ZkinandBonez

Found a link to a gallery of all the pin-ups.

The Simonson one is definitely one of my favourites. As I’ve said before on this thead, I do enjoy his SW art in general, but I always wished we’d have gotten more “pure” Simonson art without someone else smoothing out his distinct style in the inking process.

It’s too bad that these pinups were never properly included in the re-prints (apparently some of them were). Around the time when I started properly collecting comics they at least had the sense to start including the original covers (which they didn’t before), but stuff like this was never or rarely included.

Now I’ll have to see if I can find some scans or photos of that Archie Goodwin article Shopping Maul described.

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

I just came across this…“pin-up” I guess?..of the battle of Hoth as visualized by Michael Golden.

Does anyone have any idea where this this from?

Regardless of where its from, it’s pretty neat to see Michael Golden draw AT-ST’s before anyone saw them in more detail in ROTJ. It doesn’t look like he Kenner toy so I’m guessing he had that one shot from ESB as his only reference.

It was in one of the single issues of the Marvel TESB adaptation (which ran over six issues in the regular SW title). They had little pin-up galleries in the last few pages of each issue (as well as Archie Goodwin’s wonderful article on the making of the TESB adaptation). Off the top of my head there was a Frank Miller pic, Marie Severin, Bob Layton, Fred Hembeck, Walt Simonson etc etc.

And yes, it was very cool given that all we’d seen at that point were the couple of fleeting shots in TESB.

Right, that makes sense. I’ve only read the ESB adaptation in modern reprints so I’ve never seen any of threse pin-ups before.

I was surprised though to hear that Frank Miller did one as well. I knew he did the cover for issue #47, but according to wookieepedia that was the only SW related thing that he did. It always weirds me out when I discover something SW related that wookieepedia doesn’t know about as they’re usually so thorough.

I just came across this…“pin-up” I guess?..of the battle of Hoth as visualized by Michael Golden.

Does anyone have any idea where this this from?

Regardless of where its from, it’s pretty neat to see Michael Golden draw AT-ST’s before anyone saw them in more detail in ROTJ. It doesn’t look like he Kenner toy so I’m guessing he had that one shot from ESB as his only reference.

screams in the void said:

just came across this podcast covering the entire original Marvel series issue by issue , jumped right to issue 61 which is my personal fave , will have to give the others a listen soon…http://marvelstarwarsexplorers.com/

Sounds interesting, I’ll have to look (or “listen” I suppose) into this when I have the time.

They probably felt that Snoke’s backstory made more sense as a novel, while the more action-oriented Kylo Ren character would work better as a comic. And if Soule does as good a job, or even half as good, as with the Vader series this could turn out quite well. It might also tie in with in-progress or upcoming novels for all we know.

Do we know who will illustrate the series?

SilverWook said:

That actually bears resemblance to a 24th century Norway class starship. Wonder if someone at ILM drew inspiration from that drawing?

Wouldn’t surprise me, especially since it’s a background ship they might have taken shortcuts in the design.

Also, I’d completely forgotten that there was a Norway class in ST. As a Norwegian I’ve always found Roddenberry’s Norway Productions (which I assume the ship class is a reference to) to be really fascinating. As far as I can tell there’s no real connection to Norway, they just thought it sounded cool.

Tobar said:

It’s interesting though, George or someone in the offices must have really loved those test strips. They appear as blown up wall decoration in some behind the scenes ESB photos that are floating out there.

Do you have a link to any of those photos? Now that you’ve mentioned it I feel like I’ve seen it before, and it’s really bugging me. Tried to google it, but couldn’t find anything.

PS. just looked through your DailySW page and found this panel really funny.

It looks like a cross between a Y-Wing and the USS Enterprise.

Ah, I see. So it’s literally a rear-screen projection that tracks the movement of the camera.

For a while I was thinking it was maybe more like a digital version of front-screen projection, which I’d imagine would be cheaper, but I don’t really know how they’d actually pull that off (with current tech anyway). So for the Mandalorian they’re basically doing this, but with the ability to move the camera pretty much anywhere they want.

It sounds a bit like something I saw in a BTS video about the Hobbit films where Peter Jackson walked around an empty room with a steadi-cam and it added his movement to a 3D environment that he could see on the camera monitor. Essentially it allowed him to move freely around this CGI scene with realistic camera movements. I’m guessing ILM have made something similar for this show. The term “in camera” seems weird to me though, but it could simply mean that they can see the CGI extensions on the monitors while they film. However, I can’t find any reasons why they wouldn’t just film the actors on green-screen and then add the backgrounds in post. That would certainly work better, unless there’s some new technology I’m not aware of which can remove green-screen flawlessly “in-camera”.

I was a bit surprised at his comparison to the Lion King sets because all the footage that has been shown so far has mostly been real sets. Though since all the videos online has such poor resolution I guess most of the far-off backgrounds could have been made using this technique.

So, did anyone here actually pick up issue #108?

I ordered it from the only comic store near me but they still haven’t gotten it, and probably won’t at all due to some communication error with their suppliers. Seems like most people who aren’t fans, or at least knowledgeable about classic Marvel SW, have trouble understanding what exactly this comic is. I’ve heard a lot of good things about the issue as well, so this is all really annoying.

12 Original Star Wars Reviews from 1977 - HelloGreedo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkIfCCNHyI

Continuing my search for the UK exclusive stories, I recently got a hold of all three issues of the Weapons Master story-line (and Empire Strikes for good measure).

Not the best of the UK exclusives IMO, but the story’s pretty interesting. Art’s a bit wonky, not quite up to the standards of previous Infantino issues, but I think that’s mostly to blame on the inker. It kind of looks like he’s just inked rough layouts instead of adding the kind of details that Bob Wiacek and Gene Day did on the American issues.

Hopefully they’ll release a proper trailer soon. I find it strange that the trailer, sizzle reel, etc. have only been shown at Star Wars Celebration. The response was very positive, both by those at Celebration and those who’s seen the unofficial footage on YT, so I’m wondering why they haven’t officially made it public yet. You’d think they’d market this a lot more as its one of the Disney+ launch series. I don’t think most casual fans even know it exists.

I just found this poster for classic Buck Rogers from a few years before they actually made the new series to compete with the sudden demand for sci-fi in the late 70’s.

Source

ray_afraid said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Its almost like they don’t know how to respond to something “real”. They’ve always had CG so in a sense that fake digital look is just what unreal things (like aliens or spaceships) are supposed to look like in their minds.

It’s not just aliens n’ spaceships. People really think that revised Obi-Wan/Vader duel making the rounds looks “real”.
Crazy.

Right. Even as a kid I found it weird that no one seemed to find the SE CG out of place. At the time it didn’t necessarily bother me, it just was what it was, but I still thought it was really weird when one of my friends couldn’t tell what was added. Sure some of it’s pretty subtle, but even as a kid CG Jabba stood out like a sore thumb. But, then again, I guess most people (even more so kids) don’t think too much about how movies are made. And the fact that I loved BTS stuff as a kid and even made my own amateur movies probably gave me a very different perspective.

SilverWook said:
I’d like to believe today’s technically savvy kids know bad CGI when they see it.

Hopefully.

Though I’ve literally heard teenagers complain about the CGI in 2008’s Iron Man the same way some people complain about films that are genuinely old. I think sometimes people just complain because they know a film is old (or at least old by their standards). I’ve even seen YT comment where someone complained about bad miniature effects when the scene in question actually contained a real location.

I’ve always been kind of confused about how many people react to CGI. I feel like a lot of kids these days are so used to Hollywood being able to do pretty much anything that they just assume everything is fake. Its almost like they don’t know how to respond to something “real”. They’ve always had CG so in a sense that fake digital look is just what unreal things (like aliens or spaceships) are supposed to look like in their minds.

SilverWook said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

SilverWook said:

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

Compared to how many tend to react I’d that’s a fairly reasonable reaction. Unfortunately too many people just outright dismiss old films because some elements of them are dated.

Though just out of curiosity Omni, which version did you show them? And if you don’t mind me asking, how old (roughly) are you and your friends?

Even though I pointed out earlier that my friends didn’t react negatively to the FX in the OT, I’m sure most of them only saw the SE versions. I think I was the only exception. Of course the Indy films never had SE’s and were just as popular, but then again they weren’t as FX heavy as SW. I’m curious if there could be some kid of generational thing going on. I don’t really know exactly what kids have been watching in the last decade or so, but old cartoons were pretty commonly broadcasted right alongside newer cartoons when I was a kid in the 90’s and early 2000’s. So we were at the very least somewhat exposed to older things on a pretty regular basis. I’ve been getting the impression that it’s not so common anymore. Also the post CGI-era kids might just have a harder time adjusting to the overall look of old effects, while my generation grew up during the transition so both techniques seemed normal to us.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

I’ve always found it interesting how much of a difference there is between people who were shown old films when they were kids compared to those who weren’t. They usually have an entirely different relationship with movies and entertainment in general.

In the '70’s, it was mostly old movies on tv. The Home video market was still a few years away, and unless you had something like HBO, recent movies didn’t air until about three years after they were in theaters. Since infomercials took over the airwaves, stations rarely run old movies anymore. There’s so much competing for eyeballs now, it’s no wonder old movies get short shrift.

Yeah, it’s a real shame that young people aren’t exposed to old stuff as much as before. I don’t know how they handled this in the US, but I remember when Scandinavian Cartoon Network split into two separate channel, one for new programs and one dedicated entirely to old cartoons. I remember thinking at that time that a big shift had just happened in terms of how the next generation would respond to films and TV.

Omni said:

Roughly 20, so we’re all kind of from the post-CGI era. I’d always show them the DeEd until the release of 4K77, which became the standard. Most of the complaints were surrounding some stuff looking weird in the Death Star Attack and half a dozen Falcon shots that looked unnatural.

TESB got no such complaints whenever I showed anyone the film, albeit that didn’t even happen half as many times as me showing someone Star Wars. For TESB I’d use the DeEd 2.0 until Revisited, but I’m thinking only OUT so I’m disregarding the times I showed people Adywan’s version.

And yeah, I totally agree with that! My folks showed me tons of old movies when I was little and I think that’s made me much more susceptible to enjoying stuff with that old feel. Worth noticing that one of the friends I showed Star Wars to said she didn’t really enjoy watching old movies in general because ‘they tend to look bad and be slow’. Can’t argue with her on either but you get the idea.

It really is just a matter of habit, so I’d say that people like us where quite lucky. Seeing old movies and TV doesn’t just give you more stuff to enjoy, I think it makes you much more aware and critical of how they are actually made. I’d say it both makes you appreciate the new stuff more, while at the same time being more critical of it.

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

SilverWook said:

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

Compared to how many tend to react I’d that’s a fairly reasonable reaction. Unfortunately too many people just outright dismiss old films because some elements of them are dated.

Though just out of curiosity Omni, which version did you show them? And if you don’t mind me asking, how old (roughly) are you and your friends?

Even though I pointed out earlier that my friends didn’t react negatively to the FX in the OT, I’m sure most of them only saw the SE versions. I think I was the only exception. Of course the Indy films never had SE’s and were just as popular, but then again they weren’t as FX heavy as SW. I’m curious if there could be some kid of generational thing going on. I don’t really know exactly what kids have been watching in the last decade or so, but old cartoons were pretty commonly broadcasted right alongside newer cartoons when I was a kid in the 90’s and early 2000’s. So we were at the very least somewhat exposed to older things on a pretty regular basis. I’ve been getting the impression that it’s not so common anymore. Also the post CGI-era kids might just have a harder time adjusting to the overall look of old effects, while my generation grew up during the transition so both techniques seemed normal to us.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

I’ve always found it interesting how much of a difference there is between people who were shown old films when they were kids compared to those who weren’t. They usually have an entirely different relationship with movies and entertainment in general.

I haven’t been able to get hold of a copy yet, but from what I’ve read and seen online it’s a collection of short stories.

Here’s the first five pages of chapter 1; The Legend of Valance the Hunter.

Variant covers for SW #108:

Cover D
Cover E

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

Let’s not forget that Han and Leia simply walked out into the cave/slug-stomach. No airlock, they just lowered the ramp and simply strolled out, all while wearing no more protection than this.

I’m surprised that people still argue over physics in SW. These films have broken the laws of physics for the sake of entertainment since the first film. Not to mention that Lucas, and especially Kershner, were quite adamant about SW being fantasy and not true sci-fi.

I’m normally not a fan of photoshopped cover art that just uses old promo photos, but there’s something elegant about the minimalism of these.

I also like the consistency in how the characters are arranged; villain always bottom center, alien character bottom left, etc.

I’m curious though, is there a particular reason why you chose those exact colours for the different films? I can’t put my finger on it, but for some reason those colours seems to really fit the films (especially for the OT).

SilverWook said:

The artist did a lot of covers for the German Perry Rhodan novels. It looks like creative swipes from iconic spaceships happened more than once in the series. Not sure if these are the same artist.

Thanks. For a moment there I was wondering if Lucas or ILM had “borrowed” the design from some random book cover.

However, it’s interesting that the artist choose to add domes to the ship (presumably to differentiate it somewhat) since the Interdictor Star Destroyers introduced in the EU in the 90’s more-or-less did the same thing.

Does anyone know where/when this painting of a spaceship that’s suspiciously similar to a Star Destroyer is from?

I found out that it’s by Alfred Kelsner, but I can’t tell when its from or what it was used for. It’d be interesting to know if it actually predates SW, or if it simply copied the design after the movies.