Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
27-Jan-2022
Posts
3,362

Post History

Post
#506318
Topic
More Old Republic game
Time

BloodnoseThePirate said:

New Gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LToSetCKIHo&feature=player_embedded#at=337

After reading the impressions on massively , I might just stick with LOTRO. I don't know that I feel like grinding and slashing through another game. The story element is interesting and hope there is a free trial to see if that makes up for the lacking novelty of gameplay.

Post
#505482
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

But if you think CGI looks more real...I guess we just have different perceptions of reality.

As much as I appreciate you trying to speak for me, let me clarify.  As I've said a few times before, I think CGI looks as good as, or better, than Matte paintings - when used as a background enhancement, the way matte paintings were in decades past.

However, CGI characters, objects, and entire scenes - Gollum, Jar Jar, droids, & nearly every scene I've viewed a screengrab of from the prequels - do not look more real.

 

Appreciation noted. Though I was obviously drawing a possible conclusion from what you wrote ("But if..."). But thank you for the clarification.

I'm with SilverWook in appreciating the non-mobile concept. We appear to agree that CGI isn't better anyhow.

I agree with everything doubleKO wrote in his posts - his view of Jabba and the guards, the non-relevance of merely criticizing the puppets/masks in a thread about CGI, etc. Puppets can be poorly done (as you observe about Gamorreans, doubleKO points out about PT Yoda and TheBoost points out about the Syfy and 50's movies) but that doesn't speak to the overuse of CGI when latex can be more realistic.

Post
#505372
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

Anchorhead said:

I agree 100%.  The moment that guard showed up on the screen, I felt a huge let down.  It was comical.  At least I assumed it was meant to be.  That rubber suit is so fake & silly looking that you know immediately our heroes are in no danger what so ever.  Same with Jabba.  Both looked like Sigmund and the Sea Monsters.  I half expected 3PO to say "Hey, big daddy". 

Weird that you would feel a "huge" let down after seeing the creatures in the cantina. Jabba looked great. But if you think CGI looks more real...I guess we just have different perceptions of reality.

timdiggerm said:

Oh, I agree the Iguana-Thing is pretty awful. However, I maintain that just because CGI enables bad decisions doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Just because Jabba shouldn't move doesn't mean that he can't be CGI. Perhaps Lucas, the concept artists and the animators need to learn what is believable. That's not the same as not using CGI.

Jabba shouldn't be CGI because CGI Jabba looks awful. The revamped CGI Jabba was better, but still pales in comparison to puppet Jabba. The picture perfectly captures the problem with CGI. Why in the world did Lucas use that CGI Jabba? Because he could.

CGI is a good tool in my view. But I think the debate over whether CGI is inherently good or bad is a red herring. What people actually object to (even when they inartfully declare CGI "bad") is the use of CGI when it doesn't work...which is becoming more frequent.

Post
#505162
Topic
More Old Republic game
Time

In response to sky and Tyr, the problem is not that it is too much like the OT or that it does not look exciting or well done. It has some literally superficial resemblance to the OT (Stormtrooper, Millenium Falcon, etc) so that it feels almost mocking of the OT. Now while the lightsaber duels in the OT are exciting...please don't tell me that the duels in this video game are similar to those duels. This game is more Star-Warsy in context of the EU/PT than the OT.

I would like to play this game. I would like to play this game because it looks exciting and takes place in the Star Wars universe. As a video game, I don't mind all manner of artistic license and I appreciate the game in its own right. I don't take issue with the choreographed fights because it is a video game.

What feels off to me is that this is thousands of years ago...and there is the Han Solo with the Millenium Falcon commenting on the lacking appearance but great stamina of the ship, etc. It is a legitimate critique of the lack of creativity. There is a difference from borrowing from other sources and borrowing so blatantly from the same source.

So, yes, as a video game and ignoring the almost mocking ripoffs of the OT, zomg this looks like fun and it's Star Wars!!! But it's not Star Wars because of the ripoffs. It's because there are Jedi, aliens, planets and droids. The story will no doubt be good with engaging characters.

Post
#504939
Topic
Efficient Movies?
Time

I think it is possible to be too efficient but a movie full of details or scenes only interesting within themselves would be a bit tedious. It would be like reading a novel full of parentheticals and footnotes which might be interesting but not move the story forward.

In my own writing I do have a tendency to make the same point over and over again. Mostly because I find my various formulations clever or I feel that they express some extra nuance (when they usually don't). And I think that's where the problem of inefficiency lies. A scene that is clever, emotional, or well done should exist for the purpose of the story you're trying to tell...not just to show off how clever, emotional, or well done it is / you are.

I've seen movies that are too efficient where you can practically see the cinematic strings being pulled and the film moves from scene to scene because that's where it has to go and characters express certain feelings because that's what they have to feel.

In Star Wars there were inefficient parts, like being stuck in the garbage compactor...with Luke being pulled under a second time for absolutely no reason. That has annoyed me for as long as I can remember. I was also still worried about all the Imperials chasing them as they were stuck in that room. Still, the scene served to pace the movie and interject some humor in the middle of a chase. I just wish he hadn't fallen in the second time.

In terms of efficiency for the PT, it would have simply made for a better movie if the romance of Anakin/Padme weren't stand-alone scenes. That was grossly inefficient and ultimately unbelievable. Han and Leia didn't need to run off to a big grassy field or retreat to a bedroom to move their romance forward - it happened in corridors, with glances, with a stolen moment in the middle of action.

I think in most instances, inefficiency is really just unnecessary and a sign of sloppy writing. I think it is possible to tell a story without sacrificing anything while being efficient. And with the format of a movie, time is an issue. In the example you give it sounded like the time constraint determined that something had to be cut, not just the fact that the scene was inefficient. But if the director truly wanted to keep that scene he would have had to cut something else apparently more crucial to the story.

The first scene in Groundhog Day (my favorite non-SW movie) bothers me. It is totally unnecessary. That is a place where I wouldn't mind seeing efficiency work to eliminate a scene.

Post
#504922
Topic
Is Part 3 of Anything Ever Good?
Time

Return of the Jedi is a notable exception!

But I suspect any number of sequels (not only IIIs) fall short because they try too hard to reinvent the story to make it interesting. The effect might be more pronounced for IIIs because at that point it isn't just about a great original story but more about getting something/anything up on the screen to make money for the producers. By the time of IIIs, the original writer and director might be gone as well as many others initially involved.

Post
#504915
Topic
More Old Republic game
Time

Well it's thousands of years in the past, but there are Stormtrooper characters, droidekas (had to look that up), a rogue character with a Millenium Falcon looking ship, and so many other blatant formulaic ripoffs so as to make your head spin. Despite being more bastardization of Star Wars, it looks like a fun game. I'm not too picky about artistic license in video games but I do wish creators could be more...creative.

Post
#504445
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

TheBoost said:

CO said:

T2 and The Abyss are perfect movies where CGI makes them better, but does not overtake the movie.

The Prequels are loaded with CG and just looks like an animated movie (Episode I isn't that bad as that actually has real environments)  Episode II & III are just animated movies with real life characters and wont age well 20 years from now.

Who ever complained Mary Poppins had matte-work overtaking the movie? Does the fact the penguins are plainly 2D animated pen-and-ink figures date that movie terribly? Do the obviously stop-motion skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts overtake the movie?  Or is this simply anti-CG bias.

Acting as if the opening minutes of Ep. III aren't simply spectacular use of CGI, and that the Mustafar duel isn't a breathtaking accomplishment is just denying the overwhelming quality of the work.

If we're under the impression that the special effects in the OT have aged with amazing grace, take a look at the nits being picked in the fan-edit forum. And that's some of the best work with models, matte-paintings, puppets, and stop motion ever done. Take a gander at the middle of the pack special effects from 20-30 years ago.

I think a plurality concede that CGI is a great tool. Two problems with it are that it is so pervasive and it is inferior to certain physical effects.

The pervasiveness means that the special effect isn't usually something in the background that receives little attention (like matte paintings) but is all over the place (eg Ronto butt). We are forced to confront the unreality (eg Ronto butt) and CGI looks especially unreal when placed in actual footage. If it is going to be at the forefront, it better be very well done, whether CGI or physical.

For biological entities, the unreality is especially glaring. But what happens when we need unreal entities (eg fighting skeletons, Gollum, Yoda)? I find puppet Yoda far more real than CGI Yoda. This doesn't mean puppet Yoda is flawless or that I am utterly fooled into believing Yoda is actually real. But puppet Yoda is one super awesome puppet. And not having seen a living Yoda before, I am sufficiently fooled. But having seen puppet Yoda (as well as real cloth), CGI Yoda really does pale in comparison. I think EyeShotFirst is absolutely right on this point. Gollum works in large part because we haven't seen him before. We are glad to suspend disbelief for special effects, including CGI, but that does not make CGI superior (I've always disliked the unreality of Gollum's fall into the lava, btw). If we look with a more critical eye, Gollum is cartoonish and would pale in comparison to physical effects. Compare puppet and CGI Sy Snootles.

Imagine if Lucas had today's CGI in 1977. Perhaps Chewbacca would be the bushbaby that Lucas always wanted with unreal CGI hair. We wouldn't have the same kind of expression in Mayhew's eyes, his shrug at the droid, the basic reality that comes with human movement (which CGI can only capture up to an extent). When we must use physical effects, reality imposes design compromises and time for designs to evolve more radically than George commanding, 'go cook me up this bushbaby guy on the computer.'

I imagine CGI could do a better job than stop motion for the distant shot of Luke's Tauntaun, for fighting skeletons, and allow for more spectacular space battles. But that doesn't mean it should be everywhere.

CGI isn't bad, it's just not as great as many believe.

Post
#504073
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

I agree with you, Bingowings. I thought the previous 2 episodes were fine. But this let me down. Most of the setup was irrelevant. And most of this episode was setup for future episodes (or another spinoff). There was no real climax. Even the Doctor's grand meltdown ("fall further than he ever has") was pro forma and short-lived.

Post
#503781
Topic
Theme Parks You Wish Existed
Time

CP3S said:

Mrebo said:

Star Trek (I ponder how transporters/holodecks could be faked)

Seriously? I take it you never went to the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas?

No, never been that far west. But sounds neat.

The idea of spending time aboard a starship, being treated as a member of the crew, joining engineering and being taught how to 'operate' the ship, and helping to fight off enemy ships would be spectacular. I'd worry about nutjobs in such an immersive experience (eg going ballistic on a poor Klingon warrior) but for most people would just be great fun.

Bah, and I can't believe I left out a Middle Earth theme park.

Post
#503644
Topic
Worst Edit Ideas
Time

Bingowings said:

Replace the escape pods with 1950's fridges.

lol!

I was pondering how the prequels could have been worse. I came up with the idea that Palpatine was inhibiting the connection with Midichlorians thereby preventing the Jedi from using common sense the Force. Qui Gon discovers Jar Jar who is very strong in the force and has such a unique biology that Palpatine cannot disrupt his Midichlorian Connection. But of course nobody takes Jar Jar seriously and the prequels pay homage to Chicken Little in that regard. So basically, more Midichlorians and more Jar Jar.

Post
#499542
Topic
How would YOU re-do the prequels?
Time

roryoconnor35 said:

Thank you for your comments Mrebo. Could you expand on how you feel the Sith are overdone? I am wary of keeping scenes or characters just because they are cool. For example one of the few things i did like in the P.T. was Vaders birth/construction scene, but it will have to go in order to preserve his identity.

It's my personal taste, but I don't like the notion of their being an ongoing battle between Jedi and Sith and that the Republic is basically taken over by Sith. To me, there are people who use the Force for evil purposes, but don't necessarily belong to a discrete group that call themselves "Sith." It simplifies the real motivations of characters like Palpatine and Vader and makes all the bad guys part of a special group based on evil. Obviously there are a lot of people who enjoy the Jedi vs Sith feud.

I prefer the OT conception. This means relying on a lot of what was not said. How many times did we hear the name "Sith" in the OT? When Luke tried to persuade Vader that there was still good in him, Vader didn't retort, "I am a Sith Lord!" (Because a title would make up for having to slaughter children). The whole notion simplifies motivations and characters too much for my taste.

I read the Darth Bane novels (they were a gift) and that has colored much of my distaste for the Sith. It was a lot of evil for the sake of evil. In that story Bane happened to be Force sensitive and the subject of a lot of abuse and a difficult life. He was a victim of circumstances. I don't imagine Maul being a regular farm boy who  happened to look evil and made a conscious choice which way he would go. An occasional character, like the Emperor or Maul, being pure evil is fine (though the Emperor's motivation was desire for political power) - but an entire axis of the SW universe is off-putting.

I was also toying with the idea of Bounty Hunters being a symptom of decay in an increasingly lawless universe, hence more Boba Fett! But alas no, this creates too many problems.

The bounty hunter thing is an interesting idea. I was also thinking along those lines, of space pirates, etc.

I need Maul as the Dark face of evil, dealing with and commanding the Seperatists/Trade Federation as I want to keep Palpatine's true intentions secret for as long as possible for the benefit of those new to the saga. Dooku is too old to be anyones apprentice. As cool as Christopher Lee is we don't want to share our main villain The Lord of The Rings and Hammer Horror as well. Qui-Gon has been removed for similar reasons.

I'm in xhonzi's camp of wanting to ignore most if not all of the PT. My eyes glaze over when I see the words "Trade Federation." There are a lot of schools of thoughts on these issues and it should make for interesting variety. I'm willing to be convinced that such elements from the PT can be useful and attractive.

Another point on which many disagree is whether to reveal Vader as Luke's father. I agree with you that it should remain a secret. I desire the movies to be viewed in order of I,II,III,IV,V,VI without taking away from the drama of IV,V,VI. Others, like CWBorne, would approach the prequels as if we already know everything from IV,V,VI (at least through their extensive marketing). Perhaps the intention is that the movies would be viewed in the order that they were made, OT then PT. That's not the approach I would choose but I see the merit.

Any ideas on how to do multiple clone wars? Just two would be enough.

I'm struggling with the Clone Wars. Xhonzi seems oriented toward the battle side of things and he wrote a stellar opening scene for his version. I think any series of battles over the same clones could be called Clone Wars. There could be multiple disputes between different sets of planets all over the issue of clone armies...

Post
#498665
Topic
How would YOU re-do the prequels?
Time

roryoconnor35 said:

Greetings my fellow fanboys!

I am new to this site but can  see i am not the only one bursting with ideas and frustrated by plot holes. So far there seems to be a number of plot points we all agree with in general:

1: Darth Maul kept and developed.

2: The paternity secret must be preserved, perhaps using a "decoy vader" apprentice.

3: Obi-Wan and Anakin are our main characters, Alderann and Bail Organa feature prominently.

I read somewhere that Obi-Wan should eventually defy the Jedi order in order to train (continue training) Anakin. I can't remember who wrote it or where but this is genius as it compounds Obi-Wans guilt in the O.T.

Also someone mentioned a second (i.e. multiple) clone wars. This is another excellent point as otherwise there is no need to refer to the clone wars as plural.

My outline so far is as follows

No episode one/phantom menace.

Episode one: the clone wars

Episode two: dawn/rise of the empire (which do ye prefer?)

Episode three: revenge of the sith.

I'l post an outline soon but I would like to hear preferences for the second episodes title: Rise or Dawn?

My own two cents:

1. I don't care for Maul. He's cool: meh. I think the Sith are overdone. Anakin didn't become Darth Vader because he was a Sith nor aspired to be a Sith. I would be satisfied if the notion of Sith was done away with entirely. At most I would let it be a label used by the Jedi for those who use the Force for evil and take the quick and easy path. I don't think Maul can be developed more. He's evil because he's evil - just look at him.

2. I agree about keeping the paternity secret. I'm wary of a decoy Vader because it's gimmicky. One alternative is to let Anakin meet his fate off camera and have Obi Wan confront Vader later on, accusing him of destroying Anakin, etc. That means leaving out a duel between Obi Wan & Anakin (also I don't want Obi Wan to look like a jerk in ANH when he tells Luke that Vader killed Anakin - if there is a second decoy Vader then Obi Wan is even more of a liar and we think so from the beginning). But even this route requires some foreshadowing that Obi Wan had previous apprentices.

3. I agree about the main characters.

Obi Wan does hint at arrogance, that he could teach him "better than Yoda."

I like Dawn of the Empire.

None of us will be able to satisfy everyone on every point. Interested in seeing what you come up with!

Post
#498324
Topic
Hypothetical: What would you KEEP?
Time

xhonzi said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

    Edit: I am concerned, however, about such a radical capability as shapeshifting being introduced into the universe. I thought that maybe it could be limited to something a little more chamelion-like. A change in coloring, or course, and a "realistic" alteration of existing facial features.

That's a good point.  If there's one shapeshifter, there's probably a million.  Every military/intelligence outfit in the galaxy would be after these guys to recruit them/force them into obedience...

It's sort of like Clones, as I've mentioned somewhere else here...

Once you establish that there can be clones, why wouldn't they be EVERYWHERE?  Especially if you can clone whomever you like.  Everytime Mon Mothma appears, wouldn't you be at least a little suspicious that she's a clone?  Wouldn't replacing the Emperor with a Rebellion loyal clone be at the top of their to-do list?  If they didn't have any Emperor DNA from which to create a clone, wouldn't getting that DNA be at the top of their list?

Or replacing him with a shapeshifter?

Back to Mrebo's question (can I call you Max?)-

I wouldn't keep any of those characters, but that might just be me.  I didn't find Watto or Quigonn to be interesting or "Star Warsy" in the least.  005 used to run a Watto fansite, and I know a lot of members of this board have a spot for Quigonn... but in the words of Lina Lamont, "I can' stan' 'im."

Max is fine ;D

I agree about Qui Gon. And I don't care for Liam Neeson. He does good movies but there's something weird about him.

About Watto, he had a certain charm and a well developed character. I am predisposed to loathe everything from the PT but I do think certain elements from the PT could work in a properly done movie. And though GL's movies are now more machine than man...I do think Watto represents the better part of his instincts (albeit in CG). And I would want any PT to reflect the general tastes of GL that made Star Wars what it was.

I suppose many of us would have to unlearn what we have learned in order to see anything from the PT without visions of Christensen and Lloyd flooding our minds.

EDIT: What notable element would you keep if any, xhonzi?

Post
#498134
Topic
Hypothetical: What would you KEEP?
Time

I am toying with the idea of keeping Watto and perhaps Zam Wessel (not as a shape-shifter). They stood out as feeling Star Warsy to me.

I understand why people would want to keep Maul and Qui Gon, I think in large part because they had two of the best performers in the films. I have no use for Maul. Such an obviously evil and "cool" character is destined to be superficial. Qui Gon was the only Jedi who seemed to have any sense. I would allow Obi Wan to have Qui Gon's favored characteristics.

Watto and Zam are probably the only elements I would keep mostly intact. What are all your feelings on those two?

Post
#497839
Topic
How would YOU re-do the prequels?
Time

I like a lot of your ideas CWBorne. I agree that the PT should give homage to other works. But I don't think it should feel very different from the OT - it has to feel like Star Wars - full of adventure and fun - or it will disappoint, no matter how well done or thought-provoking.

And that is a challenge of the PT, because it is darker and more political by virtue of the story. I think film noir has something to offer. I'm not well-versed in cinema and I tend to think of movies from the 70s as subdued and depressing. Do you have any particular films in mind from that period?

The rise of the Empire should be presented as something not entirely bad. It should be more ambiguous and even hopeful. This will help explain Anakain's desire to join it. The end of Episode III should be something of a triumph, restoring peace to the galaxy. I especially like the idea of there being a parallel between Anakin and the Republic.

I like your characterizations of Anakin and Obi Wan. One big issue I am trying to work out in my mind is to show Anakin's downfall without giving away the fact that Darth Vader is Luke's father. There is also a question of showing the duel between Obi Wan and Anakin without making Obi Wan look like a jerk, telling Luke that Darth Vader killed Anakin. I really want to leave the OT as unharmed as possible which may require making compromises in telling the story of the PT...

Post
#497766
Topic
How would you do Return of the Jedi?
Time
I'm one of those rare Star Wars purists who consider ROTJ to be my favorite. Nonetheless, there are a few things I'd change. The biggest change is that Luke and Leia wouldn't be siblings (Luke would be over his crush and Han would win her heart). I don't know who the other Yoda spoke of would be. It would be a challenge to introduce such an important figure without disrupting the story. Perhaps that is a character who should die (for an important reason). The problem of having it be Luke's long-lost twin born of Vader is that Obi Wan seemed oblivious to her importance/existence in ESB. Easiest place to pick up a new character would be in the beginning on Tatooine. Perhaps the mysterious new figure would accompany Luke to Jabba's palace. If I were writing ROTJ, I wouldn't want to do the Death Star again. But how else can we portray the ultimate battle after facing a machine that can destroy planets. There is a pleasant simplicity to doing the Death Star...but bigger! I'm just not sure how to top that. And the climax should top the ANH one. Lastly, I would make the Ewok victory more believable. I'm an unabashed Ewok lover, so I wouldn't ditch them. As I said, I really like ROTJ, so I wouldn't change too many things.