Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

Myrddin

How can Star Trek {2009} be considered a sequel? The JJ Star Trek films are reboots, set in an alternate universe than the original. The new Star Wars films, are sequels, set in the same universe as the originals

Mickeroo

Myrddin wrote: »

How can Star Trek {2009} be considered a sequel? The JJ Star Trek films are reboots, set in an alternate universe than the original. The new Star Wars films, are sequels, set in the same universe as the originals

Because time travel, it still fits into the chronology of the original films by having old Spock in it. It's still a reboot of course, but one that acknowledges the events of the films it's rebooting actually happened, or would have have if Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy hadn't time traveled back and thrown a spanner in the works.

Myrddin

Mickeroo wrote: »

Because time travel, it still fits into the chronology of the original films by having old Spock in it. It's still a reboot of course, but one that acknowledges the events of the films it's rebooting actually happened, or would have have if Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy hadn't time traveled back and thrown a spanner in the works.

Fair point I always only ever seen that as a way of appeasing long standing fans of the original canon though, while still going back to the drawing board. Not sure I'd see the films as sequels though, maybe a sequel to the story of one character, but quite separate entities to the original canon.

Mickeroo

Myrddin wrote: »

Fair point I always only ever seen that as a way of appeasing long standing fans of the original canon though, while still going back to the drawing board. Not sure I'd see the films as sequels though, maybe a sequel to the story of one character, but quite separate entities to the original canon.

Yeah I agree, wouldn't consider them bona fide sequels at all myself but I like that they don't just pretend the other films didn't happen at the same time. Having said that, we could have done without all the nodding and winking in the second one, loved the references to the past in the first one but would be quite happy if they just tell some new stories from now on.

Frank Lee Midere

david75 wrote: »

My understanding of relaunching a popular but past of best brand starting from the beginning, is a reboot.

If the new Star Trek films don't fall into reboot, what term is preferable? A retelling? A re-envisioned?

Semantics ahoy

Nobody's really denying that the Star Trek universe is a reboot. There were two spocks in the last movie.

Star Wars always had the possibility to make 9 movies, Lucas had always said that. ( Let's admire the mans breadth of vision if nothing else). The new Star Wars is not a reboot. It's a continuation

david75

We all know that it's not a reboot. It's the most evergreen of all the big franchises.
I'm expecting nothing but disappointment. That way it can only be good. I hope it's brilliant but I have severely tempered any expectations.

david75

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

I often wonder what would happen of a hyper critical fan like this was hired as a consultant, what would be the result?
Could they actually contribute anything worthwhile or do they just like the sound of their own posts?

david75

Tony EH

The Star Wars franchise is a load of old shite, let's be honest. There were two good films made over 30 years ago...and that's it.

Once Gary Kurtz was fired from 'Return of the Jedi' over arguments about a new Deathstar (yawn) and those shitting Ewoks, the writing was on the wall.

I have a strong feeling that Kurtz was responsible for a lot of "No George, that's a crap idea".

'Return of the Jedi' showed quite clearly where everything was going, but I have to admit that I was still blown away by just how bad 'The Phantom Menace' was and just how awful a decision it was to include a certain character (you know who).

I caught a half hour of (the appallingly named) 'Attack of the Clones' on tele the other day, and I was immediately transported back to the cinema when I saw it and was reminded of just how awful I felt while watching it. I think I watched the whole film with my hand over my mouth so I wouldn't utter expletives out loud.

Only the final third of 'Revenge of the Sith' has any kind of merit. But it's not enough.

I'm glad to see the Star Wars franchise wrenched from Lucas' inept hands, but the only thing that I can see positive coming out of it belonging to the mouse, is that we might actually see the original trilogy come out on Blu Ray.

What the new Star Wars films need is a real sense of dread. Anakin's story should have been a really dark one, almost pitch black. Fu*k the kids, I wanted to see a story about a man who was so torn apart by his world that he became the twisted man/machine of Darth Vader. Instead I got a cheap soap opera story about a whinny git dragged out over six unbearable hours. And there was just TOO much Jedi nonsense.

I'm also completely nonplussed about this Abrams guy being touted as the helmsman of the new film. I didn't think the reboot of 'Star Trek' was anything to write home about and that sequel was rubbish, apart from Cumberbatch.

His previous films also don't fill me with any kind of hope...

not even a new one.

mewso

Mickeroo wrote: »

The thing with the likes of Star Wars, for me anyway, is that a film maker doesn't need to push the envelope to make a good Star Wars film. It just needs to be an entertaining story well told. I'm not saying I don't want them to be ambitious with it but I don't think it's particularly realistic to expect them to be, nor in any ways characteristic of the franchise to date.

A coherent story line would be a serious improvement anyway.

Vinz Mesrine

Is it widely known that Han Solos son is going to be in the new movie? I have no interest in star wars but i know this to be fact.

pixelburp

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

Is it widely known that Han Solos son is going to be in the new movie? I have no interest in star wars but i know this to be fact.

Fact according to who? There's next to nothing concrete known about this film yet, certainly zilch is known about the broad plot and its characters. The strongest 'factual' rumor is that Hammil, Fisher and Ford will reprise their roles, but even that hasn't been officially announced yet iirc. We're still in the rumour phase of this project tbh...

Vinz Mesrine

pixelburp wrote: »

Fact according to who? There's next to nothing concrete known about this film yet, certainly zilch is known about the broad plot and its characters. The strongest 'factual' rumor is that Hammil, Fisher and Ford will reprise their roles, but even that hasn't been officially announced yet iirc. We're still in the rumour phase of this project tbh...

Knowing someone who auditioned for the part? Is that fact enough for you?

pixelburp

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

Knowing someone who auditioned for the part? Is that fact enough for you?

Uhm, ok, well if you announce something as 'fact', it's a reasonable followup to then ask why you know something as hardened truth and why we should believe you, no need to be defensive It's one of the biggest films to hit production in the next few years, and there has already been a LOT of rumour knocking about ranging from actors to characters, shooting locations ... hell the name of the film has been bandied about. I'm sure even people not interested in Star Wars can appreciate there's a lot of tattle & bullsh*t knocking about!

Presumably this someone/friend of yours is a jobbing actor and are fairly reliable / not just trying to cause a stir with gullible SW geeks - cos that happens a lot

Vinz Mesrine

pixelburp wrote: »

Uhm, ok, well if you announce something as 'fact', it's a reasonable followup to then ask why you know something as hardened truth and why we should believe you, no need to be defensive It's one of the biggest films to hit production in the next few years, and there has already been a LOT of rumour knocking about ranging from actors to characters, shooting locations ... hell the name of the film has been bandied about. I'm sure even people not interested in Star Wars can appreciate there's a lot of tattle & bullsh*t knocking about!

Presumably this someone/friend of yours is a jobbing actor and are fairly reliable / not just trying to cause a stir with gullible SW geeks - cos that happens a lot

Well like i said, i have no interest in Star Wars.

I have seen the email he received telling him that Nina Gold wanted to see his tape. This is 100% truth.

thegreengoblin

Tony EH wrote: »

The Star Wars franchise is a load of old shite, let's be honest. There were two good films made over 30 years ago...and that's it.

Once Gary Kurtz was fired from 'Return of the Jedi' over arguments about a new Deathstar (yawn) and those shitting Ewoks, the writing was on the wall.

I have a strong feeling that Kurtz was responsible for a lot of "No George, that's a crap idea".

'Return of the Jedi' showed quite clearly where everything was going, but I have to admit that I was still blown away by just how bad 'The Phantom Menace' was and just how awful a decision it was to include a certain character (you know who).

I caught a half hour of (the appallingly named) 'Attack of the Clones' on tele the other day, and I was immediately transported back to the cinema when I saw it and was reminded of just how awful I felt while watching it. I think I watched the whole film with my hand over my mouth so I wouldn't utter expletives out loud.

Only the final third of 'Revenge of the Sith' has any kind of merit. But it's not enough.

I'm glad to see the Star Wars franchise wrenched from Lucas' inept hands, but the only thing that I can see positive coming out of it belonging to the mouse, is that we might actually see the original trilogy come out on Blu Ray.

What the new Star Wars films need is a real sense of dread. Anakin's story should have been a really dark one, almost pitch black. Fu*k the kids, I wanted to see a story about a man who was so torn apart by his world that he became the twisted man/machine of Darth Vader. Instead I got a cheap soap opera story about a whinny git dragged out over six unbearable hours. And there was just TOO much Jedi nonsense.

I'm also completely nonplussed about this Abrams guy being touted as the helmsman of the new film. I didn't think the reboot of 'Star Trek' was anything to write home about and that sequel was rubbish, apart from Cumberbatch.

His previous films also don't fill me with any kind of hope...

not even a new one.

I think your points in general have merit to them. I've been a huge Star Wars fan for many years and if there is one overriding memory since the prequels came out it's the horrible empty feeling I was left with after watching The Phantom Menace. I still wince when I think about it. Jar Jar Binks is one of the worst characters to appear in the history of film, not just the Star Wars films. I admire George Lucas greatly but I was appalled that he had done this to Star Wars and have never really trusted him since then.

Attack of the Clones was an improvement but not much. Both of those films have some shockingly bad CGI which I think doesn't get talked about much, while Lucas should be ashamed of some of the dialogue and acting. I think Revenge of the Sith is a worthy addition to the canon. But the damage had been done.

I agree with your comments about Gary Kurtz, he was crucial to the Star Wars 'way' and once he walked away the problems began. I have very fond memories of Return of the Jedi as I was 10 at the time and I was able to take it all in more than the previous two. But at the end of the day it's like two films competing against each other and it suffers as a result, although the Luke/Vader/Emperor scenes are among the best in the original trilogy.

Having said that, I would disagree with your opinion of Abrams' work on Star Trek. I think it will stand the test of time and I certainly don't think Into Darkness was anywhere near rubbish. Why do you think the new films need a sense of dread? Is it because you think it will make up for the prequels? I like a sense of darkness as much as anyone but there has to be a balance.

I thinkk Abrams will bring a level of competence and respect to the filmmaking process that Lucas didn't. I know people have said it can only help that Lawrence Kasdan is back on board as a writer but his record since Return of the Jedi doesn't inspire huge confidence. I hope he can respond to being back on familiar ground. As for Ford, Hamill and Fisher...if they're going to be used I hope they're used sparingly.

Beefy78

AotC is miles worse than Phantom Menace. As disappointing and incoherent as Phantom Menace was at least it had a few iconic scenes. AotC added nothing to the franchise at all.

The new films don't need to be excessively dark. They just need to follow a much simpler narrative, have scripts which make sense, characters who aren't all complete dickheads and scale back the excesses of the CGI. Whilst I don't necessary agree that these are kids films the joy of the first three is that they're accessible to all ages. The Prequels were kids films based around trade embargoes and political conspiracies and consequently were accessible to no one.

Sad Professor

Kurtz wasn't a creative producer. He was responsible for the budget and the day-to-day running of the production. By all accounts he was very quiet and non-confrontational, even more so than Lucas. He failed to protect Lucas from the bullies on the British crew on the first film and let Empire's production spiral out of control forcing Lucas to step in to prevent his financial ruin. That's why he and Lucas fell out, not because Kurtz was saying no to Lucas's ideas. If Kurtz was unable to say no to Kershner and Henson, even if the meant the production going massively over-budget and schedule, there's no reason to think he was saying no to Lucas either.

I don't agree with the revisionism that gives all the credit for Star Wars to Lucas's collaborators, but if anyone deserves to be credited with saying no to him on the first Star Wars it was probably his wife Marcia.

thegreengoblin

Sad Professor wrote: »

Kurtz wasn't a creative producer. He was responsible for the budget and the day-to-day running of the production. By all accounts he was very quiet and non-confrontational, even more so than Lucas. He failed to protect Lucas from the bullies on the British crew on the first film and let Empire's production spiral out of control forcing Lucas to step in to prevent his financial ruin. That's why he and Lucas fell out, not because Kurtz was saying no to Lucas's ideas. If Kurtz was unable to say no to Kershner and Henson, even if the meant the production going massively over-budget and schedule, there's no reason to think he was saying no to Lucas either.

I don't agree with the revisionism that gives all the credit for Star Wars to Lucas's collaborators, but if anyone deserves to be credited with saying no to him on the first Star Wars it was probably his wife Marcia.

I was always under the impression that they fell out because of differences over what way Return of the Jedi was heading in. I remember reading in an interview with Kurtz a few years ago in which he said he favoured a more downbeat ending but Lucas wanted to wrap it all up nicely in a bundle, and that he was becoming more concerned with merchandising than storytelling. And seeing as how it was Lucas's project anyway he was always going to have the final say, thus Kurtz walked away. I'd be interested in reading about the financial fallout that you mentioned. Is it in a book/documentary?

As for the revisionism, I hope I didn't imply that I was giving Kurtz more credit than Lucas as that would certainly not be my intention. In any case, I haven't heard about too many people giving 'all' the credit to Lucas's collaborators. That kind of revisionism just wouldn't stand up to scrutiny anyway. Even his biggest critics have to give him a lot of kudos for what he achieved.

Tony EH

thegreengoblin wrote: »

...Having said that, I would disagree with your opinion of Abrams' work on Star Trek. I think it will stand the test of time and I certainly don't think Into Darkness was anywhere near rubbish. Why do you think the new films need a sense of dread? Is it because you think it will make up for the prequels? I like a sense of darkness as much as anyone but there has to be a balance.

I thinkk Abrams will bring a level of competence and respect to the filmmaking process that Lucas didn't. I know people have said it can only help that Lawrence Kasdan is back on board as a writer but his record since Return of the Jedi doesn't inspire huge confidence. I hope he can respond to being back on familiar ground. As for Ford, Hamill and Fisher...if they're going to be used I hope they're used sparingly.

I just felt that the Abrams Star Trek reboot was rather souless. It's all nods and winks. The best thing about them has been Zachary Quinto's young Spock. They're just too frivolous to be really enjoyable. Although, I will freely admit to NOT being a trek fan. For me Star Trek ends with second 1960's series. But, I have been involved in some lively discussions with Star Trek obsessives and the usual general consensus is that the reboot is silly and unnecessary, even if somewhat enjoyable.

I'd like to see more from a new Star Wars film.

As far as a sense of dread, I want to see a series where there's something at stake for the protagonists. Something we can get our teeth into. I've never subscribed to the "nostalgia" accusation about fans of the original trilogy and they're (almost universial) distain for the prequels. Fans of the old films didn't just dislike the prequels because they couldn;t see them through a childs eyes. They didn't like them because they were shit. There was a real pull in the original trilogy, well the first two films at least. Star Wars, with all its crash, bang and wallop, remains a quite serious piece. Luke's family get wiped out, Jawas are killed en masse, an entire planet is blown to bits. The Deathstar is quite a menacing concept. Also, the Empire are not acted as silly caricatures. They come across as relatively real, albeit in a Star Wars reality. 'The Empire Strike Back' takes that all to a higher level. It's the grimest and most serious of the entire series...and the most beloved.

By a sense of "dread", I suppose I mean dark drama. Not the limp, badly written, badly acted, soap drama of the prequels, but proper serious dramatic situations involving characters that make sense in their world. I want to see another serious Star Wars film, in the mold of 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

Lucas had a good sense of serious drama at one stage, but seemed to have lost it. 'THX1138' showed us that Lucas could do serious, when he wanted to and as said earlier, he could do it in 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' as well. He just seems to have lost any sense of gravity in his writing. He was never that great a director.

However, Abrams, to me, comes across a bit too much like Joss Whedon (whom I detest). All knowing winks and stupid humour. He isn't going to be the saviour of the franchise and if he approaches Star Wars like he did with Star Trek, I think it'll be a disaster.

As somebody said earlier, it should be very hard to get Star Wars wrong.

Beefy78 wrote: »

AotC is miles worse than Phantom Menace. As disappointing and incoherent as Phantom Menace was at least it had a few iconic scenes. AotC added nothing to the franchise at all.

The new films don't need to be excessively dark. They just need to follow a much simpler narrative, have scripts which make sense, characters who aren't all complete dickheads and scale back the excesses of the CGI. Whilst I don't necessary agree that these are kids films the joy of the first three is that they're accessible to all ages. The Prequels were kids films based around trade embargoes and political conspiracies and consequently were accessible to no one.

Agreed. They don't have to be dark, as it were. But I'd like them to be serious. What the hell is wrong with film makers these days though? Can nobody make serious films that kids can enjoy any more? Does everything have to have a (largely) inept dose of humour injected? It, more often than not, falls flat on its face. The prequels were simply terrible films, terribly made. There was no sense of drama and no sense of danger. The only seriousness on offer was in the last third of 'Revenge of the Sith'.

I'd actually like to see a trilogy concentrating on the so-called "Dark Side". I'd like to see their point of view. Instead of them just simply being "bad", give them reasons why they choose the paths they do and concentrate on characters in that sphere as an offset to the main protagonists. Darth Vader never came across as just evil. Even in 'Star Wars' his reason for being was to crush a rebellion and bring order to the gallaxy. Unfortuantely, by the time of 'Return of the Jedi', we have the Emperor and everything just descends into witches and magic :rolleyes: . Star Wars was at its best when the Jedi were marginalised and it concentrated on a straight ahead battle between one set of guys and another, with their wizards strictly on the sidelines.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Kurtz wasn't a creative producer. He was responsible for the budget and the day-to-day running of the production. By all accounts he was very quiet and non-confrontational, even more so than Lucas. He failed to protect Lucas from the bullies on the British crew on the first film and let Empire's production spiral out of control forcing Lucas to step in to prevent his financial ruin. That's why he and Lucas fell out, not because Kurtz was saying no to Lucas's ideas. If Kurtz was unable to say no to Kershner and Henson, even if the meant the production going massively over-budget and schedule, there's no reason to think he was saying no to Lucas either.

I don't agree with the revisionism that gives all the credit for Star Wars to Lucas's collaborators, but if anyone deserves to be credited with saying no to him on the first Star Wars it was probably his wife Marcia.

Kurtz had a huge falling out with Lucas over the direction of 'Return of the Jedi', largely stemming from Ewoks and the dumbing down (my phrase) of the film as a whole. He may not have been a hands on creative influence, but he did have a "reigning in" factor that had an important effect on Lucas. Lucas was the driving force behind Star Wars, no doubt, but the original films were the result of less dictatorial control by Lucas. The complete, absolute grip he had on the prequels was disasterous and he certainly could have done with steadying hand and not the sycophants that snuggled up to him. The simple fact is that Lucas produced better filsm when he had constraints placed upon him, than when he had everything he wanted allowed to him.

In saying that, Lucas went through amazing hoops to get 'Star Wars' made in 1977. In fact, it's an incredible feat that the picture was made at all. So, there is certainly a huge amount of respect to be given to him for even managing to get anything done at all.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

Kurtz had a huge falling out with Lucas over the direction of 'Return of the Jedi', largely stemming from Ewoks and the dumbing down (my phrase) of the film as a whole. He may not have been a hands on creative influence, but he did have a "reigning in" factor that had an important effect on Lucas.

Only according to Kurtz, who is understandably going to downplay his mismanagement of Star Wars and Empire, not to mention to mention all the films he was subsequently involved with without Lucas. The prequels, in contrast, enjoyed very smooth productions, despite Lucas's laziness about finishing the scripts in time.

I'm not dismissing Kurtz's contribution. But I don't believe for a second that he ever reigned Lucas or any other director in. Quite the opposite and it resulted in a lot of production problems on his films.

Tony EH

Lucas was just as responsible for the mismanagment of 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' as Kurtz was. Both were relatively new to making pictures on such a scale.

Others were too. ILM took their sweet time with effects on the first picture, for example, leading to huge over runs.

Lucas was also absent from the set of Empire for months on end, according to Mark Hammil, while he was off trying to squeeze more money out of Fox.

Placing all of the blame on the shoulders of Kurtz for the issues that both pictures went through is just as much revisionism as some saying that Lucas only had a bit part.

Adamantium

Tony EH wrote: »

I'd like to see more from a new Star Wars film.

As far as a sense of dread, I want to see a series where there's something at stake for the protagonists. Something we can get our teeth into. I've never subscribed to the "nostalgia" accusation about fans of the original trilogy and they're (almost universial) distain for the prequels. Fans of the old films didn't just dislike the prequels because they couldn;t see them through a childs eyes. They didn't like them because they were shit. There was a real pull in the original trilogy, well the first two films at least. Star Wars, with all its crash, bang and wallop, remains a quite serious piece. Luke's family get wiped out, Jawas are killed en masse, an entire planet is blown to bits. The Deathstar is quite a menacing concept. Also, the Empire are not acted as silly caricatures. They come across as relatively real, albeit in a Star Wars reality. 'The Empire Strike Back' takes that all to a higher level. It's the grimest and most serious of the entire series...and the most beloved.

By a sense of "dread", I suppose I mean dark drama. Not the limp, badly written, badly acted, soap drama of the prequels, but proper serious dramatic situations involving characters that make sense in their world. I want to see another serious Star Wars film, in the mold of 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back'.


However, Abrams, to me, comes across a bit too much like Joss Whedon (whom I detest). All knowing winks and stupid humour. He isn't going to be the saviour of the franchise and if he approaches Star Wars like he did with Star Trek, I think it'll be a disaster.

As somebody said earlier, it should be very hard to get Star Wars wrong.



Agreed. They don't have to be dark, as it were. But I'd like them to be serious. What the hell is wrong with film makers these days though? Can nobody make serious films that kids can enjoy any more? Does everything have to have a (largely) inept dose of humour injected? It, more often than not, falls flat on its face.

Darth Vader never came across as just evil. Even in 'Star Wars' his reason for being was to crush a rebellion and bring order to the gallaxy.

I haven't seen ESB in a few years so decided to watch it the other night.

In previous years, I've come to realise that even the original movies are flawed/ mostly corny talking and YET there is something so magical was amazed at how "pulling" the movie is. You really felt like they were fighting for something worthwhile and almost none of it involved "magic", yet it was magical.

Star Wars rocked that athesistic bent in the OT, it was people using worldy tools and logic and the force was only an zen like extraploation/ explantion of people actions.



I was surprised by just how dark and even depressing for a SW film the stakes were and the genuinely well written some of the exchanges between Yoda, Obi Wan and Luke. It's amazing how they manged to create this world, everything was **** and decaying yet it wasn't all grey, a galaxy in decline

Jesus, when Luke steps into the cave and Vader looms out of from the shadows, I was expecting it but it still got me, the dread".

As I'm older, the metaphor of Plato's cave was so rich, gripping stuff.

I'd go far as to say ESB is a masterpiece movie, not just a masterpiece SW film, not something you have to make apologies for. It the only TRULY REALLY GOOD one.


The series would do well to hire a David Fincher style director. Here's my quote from a few pages back

You just know Fincher wouldnt stick half the bull**** Disney would throw at him, he'd make it an evolution of the dark themes of the OT, it'd give Star Wars that sort of moral greyness/foreboding, that edge. He'd KILL it.

And it'd be a critical and commercial success anyway regardless of what focus groups would say. At worst we'd get a amazing off kilter/cult film that is as good as Empire Strikes Back.

It should be very hard to fall to the dark side, and when it does it is terrifying to see heroes fall to it. It should be a grey area for nobody can really define what it is, not even Luke Skywalker. Its the actions of the person that are bad not the force itself. Non-force users can fall to it as well. It should be an almost trance like/psychotics state, e.g when Luke chopped off Vader's hand. They can fall to the lighter side too, like a pendulum constantly in motion, yet it takes persistent,conscious effort to fall either way. Hard to do, but would be amazing if they could pull it off.


Ordinary people should be just as interesting, don't have the whole universe talking about sith vs jedi for the whole series. The jedi were such a minor background element to the original movies, that was really about rebels, fighter pilots, ordinary people,smugglers and at most three ancient warriors trying to live and fight back while outwitting a Nazi dictatorship like government

Star Wars is not about superheroes, ground it, but make it a fantasy somehow connected to reality.

david75

One sad word in reply to that (great) post and the thoughts involved.

Disney

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

One sad word in reply to that (great) post and the thoughts involved.

Disney

Two hopeful words: No Lucas

stevenmu

david75 wrote: »

One sad word in reply to that (great) post and the thoughts involved.

Disney

In fairness Disney have shown that they're not afraid of making intelligent, thought provoking and emotive films. And they have shown that they can make children's films that are equally enjoyable for adults.

david75

Hopefully.

Past even Lucas my biggest worry for this is that ILM are still on board. I heard Abrams is fighting for real sets and less CGI but ILM should have been ejected along with Lucas. If this is another barrage of p!ss poor CGI it'll feel awful.

humanji

I don't think I'd call the ILM CGI piss poor. Definitely overused to the detriment of the films, but it's still pretty impressive. If Abrams can use proper sets and compliments them with CGI where needed, then it could come out pretty cool.

Mr Freeze

humanji wrote: »

I don't think I'd call the ILM CGI piss poor.

Oh it is. I rewatched Episodes I - III last year, and the CGI especially in Ep I is atrocious.

And the CGI bits they wedged into the original trilogy are even worse. Where as all the model work still looks amazing to me.

Tony EH

Yeh, I caught a half hour of 'Attack of the Clones' on TV last week and the CGI was largely awful and way overused.

Everything looked fake, from the backgrounds of Coruscant, to the rear area aliens.

Even the masks in 'Star Wars' came off as more realistic.

I personally believe that the reason for that is because model work, etc is tangible. It's tactile. It exists in the real world and is therefore subject to real world physics.

CGI doesn't.

This is why the speeder chase in 'Attack of the Clones' looks absurd. It has people doing stupid things like jumping out of flying cars and flying through the air landing on another flying car without so much as a scratch. I know that they're Jedi and all, but FFS...

CGI can be good, when it's restricted to the sidelines. Hardware can look good, but organics generally do not.