imperialscum

DuracellEnergizer said:

imperialscum said:

I am still wondering though... I have a hunch that you and darklordoftech haven't even played KOTOR and SWTOR (at least not through it). It seems like you are hating something you don't exactly know much about.

No, I haven't played either game, and don't have much wish to -- I'm more-or-less a retro gamer, so I prefer to stick with older games, and I don't think I'd have the patience to get through an RPG-style game, anyway.

As for your main argument, I don't hate KOTOR; I even accept certain tidbits introduced in the game -- the Mandalorian Wars and the Jedi Civil War, in particular -- as canon within my personal SW Universe. I'm just not fond of the way the Sith are portrayed in the video game.

TOR, on the other hand, I do hate. I'm sick to death of the nth amount of Sith Wars that are cluttering up the EU, and this Sith War in particular pisses me off, as it purports to bring back the original Sith Empire but only features more generic KISS rejects with red lightsabers. Playing the game wouldn't change my opinion of it, since I find the concept and the plot themselves rotten to the core.

You accept KOTOR which just throws in a few "generic KISS rejects" that mysteriously (i.e. completely unexplained by the game) call themselves Sith and exclusively use red lightsabres. But on the other hand, you don't accept SWTOR which brings back Sith (not just humans, but also redskin ones) that use red lightsabres (there are quite a few Sith in TOR who don't use red lightsabre btw).

Judging from your posts, you seem to hate human Sith. Assumingly because you like TOTJ, which mysteriously made Sith redskin species (it has been a while since I read it but I am pretty sure they offer no explanation). If we go back to the point where the concept of Sith was actually created, namely OT. Vader was not a redskin alien. He was a human and in fact unmasked he looked pretty much like what you would refer to as "generic KISS reject". So why didn't you protest when TOTJ made Sith into redskin aliens and contradicted what we see in OT? Why did you just accept the crap that completely contradicted to what you knew from OT, and why did you begin to hate everything that actually goes in parallel with OT? SWTOR, if anything, just tried to salvage the mess TOTJ made and connect the dots the best it could.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I wonder how the Sith in the EU would have eventually developed if Karpyshyn had patterned Revan and Malak after the Sith in TOTJ instead after the Sith in the PT.

Well KOTOR Sith Empire resembles Empire in OT far more than anything in the prequels. And SWTOR even have several nods to OOT, like Sarlacc without beak for example.

I am still wondering though... I have a hunch that you and darklordoftech haven't even played KOTOR and SWTOR (at least not through it). It seems like you are hating something you don't exactly know much about.

TV's Frink said:

My feelings are just fine, thanks.

What a relief.

TV's Frink said:

I wish CPY was a mod here and could ban this guy.

Oh, I hope you didn't cry over this... whatever it was that hurt your feelings because quite frankly I don't know what was it.

TheBoost said:

Go watch "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" or "Pan's Labyrinth" and tell me that Watto looks more realistic than the characters in those film. 

And you repeat the common misunderstanding that good CGI doesn't take time, effort, and money. Do you have any idea how much they spent on The Hulk in Avengers? In British pounds, it's buttloads.

Well as I said, it both look fake if one is honest.

I did not say good CGI is cheap and fast. I just said it is faster and less limiting than stop-motion stuff.

emanswfan said:

I feel so sad watching this:

http://youtu.be/mIlYk7KQe-s

Star Wars Ep. VII's FX need to be made this way. It's just real and shows human behind it.  We need SFX, not VFX.

But maybe the channel is posting these for a reason?

Atleast I can hope...

Let's be honest here. Real models are unsurpassed by CGI when it comes to reproducing stationary environment, buildings, space ships, etc. But when it comes to reproducing creatures, puppet based SFX just suck compared to CGI. CGI can reproduce more natural behaviour and motion of a creature. In the end they both look fake.

I just don't see the reason in investing great amount of time, effort and money in making a stop-motion SFX with a puppet. Especially when it usually look very unnatural. The way to solve this is either putting a guy into a costume or using CGI.

DominicCobb said:

Impscum, I'm not sure but I hope you're joking.

I just wanted to point out that being a father and being a good father is not the same thing. :p

DominicCobb said:

Yeah, but still. Maybe I didn't word it properly. Who would be a more likely father? I'm sure Han would do fine but he just inherently doesn't seem like a family type.

Well you still did not word it properly. One doesn't need to be a family type at all to make kids (i.e. be a father in biological sense). And seeing how generally females like Han, the answer to your question is definitely Han.

darklordoftech said:

I want as much focus on the OOT characters as possible. It's not Star Wars without them, prequels be damned.

I just hope they won't do some pompous scenes when the old cast will first appear in the film. Those kind of scenes feel very dumb and awkward to me. They should introduce them very casually, like we are use to seeing them every day.

Yeah I know, I will be disappointed...

kk650 said:

imperialscum said:

kk650 said:

Do we know yet who's been cast as the trio of young leads?

Why does it has to be a trio? Direct copying of OT concepts seems like a bad idea to me.

That's what it said in the announcement, a 'trio of young leads', their words, not mine.

That said, Trios do tend to work sell on a dramatic level, you have different personality types constantly playing off each other, creating comedic moments and drama in equal measure.  It also leaves open the possibility of a love triangle, much like in the OT. Nothing wrong with that and of course Disney will be wanting to draw in the female demographic. Trios worked well with the OT and Harry Potter so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

One of the things that the PT suffered for IMHO, apart from cringeworthy/humourless writing, is that it didn't have a similar trio dynamic going on, the groups are always twos in those films, Qui Gon & Obi Wan, Obi Wan & Anakin or Anakin & Padme, made for very little personality conflicts, characters playing off each other, human humour/wittisism moments in those films like in the OT (that was left to R2D2 & Jar Jar), which is why they're such a drag to watch, they take themselves so seriously, unlike the OT, which had great moments of both comedy and drama/pathos, which of course all the best stories do IMHO.

But if we look at ESB there is practically no "trio" at all. Yet it doesn't suffer on a dramatic level even a bit.

Anyway if they really have to copy that, I at least hope they will go with two female and one male combination so we can have at least some novelty. But I sense that will not be the case.

kk650 said:

Do we know yet who's been cast as the trio of young leads?

Why does it has to be a trio? Direct copying of OT concepts seems like a bad idea to me.

hairy_hen said:

You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .

If it helps you, Star Wars is one of my top 3 favourite films of all time. The other two being Empire and Jedi of course.

Anchorhead said:

imperialscum said:

...it is an awful close-up shot that captures nothing but one wall of the house.

while SE additionally relays information about natural environment

 Interesting that this comes up in a discussion is about generational differences. I see this as a perfect example of one.  All of your arguing is about how improved the visual stimulation is with the SEs.  Story doesn't appear to enter into it.  Even when the story has been damaged by the SEs, which it has several times.  Style over substance.

Newer generations of fans have grown up on video games and seem to need every moment of every frame filled up with some sort of visual stimulation.  The PT itself is a product of it's time and even more so in the hands of a director with a clear disconnect with the story. It's all visual stimulation, but no substance. It's no wonder the TFNers are so full of SE gushing.  To them, all of that visual downtime they're uncomfortable with has been corrected.

In response to the first sentence of the example above, why in the world is the exact shape of the house or it's adjoining environment so important?  We all know what the planet looks like and how sparsely populated it is.  Why do we need need every moment of every scene showing us some sort of visual. I certainly don't need scenes created and added twenty years after the fact showing me that unnecessary visual noise.

The biggest difference I see with newer generations, Star Wars or otherwise,  is their either inability, or possibly a lack of desire, to let their imaginations fill in the blanks.  There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part I see SE changes being lauded regularly because of things like the more colorful, moving, alternate angle of the wipe as they enter a building.

It's ok to let a scene breathe.  The audience won't lose interest in the story.  In fact, some of the younger generation may discover they actually like it.

I don't know whether this was directed at me or not. I am a "story before everything" guy. I don't need the shots to be filled with flashing lights, explosions and tons moving stuff. My idea of visual pleasantness is completely different to that. I am completely satisfied with a static and relativity "humble" shot (as I illustrated with Ben's house SE shot), as long as it is visually nice and well shot. Some of the original shots in SW are just ugly and poorly taken. I don't see why I shouldn't demand visual pleasantness on top of substance-wise pleasantness. I got that in ESB and ROTJ.

As for imagination... if the shot shows a lifeless sewer it is possible to imagine there are rats, but it is hard to imagine it is a forest and not the sewer.

msycamore said:

imperialscum said:

For example, (to my knowledge) the new Ben's house shot uses a combination of model and matte painting which is the same technique extensively used in the original versions. So it looks just as "cartoony" as many similar original versions shots.

When I said cartoony crap I was referring to the stuff mostly seen in the 1997 Mos Eisley. The original shot of Ben's hut is nothing visually exciting, I give you that but ultimately it served its purpose. If you are indeed so sensitive to visual aspects in films as you say I simply cannot understand that you find this short transitional shot of Ben's hut in the original film so jarring but at the same time are not being taken out of the film by the pointless additions to Tatooine in the SE.

Star Wars is a fantasy and pretty much the main purpose of a fantasy is to generate a world where the audience can escape to. Despite being short, set establishing shots (e.g. Ben's house) and transition shots (e.g. sandcrawler, R2 in the canyon, approach to Mos Eisley) have a crucial role in that. These shots are the small window of opportunity to relay the information about the world to the spectator since the main scenes usually focus on the actors.

And I am not a fan of the CGI creatures added to some of the shots. But I can live with them. The crappy original shot of Ben's house just don't live up to similar scenes in ESB and ROTJ.

msycamore said:

Do you seriously dislike the minor transitional shots from the Jundland Wastes to Death Star to Mos Eisley in the original film and somehow are able to be pleased with the cartoony crap in the SE?

Yes.

For example, (to my knowledge) the new Ben's house shot uses a combination of model and matte painting which is the same technique extensively used in the original versions. So it looks just as "cartoony" as many similar original versions shots.

TheBoost said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Frankly, there's a lot more important things to change from the EU than a planet's name.

 SW isn't exactly Tolkien, but given the Jedis pisspoor knowledge of history and 25000 years, some linguistic drift seemed plausible.

All post-ROTJ EU used "Korriban".

m_s0 said:

Long story short: I'd say making Tatooine pretty is like creating a character who is supposed to be one thing - let's say a bad guy for the sake of argument -  but who doesn't display any traits or doesn't do anything (the personality thing you mentioned) which would make him seem like he's the bad guy.

No. That analogy is completely wrong. A proper analogy would be having a character who displays the same personality traits, but in one version he is good-looking and in the other he is not-so-good-looking.

Let's take the Ben's house shot for example. SE shot presents Ben's house just as pathetic and poor as the original shot does. The difference is that in the original version it is an awful close-up shot that captures nothing but one wall of the house. On the other hand, SE shot additionally includes the natural environment. Therefore the two shots relay identical main information (poor house), while SE additionally relays information about natural environment (which is as it is, despite the human poverty).

DuracellEnergizer said:

But Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak-minded ...

Even if he didn't use mind tick on her, she must have been weak-minded if she picked such an intolerable jerk.

I never saw him as merely a corrupt egoistic politician with force abilities. To me, Vader and Emperor always were an opposite of the Jedi in a sense that they were part of some force-centred organisation.

I hate film theatres of any kind. I just prefer to watch the film on my own. It is not just talking... someone eating or drinking something next to you can be just as annoying.

Anchorhead said: 

Which is the very reason it fits with the PT instead of the OT.

Speak for yourself.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

The bottom line is the script sucked. If that worked few people would have cared if some of the FX looked a bit weird.

Exactly. CGI is pretty much the last thing that is potential wrong with PT.

 

This sucks no matter what movie it is in.

It's not the CGI that makes this shot bad. Like DuracellEnergizer and FrankT in the previous two posts, my main complaint is with the laughable design of the animal rather than with the "not too realistically looking" CGI realisation. The shot would look no less ridiculous if they realised that animal design with real material.

 Apparently you've never seen it in motion.

Do you realise how much would a robot version of this animal cost? And still it wouldn't look too natural. And for what? To appear in this stupid and unimportant scene.

The problem can be traced back to the script. This scene should never have been written with this dumb animal surfing stuff in the first place. CGI is a very powerful tool that has the capacity to realise even the most stupid and ridiculous ideas that otherwise wouldn't be possible to realise. No need to blame CGI now. Blame the stupid ideas.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

The bottom line is the script sucked. If that worked few people would have cared if some of the FX looked a bit weird.

Exactly. CGI is pretty much the last thing that is potential wrong with PT.

 

This sucks no matter what movie it is in.

It's not the CGI that makes this shot bad. Like DuracellEnergizer and FrankT in the previous two posts, my main complaint is with the laughable design of the animal rather than with the "not too realistically looking" CGI realisation. The shot would look no less ridiculous if they realised that animal design with real material.

darklordoftech said:

Hal 9000 said:

Tobar said:

The first one I ever encountered was Marka Ragnos in DFIV:JKIII:JOII:JA.

What the hell is that?

It's Dark Forces IV: Jedi Knight III: Jedi Outcast II: Jedi Academy. 

The actual title of the game is Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. :D

Usually we call it JKA for short.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I think this might be the single worst image on all of Wookieepedia

AWESOME!!

:D