Burdokva said:
I also fear that battles will be of the typical Prequel fare. Dumb, explosive, fast, pointless. Just cram as many things as you can.
I know I'm repeating myself, but this trailer was not meant for us.
It was made for these guys;
(Probably a different game, but I don't know squat about American football and it illustrates my point well enough.)
The B-roll video was made for us, the Disney and Comic-con panels was made for us. This trailer was made to hype the general public, not the fans. Hence we got a very typical modern day action hype-trailer.
SilverWook said:
Didn't we go through all of this when the last trailer came out? ;)
Oh yes, and I can guarantee it will happen again when the movie comes out.
Ziggy Stardust said:
I understand what you mean, it's 2015 after all, and it's unrealistic for me to expect this to have 70's camerawork.
Still, couldn't they........TRY?!?!?!?!
Well, we'll just have to wait for December to see. This is a trailer shown during Monday Night Football after all, so of course it's going to sell action over story.
Ziggy Stardust said:
I hate to admit it, but something about the newest trailer has left a bit of an odd aftertaste. The camera movements during the special effects shots are too flashy and overdone, which makes it look fake.
Well, the camera movments in the original films were pretty "flashy" and one of the original "selling points" was how the cameras often followed the spaceships throughout battle.
But as long as they never go THIS far with it, I'm satisfied at least.
I'm actually kind of surprised to see several Knights of ren in the trailer. When exactly will these guys show up in the story?
Not that I'm complaining though, because this is a pretty cool shot.
I also noticed this trench in the ground on what I assume is Starkiller base. I'm not sure what it is but it reminds me of the Death Star trench in ANH.
I'm also guessing that this is Maz Kanata's castle?
I'm not going to clutter this thread any more, so I'll just post the links to these last three images:
(Where the heck is this supposed to be? You can clearly see some building or something down at the right of the screen. Or maybe it's a spaceship?)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20535561/SW%20VII%20red%20space.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20535561/SW%20VII%20incoming%20X-Wings.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20535561/SW%20VII%20Kylo%20vs%20Finn.jpg
Well, that was definitely a trailer made in the 2010's.
I'm still cautiously optimistic though, just because the trailer doesn't have much plot in it doesn't mean the movie won't.
This trailer also seems to have a heavy emphasis on the CGI dogfights, but then again we already know that there's going to be a lot of cool practical effects in it based on the B-roll footage, so I'm not to worried on that part either.
(It was after all a Monday Night Football trailer, so it was clearly intended for a more general audience and not the fans. That's what the B-roll was for.)
John Doom said:
Nice find, thanks!
About that duel... meh. Is it worth adding it to the timeline? I'm fine with Obi-wan and Anakin meeting in ANH for the first time after he left his training. What do you think?
Well, isn't the whole duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin/Vader one of the most important moment in SW lore? It is after all the event that made Anakin into Vader. Both lore-wise and symbolically this transformation is a really important moment in SW.
The ROTS version may have been an over-the-top CGI mess, but the moment in of itself is pretty interesting and important to the characters. Had it been handled properly it could have been one of the best SW scenes ever made.
The Emperor has always been a very devilish character and it makes sense that Anakin's final transformation should be a flaming baptism so to speak in a hellish setting.
His "more machine than man, twisted and evil" description is also very important to define his role as Darth Vader. That this happened while fighting an old friend while trying to turn him back to good just makes the whole image so much more potent.
I think it's important to try to not be affected by the PT interpretation while considering these ideas. They all had great potential, just a terrible execution in the end.
Although it's not much to go on, this interview with James Kahn (the writer of the ROTJ novelization) does at least confirm that Obi-Wan's extended talk to Luke on Dagobah was based of a conversation with Lucas and not of his own making. So it seems that we can take the Lucasfilm sections of the AGTTSWU serious as a pre-PT George Lucas canon.
http://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2015/10/swnn-interview-james-kahn-author-of-return-of-the-jedi-novelization.html
(This of course still implies a lot of retconning in between the films, but at least we can identify what Lucas intended back in 1983.)
poita said:
I'll start a new thread.
In the meantime, these guys can sort you out re film and film camera hire.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of these people. They might be a little bit out of my price range, but I'll contact them to see what they have to offer.
Could also you PM me a link to the thread when you've made it?
poita said:
ZkinandBonez said:
pawel86ck said:
ZkinandBonez- my opinion about movies shot on digital was negative (for example star wars looked flat as you say), but right now digtal cameras are much better, and I started to love films shot on digital because picture quality is most of the time very consistent, and looks realistic and sharp at the same time. Of course movies shot on film also can look good, but very few film studios care to scan their movies with good results. Few days ago I saw Edward scissorhands, and that movie received 4K remaster, and picture quality was superb. But again, very few movies (shot on film) looks like that, most of the time we get fuzzy and overprocessed picture with lots od DNR in order to mask film grain.
4K BD format will come out soon, and so I hope that we will see some quality remasters in regards to movies shot on film, maybe we will even see official high budged star wars remaster for 4K BD.
Sure, there's nothing inherently wring with digital, and it has gotten extremely good lately. But I mostly have two big problems with it (or rather it's use);
1. Digital bias - This idea that it's the new upgrade to celluloid really has to stop. It's an ingenious re-approach to getting roughly the same end result, but it's not a replacement. I have no problems with movies being shot digitally, I just wish people would stop referring to the use of film as a "hipster" thing, or calling it "out of date." Digital is an awesome new invention, but it has been over-hyped beyond belief. And film is currently evolving just as much as digital is; it just so happens to have been around for a fair bit longer.
2. Hyper-reality - I really can't stand when a movie is shot at 8k, or 48 frames per second. It's so redundant. I remember reading somewhere that the human eye sees roughly the equivalent of 4k (in digital terms), and that 35 mm film cover roughly the same amount. So why go beyond 4k when making a movie? There's just something so ugly about these 8k movies. I remember seeing The Hobbit and thinking "holy crap, what's wrong with Ian Holm's face!" in the opening scene. There's nothing wrong with it, but in 8k I can see every wrinkle and pore on his face. Heck I wouldn't have been able to see this if I was standing inches from his face in real life.
The whole 48 fps thing bugs me as well. I know people keep saying that the eye sees faster than 24 fps, but I feel like these films kind of proves otherwise. Wave your hand in front of your face and it'll look blurred. Look at any movement in the Hobbit trilogy and everything looks like a high frame rate video-game.
Digital is fine and all, but I really see no purpose to film anything beyond 4k and 24 fps. The result is a bunch of hyper-realistic, video-game looking mess. It's just a gimmick. It sounds cool, it mirrors current iPhone and flat screen TV ads. "It used to be 4k, but now it's 8k!" It sounds cool, but it's completely redundant. It's just cheap marketing.All in all though, I just wish it would even out a lot more so that the two mediums could co-exist with much more ease. Film has such a unique, and currently unsuccessfully emulated aesthetic, it would be such a loss to movie culture to lose it. Film also has a lot of financial benefits which no one is talking about either, which really bothers me and kind of confirms that there's a bit of a digital bias going on in the current film industry.
I'm currently in the process of applying to a film school, and I'm hoping to one day get to direct movies of my own, and I'd be really disappointed if I'd loose the possibility to shoot on film. It has such a natural and organic look to it, and has so many currently unsung benefits. And although I have no problem with other people shooting digitally, I have no interest in using it myself.
(End of rant.)Think about what you are saying for a moment, if your eyes only see about 4K resolution, then watching a film in 4K or 8K, you would see no difference at all, as your eye wouldn't detect the extra resolution.
As for 48fps and the moving your hand in front of your face, again, if your eyes were blurring the movement, then the 48fps of your hand would look just as blurry as the 24fps of your hand, as your vision would be doing the blurring between the frames.
Also, there is no way you saw The Hobbit projected in 8K, I don't know of any 8K cinemas anywhere, and there certainly wasn't an 8K version produced for distribution. What you saw was 2K, so you certainly weren't overwhelmed with detail that was more than your eyes could perceive, as you thought was the case. The reality is that Hobbit in particular suffered from a few problems.
1) To get 48fps, they had to throw a lot more light at the actors and the sets, this made lighting far more difficult, and it simply wasn't lit as well as the the LotR trilogy. This resulted in seeing more of the flaws in the makeup, costumes and sets.
2) 3D. To get 48fps and 3D, and keep the images clear, they went for a deep depth of field, as it keeps more in focus. Particularly in the Hobbiton internal scenes where the sets are not physically large, this resulted in nearly everything being over-lit, and everything in-focus. It also required greater compression rates. There is little leading of the eye in these scenes.
These two things gave it that Soap Opera/TV feel, the flat-ish lighting, the higher compression rates smoothing out detail, and the deep DoF resulting in everything being in focus, yet smoothed out a bit by compression. They got better at it as the film went on, and when they could shoot outside, the second half of the film looks much more natural than the first 45 minutes. The Hobbit is a flawed production, it looked just as bad in a 2D, 24fps cinema, i wasn't really the framerates etc. that were the problem, it was the crew struggling with finding how to shoot this way, and making a bit of a botch of it. This is to be expected when trying something for the first time, but it is a shame they didn't nail it, as many people now hold The Hobbit up as the example of why 48fps looks terrible.
As for film being unique, and not currently emulated, well, that just isn't true, we did a test screening with 11 film based directors quite a few years ago now, showed the same sequence shot on film vs shot on digital, and not one of them could reliably pick which was which. You can make digital look just like film if you want to, but most are now starting to explore the ways to utilise the extra fidelity, light sensitivity and dynamic range that digital offers to find new ways to tell stories.
The reason you find the clarity of 4K, and the high frame rate disturbing, is that you have had pretty much your entire life, being trained to see narrow depth of field, soft images, low dynamic range, raised blacks and 24fps blur as 'cinematic'. All of those limitations of film, became the language of film, and directors started using those limitations and working with them to create that language.
So a narrow depth of field is used to lead the eye where the director wants you to look, it is used particularly with slow focus pulls to show beauty, not necessarily because it is beautiful, but they have shot beautiful things and people that way for the last 100 years, so we have learned to read and assimilate that language, and it kicks off an emotional response.
Had film from the get-go been 48fps and film stocks much faster allowing for deeper DoF, then a different language would have appeared, and we would think of high resolution, sharp, 48fps as being the 'film look' and not liking whatever came along and replaced it.
You can make digital look just like film now if you want, and 100+ years of artistic language doesn't just go away, especially because it works, but a new language will evolve, and new generations will prefer its look.
The new dolby HDR laser projection is just astounding, it makes film look terrible in comparison, I think it will be much more important that resolution going forwards, it brings a range of options to directors that will enhance story-telling and sense of presence greatly.
Time marches on, things improve, we old dinosaurs don't like change. There are truly beautiful, artistically stunning digital movies being made now, and there are awful, soap-opera digital movies being made now, just as there was 50 years ago. The great movies and stories will look marvellous shot on digital or film, it is down to the talents of the crew, and the story to be told.
If you want to shoot on film, no-one is stopping you, Kodak is making 35mm film for at least the next decade, 16mm film is abundant, and you can even buy Super8 film if the mood takes you.
But if you do become a good director, the medium will be mostly irrelevant, you should be able to tell your story, capture your audience and create something that will mesmerise, regardless of the aquisition method.
Ok, clearly I got the whole 8k thing wrong, but that still doesn't hide the fact that it wasn't one of the most convincing looking films I've ever seen.
Also could I get some more info on the story with the "11 film directors"? This is all a very funny conflict that is currently going on, because I know people who will swear to being able to tell the difference between the two almost all the time. It's funny that you mention dynamic range as well because that's always a word I keep hearing in articles arguing for the use of film, even from professionals who use both mediums.
I could be wrong, but I've yet to be properly convinced that a digital movie was shot on film. I've seen movies shot on film that have been so heavily altered in post that they end up looking very digital, but then film is done properly it does have a very unique look it. Like I've said earlier, I'm not an expert, so maybe I'm full of crap. I'm trying very strongly to not react nostalgic about these thing, I'm just not convinced by it all. Most of the time I can tell the difference, and when film is done properly there's just something that speaks to me so much stronger.
On an the whole "no one's stopping you" thing is kind of misleading, in some cases that's very much what it feels like. I live in Norway, and film is literally dead in this country. No movies are shown on film at all, and you sure as hell can't find anywhere to buy film, especially not anywhere to develop it. I'm currently working on a short film project and I'm shooting it digitally because there is literally no way for me to shoot it on film. Sure I'm just an amateur, but there are currently professional filmmakers in Norway who is struggling just to make film an option. A director who comes from the same areas as I do has been struggling for years now to convince the Norwegian studios to let him shoot film, and it's not really working for him. Like most other's he'll either end up in England because they have a better system for it or he'll just compromise and use what the studios tell him to use. This is someone really young too, not even thirty yet I think, and I find it hard to believe that someone like him would believe so strongly in something like this over mere nostalgia.
So I'd hardly call 16 mm abundant, as in my part of the world it is non-existent, and even I don't see much worth in 8 mm. If 8 mm was my only option, even I would prefer to shoot digitally.
Anyway, this argument is, as it generally is, mostly a matter of aesthetic taste. But I won't clutter this thread up anymore with my vague rants and poor facts about how digital movies work.
(I would like to read some more about those 11 directors though.)
Chewtobacca said:
ZkinandBonez said: Right, just as I said at the end of my rant.
Look again.
Am I missing something here?
ZkinandBonez said: All in all though, I just wish it would even out a lot more so that the two mediums could co-exist with much more ease. Film has such a unique, and currently unsuccessfully emulated aesthetic, it would be such a loss to movie culture to lose it. Film also has a lot of financial benefits which no one is talking about either, which really bothers me and kind of confirms that there's a bit of a digital bias going on in the current film industry.
I'm currently in the process of applying to a film school, and I'm hoping to one day get to direct movies of my own, and I'd be really disappointed if I'd loose the possibility to shoot on film. It has such a natural and organic look to it, and has so many currently unsung benefits. And although I have no problem with other people shooting digitally, I have no interest in using it myself.
(End of rant.)
DuracellEnergizer said:
Oh, entire star systems. They've really upped the ante, haven't they?
Well, it has been 30 years after all.
Not much, but kind of fascinating.
Harmy said:
I guarantee you that you've not seen the Hobbit projected at 8K - best case scenario it was 4K and probably 2K, which is what a lot of theaters still use (including digital IMAX). But either way you saw a 2K copy of the film, because the whole trilogy went through a 2K DI process. And I think any hyper-realism stemmed from the 48fps, because I felt the whole thing actually lacked detail, especially in people's faces, compared to movies shot on film.
Fair enough, I used a bad example. But regardless there's a lot of HD-hype currently going on, and it seems very pointless. And even though they probably weren't filmed in as high a resolution as 8k, a lot of the digitally shot films I've seen in the last few years have always looked very hyper-real, which I don't think really compliments them. But the 48 fps thing is definitely something I hope don't catch on.
Digital is a weird thing; it either feels like it has less quality than film, or it kind of overcompensates.
Either way, I'm not an expert on either digital or film, but The Hobbit and several other digital films I've seen just feels 'off" in a way I can't accurately describe in any other way than "artificial" and "hyper-real."
Chewtobacca said:
ZkinandBonez said: Sure, there's nothing inherently wring with digital...
.. as long as it doesn't squeeze out film.
Right, just as I said at the end of my rant. People can shoot digitally for all I care, as long as they don't force me to do it.
And although I wouldn't start celebrating yet, film has gained some traction this year or so. A few years ago it seemed like it was almost completely gone, but this last year has been a good year for film. And a lot of film schools are beginning to allow their students to shoot film for the first time in several years (which is good news for me.)
So it looks like this "digital revolution" hasn't quite destroyed film as so many announced it had some years ago. There's a still a long way to go though before it starts to properly even out.
pawel86ck said:
ZkinandBonez- my opinion about movies shot on digital was negative (for example star wars looked flat as you say), but right now digtal cameras are much better, and I started to love films shot on digital because picture quality is most of the time very consistent, and looks realistic and sharp at the same time. Of course movies shot on film also can look good, but very few film studios care to scan their movies with good results. Few days ago I saw Edward scissorhands, and that movie received 4K remaster, and picture quality was superb. But again, very few movies (shot on film) looks like that, most of the time we get fuzzy and overprocessed picture with lots od DNR in order to mask film grain.
4K BD format will come out soon, and so I hope that we will see some quality remasters in regards to movies shot on film, maybe we will even see official high budged star wars remaster for 4K BD.
Sure, there's nothing inherently wring with digital, and it has gotten extremely good lately. But I mostly have two big problems with it (or rather it's use);
1. Digital bias - This idea that it's the new upgrade to celluloid really has to stop. It's an ingenious re-approach to getting roughly the same end result, but it's not a replacement. I have no problems with movies being shot digitally, I just wish people would stop referring to the use of film as a "hipster" thing, or calling it "out of date." Digital is an awesome new invention, but it has been over-hyped beyond belief. And film is currently evolving just as much as digital is; it just so happens to have been around for a fair bit longer.
2. Hyper-reality - I really can't stand when a movie is shot at 8k, or 48 frames per second. It's so redundant. I remember reading somewhere that the human eye sees roughly the equivalent of 4k (in digital terms), and that 35 mm film cover roughly the same amount. So why go beyond 4k when making a movie? There's just something so ugly about these 8k movies. I remember seeing The Hobbit and thinking "holy crap, what's wrong with Ian Holm's face!" in the opening scene. There's nothing wrong with it, but in 8k I can see every wrinkle and pore on his face. Heck I wouldn't have been able to see this if I was standing inches from his face in real life.
The whole 48 fps thing bugs me as well. I know people keep saying that the eye sees faster than 24 fps, but I feel like these films kind of proves otherwise. Wave your hand in front of your face and it'll look blurred. Look at any movement in the Hobbit trilogy and everything looks like a high frame rate video-game.
Digital is fine and all, but I really see no purpose to film anything beyond 4k and 24 fps. The result is a bunch of hyper-realistic, video-game looking mess. It's just a gimmick. It sounds cool, it mirrors current iPhone and flat screen TV ads. "It used to be 4k, but now it's 8k!" It sounds cool, but it's completely redundant. It's just cheap marketing.
All in all though, I just wish it would even out a lot more so that the two mediums could co-exist with much more ease. Film has such a unique, and currently unsuccessfully emulated aesthetic, it would be such a loss to movie culture to lose it. Film also has a lot of financial benefits which no one is talking about either, which really bothers me and kind of confirms that there's a bit of a digital bias going on in the current film industry.
I'm currently in the process of applying to a film school, and I'm hoping to one day get to direct movies of my own, and I'd be really disappointed if I'd loose the possibility to shoot on film. It has such a natural and organic look to it, and has so many currently unsung benefits. And although I have no problem with other people shooting digitally, I have no interest in using it myself.
(End of rant.)
darklordoftech said:
Going only by Star Wars, do we know whether whether Owen was Annikin's brother, Beru was Annikin's sister, or if Lars was the maiden name of Luke's mother? Was Owen actually intended to be Obi-Wan's brother in 1983 like Obi-Wan says he is in the ROTJ screenplay and novelization or did Lucas drop that idea by the time ROTJ was released? Would Owen being Obi-Wan's brother preclude Beru from being Anakin's sister or Luke's mother's sister?
Also, I'd love to read the first edition of A Guide to the Star Wars Universe because it wouldn't be polluted by the EU.
Well, all of the info I've provided so far (except for some on Mon Mothma) is from Lucasfilm, and not the EU. Most of the entries are divided into two sections; the Lucasfilm section (including the films, novelizations, and the radio dramas) and a Licensed SW section including all EU elements of a character, place, etc.
(Of course this doesn't help us figure out when stuff was retconned by Lucas in between the making of the three films. The book does for example specify that Owen is Obi-Wan's brother because that was the official Lucasfilm canon at the time since it made it into the novelization.)
darklordoftech said:
Two of my headcanons about Vader:
1. People who don't know that Palpatine is a Sith Lord think that Vader is a bounty hunter hired by Tarkin. As a result, Palpatine isn't blamed for Vader's actions.
2. Vader rarely, if ever, appears in Imperial propaganda and never gives speeches on Holonet. The Tarkin novel implies that Tarkin gives the majority of the Empire's speeches.
I think a combination of the two might be the situation. However since Vader in the post-Battle of Yavin is given full control of the military, and people are commanded to treat his orders as if they were the Emperor's, it seems kind of weird to me that no one really knows who he is. He is after all "Lord Vader", and Leia in ANH seems to to be well aware of who he is. So I'm not too sure that he is so much of a scapegoat for the Emperor, but I agree that he's probably not a political figure. He's probably there to scare those who are involved in politics in check, as well as being a sort of problem solver when something threatens the Empire/Emperor.
Once the Senate becomes dissolved in ANH and the Rebel's finally prove themselves to be an actual threat to the Empire, Darth Vader get's ranked up in the military and as usual, except with much more power this time, is sent to solve a problem.
Although Vader probably never holds any speeches, he's probably a really good piece of propaganda in of himself; this mystery man that will hunt you down if you're disobedient. He's clearly feared by the Rebels, but the Imperial General's doesn't seem to take him too serious in ANH, that is of course until he proves his power. Him choking a general also proves that he, despite having little official power, can pretty much do as he pleases. And it seems likely, as you suggested, that no one knows that Palpatine is a Sith/Darksider, hence Tarkin's statement "You my friend is all that's left of their religion."
Vader may not be a general, but he seems to be Palpatine's greatest symbol/weapon of fear in his Empire.
(Maybe that's why he doesn't seem to like the Death Star, he's afraid it'll replace him.)
(PS. You mentioned "the Tarkin novel," isn't that part of the recent Disney canon?)
Well I managed to find the sourcebook online here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/19470902/d6-Star-Wars-2e-Imperial-Source-Book#scribd
I didn't tell anything new about the backstory of the Empire, as a matter of fact it was almost taken word for word from the AGTTSWU.
But here are some interesting things I've found so far anyway:
(I have by no means read the whole thing, rather I have just skimmed through it looking for something that may seem relevant.)
"The Emperor is a small man, clothed in robes intentionally reminiscent of harmless ascetics on scores of worlds." - p. 12.
I find this kind of interesting as it exclude the idea of robes being specifically 'Jedi uniforms," but it does however suggest why someone like Yoda and Obi-Wan might wear them.
The book also has an entry on an Elite Armor Unit called; Hell's Hammers. The entry starts with;
"Formed during the closing stages of the Clone Wars from armor units of the Old Republic, Hell's Hammers have served the Empire in a large number of actions in the Outer Rim Territories. Used initially to crush opposition to the New Order, Hell's Hammers are now engaged in eradicating Rebel outposts, subjugating planets with Rebel sympathies, and in forcibly bringing reluctant worlds into the Empire." - p. 131.
This isn't much to go on, but it does kind of suggest as pointed out before that the New Order seems to have existed as a political party within the Old Republic for some years prior to the formation of the Empire. Here it might even seem that the New Order was involved in the Clone Wars, possibly even on the same side as the Jedi's at this point.
I was also really surprised to find that there was no entry on Darth Vader. He's barely even mentioned.
This is the only bit I could find that was specifically about him and his role in the Empire;
"The recent setback at the Battle of Yavin has resulted in a few changes to Imperial doctrine. As you are aware,we have lost both the Death Star and its commander, Grand Moff Tarkin. But the doctrine of fear has not been rescinded because of this minor victory for the insignifi-cant rebellion. Instead, the doctrine of fear must be broadened and upgraded. It is time to let that fear spread, time for the Empire to strike back at its enemies and destroy them once and for all. That is why the Emperor has placed his servant, Lord Darth Vader, in command of a special Imperial fleet. This fleet, led by Lord Vader's new Super-class Star Destroyer Executor, has been charged with the mission to hunt down the rebel command base and those rebels that escaped us at Yavin. You are to bow to Lord Vader's wishes as though they were the Emperor's own, extending him every possible assistance he may require in the completion of his task. Soon, nothing will remain to threaten the Emperor's rule." - p. 44.
So I guess Vader was underneath Tarkin in rank during the events of ANH after all. Makes me wonder what he was in the 18 or so years between the formation of the Empire and ANH. Maybe he was more of a henchman as the ANH script suggested, doing whatever dirty work the Emperor needed to be done. It kind of makes sense too. In ANH he's chasing Leia, who at this point is a known as a Rebel leader. He's not leading armies, he's lookin for the Death Star plans. It seems that he's more of a Special Forces commander. He even goes out to fight the Rebel fighters when they attack the Death Star. The book suggests that he didn't gain his role as a General until after the Battle of Yavin.
darklordoftech said:
ZkinandBonez said: In the early drafts the name Vader actually referred to the Tarkin role (commander of the Death Star and not a sith) and a "Sith Knight" called Valorum played Vader's part, so his role is probably kind of hard to pinpoint in the pre-ESB canon of ANH.
In the rough/first draft, Tarkin is Crispin Hoedaack, Vader is a general, and Valorum is a Sith Knight. The second draft combined Vader and Valorum.
Right, I'd forgotten about Hoedaack. Well, they both have very similar positions anyway, and it's regardless very interesting to see that the name Vader wasn't always used for the Sith antagonist.
Danfun128 said:
what's wrong with digital cinematography?
Well, of course it depends on who you ask, but a lot of people just don't appreciate (as much as most people) the somewhat flat and hyper-realistic look of digital and much prefer the organic and grainy look of celluloid film.
There are plenty of pros and cons for using either medium technically, so it mostly just depends on your artistic preference.
But I don't think this is a discussion to start here on this thread.
darklordoftech said:
Interestingly, the ANH shooting script calls Vader the "right hand of the Emperor" but also calls him Tarkin's "powerful henchman."
Vader's role in the Empire seems to have shifted somewhat in between ANH and ESB. In the early drafts the name Vader actually referred to the Tarkin role (commander of the Death Star and not a sith) and a "Sith Knight" called Valorum played Vader's part, so his role is probably kind of hard to pinpoint in the pre-ESB canon of ANH.
The current canon(s) seems to suggest that he takes orders from Tarkin mostly just because the Death Star is his battlestation, whereas Vader generally has a much bigger role in the Empire.
I personally have always seen Vader as a sort of Shogun figure, which makes sense considering his outfit, especially the helmet, is based of a Shogun's armour. In ESB and ROTJ he seems to be able to command entire fleets at his own whims, and he only answers to the Emperor, e.g. he's a type of Shogun.
However, ANH, and even some EU material seem to suggest that he's more of an "errand boy" for the Emperor, and that although he has the power to do pretty much as he pleases, he has little over-all influence over the Empire's military campaigns.
I'm sure there's some source-book from the 80's or something that explains the whole hierarchy of the Empire. There's COMPNOR of course, but that more bureaucratic than militant.
EDIT: There is an Imperial Sourcebook published in 1989. This should have some pretty detailed info about who's what in the Empire and how it's all run.
The guy who wrote the 1994 edition of AGTOSWU apparently contributed to this book as well. However, it probably doesn't have much more backstory than what we've already got, but it's probably an interesting read.
John Doom said:
As for the whole childish thing though, SW is after all as much for children, technically more, than it is for adults.
Except I didn't care about that stuff when I was a child, and I was only interested in Luke's journey to the "creepy" Emperor :D
That I definitively agree on, it's very distracting from the main story of ROTJ. It's too strong a contrast to the main story. ESB had a parallel conflict, but it was such a strong juxtaposition. It felt more related, at least as far as mood and atmosphere went. Ewoks intercut with the Emperor is kind of weird.
I'm not saying it's great, I'm just saying it's not a bad idea. It's just as you put it, kind of half-assed and oddly paced.
I actually watched all of the Emperor scenes yesterday, and skipped the Ewok scenes. It was amazing how different and more impactful it all suddenly felt. Judging by some of the concept art they were originally going for some much darker scenes. I think this is why I personally liked Dark Empire. It may have been a tad too dark, but at least it kept the focus in the right place.
All in all the Empire,or rather a small squadron and by effect the Death Star II, being defeated on a forest planet by a few rebels and a primitive society kind of makes contextually sense. It's silly, but so is a farm boy saving the day with a single torpedo.
I'm not sure it's the same: even before becoming the "only hope" in TESB, Luke was strong in the Force (as Vader admitted himself), not an ordinary farm boy.
Well, what is the Force really? Isn't it supposed to be nature? At least that's what Obi-Wan and Yoda keep hinting at. There's a reason why Obi-Wan is dressed as an ascetic and lives on a desert planet. Likewise Yoda lives in a hovel on a swamp planet. The Jedi/The Force/ The Rebels are heavily related to themes of nature, while the Dark side/The Empire is related to the artificial, mechanical, evil, etc.
I think the PT have made the Force into too much of a privileged superpower in the lore. Yes, technically Luke was strong with the force, but he was also supposed to be the relateable commoner who learns to be something special. The Force is more than just a plot point, it's a concept.
Lore is important, but the philosophy and emotional impact of a film is much more important to the general audience.
Also the ANH rough draft literally had a bunch of Wookiees being taught how to pilot fighters within a single day and destroying the Death Star.
Now that's silly!I can't find it in your link, but I'm glad it didn't make it into ANH :D
Scroll down to the last paragraph and you'll see it.
(It was illustrated in a Dark Horse Comics adaptation called "The Star Wars" and the image of a bunch of early Ralph McCuarrie concept art Wookies piloting a bunch of Y-Wings in an attack run on the Death Star is pretty absurd.
John Doom said:
I kind of knew something about Fett, but I think his background draws from the EU, so I'll have to pass :D
Well, no one actually hates ROTJ, but most of the people I know (including myself) think it's an "half-assed" movie :D Il looks 50% Star Wars (with Luke's journey and ending with the Emperor) and 50% something else (childish or lifeless characters, a good amount of bad special effects and an odd pacing), and when it comes to retcons, ROTJ is the one starting the "shrinking galaxy"'s trend with Leia being Luke's sister which, compared to Vader's revelation which draws a parallel within the protagonist and TESB's main villain, is just here to fix a plot hole and has no actual impact on the story (aside for Vader's threat to make her into a dark jedi).
Speaking of ANH's drafts, it's common for stories to have multiple versions until a final polished one is written. The reason it took so long for ANH, is that it initially drew from a lot of sources (sci-fi novels, contemporary society and Lucas's own experience) which made the script very confusing, so it had to be streamlined more and more until it become what we know today.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
As for the whole childish thing though, SW is after all as much for children, technically more, than it is for adults. Ewoks may be silly, but I always felt like they fitted into the overall story arc really well. Like I said a similar, and much sillier I might add, plot-point was in one of the ANH drafts. Sure I would have preferred Wookiees, or at least something a little less cutesy with the intent of selling toys. But all in all having the Empirical war machine defeat by someone technologically primitive kind of fits with the motifs of the trilogy. It's kind of silly, so it definitely could have been done better, but the events themselves aren't inappropriate. The Rebels have always been associate with something more natural, not just in their more organic coloured outfits but also the planets that they hide out on; such as Yavin IV and Hoth. Even the Rebel ships, especially the Calamari cruisers have a rounded organic feel to them. Plus they're a diverse group. Contrast all of this to the angular star destroyers filled with only white males all dressed in the same drab grey uniforms. The Empire is focused on death machines, e.g. the Death Star, and the Rebels fight more through cunning than through pure power. Even ANH had these motifs; Vader being "more machine than man, twisted and evil," a single person defeating the Empire (at least until they decided to make a sequel), Yavin IV in contrast to the Death Star, etc.
All in all the Empire, or rather a small squadron and by effect the Death Star II, being defeated on a forest planet by a few rebels and a primitive society kind of makes contextually sense. It's silly, but so is a farm boy saving the day with a single torpedo.
Also the ANH rough draft literally had a bunch of Wookiees being taught how to pilot fighters within a single day and destroying the Death Star.
Now that's silly!
Maybe I'm over-analyzing a bit, but my main point is that it wasn't exactly something which Lucas just threw in at the last minute to cash in on it. It was there from the very beginning and there is a reason behind the idea. The problem isn't so much the idea, but rather how it was handled.
Anyway, I get what you're saying, but all this about a fan edit of ROTJ sounds a bit melodramatic to me.
