Lucas broke the cohesion of “one universe” by changing Yoda from a puppet to CGI first. Yet it’s the ST you’re railing against for going back to the puppet. That seems like a double standard to me - villifying ST filmmakers for changing a thing from one film to the next while excusing Lucas from doing the same because you prefer his movies.

On to other things…

or TFA being like the anti-prequel in much of its approach

How?

are pretty much rebuttals of earlier installments.

How are they rebuttals? Do they claim that the earlier movies never happened, wiping them from continuity the way every Highlander sequel has done to the film that came before it? No.

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?

It…doesn’t? I don’t understand how it does, and I’ve yet to see an explanation from you as to how this is the case in your mind.

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.

Did you just refute your own argument about Anakin in the same sentence in which you brought it up? Because I think you did.

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.”

Okay, this is where I stop, because all of this is 100% “I don’t like the ST so I’m going to rail against it and find every avenue I can to attack it” and not a discussion of keeping canonical cohesion of a saga across multiple decades and filmmakers. Which is the discussion I was hoping to find when I opened this thread.

The Rosetta Stone of TFA is this- it doesn’t even have a scene that explains the political scenario to the level ANH did with the Tarkin round table scene, simply because the PT had “too much politics.”
TFA is so OBVIOUSLY reactionary, you trolling bantha.

BiggsFan44 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

BiggsFan44 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Alright, I’ll try to find your “examples” from throughout the thread and respond to them.

First, Yoda:

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

Yoda in TLJ is supposed to look as much like he did in ghost form in ROTJ as possible. He’s a puppet in the end of ROTJ when he’s a ghost. It would, in my opinion, be more immersion-breaking for him to be CGI and appear as he did 20 years before his death. It would be a different story (and an entirely different can of worms) had Lucas replaced ESB/ROTJ Yoda with a CGI model, but he never did. So, chronologically, you see (I) CGI/puppet (depending on the version of TPM you watch) > (II) CGI > (III) CGI > (V) Puppet > (VI) Puppet > (VIII) Puppet. You really think that (I) CGI/puppet > (II) CGI > (III) CGI > (V) Puppet > (VI) Puppet > (VIII) CGI would have been more cohesive when looked at as a full saga?

The Maz Kanata argument is invalid to me because she never appeared in any film prior to TFA, so there’s an infinite amount of freedom in her appearance. You’d have an argument if she appeared in TFA as CGI and was suddenly a puppet in TLJ, or something, but as it stands you’re creating a comparison where there isn’t one.

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.

So Lucas broke the cohesion of “one universe” by changing Yoda from a puppet to CGI first. Yet it’s the ST you’re railing against for going back to the puppet. That seems like a double standard to me - villifying ST filmmakers for changing a thing from one film to the next while excusing Lucas from doing the same because you prefer his movies.

On to other things…

or TFA being like the anti-prequel in much of its approach

How?

are pretty much rebuttals of earlier installments.

How are they rebuttals? Do they claim that the earlier movies never happened, wiping them from continuity the way every Highlander sequel has done to the film that came before it? No.

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?

It…doesn’t? I don’t understand how it does, and I’ve yet to see an explanation from you as to how this is the case in your mind.

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.

Did you just refute your own argument about Anakin in the same sentence in which you brought it up? Because I think you did.

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.”

Okay, this is where I stop, because all of this is 100% “I don’t like the ST so I’m going to rail against it and find every avenue I can to attack it” and not a discussion of keeping canonical cohesion of a saga across multiple decades and filmmakers. Which is the discussion I was hoping to find when I opened this thread.

The Rosetta Stone of TFA is this- it doesn’t even have a scene that explains the political scenario to the level ANH did with the Tarkin round table scene, simply because the PT had “too much politics.”
TFA is so OBVIOUSLY reactionary, you trolling bantha.

Love it when members with one-day-old accounts call 14-year veterans of the site trolls.

Clearly you’re not interested in having an actual conversation. Thanks for the new signature quote, though. Bye.

What does time on this forum have to do with it? You’re not going to troll people who share your opinions.
Also, you know I’m right about TFA.

lawl

I suspect there’s indeed a “trolling bantha” in this thread, but it isn’t ChainsawAsh.

Post
#1240301
Topic
The Last Son of Krypton (Season One)
Time

The revisions are finished. One notable change is yet another alteration to the nature of the S-shield; instead of being any type of family crest, I now perceive it as either a symbol representing Krypton, a Raoist religious symbol, or both.

I should be getting started on a new entry soon. Luthor’ll likely make his appearance next. I’ve also figured out a way to include Brainiac in the story after all. That’s a good thing, 'cause the ending I have in mind would be difficult to execute if he isn’t involved.

Post
#1240269
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

yotsuya said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

yotsuya said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Besides, half the SE changes are cool. That giant half buried ship that’s at a 70 degree angle in Mos Eisley is cool.
Also, the restoration of that one Biggs scene towards the end (gotta love Biggs).

If only Lucas had thought to reincorporate the earlier Biggs scenes along with it. Then its inclusion might work instead of feeling tacked on and incongruous.

How does it feel tacked on? If anything it makes the Trench run part flow more smoothly by fixing up the Biggs/Wedge nonsense.
It’s also just a nice little moment in itself, since Luke talks about Biggs on Tatooine, even in the final cut.

His introduction so late into the proceedings without any lead-up feels nothing short of abrupt. Plus it’s just more unnecessary universe-shrinkage.

And Luke flying with Biggs without any conversation doesn’t feel abrupt? He was going on and on about Biggs earlier in the film and then we meet him and there is nothing. Incidently, Biggs talking to Luke is implied in the original cut because Biggs leaves Luke at the base of the X-wing ladder in every single version. That was the best edit to ANH for the SE.

There are, what, two throwaway mentions of Biggs in the theatrical version? That’s hardly “going on and on about Biggs”. And I never even realized Red Three was supposed to be the same character as Biggs until I started getting into the reference material.

Biggs: “Luke, pull up. Are you all right?”
Luke: “I got a little cooked, but I’m okay.”

Luke: “Biggs, you picked up one up. Watch it.”
Biggs: “I can’t see him. He’s on me tight, I can’t shake him.”
Luke: “I’ll be right there.”

Luke: “Blast it Biggs, where are you?”

Luke: “Biggs, Wedge, let’s close it up. We’re going in, we’re going in full throttle. That ought to keep those fighters off our backs.”
Wedge: “Right with you boss.”
Biggs: “Luke, at that speed will we be able to pull out in time?”
Luke: “Just like Beggar’s Canyon back home.”

Are you seriously trying to say that with all the original 1977 dialog that you didn’t realize that was his friend from Tatooine? Seriously? It seems pretty obvious - no reference materials needed. I’ll give you the mentions of Biggs on the Lars homestead are throw away, but the dialog between them during the battle makes it pretty damn clear.

I never really noticed the name “Biggs” at all when I was a kid, in any scene; it just wasn’t what I focused on. As for the “Just like Beggar’s Canyon back home” bit, I figured he was talking to himself.

Admittedly, I was a bit slow when I was young.

Post
#1240232
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

yotsuya said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Besides, half the SE changes are cool. That giant half buried ship that’s at a 70 degree angle in Mos Eisley is cool.
Also, the restoration of that one Biggs scene towards the end (gotta love Biggs).

If only Lucas had thought to reincorporate the earlier Biggs scenes along with it. Then its inclusion might work instead of feeling tacked on and incongruous.

How does it feel tacked on? If anything it makes the Trench run part flow more smoothly by fixing up the Biggs/Wedge nonsense.
It’s also just a nice little moment in itself, since Luke talks about Biggs on Tatooine, even in the final cut.

His introduction so late into the proceedings without any lead-up feels nothing short of abrupt. Plus it’s just more unnecessary universe-shrinkage.

And Luke flying with Biggs without any conversation doesn’t feel abrupt? He was going on and on about Biggs earlier in the film and then we meet him and there is nothing. Incidently, Biggs talking to Luke is implied in the original cut because Biggs leaves Luke at the base of the X-wing ladder in every single version. That was the best edit to ANH for the SE.

There are, what, two throwaway mentions of Biggs in the theatrical version? That’s hardly “going on and on about Biggs”. And I never even realized Red Three was supposed to be the same character as Biggs until I started getting into the reference material.

Post
#1240221
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

BiggsFan44 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Besides, half the SE changes are cool. That giant half buried ship that’s at a 70 degree angle in Mos Eisley is cool.
Also, the restoration of that one Biggs scene towards the end (gotta love Biggs).

If only Lucas had thought to reincorporate the earlier Biggs scenes along with it. Then its inclusion might work instead of feeling tacked on and incongruous.

How does it feel tacked on? If anything it makes the Trench run part flow more smoothly by fixing up the Biggs/Wedge nonsense.
It’s also just a nice little moment in itself, since Luke talks about Biggs on Tatooine, even in the final cut.

His introduction so late into the proceedings without any lead-up feels nothing short of abrupt. Plus it’s just more unnecessary universe-shrinkage.

Post
#1240212
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

BiggsFan44 said:

Besides, half the SE changes are cool. That giant half buried ship that’s at a 70 degree angle in Mos Eisley is cool.
Also, the restoration of that one Biggs scene towards the end (gotta love Biggs).

If only Lucas had thought to reincorporate the earlier Biggs scenes along with it. Then its inclusion might work instead of feeling tacked on and incongruous.

Post
#1240105
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

BiggsFan44 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:
If you really knew anything about me, you’d know I consider TFA pablum, that I’ve refused to see TLJ, and that I utterly detest the capitalist abomination that is the Walt Disney Company.

I’m not miffed you dislike the ST. I merely find it infantile that you get “very angered” over someone coming away from the ST with a different POV than yours.

Because some things aren’t really as easy as POV.

TFA is more than just a little poorly made.

Then ignore it. I hate ROTJ, the PT, the SEs, all the Disney movies except R1, and half of the EU; rather than piss & moan over their continued existence, I pretend they don’t exist.

Post
#1240102
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

BiggsFan44 said:

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

I mean, people like you are why the ST is a stale rehash

If you really knew anything about me, you’d know I consider TFA pablum, that I’ve refused to see TLJ, and that I utterly detest the capitalist abomination that is the Walt Disney Company.

I’m not miffed you dislike the ST. I merely find it infantile that you get “very angered” over someone coming away from the ST with a different POV than yours.

Post
#1240098
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

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.

Post
#1240094
Topic
Star Wars as a cohesive universe/canon.
Time

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?