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

Liamario

fryup wrote: »

is there anyway of downloading that trailer in HD so as to playback on a telly??

Download it from Apple.com/trailers

Kidchameleon

Thargor wrote: »

Ive read this 3 times and I dont understand it, what do you mean it screams theres a camera here? Couldnt you say that about every posed shot and scene in every film ever made?

One of the most important jobs for a movie maker is to make sure the audience forgets they are watching a movie.

It was George Lucas who said that ^^ ironically enough.
Source: Making of Return of the Jedi Special Edition.

Re: Falcon shot in teaser:

The camera is all over the shop in that particular clip, add to that the lens flare. For me its too much and I know when I'm watching the film, it will take the immersion factor straight out of it, for me. Perhaps I'm just old school and I don't understand what the young people nowadays are into. I'm sure Abrams knows what he's doing but I definitely didn't like his Star Treks.

Oh and that clip is out of context, it could well be the view from a ship that's chasing the Falcon, in which case ill be relieved. Also the Falcon looks CGI to me but this is a trailer, plenty of time for them to clean that up.

PhiloCypher

Kidchameleon wrote: »

One of the most important jobs for a movie maker is to make sure the audience forgets they are watching a movie.

It was George Lucas who said that ^^ ironically enough.
Source: Making of Return of the Jedi Special Edition.

Re: Falcon shot in teaser:

The camera is all over the shop in that particular clip, add to that the lens flare. For me its too much and I know when I'm watching the film, it will take the immersion factor straight out of it, for me. Perhaps I'm just old school and I don't understand what the young people nowadays are into. I'm sure Abrams knows what he's doing but I definitely didn't like his Star Treks.

Oh and that clip is out of context, it could well be the view from a ship that's chasing the Falcon, in which case ill be relieved. Also the Falcon looks CGI to me but this is a trailer, plenty of time for them to clean that up.

There is nothing wrong with the CGI in that scene . Don't mistake knowing its cgi because the scene is too dynamic to be practical as proof that its bad CG.

pixelburp

Kidchameleon wrote: »

[...]
Re: Falcon shot in teaser:

The camera is all over the shop in that particular clip, add to that the lens flare.[..]

Ah here. Shenanigans.
I had to watch the trailer again: there was the briefest flash of lens flare once across the entire trailer, and that was it; and it doesn't seem fair or legitimate to criticize given the Falcon flew across and obscured the sun. JJ Abrams uses it once in a 90 second trailer, it's entirely appropriate within this context, yet it's still trotted out as the go-to criticism.

I wasn't a fan of the shot myself initially, purely because it made my stomach heave a little, but it feels weird to criticise a trailer for using its camera as the unseen observer (and in this case it just seemed like a slightly more sophisticated helicopter shot than some of the rollercoaster CGI tracking blockbusters indulge in). Some films do it, some don't. It's just a choice. So for full unadulterated immersion, should every feature have to be shot as a 'one take'? 'Cos otherwise the spell is broken the moment the camera cuts to another scene

Liamario

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah here. Shenanigans.
I had to watch the trailer again: there was the briefest flash of lens flare once across the entire trailer, and that was it; and it doesn't seem fair or legitimate to criticize given the Falcon flew across and obscured the sun. JJ Abrams uses it once in a 90 second trailer, it's entirely appropriate within this context, yet it's still trotted out as the go-to criticism.

I wasn't a fan of the shot myself initially, purely because it made my stomach heave a little, but it feels weird to criticise a trailer for using its camera as the unseen observer (and in this case it just seemed like a slightly more sophisticated helicopter shot than some of the rollercoaster CGI tracking blockbusters indulge in). Some films do it, some don't. It's just a choice. So for full unadulterated immersion, should every feature have to be shot as a 'one take'? 'Cos otherwise the spell is broken the moment the camera cuts to another scene

Here here.

Bacchus

pixelburp wrote: »

I wasn't a fan of the shot myself initially, purely because it made my stomach heave a little, but it feels weird to criticise a trailer for using its camera as the unseen observer (and in this case it just seemed like a slightly more sophisticated helicopter shot than some of the rollercoaster CGI tracking blockbusters indulge in). Some films do it, some don't. It's just a choice. So for full unadulterated immersion, should every feature have to be shot as a 'one take'? 'Cos otherwise the spell is broken the moment the camera cuts to another scene

I love that that 10 second clip of the Falcon made me feel like I was on a rollercoaster. It totally pulled me in to the action. And that's just as snippet of the trailer!

Beefy78

I loved that part of the trailer, have watched it dozens of times in the past five days and had no issue with the camera position. It is fairly Sci-Fi - DS9 used to do shots like that during big space battle scenes and I'm fairly certain that BSG did as well. It definitely pulls you into the scene and makes you feel a participant as opposed to an observer.

It definitely looked very CGI though and as with all CGI it will date very badly. The Falcon didn't look to have any weight about it at all.

PhiloCypher

Beefy78 wrote: »

I loved that part of the trailer, have watched it dozens of times in the past five days and had no issue with the camera position. It is fairly Sci-Fi - DS9 used to do shots like that during big space battle scenes and I'm fairly certain that BSG did as well. It definitely pulls you into the scene and makes you feel a participant as opposed to an observer.

It definitely looked very CGI though and as with all CGI it will date very badly. The Falcon didn't look to have any weight about it at all.

It will date badly if the film is a disappointment. If it's not nobody will have an issue with it.

Beefy78

Plenty of good films have CGI which have dated them badly and similarly most of the films which stand up well 10, 20 even 30 years later are those which use CGI sparingly. When your film is 50% CGI it is asking too much to expect it to still look good when technology has advanced.

.ak

Yeh to me the Falcon looks too CGI. Hopefully it improves later or they use more models. But still going to love it, even if the CGI is noticeable.

py2006

After watching the teaser several times I am of the opinion that very little thought went into this.

I think it would have made things a lot more exciting if they only showed a glimpse of the Falcon. As in just a background of space and stars and slowly coming into view at the top of the screen the top of the Falcon. Just enough so that it is recognisable and then the STAR WARS logo and theme.

Just that alone and none of the stuff before it would have had more if an impact IMO.

Gbear

py2006 wrote: »

After watching the teaser several times I am of the opinion that very little thought went into this.

I would imagine that they put an enormous amount of thought into it but, with over a year to go, they probably don't actually have a lot of finished footage.

They only wrapped shooting a month ago.

Bacchus

py2006 wrote: »

After watching the teaser several times I am of the opinion that very little thought went into this.

I think it would have made things a lot more exciting if they only showed a glimpse of the Falcon. As in just a background of space and stars and slowly coming into view at the top of the screen the top of the Falcon. Just enough so that it is recognisable and then the STAR WARS logo and theme.

Just that alone and none of the stuff before it would have had more if an impact IMO.

The Falcon isn't slow! It did the kessel run in less than twelve parsecs. What you describe there is too static, particularly as a way to reveal the MF.

I imagine a lot of thought went into the trailer. It pretty much hit all the notes to get the nerds and laypeople alike buzzing (X-Wings, MF, lightsabers, desert planet, weird droids and tie fighters). At the same time, they cleverly held back on showing the OT cast.

DoYouEvenLift

py2006 wrote: »

After watching the teaser several times I am of the opinion that very little thought went into this.

I think it would have made things a lot more exciting if they only showed a glimpse of the Falcon. As in just a background of space and stars and slowly coming into view at the top of the screen the top of the Falcon. Just enough so that it is recognisable and then the STAR WARS logo and theme.

Just that alone and none of the stuff before it would have had more if an impact IMO.

Well it is only the teaser afterall. The official trailer will reveal a lot more and be more impressive. Like the other poster said, there's a whole year to go.

Bacchus wrote: »

The Falcon isn't slow! It did the kessel run in less than twelve parsecs. What you describe there is too static, particularly as a way to reveal the MF.

I imagine a lot of thought went into the trailer. It pretty much hit all the notes to get the nerds and laypeople alike buzzing (X-Wings, MF, lightsabers, desert planet, weird droids and tie fighters). At the same time, they cleverly held back on showing the OT cast.

I'd actually love if they did that for all the other trailers except the last one and only show them at the very end of that trailer. Would build up so much speculation about it amongst fans and they'd probably be mad but then that'd be the climax and release lol.

Iranoutofideas

The nitpicking and ill thought out criticism leveled at the trailer already just reminded me why I think Star Wars has the worst fanbase of all time.

Good god.

Toom3y7

small bit over the top for a teaser trailer, i can't wait to see the reaction when a full trailer comes out. They will be torn to pieces

py2006

Now the new teaser for Terminator Genisys did a WAY better job..

The second one that is

Falthyron

py2006 wrote: »

Now the new teaser for Terminator Genisys did a WAY better job..

The second one that is

The teaser with the ridiculously obvious and poorly created CGI arm? That one? :P

david75

we've all fallen for it..the whole internet has fallen for it..

in a machiavellian manoeuvre, Abrams has distracted us all from the real issue of his ability and responsibilities towards us and these films, simply by sticking a misplaced hilt on a bogus lightsaber...

if he can pull that off...

Shiraz 4.99

Big Plot Leaks in Link Below - Read First Then Decide

OK, an insider has been posting leaks to 4Chan & Reddit have done a synopsis of sorts.
It's in 3 parts, link to the first part below.
It's very detailed & gives a lot of the story away without spoiling critical elements.
I believe the source was 100% accurate on the trailer so there's no reason to doubt them.
I found it a compelling read & I absolutely loved the direction the story is being taken, it whetted my appetite even more.
Goes without saying if your anti-spoiler then steer clear & it may take a Mod to decide whether this thread needs to be split at this point.

http://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/2nyd64/rumor_potential_4chan_episode_vii_leak_possible/

Falthyron

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Big Plot Leaks in Link Below - Read First Then Decide

OK, an insider has been posting leaks to 4Chan & Reddit have done a synopsis of sorts.
It's in 3 parts, link to the first part below.
It's very detailed & gives a lot of the story away without spoiling critical elements.
I believe the source was 100% accurate on the trailer so there's no reason to doubt them.
I found it a compelling read & I absolutely loved the direction the story is being taken, it whetted my appetite even more.
Goes without saying if your anti-spoiler then steer clear & it may take a Mod to decide whether this thread needs to be split at this point.

http://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/2nyd64/rumor_potential_4chan_episode_vii_leak_possible/

I don't think this is legit. Sure, the guy makes some interesting points and ties some possibilities together, but there are serious questions about it all.

Why does Daisy Ridley's character go into hiding if she is Han and Leia's daughter? With Leia as leader of the New Republic, surely she can look after her daughter easily enough.

I dunno... it sounds like it could be a great movie, but too many inconsistencies dampen the possibility in my opinion. When I was reading it I was thinking: "This is probably J.J. writing and leaking this stuff". Wouldn't surprise me at all considering how secretive he is. Getting there before possible leakers and giving his own bullshít version to make a quagmire sounds like something he would do; all for the chance of keeping his actual story secret.

nipps

I'm gonna leave this here

http://9gag.tv/p/aKlAAL/stephen-colbert-defends-star-wars-lightsaber-design?ref=fbl9

Adamantium

Sounds genuinely amazing and incredibly fun too read even if it might be bull**** (which I very much doubt). Like dear lord if this Ep VII and not even Ep VIII and IX., I glided over a lot of it and only skipped to the non spoilery parts, mainly Abrams and Kasdan thought process.

It reads as a incredibly forward looking and a extremely well conceived story.

It's darker and more dystopian than Empire (confirms what Kevin Smith said)

The following are not spoilers, but they sound like fan wish fufillment (that I could well imagine anyway)

The script has being described as "too good for J.J Abrams"

JJ is said to have great disdain for the prequels. A rumor circulates LucasFilm that he told Kathleen Kennedy "[George] literally betrayed and murdered his past achievements".

Despite that, JJ is said to have paid "lip service" to George previously. Lip service means giving someone approval and/or support.

Lucas is sympathetically tolerated and venerated, but also "lampooned" for "murdering the prequels". Bad Robot loathes him.

"99.9% of the EU is disregarded.

The lightsaber battles are written by Kasdan to be minimalistic and powerful.

There are two quick line callbacks and that is it, no eye rolling cringe stuff

yipeeeee

Lens flare??

What are you guys on about, I'm truly lost, I just loved the trailer for what it was.

.ak

yipeeeee wrote: »

Lens flare??

What are you guys on about, I'm truly lost, I just loved the trailer for what it was.

TBH I think most people are just being a bit tongue in cheek humorous about it. It is pretty funny how he seems to love the effect so much tho.

yipeeeee

.ak wrote: »

TBH I think most people are just being a bit tongue in cheek humorous about it. It is pretty funny how he seems to love the effect so much tho.

What the hell does it mean!!???

.ak

Adamantium wrote: »

Sounds genuinely amazing and incredibly fun too read even if it might be bull**** (which I very much doubt). Like dear lord if this Ep VII and not even Ep VIII and IX., I glided over a lot of it and only skipped to the non spoilery parts, mainly Abrams and Kasdan thought process.

It reads as a incredibly forward looking and a extremely well conceived story.

It's darker and more dystopian than Empire (confirms what Kevin Smith said)

The following are not spoilers, but they sound like fan wish fufillment (that I could well imagine anyway)

The script has being described as "too good for J.J Abrams"

JJ is said to have great disdain for the prequels. A rumor circulates LucasFilm that he told Kathleen Kennedy "[George] literally betrayed and murdered his past achievements".

Despite that, JJ is said to have paid "lip service" to George previously. Lip service means giving someone approval and/or support.

Lucas is sympathetically tolerated and venerated, but also "lampooned" for "murdering the prequels". Bad Robot loathes him.

"99.9% of the EU is disregarded.

The lightsaber battles are written by Kasdan to be minimalistic and powerful.

There are two quick line callbacks and that is it, no eye rolling cringe stuff

By 99% of the EU disregarded I take it that means all the post-EpVI EU? i.e all the Thrawn novels and stuff? Can't see them totally disregarding all the stuff that's lead up to that point.

Although I have to say that excites me. Means its completely original.

Falthyron

yipeeeee wrote: »

What the hell does it mean!!???

Skip to 3:00 minute mark. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

.ak

yipeeeee wrote: »

What the hell does it mean!!???

What do you mean what does it mean? Are you asking what lens flare means? Just watch any of his movies, you'll see this in every scene with a light source.

yipeeeee

Falthyron wrote: »

Skip to 3:00 minute mark. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

I see why would they allow that??