ImperialFighter

Ripplin said:

I do wonder if Ady plans to do anything with the lifeless instrumentation in the cockpit, though. Wouldn't want to see too much, just a subtle blink here and there, maybe? A simple static graphic instead of blackness?

 

 You'll be glad to see then, that he now states on number 24 of his list on page 1, that he plans to add something subtle to the snowspeeder's instrument panel.

ImperialFighter said:

AuggieBenDoggie said:

Just saw watched both versions of the yoda tweak.  Incredible work ady!  I think the second version is best

I do have a little request on the hoth battle. Could you give the smaller guns on the side of the head of the AT-AT's a little action. They never fire the whole time if I recall.

 Just to say at this point, I now know that they definately do have several scenes where they are utilised throughout the battle for sure....and they aren't green either!  More on them soon.  :)  

Adywan, I think this may be that post of AuggieBenDoggie's which was on page 196 of this thread, that you may have missed.  I know you can't respond to everyone, all the time, so I did at the time.  I hope you'll agree with him that there is some great scope for extra laserbolts from those smaller guns, to be added into quite a few more shots....

I also agree with those who've commented on removing the lasersbolts that show through the various 'transparent' cockpit shots.  That will REALLY improve the look of them all, if you plan to do that.

....and finally, your latest, brief ASTEROID SEQUENCE scene is bloody marvellous!!  It has come alive once more, compared to the SE version.  I love the new sort of 'veering' into it look.  Makes me proud to be British!  :)

You said "The whole asteroid sequence is having a makeover so be prepared. lol" -  Wow, can't wait to see what you are able to do with it all, as like the AT-AT scenes, this is one of my favourite scenes throughout the saga. 
 

Okay, this is just a little couple of things, that again, I've only just realised, before I move on from the 'props' stuff altogether....

As regards this 'foot' -

I've just realised that apart from the 'wobble'....what also gives this shot such a 'mid-air', dangling-look to me, is the way it has been framed against the background it's been given....  It just seems that compared to all the other AT-AT-foot 'close-ups', there is no hint of the ground seen around it, and it could pass for being as high-up as a 'cable-car' or something, going by the way we just see the mountains that are behind it here!  Not seeing the bottom of the 'prop' foot has really ruined the effect of this shot I reckon...which could have worked better if we had, and if it had also been 'zoomed-in' on a little bit more, enough to still capture the part where the cable tow 'attached'....

Adywan, while I don't know if this is an option or not, or know yet if you happen to like the current 'prop' foot too much to lose it....can I throw this out there, that if you are definately keeping it, that the background be altered in some way to seem like it could be nearer the ground? 

Here's the kind of other backgrounds that we see in comparison to the 'prop' foot's one, whenever we see 'close-ups' of AT-AT 'feet', to show what I mean -  

The main effect we see in these shots above is an overall 'whiteness' and lack of background detail, and just a hint of 'ground' effect nearby.  Not the 'mountains set against sky' backdrop that the 'prop' was filmed against.  Unfortunately, none of these particular shots above seem quite long enough to use / or 'flip' into reverse, for use instead of the 'prop' shot, as they are too brief. 

This one below, on the other hand, is long enough, if manipulated.  I didn't previously suggest that the actual footage could be just re-used without 'flipping it into reverse, if you wanted the cable tow to seem as if it was hitting the REAR, LEFT foot in the foreground , on the same side as it does in the 'prop' shot.  With a little alteration, it wouldn't seem an obvious 'total re-use' of the shot, by the time we get to it again (with Luke in it) roughly 4 minutes later.  There has been lots of action / other AT-AT shots going on in-between times to make it pretty 'un-obvious' by then....

Although the same shot 'flipped' in reverse would probably just have any new 'rappelling' cable appear just after the foreground foot passes (matching the sound effect on the soundtrack of course), I think that the 'change of side view' of the REAR, LEFT foot that this would entail, from that previously seen, would work okay too, as I personally always like shot changes from differing sides in certain scenes.  And the fact is that there are intercut shots of the pilots between what comes before and after the 'prop' shot anyway - 

Or the 'flipped' shot as seen below -

Okay, I'm done.  I can get onto some of the more 'fun' little AT-AT things now....  :)

Monroville said




I take it this is the offending element?  If anything, it seems all it needs is the outer ring you see on the model leg (the ring above is flat and smooth, whereas below the inner ring is inset).  Also, going by the picture below, shouldn't there be another inner leg joint on the lower left in the pic above (of course, it would cover up Luke's lightsaber arm and the door, which is maybe why the shot is so off - there's a missing leg!)?

 

 Er...didn't I say most of that (twice!) on the previous page? ;) 

Adywan had originally stated a good while back that he couldn't do much with this, and hadn't really intended to.  The thing is, adding a 'raised ring' would be a very difficult thing to do, throughout the 'movement' of that 'prop's shots....  However, it seems that he is now going to do something here....which is great, as anything he does will be an improvement, I'm sure.

That was a nice bit of thinking there Sevb32, by the way.  I hadn't thought about the 'zoom-in' thing, but can't wait to see what Ady may achieve. 

Here's my favourite piece of early AT-AT art by Ralph McQuarrie -http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8045/mcquarrie27tv1.jpg

doubleofive said:

 

Now I'm ruining it for everybody.

Lol, don't worry, I think most of us realise that even this great entry in the saga is actually full of gaffs and continuity problems at this stage.

Having said that doubleofive, since you pointed out that 'stick' to me (which I actually had never noticed before!), it's all I can see now, and can't bear to watch this movie again....  :)

At least the shot where the snowspeeder goes under the AT-AT is a fleeting one (as are a lot of the shots), and most of the differing cuts from 'extreme close-ups' to fuller viewpoints of the different miniature work are intercut with other scenes before we return to certain ones.  A lot of problems fly past when watching them in the main....I just wish that damn 'wobbly', static-looking 'foot' prop you've shown was even more fleeting!  ;)

Monroville said:

I understand your points; I guess my thing is if you want to keep the red box and the green slider, add it to Luke's in the beginning to be consistent.  Then again, the whole "different setting" thing works too.

But what do I know?  I'm just a crazy guy in a santa suit...

 

Yes, I was meaning that I hope he also prefers to add that green 'moving' slider onto Luke's view too, as the original looks kinda plain.  However I can certainly go with the 'different setting' thing if Adywan prefers it that way.

Also, you may be a crazy guy in a santa suit, but I always look forward to reading your ideas, of which you have many.  We need that around here, as we can't expect Adywan to think of everything himself, if there's certain things we'd like to see.  His choice is final of course.

ImperialFighter said:

 

 

Another thing I would REALLY like to see is the slight, momentary glimpse of an added opposite 'adjoining' FRONT, RIGHT 'leg piece' section coming into view on the LEFT-hand space of the frame, when Luke is first seen reaching for his Lightsaber as he twists on reaching the underbelly.  On studying the movements during that shot, there does seem to be an ideal moment to add this in, as the 'framing' of the whole scene moves to the LEFT, then moves back to the RIGHT a little again, at one point (as if it has lurched forwards during it's 'walking' forward), just before Luke swipes the underbelly with his now fully ignited Lightsaber.  The added glimpse of the new piece on the left-hand side would move back out of the frame, just before Luke swipes upwards.  This is just another little thing that could help matters greatly,  matters, and would tie in with the 'closeness' of the miniature's 'leg pieces' better.   I'd really like to see this if you agree.

I had to go back and re-write quite a bit of this particular paragraph from my previous post above, as I had got my 'lefts' and 'rights' mixed up, due to rushing!  Anyway, I've also added a bit more detail to my description of what I'm meaning, and just wanted to point this out.

Okay, here it is then, the second unconvincing 'prop' seen during the marvellous AT-AT GROUND BATTLE that niggles me no end every time I see it. 

Seen here with Luke's foot on it, it's the one that is meant to represent the uppermost narrow end of one of the the almost 'plectrum'-shaped 'moving sections' that joins the very top of the AT-AT's rear left leg onto the side of it's body -

I already brought this particular badboy up a good while ago Adywan, and you mentioned at the time that it would probably have to just be left as it is, and that it wasn't really something that had ever really bothered you too much.  I understand that, and know that the shots are probably beyond salvage throughout the scene anyway.  The only reason I'm bringing it up again, is that since then, I've thought about a little something else that you might consider on....

Firstly, to briefly recap -  as most will know, the end shape of this uppermost AT-AT leg-piece 'full-scale prop' unfortunately looks nothing like the end shape on the leg-pieces that are on the actual miniature AT-AT's themselves.  And again, this 'prop' seems to 'wobble' about just a little too much, even to tie in with some of the 'shakier' stop-motion on show....  I don't know why this turned out so different from the look of the miniatures, but I'd be interested if anyone knows the reason (I'd like to think there is a good reason, rather than carelessness).  It certainly always makes for jarring continuity, when I see it. 

Anyway, after Luke has 'rappelled' upwards towards the section in question under the AT-AT's belly, the 2 other shots below give a reasonable view of how the end shapes should actually look like, to match the 'prop' to the miniatures -  

So then, it turns out that the ends of these 'leg pieces' look 'chunkier' on the miniatures, compared to the 'prop', as the ones on the miniatures have an 'outer ring' which has a shallow 'hollow' centre, where a small protruding detail sticks out from the middle.  In the shallow 'hollow', there seems to be just 3 small holes around the protruding detail.  You get the idea.  Unfortunately, there are also questions about scale and proportions too on the 'full-size prop' that Luke is beside.  It seems that the 'adjoining' leg pieces under the belly of the miniature AT-AT's are seen to be quite close to each other in a lot of shots such as the ones above, whereas Luke seems to have a lot of space to manoeuvre beside that single 'prop' piece....

So at the end of the day it is unlikely that much can be done.  However, a couple of little things that I would really like to see done to these shots, would be a little less 'wobble' if that is at all possible.  Again, things look fine in these still screenshots, but the actual 'movement' onscreen looks too unconvincing in a few places (to me anyway).  That could definately improve matters, but I don't know if that can be achieved in any of the shots.  Too bad if not. 

Another thing I would REALLY like to see is the slight, momentary glimpse of an added opposite 'adjoining' FRONT, RIGHT 'leg piece' section coming into view on the LEFT-hand space of the frame, when Luke is first seen reaching for his Lightsaber as he twists on reaching the underbelly.  On studying the movements during that shot, there does seem to be an ideal moment to add this in, as the 'framing' of the whole scene moves to the LEFT, then moves back to the RIGHT a little again, at one point (as if it has lurched forward during it's 'walking' forwards), just before  Luke swipes the underbelly with his now fully ignited Lightsaber.  The added glimpse of the new piece on the left-hand side would move back out of the frame, just before Luke swipes upwards.  This is just another little thing that could help matters greatly,  matters, and would tie in with the 'closeness' of the miniature's 'leg pieces' better.   I'd really like to see this if you agree.

The last little thing that occurred to me recently about why I disliked the dreadfully different 'prop' so much, is realising that because I know it is so different in it's shaped outline, compared to the shape of the the miniature versions, that my eye is always drawn to it.  But then I realised that I could just about put up with that wrong shape if it was made 'plainer', more 'invisible' in the scene....by getting rid of the also absolutely wrong 'detailing' that stands out on it, making you 'study' the piece!  Remember the 3 holes that surrounded the protruding bit inside the shallow 'hollowed'-out circle?  Well this 'prop' is covered in lots of distractingly wrong detail (which is nowhere close) and which is actually sticking-out around the protruding central bit on the 'prop', rather than being the 3 indented 'holes' that are seen on the miniature's detail.  My eye is drawn to them constantly, and if they weren't there at all, the whole 'prop' would seem 'simpler', yet more 'chunky', and certainly be 'more in the background' if you know what I'm getting at.  See what you think, but I am sure that this thing would be far better if all of these things were erased off it! 

Here's the sort of thing I mean -

 That's all for now.  Plenty more AT-AT madness to come in the coming days though.  :)

Aw man, really Monroville?  Personally, I always liked the overall colour/'movement' of the original Rebel trooper binocular graphic better than the plain original Luke binocular graphic.  I'd be sorry to see the effect either side go, and hope Adywan feels the same.

As far as the 'double circular' look to the front of the binoculars themselves, that didn't actually faze me too much in the past, as the end eyepiece that they looked through (as evident in the shot below) is somewhat 'rectangular' anyway, and I just used to accept that the Rebel trooper's 'rectangular' graphic was because it was just on a totally different 'setting', or was a 'modified' one compared to Luke's.  :) 

I have to say that in hindsight, that the 'double circle' graphic is far preferable over both the displays now, but I'd sure miss that colour/'movement' thing either side.

AuggieBenDoggie said:

 I do have a little request on the hoth battle. Could you give the smaller guns on the side of the head of the AT-AT's a little action. They never fire the whole time if I recall.

Just to say at this point, I now know that they definately do have several scenes where they are utilised throughout the battle for sure....and they aren't green either!  More on them soon.  :) 

Okay, here is the first part of a few 'AT-AT GROUND BATTLE'-related things I've been meaning to comment on for a while now Adywan, for you to consider (or shoot down, lol)....  It might take a little while to read through the two or three posts I'll need to eventually split them into, but here goes. (and many thanks to doubleofive who once again generously took the time to give me the exact numerous screenshots I wanted.) 

Firstly, can I say that while I wasn't quite sure about your change to the the AT-AT 'reveal' graphic at first, I've really come round to the look of it now, and realise that the consistency with the view from out of the identical Rebel binoculars will be a very good thing....

....however, although I know you confirmed that the 'red rectangle' would also be added to Luke's graphic too, I hope the same goes for the 'green and moving sections' that are seen either side of your new one.  These are my favourite elements from the original one, and they really add interest to the 'double-circle' version.  Nice work once again.

Although not straightforward, there are 2 things during the AT-AT battle that I'd personally most like to see improved in some way, if you would consider it, so I'll start with them, and offer a couple of possible ways to perhaps do that.  They both happen to involve the 'full-scale props' that were used....

This is my first offender -  it's not a long shot, but it's always been a frustrating one for me.  It's the AT-AT 'foot' that is hit by the tow cable that just seems to 'dangle' around momentarily in mid-air and 'wobbles' slightly, and isn't at all consistent with the movement of the miniature AT-AT 'feet' shots before and after it....

Now while it looks fine here in this still screengrab, the actual 'movement' onscreen is very poor.  From scrutinising the footage of the shot just afterwards where the snowspeeder has started to wrap the tow cable around the legs, it seems to have attached to the REAR, LEFT foot, before going around the back of the AT-AT.  This seems to tie-in with this 'prop' foot, which is shown with it's outer side to us.  Sadly, going by the angle of the 'prop' in the shot, and the distance we are away from it, we should probably have seen the opposing REAR, RIGHT leg/foot somewhere on the right of the frame, too....  I'd also suggest that the actual 'portion' of the 'prop' foot that is shown is actually not very well framed to begin with, and that some of the miniature 'close-ups' showed far better sections, such as the 'toes'.  I reckon some of the actual detailing is a little suspect too. 

Here's a very rough reminder of how it currently fits in sequence at some point in-between these other more convincing before and after miniature 'feet' shots, albiet without the brief 'intercutting' shots of the snowspeeder pilots which help to distract from any continuity problems in the look, colour, or backgrounds, when watching the movie -

If you plan to keep this shot mainly as it is, then perhaps you'd consider even trying to remove the 'wobble' of the 'prop'?  I doubt that the flimsy tow cable hitting the gigantic AT-AT's supposedly solid leg would affect it like that.  Also, perhaps you could study the look of of the REAR, LEFT foot on the miniature that precedes it (if you agree that this is the 'foot' in question), and better match some of it's details onto the 'prop', such as those involving the 'circle' areas?  And even the glimpse of a more prominent, more horizontal 'toe' added to the bottom right-hand side would be a welcome addition to help the poor framing a tad, and match how the preceding miniature one looked.

But on the other hand, maybe you'd even consider this, which has the potential to improve things much more dramatically, if you like the idea -  totally removing that 'prop' shot altogether, and replacing it with a brief 'flipped' version (but with a slightly different background) of existing footage of 'walking legs/feet' from the sequence where Luke is seen running underneath an AT-AT, which comes a good 4 minutes or so later on during the battle'!  

In the intervening 4 minutes or so, there's been a lot of action going on, due to numerous different scenes and cuts, with plenty of other AT-AT leg/foot shots to distract and mix things up from the 'memory' of the one that has gone before....so that by the time we get to the actual original, 'unflipped' scene with the 'walking legs/feet', you wouldn't really register that this brief AT-AT shot is the same one.  Luke would be need to be erased , and some difference made to the background, and a new tow cable would have to be added shown 'attaching' to the REAR, LEFT foot seen in the middle of the frame, and maybe colour-matched slightly (but as I said, there's intercutting pilot shots which make that less necessary).  It's just a thought, and the footage is just a tad longer than the 'prop' shot that it would replace, I checked.  So getting a length of shot that covers the same length as the 'prop' shot is no problem. 

And here's a very rough example of how including the 'flipped' shot would then look now, compared to the existing sequence shown above, although a watch of the actual moving footage will be needed to really get an idea of how it would turn out (remember, there would be no Luke in the scene, and there would be an added new tow cable 'attaching' to the back leg/foot, and intercutting between the different AT-AT shots with pilot shots) -

Okay, that's the first thing out of the way, don't know what you'll make of it, but I'll get to the other ones as soon as I can. 

Good point.  Maybe they're green.  ;)

C3PX said:

I really don't see him as an angry person, nor much indication of anger in his posts.

I've always enjoyed reading skyjedi2005's more, er... 'outstandingly indignant' opinions on certain things on this site, and have found myself to be in complete agreement with a lot of them!  As well as these more entertaining comments, he has also provided some very good ideas and informative stuff along the way too.

In fact, his contributions are some of my favourites, and I look forward to more from him.  :) 

Just a last comment on the whole Yoda thing from me.  I remember when I first read that a 'younger' Yoda design was going to be making an appearance in the then upcoming 'The Phantom Menace' prequel, thinking this would be a fantastic thing, considering he'd been such a great character.  I then remember wondering how he would turn out...and remember coming across this shot of the new Yoda sculpt, which I thought looked rather neat and badass -   http://www.dinocafe.com/gaz/Yoda.jpg

Then I eventually saw the version that ended up in the movie...and wondered what the hell happened to the look of the sculpt I'd previously seen! -   http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4928/tpm-yoda4.jpg

At least the follow-up CGI design looks like it could probably age into the original classic look, thankfully.

And Adywan's tweaked Yoda looks to be the best of all.  Speaking of 'badass' Yodas, check these out, lol. -

http://www.alexandgregory.com/images/Darth%20yoda.jpg

http://www.owensworld.com/funnyimages/files/1167_yoda_big.jpg

doubleofive said:

 As for Yoda's wobbly ears, I also recall them specifically mentioning in the AoftC bonus features that they tried to replicate it in the CG model.  So by that logic, its officially not a limitation of the puppet, but a character trait of Yoda.

Ah, that's good then.  I guess I didn't recall that detail on the prequel one, as I'd 'switched off' a bit after The Phantom Menace...  Sure hope George puts out the CGI replacement instead of the puppet on the inevitable next re-release of TPM, before Ady gets round to that one though!

Monroville said:

Even, then, it is not natural that a living thing has wobbly ears, being that I do not know any human or mammal whose ears wobble when they move.

 I guess creatures like Yoda could evolve differently in galaxies far, far, away...  ;)

But seriously, I know what you mean with the slight 'vibration' thing, but considering what Adywan's now done with his latest tweaks, I personally think this is no biggie anymore.  It's perhaps a pity that this hadn't been implemented into the CGI Yoda ears in the prequels, even, to tie it in with the wonderful OT version better.   

By the way Monroville, you had some interesting comments on the whole Tauntaun eyes / ears / nose thing there, but unlike the production photo shown above, the actual footage only seems to have the briefest, moving glimpses of the likes of the nostrils, so it's none too obvious.  And although a lot of it is a moot point now, I liked reading some of your recent AT-AT battle 'what if' ideas too.

Anyway, the main thing I want to say is -  THE YODA 'PUPPET' BLINKS AT LAST!!

Wonderful, and more than once at that, during the latest clip.  Thankyou very much Adywan, as this has been a great start to the New Year where your project is concerned.  The subtlety of where you positioned them is perfect, and doesn't detract from the look of the excellent OT Yoda one bit. 

There's just one other place I'd have liked to have seen just one more in your scene, and that is at some point during when he walks sideways to our viewpoint, as he says "...for 800 years have I trained Jedi...my own council will I keep on who is to be trained."   However, this has turned out more than I could have wished for, and I imagine that there will be other subtle ones in some of his others scenes too, in future.  :)   Excellent stuff.  

Don't know how others here will feel about this, but I was impressed by the recent overhaul of the Fanedit.org homepage.  It now sports a more classy look to it, with a new logo typeface that presents an improved impact when you first visit there now.

It's just a thought, but what do others here feel about a similar enhancement to this beloved site's homepage too?  Perhaps with an enlarged OriginalTrilogy.com logo (whether redesigned or not) and bigger Star Wars character headshots also, for more of an impact when reaching this site?  It could be an opportunity to amend some of the initial information on the homepage too, if it's deemed necessary.

Any thoughts either way?

I sense great anger in you...

This has been an informative and entertaining page.  Thanks skyjedi2005 and the rest of you guys.  :)

I treasure my 4 disc anthology boxset.  Oh, and JEDI ROCKS! still doesn't...

As a huge fan of soundtrack music (well, the good 'uns anyway), I hope I can catch the forthcoming Star Wars Saga concert this year.  Just a pity it's not the actual London Symphony Orchestra involved...  Should still be epic stuff.

For myself, it was the realisation that where the original trilogy had been epic but 'child-like', the prequels were overblown and needlessly too 'childish' in places.

That, and the suspect new designs in certain areas...and the eye-rolling line delivery in places...

Still, cannot wait to see what Adywan will do with them eventually!  A new hope indeed...  :)

That is very good news to hear, congratulations. 

And so is the news that you are getting nearer to the end of your project.  It will be worth whatever the wait, I'm sure. 

A Happy New Year to you also.

adywan said:

 The At-At's were only sent down to knock out the shield generator. They weren't sent to wipe out the rebels at all. The original assault was from the Stardestroyers and was supposed to be a surprise attack. The Empire is quite cocky about their superiority over the rebels so i really don't think they would have sent a whole attack force down there just to destroy a shield. The Stardestroyers became a blockade and they were confident that they could stop all the escaping rebel ships.

Thanks for your latest interesting comments.  Once again, you've given a very logical reasoning to these particular sequence of events.  Good stuff.  5 AT-AT's (and possibly the AT-ST still) it is then, but with extra 'oomph'.

Sorry to hear that the odd Yoda eyeblink doesn't seem to be working out, but never mind.

And hopefully you can get as talented a collaborator as Will Martin was.  Fingers crossed.

adywan said:

i just want to wish everyone on here a Happy New Year.

So what do we all wish for in 2009?

I guess what we all want is the OUT released on Blu-ray & DVD fully restored with no horrible colour corrections.

What we will probably get is another rehash DVD box set release of the SE & GOUT. But i guess we can be hopeful

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!

I'll echo that, and drink to that...again!

Actually, what I'm most looking forward to, that's Star Wars-related, is your current EMPIRE:R project.  :)

Oh, and I'd really like to catch that big John Williams / Star Wars concert this year.  Pity it's not the actual London Symphony Orchestra though... 

OzoneSherrif said:

hard for me to believe that someone could survive a dunk in lava. instant melt

The (dark side of the) Force was strong with him at this point.  ;)

Some fine subtle work on Yoda's mouth movements there.  :) 

While the original puppet is mainly excellent in it's overall facial movements, and doesn't need any radical adjustments, it would be really neat to see just even one (or two) blink(s) throughout the likes of these long close-up scenes with him, to give even more life to the 'puppet' eyes, and tie-in with the multi-blinking cgi versions even more.  Your Cantina characters were nicely subtle, and the effect dramatically improved things.

And loving the 'Adywanified' colour of things as usual.