Sure looks like a 'carbonite' surface to me. Great stuff!
Inspired use of good 'ol plasticine for this. I've never tried spraying it before, but I take it any paint applied to it will not react before you're done filming it?
The AT-AT miniature looks excellent so far adywan, and so does the lighting on your half-finished Falcon over on the Facebook page! - https://www.facebook.com/swrevisited
doubleofive said:
Tobar said:
I think the shot was setup in a way so that the front engine wasn't in the shot but was still physically there.Also, I imagine if we look hard enough we can find a ton of shots where the camera is behind the fourth wall and therefore the shot shouldn't exist, so why not have an invisible engine?
And these bring me right back to my initial thoughts on the previous page where I showed the Kenny Baker/Artoo behind-the-scenes pic.
I'm so confused!
So in no particular order, there seems to be a total of 4 ways to look at this shot, judging by all the comments -
1. The engine turbine was removed from the full-scale X-Wing section for some reason, but *would* have been visible in the shot in a similar position as Ronster's mock-up showed.
or
2. The engine turbine was removed from the full-scale X-Wing section because the camera was placed in a spot where the engine would have originally been...so we *wouldn't* see it in the way that Ronster's mock-up showed (the 'invisible fourth wall' option as doubleofive suggests).
or
3. The engine turbine *wasn't* removed from the full-scale X-Wing section, but the camera was positioned in a spot where it just ended up being unseen and just out of the frame (as Tobar and others suggest)
...and it could be argued that it was either just out of the frame somewhere at the *bottom* of the shot...or just out of the frame somewhere at the *right* of the shot (as yoda1138's diagram showed).
or
4. Irrelevant of whatever the truth, Ronster's mock-up to include the engine looks quite good...and would make for a nice addition (and this was the one I ended up agreeing with, until I realised that doing the same with the 'shakey' Artoo shots would likely be too difficult)
Until adywan decides, take your pick everyone. :)
Bingowings said:
The mock up visually makes sense to my eyes and doesn't take Artoo out of the main focus of the shot.
It's very much up to Ady what he does but it seems to make sense to me.
Yes, agree that this addition wouldn't distract from Artoo as the focus whatsoever.
The more I look at Ronster's mock-up, the more I like the idea of the engine turbine being added in a somewhat similar way to the shot. It just looks *right* to see it included it in the frame, and would make for a nice addition.
Unfortunately, as it might prove too tricky to *also* add a matching hint of it to the slightly closer, but very 'shaky' Artoo shots that come soon afterwards as the X-Wing enters the clouds/mist...then I'll happily accept it as being just 'offscreen'.
yoda1138 said:
yoda1138 said:
regarding the engine talk, i noticed this.. see image mock up..
As its still being discussed, i wonder if my post may have been missed regarding the perspective/ vanishing points. I personally believe the shot filmed was correct in the beginning with no engine removed to film R2. Maybe a wide angle lens was used? if you follow the green line on the right, look at the panel line behind R2 on the deck of the ship. it follows the green line, as do the windows follow the lines on the right. the red hoops are where i'd assume the engine fronts would have been on the ship. actually, i should have but the right hoop a tad lower, as the shot of the xwing is not dead on side view or we wouldn't see the top of the deck at all. Though, i do think Adys addition of the engine looks aesthetically pleasing. Thats my 2 cents.
I hadn't missed it yoda1138, so much as I wasn't 100% certain what all the marks on your image were meant to be indicating. It was a little confusing without any description, but you've cleared things up a bit better now...and I see your analysis is similar to what I was trying to get across in my previous post. :)
So for final clarification...I agree that the engine turbine nearest to us could be argued to be unseen and just offscreen, due to this shot being filmed with an unusual 'distorted' perspective...and the largest red 'oval' on your diagram correctly shows roughly where it might be using this way of looking at it, unlike brimforge's pics. And on the other hand, if adywan decides to take some 'artistic licence' for visual purposes...then I reckon that Ronster's version shows roughly the best angle/positioning to fit it into the existing shot.
brimforge said:
I happen to have a model-kit X-Wing at hand to pose this view ...
and the fact is, that the turbines would be both wrong in this shot!
they should be "mirrored", meaning, the front one needs to be more visible and the back one is nearly in the picture.
somehow the cockpit-window is slightly warped, we think to see the side-view, but in reality, the X-Wing is turned to the right (or the body is bent to the other side ...)
Leaving aside whether or not we should actually see a foreground 'engine turbine' or not for now...your pics have actually helped me to pin down something else that seemed a bit confusing about the full-size X-Wing section in that shot, brimforge. :)
On re-reading your comments above which you wrote in response to Ronster's mock-up, it seems that you were trying to get across how 'wrong' it looked in general. You were correct, from a certain point-of-view (!)...and I'll need to show all these pics again to try and describe what I reckon now -
As you said, *both* of the engine turbines would be wrongly positioned in the way that Ronster's mock-up currently shows, judging by your model pics.
And as you say, we are not seeing a directly 'side-on' view of the X-Wing in that original shot at the top, due to the fact that we can actually see a rear view of the cockpit. And because of this, you were again correct that we'd be more likely to see the nearest engine turbine *far more prominently* in the foreground of the shot (than the one added by Ronster), and would perhaps see *less* of the existing one seen behind Artoo...due to this particular angle where the camera is positioned somewhere *behind* the cockpit a little.
In fact, going by your pics brimforge, I would have personally been satisfied to see any foreground engine turbine added at *either* of the angles/positions shown in your top 2 model examples...as due to the way your models are photographed, it seems as if Ronster's positioning was incorrect.
Except...your pics have helped to reveal that issue which was confusing me about the X-wing in the original shot...and I've now decided that the angle/positioning of Ronster's added engine turbine looks much more natural to me than the angle/position of the foreground ones in your pics, after all.
That's because it's quite obvious to me now that the movie camera's point-of-view seems to have given a strange kind of perspective to the X-Wing section in that shot, almost like a subtle 'fisheye' lens kind of distortion would...as not only are we seeing the rear of the cockpit on the left of the shot, but we are also seeing a very different perspective of the X-Wing section on the right of the shot compared to your snaps - while the cockpit lines are angled in one direction on the left side of the shot...the lines of the top section details where Artoo is situated are very differently angled in the opposite direction on the right of the shot!
And due to the direction of the curved lines seen on the existing engine turbine behind Artoo...we would need to see something that's similar to the angle of the added engine turbine shown by Ronster, so that it matches the 'distorted' perspective we see...rather than what's seen in your pics, as the angles wouldn't match with the existing one. I hope that all makes sense to you and everyone else.
Of course, even if you agree with me that any 'foreground' engine turbine would indeed be of a similar look/angle to the one Ronster showed...I *still* say that it wouldn't necessarily need to be seen in that shot, and could just be imagined to be 'offscreen' and just slightly out of view, due to the camera's point-of-view and it's distortingly, angled perspective of this X-Wing section... ;)
brimforge said:
sorry, wrong!
as I wrote above and none cared, I took it upon me to repose the shot with an live-model of the X-Wing, and the result differs very strong, the front engine should be visible, more or less like in Ronsters picture ...
I will post some pics later, but the result would mean, that in studio for better visual the front engine was removed, so to have a better closeup of R2 ;-)
None of the miniature/kit images I looked at really helped me in this instance brimforge, as I couldn't find one taken of that portion of the X-Wing from that exact *angle*...and they didn't really convey the actual size of the large gap between where the Artoo and engine would be on the full-sized studio version. Also, I'm not sure how accurately-proportioned some of the models I looked at are. In addition, there may be a bit of difference between how things look when filmed by a movie camera compared to how things look when someone takes a snap of a small model, but I'll be interested to see your pics.
As your last sentence above suggests, if the camera POV isn't positioned in a vantage point somewhere in the gap between Artoo and engine, then I can alternatively look on it's vantage point as being positioned somewhere where the engine would *physically be* instead. Either way, I agree the engine would have been 'removed' from view because we wouldn't actually see it from either of these POV's I've described.
But equally, I like the look of Ronster's mock-up too...although I'm not sure how many similar instances adywan would end up having to do this throughout the original trilogy, or if he'd want to do all that additional work, if so.
Ronster said:
Something I can confirm though is that the wing and engine was removed on the side closest to us to film the side shots of R2-D2.
It's around there somewhere in the nearfield of the bottom right of the image if it would not have been removed for filming
This is an interesting issue, but again I see this in a slightly different way to Ronster.
If you study the original shot at the top (without getting distracted by Ronster's mock-up below it), or watch the movie...it always looks to me that because this is quite a 'close-up' camera POV of Artoo, then the viewpoint could be imagined as being either filmed from a point-of-view that's in-between the gap between Artoo and the (unseen) X-Wing engine nearest us...*or* from a point-of-view that's actually filmed from where part of the engine would have been situated, if it wasn't for the camera being positioned there instead. Either way, we *wouldn't* see the X-Wing engine where Ronster has placed it, the way I normally look at it.
This shot below kinda gives an idea of the gap between Artoo and the engine on the real-life prop, and may or may not help to judge the camera point-of-view of the Artoo 'close-up' I usually choose to see -
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't be against seeing a portion of the engine added, if adywan thinks it would make for a visually-appealing 'cheat'/additon. In fact, I quite like the look of Ronster's mock-up, despite not 'seeing' the shot that way normally.
I'm not sure if the *angle* of Ronster's added engine is correct...but I'm fine with the approx. height he's shown in his mock-up. Unlike Monroville's 'open-winged' pics where the engines end up higher than Artoo's dome, the wings are actually *closed* when the X-Wing is heading towards Dagobah at this point...and the top of the engines seem to be just slightly higher than the top X-Wing section that Artoo fits into.
As far as the official CGI goes, this shot gives a good idea of how things look (just hold something straight across the top of both circular engines to confirm their height in relation to the X-Wing's top section, when the wings are closed) -
And assuming these blueprints are reasonably accurate, you can 'magnify' the diagrams here to see their side-views in relation to Artoo's position - http://zabel.kiev.ua/swmodels/starwars/x-wing2sidebw.jpg
So yeah, the approx. height positioning of Ronster's engine looks pretty good to me, if it was ever to be added.
(By the way, it's interesting to note that that the R2 units protrude out of their X-Wing positions at different heights in some shots - see the 'A New Hope' CGI shot above compared to the top 'close-up' of Artoo, for example. The full-size Artoo/X-Wing 'close-ups' in 'A New Hope' also had the top of his legs showing just as that CGI shot shows, yet we only see his 'dome' in the top shot that Ronster mocked up. No biggie in the scheme of things however, as not much can be done about that)
Ronster said:
Holy crap!
Luke Vs the Face huggers :)
Yes, ol' 'Nobby's motion looked as satisfyingly icky as the Alien queen's egg-laying. Love it.
To be honest, I'm not 100% sure if the artwork shows it laying lots of eggs, or actually 'slurping' on some weird, 'spore'-like Dagobah plant-life... :)
unamochilla2 said:
Video is up at VF:
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/star-wars-the-force-awakens-vanity-fair-cover
So we *may* end up getting a subtle glimpse of Jar Jar's long-dead bones eh? I guess those that like him can just imagine it's just some *other* poor Gungan...but plenty would enjoy this particular 'cameo' I'm sure. :)
(nothing beats seeing him blown up on Alderaan by the Death Star however, as per adywan's extended 'deleted' scene!)
Scrolling along the handful of pics at the bottom of this link, it was interesting to see some of the creature/alien designs that J.J. has in store for us. Seems like we're getting another hive of scum and villainy along the way, and a very 'old school'-looking type at that.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Don't like the name, but I'm glad they didn't give her breast-accentuating armour.
Yeah, we sure dodged a bullet there! Glad they had the sense not to do that.
Well, between these recent character pics and snippets, I think I've now seen as much as I want to about this next movie, without ruining things too much for myself.
I reckon I've now seen about the same amount of stuff I came across about ROTJ before seeing it all those years ago, without knowing how all the various characters or storyline fitted together for that. But it's *really* time for me to avoid this particular thread now before December methinks...along with all the books and general avalanche of merchandise that'll appear before it.
I'm sure it won't be easy to dodge everything that appears...and that includes any future trailers to come...but I do know one thing...I *definitely* don't recommend that anyone listens to the 'soundtrack' CD beforehand, nor read it's track listings either! I'm certainly keeping that side of things fresh for myself, no matter what! :)
So I'll say ta ta to this thread, and good luck to anyone else planning the same at this point.
Ronster said:
1. Would we be able to see the upper gun of the x-wing on the side view cockpit as It enters the atmosphere through the blue haze?
2. Would the crashed x-wing miniature have smoke rising from the engines?
Ronster, I thought you might be onto something there, so thought I'd check it out...but on having a quick look at a couple of differing side-on blueprints, it looks from them that the uppermost part of the top closed guns would either be in line with the back corner of Luke's downwards-angled, side cockpit window (which is hidden by his head), or just ever so slightly below it.
So assuming the camera POV is pointed somewhat directly side-on to the window and Luke's head (which is how I see it personally), then no, I reckon it *wouldn't* be visible.
And I guess the smoke seen rising from the new X-Wing miniature is needed no matter what, so that it matches up with the smoke seen in the full-size version shot immediately afterwards.
___________________________
My own thoughts regarding the extended 'Nobby' shot, are that I agree with those who think it works well...given that it happens to be a kinda 'establishing' shot of what Luke has gotten himself into, and the fact that it gives a moment of additional time to soak the whole vista in, and study it's contents.
I'm loving the additional atmosphere of weirdness and potential danger that 'Nobby' has given to the location, and the new 'flying critters' came out great too. Their new flightpath draws you further into the back of the shot I reckon, and the whole background looks very natural now, especially with the subtle 'light-ray' shining through the trees. It's an *actual* swamp on 'Dagobah' now!...or at the very least, it looks like they built an absolutely enormous set which stretches way into the distance now. Marvellous stuff.
May the 4th be with you anyway, Ronster. ;)
Stunning work once again throughout that clip.
All the new elements in the 'crashed X-wing' shot look marvellous, and real pleased to see ol' 'Nobby' in action at last. She turned out great! :)
Vaders helmet replacement looks the biz too.
One of the little things I was curious to see, was whether or not the Falcon's RED front lights would be on when it's parked inside the 'asteroid cave'...to match how things look later on when it's parked on the Bespin City platform. So that's been answered at the end of this clip now it seems.
Great preview adywan. May the 4th be with everyone here.
Just to add some thoughts on how Chewie looks - while J.J. hasn't seemed to have tinged his fur with any grey whatsoever to suggest he's 'aged' somewhat like his ol' sidekick Han has (and why should he?, considering Wookiees can supposedly live for hundreds of years)...the thing that struck me most about his brief appearance in the 2nd teaser, was the fact that he looked so 'well-groomed'.
But I reckon it's the fact that Chewie was just *so* straggly-looking throughout ROTJ, that I kinda still expected to see him be a little scruffy in his appearance since we last saw him all those years ago...rather than the very 'slicked-back' look he had when we first saw him in the original movie.
However, when I checked, he was a little bit more groomed again by the end celebrations of ROTJ...and it's good to see he's managed to look after himself a little better ever since. :)
_______________________________________________
Uh oh...seems like we now have a date when the 'spoiler' deluge will *really* hit everywhere - http://www.io9.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-toys-and-merchandise-will-1701856594
Ronster said:
I would like to touch on something you mentioned earlier about the mandibles face being under the ring (well it is in the ESB and ROTJ version anyway) I am not sure I have no time today to really check this but will do soon. But as I have been saying about height gain and if the cockpit in the ESB & ROTJ versions is actually also higher.
Ronster, not sure what you mean by the 'ring' (unless you mean the circular cockpit window at the front), but I was actually suggesting the top edge of the 'mandible' looked as if it was slightly below the level of the *side* cockpit windows (no matter which movie version of the cockpit section you wish to refer to).
And here's another interestingly-angled mock-up I came across, which shows what I mean quite clearly -
Now I really must move on from this particular issue...as my kids are missing me. ;)
___________________________________________________
@ RicOlie_2 - yes, that 'birds-eye-view' Falcon image was just something I randomly googled for reference. However, I did a quick check for you...but although there seems to be a couple of similar graphics out there in the same style, I can't find where they originated from to begin with.
@ Anchorhead & adywan - thanks for the info. about that 'missing spar'. Interesting to hear that the full-size cockpit originally had glass (or perspex?) in place too.
Sorry Ronster, I'm still not convinced. I don't think we'd see the 'mandible' in the 'slug' POV shot you've shown at the bottom of your post either...as I stiil think it would be too 'angled away' to the left of that cockpit view to be seen...and would still be hidden by the lower interior cockpit wall section on the left of that shot.
And that goes for *all* the shots looking out of the altered ESB/ROTJ cockpit too, as well as the cockpit seen in the original movie.
I just think the 'mandible' is too 'angled away' from the interior cockpit POVs seen in the movies, and I find looking at a 'birds-eye' view of the Falcon's shape helps to judge it better -
However...if it turns out adywan ends up showing the 'mandible' in any of his final OT:Revisited Falcon cockpit shots, then I'll be the first to admit to you that I was mistaken on this issue. :)
By the way...while it was neat that adywan added in the 'missing spar' to the original STAR WARS Falcon cockpit windows, does anyone happen to know why the makers *added* it to the design of the ESB cockpit version in the first place? Just curious.
Still, all this talk of the Falcon's cockpit gives me an excuse to show this awesome version I recently came across - http://imgur.com/UizeGTo
Nice link there Anchorhead. The full-scale Falcon sure looks good in some of those mocked-up POV angles the artist showed.
Assuming his cockpit POVs are fairly accurate too, this guy's mock-ups definitely confirm for me that the nearest 'mandible' to the cockpit would *not* be visible in any of the actual cockpit camera POVs we see in the OT movies.
But these mock-ups sure make me hope we get a camera POV in J.J.'s movie that *does*! :)
Looking forward to seeing 'ol 'Nobby' in motion (along with the flying critters), along with how the 'Dagobah' background turned out.
Anticipation rising. :)
Ronster said:
Ok Imp, forget about the blackness of outer soace...
Think about how everything bends inwards when you look forward down a long desert road.
Now again I am making a guess but a guess based on angles and position of the mandible in the green on the left.
Ronster, although you amended your previous post to include your diagram with the coloured lines after I'd commented, it helps confirm for me the way I look at all these cockpit interior camera POV's - if you extend the middle *blue* line (showing the top edge of the 'mandible') towards the outer cockpit on your diagram (I just held a pen against it) you'll see that the top edge of the 'mandible' is actually a little *below* the side windows of the cockpit.
So that, taken in conjunction with your other helpful mock-up which I've shown above confirms for me that the 'mandible' would definitely be offscreen somewhere around where the 'tree' is seen on the far left-hand side...but still hidden by the lower section under the side window, if this was the view we were to see outside this particular camera POV.
For what it's worth Ronster, I'm personally 100% satisfied that none of the OT cockpit shots should show any glimpse of the Falcon's 'mandible' whatsoever, and are all correct as they are.
This is due to the camera POV mainly pointing *directly ahead* (whether from behind the seats in some shots, or closer to the windows in others) throughout the trilogy. And since the camera views are looking directly ahead in these shots, then we wouldn't see the closest 'mandible' to the cockpit...because unlike your initial mock-up, it is *angled away* from the cockpit.
So I totally agree with FanFiltration's points, who helpfully shows in his 3rd photo that the camera POV would need to be moved over to the right-hand of the cockpit before we would see any of the 'mandible'.
(Thankfully, no extra work required by adywan on any of these OT shots, as far as I'm concerned) :)
The big question however...is whether J.J. will stick to the established *directly ahead* camera POV in his Falcon shots in his sequel, or whether he'll choose to show us something closer to that 3rd photo in Fanfiltration's post?...
Me, I think it would be neat to see a glimpse of the Falcon out of the cockpit at this point, using a differently positioned camera angle inside.
mfastx said:
I have a quick very random question. I was looking through the photo comparisons of some various clips and came across the shot where you replaced Needa's shuttle with a Lambda one. It looks a little small in the screenshot, I realize that it is a pretty old clip so I was wondering if that has changed at all.
Thanks!
mfastx said:
I just noticed that in ROTJ the shuttle looks a tad bigger (not by much) in relation to the shuttle bay.
Anyway just a thought, doesn't make too much of a difference to me either way. Thanks!
mfaxtx, not sure if the shuttle bay you're referring to is the smaller one at the front of the stardestroyer which the shuttle emerges from in the movie...or the bigger one further back, from which the accompanying TIEs emerge from.
Either way, I recall that the original shuttle was deemed out of scale in that original shot compared to the stardestroyer's size, and that adywan slightly changed the scaling of his replacement shuttle (which emerges from the bigger, further back bay) to match the scale of the stardestroyer better.
I'd linked to an article with a few extra tidbits about it over here - http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Standalone-Star-Wars-Films/post/765053/#TopicPost765053
I'm liking the term 'Anthology' to refer to these separate, standalone movies...and it seems this will encompass stories from various different eras which opens lots of possible directions for them to go in.
Here's an article which gives a bit more info. on this whole 'Rogue One' premise - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/71179
To those of us who have grown up with the OT, the 20th Century Fox logo and 'fanfare' were an intrinsic intro. to the movies themselves. So much so, that it kinda seemed as if the short 'fanfare' was truly a part of of the overall experience - especially since it was actually included on the official soundtrack scores.
The prequels I couldn't care less about, but seeing as the 'fanfare' was such a seamless lead-in to Williams' actual main title theme, then the same equally applied to them too. For those of us who have re-watched the Star Wars movies many times, it will seem somewhat jarring to see and hear a different lead-in to the main theme in future releases/tv showings of them. It would have been neat to still hear the lead-in 'fanfare' cue *no matter* what logo(s) are to be used now...
Still, the only versions of these movies which I personally intend to re-watch are *fan edited* ones which will have the 'fanfare' and logo in place anyway. And I guess I can always attach it to the front of the next chapters too, if it's absence bothers me too much. :)
Wazzles said:
He also only says that it has the original Han and Greedo scene, making no mention of anything else.
Interestingly, he also said that new 'colour-timing' was supposedly among the other small tweaks and changes to the (possibly 4k) ANH version his source saw.
I'd like to think this might be an improvement over the darkened, black-crushed look which the SE brought, but it could turn out that some kind of even worse 'tinting' has been introduced now...
However, if the 4k version still includes the awful 'Han standing on CGI Jabba's tail' scene (which also ruins the later 'first reveal of the Falcon' scene), then restoring the original Han shooting Greedo editing will only mildly improve things overall.
