Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

As someone said it may depend on which Star Wars films you saw first.

As someone who grew up viewing the original Star Wars as a set of films placed in a used universe, I have it in mind that its landscapes are gritty, rough and worn. Tattooine, Endor, Hoth etc are all pretty much left as they are in their real life locations with little added. Because they don't need much addition. Likewise, I thought the locations in the two Disney films were fine, with the exception of the Skelligs and their aforementioned seagulls squawking around the place. I'm with Yoda on seagulls. :mad:

That kind of thing was largely missing in the fake landscapes of the prequels.

They're puffins actually:)

But we're all for a pleasant surprise in 8. The birds are being incorporated into the story in a really cool way. They play a mysterious part around certain force users. Soon to include Rey.

Mickeroo

Bacchus wrote: »

My interpretation of the comments above is that every planet in the Star Wars universe must look like what we've been shown before or else is looks out of place.

We're talking about a UNIVERSE! Is it really that jarring to show a water planet with a solitary island on it represented by the Skelligs? This universe is practically defined by a diverse set of extremes on planets... deserts, oceans, sky, global city, snow, jungle, lava, etc. I reckon the real reason the Skelligs are jarring is that we (Irish) all go "Hey the Skelligs! I'm from Ireland! That's in Ireland! Go Ireland!".

Agreed, I'd imagine people from Iceland felt similar watching the opening scenes in Rogue One or any of the other sci fi movies that have used it as a setting the last few years.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

They're puffins actually:)

Well, if they're puffins, then that's fine. You can't stay angry at a puffin.

david75 wrote: »

But we're all for a pleasant surprise in 8. The birds are being incorporated into the story in a really cool way. They play a mysterious part around certain force users. Soon to include Rey.

SHADAAAAP!!!!!!!!!

Seanachai

Tony EH wrote: »

As someone said it may depend on which Star Wars films you saw first.

As someone who grew up viewing the original Star Wars as a set of films placed in a used universe, I have it in mind that its landscapes are gritty, rough and worn. Tattooine, Endor, Hoth etc are all pretty much left as they are in their real life locations with little added. Because they don't need much addition. Likewise, I thought the locations in the two Disney films were fine, with the exception of the Skelligs and their aforementioned seagulls squawking around the place. I'm with Yoda on seagulls. :mad:

That kind of thing was largely missing in the fake landscapes of the prequels.

The sets weren't just weathered looking there was a certain 'glow' from the film format and the colours. It seems like Abrams wanted to add a realism to it to show these are hard times in the galaxy, but that can be done through good writing and acting also.

Tony EH

Seanachai wrote: »

The sets weren't just weathered looking there was a certain 'glow' from the film format and the colours. It seems like Abrams wanted to add a realism to it to show these are hard times in the galaxy

I have to be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

budgemook

Seanachai wrote: »

It's set in a galaxy, but I get what you're saying, there's going to be variety within that galaxy obviously but Middle Earth for example is a self-contained realm and they don't stray too far from the overall look while showing different regions.

You can walk from one side of middle earth to the next in a relatively short period of time and it goes from green grass and hills to fire spitting mountains. In Star Wars they have hyperdrives.

Bacchus

Seanachai wrote: »

It's set in a galaxy, but I get what you're saying, there's going to be variety within that galaxy obviously but Middle Earth for example is a self-contained realm and they don't stray too far from the overall look while showing different regions.

Fine Galaxy, my bad :P

Comparing Middle Earth diversity to the Star Wars galaxy is just... no. Apples and oranges. One is set on a continent that the main characters walk across, the other is made up of hundreds (more?) of planets in a galaxy where you need hyperdrives to get around.

robinph

Seanachai wrote: »

It's set in a galaxy, but I get what you're saying, there's going to be variety within that galaxy obviously but Middle Earth for example is a self-contained realm and they don't stray too far from the overall look while showing different regions.

Is Naboo the only planet in the Star Wars universe that actually had a varied landscape with forest, underwater cities, grassy plains, mountains, lakes and long grassy meadows to roll around in?

Every other Star Wars planet only ever has one type of landscape shown.

david75

Rewrite And reshoots are good
http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/20/rogue-one-alternate-ending-revealed/

Zubeneschamali

Seanachai wrote: »

It's set in a galaxy, but I get what you're saying, there's going to be variety within that galaxy obviously

For goodness sake, you are complaining about the differences between Iceland and Tunisia, actual locations on one ordinary planet.

An actual galaxy will contain millions of different planets, no reason why each one of those millions can't be as varied as our Earth.

Middle Earth, on the other hand, we only see bits of an area the size of Europe, from the Shire somewhere in England down to Mordor, roughly in the Balkans or Turkey.

Seanachai

Tony EH wrote: »

I have to be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I'm referring to artistic decisions and in some cases probably technical or budget limitations that gave the first three films a certain look, almost a dreamy kind of quality, in terms of the photography. I realise that more modern cameras are going to give a 'cleaner' look but they don't have to go all the way up to gritty realism with it. There are filters and production choices that can maintain the rustic quality, I guess they are thinking of the younger audience, which also shows up in the faster cutting in fight scenes in a lot of films made in the last 10-15 yrs.

david75

There was an article recently with Scorsese talking about why Star Wars looks kinda washed out. All the films in the 70s did. Something to do with the type of film stock used. But the used future grimy lived in look was definitely intentional and a huge part of what made Star Wars look and feel so good.

Whereas the digitally clean sterile tone of the prequels was so transparent. Especially on landscapes and sets that were meant to feel real. They just didn't. They failed big time with that.

Seanachai

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For goodness sake, you are complaining about the differences between Iceland and Tunisia, actual locations on one ordinary planet.

An actual galaxy will contain millions of different planets, no reason why each one of those millions can't be as varied as our Earth.

Middle Earth, on the other hand, we only see bits of an area the size of Europe, from the Shire somewhere in England down to Mordor, roughly in the Balkans or Turkey.

You're not getting my point, varied locations are great, as long as they show continuity with the traits of a particular franchise. I'm not making this stuff up, it's covered in film school lectures. I gave an analogy of a Nolan era Batman film randomly switching to a cheery NY rom-com scene, it looks garish and out of place.

david75

You're probably gonna have problems with the last Jedi so. On paper, Some of the locations used are very not Star Wars at all as we understand them.

Wedwood

One benefit of the 'real' locations is they wont age badly like the CGI ones have.

Tony EH

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm referring to artistic decisions and in some cases probably technical or budget limitations that gave the first three films a certain look, almost a dreamy kind of quality, in terms of the photography. I realise that more modern cameras are going to give a 'cleaner' look but they don't have to go all the way up to gritty realism with it. There are filters and production choices that can maintain the rustic quality, I guess they are thinking of the younger audience, which also shows up in the faster cutting in fight scenes in a lot of films made in the last 10-15 yrs.

david75 wrote: »

There was an article recently with Scorsese talking about why Star Wars looks kinda washed out. All the films in the 70s did. Something to do with the type of film stock used. But the used future grimy lived in look was definitely intentional and a huge part of what made Star Wars look and feel so good.

Yeh, what David said. I don't think there was any deliberate effort on behalf of Gilbert Taylor to do anything special with how Star Wars was shot, but he did have a nightmare producing some shots in the desert. The camera couldn't pick up anything at certain times of the day. There's no post processing or anything like that going on though. In fact, Lucas specifically said that he wanted the film to feel like it was being shot on an everyday location. I don't see the "glow" you speak of, but there are a number of shots in 'Star Wars' that are ever so slighty out of focus, either entirely in the frame, or on the background of a shot that may give that impression. But that was common with a lot of widescreen films of the day. 'Capricorn One' suffers from this issue too. In fact, I was surprised at how much when I watched the Blu a few years ago.

Zubeneschamali

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm not making this stuff up, it's covered in film school lectures.

Tell the Professor it made a billion dollars and he is wrong.

Sad Professor

One thing Gilbert Taylor did on Star Wars that contributed to the softness of the Tunisia scenes was cover the lens with a pantyhose.

Seanachai

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tell the Professor it made a billion dollars and he is wrong.

He was a socialist to the bone lol, it probably would have triggered him to equate success with box office take. Or mentioning private companies making lots of money full stop

Seanachai

Wedwood wrote: »

One benefit of the 'real' locations is they wont age badly like the CGI ones have.

I know some people will scratch their heads when I say this, but that just looks dreadful to my eye.

Seanachai

david75 wrote: »

You're probably gonna have problems with the last Jedi so. On paper, Some of the locations used are very not Star Wars at all as we understand them.

It's the fantasy element and a certain level of 'grunginess' that that I liked in the original films I suppose. I have a fair idea what's in store alright lol, they can open up the galaxy and be progressive while still keeping in line with the original vision. But as the business side of things is kind of overshadowing the creative aspect I can understand why the producers want to make them as appealing as possible to the widest possible audience. Not just pedantic, misty-eyed fans like me

david75

Seanachai wrote: »

It's the fantasy element and a certain level of 'grunginess' that that I liked in the original films I suppose. I have a fair idea what's in store alright lol, they can open up the galaxy and be progressive while still keeping in line with the original vision. But as the business side of things is kind of overshadowing the creative aspect I can understand why the producers want to make them as appealing as possible to the widest possible audience. Not just pedantic, misty-eyed fans like me

It's funny cos an over familiar design language was one of people's big complaints about TFA. Same old desert planet. Same old broke down x wings same old OT looking rebel base.

So they're damned if they do that stuff and as above, damned if they don't.

eviltimeban

Seanachai wrote: »

I know some people will scratch their heads when I say this, but that just looks dreadful to my eye.

I don't think anyone will scratch their heads. It does look awful. Awful movies, awful visuals (except TPM, which does have a more "real world" feeling to it).

david75

It's funny cos the prequels even looked crap upon release.
Lucas' vision was we were seeing the Republic at the height of its powers. He wanted to establish it with a different look than the run down ramshackle grubby feel of the OT to distinguish them from each other.
It just didn't work is all.

Seanachai

david75 wrote: »

It's funny cos an over familiar design language was one of people's big complaints about TFA. Same old desert planet. Same old broke down x wings same old OT looking rebel base.

So they're damned if they do that stuff and as above, damned if they don't.

I'd prefer to see scale models myself, the cgi still doesn't compare to the physical objects. I'm rusty on my photography terminology but the cold light of day in some scenes didn't look right. If the actors have a bit of charisma then the sameness shouldn't be much of an issue.

david75

Seanachai wrote: »

I'd prefer to see scale models myself, the cgi still doesn't compare to the physical objects. I'm rusty on my photography terminology but the cold light of day in some scenes didn't look right. If the actors have a bit of charisma then the sameness shouldn't be much of an issue.

I can't speak to charisma. All I do know is that Rey or bb8 alone were more charismatic and engaging than every single performance in the prequels combined.

Seanachai

david75 wrote: »

I can't speak to charisma. All I do know is that Rey or bb8 alone were more charismatic and engaging than every single performance in the prequels combined.

Ridley was good as Rey, Boyega, Gleeson and Driver made me cringe

TerrorFirmer

I like Ridley, Boyega - fine, I don't particularly like the comic character but he's OK, Driver I feel has yet to truly deliver but has potential but Gleeson's character is beyond redemption in my eyes. It's just awful, he's totally mis-cast in that role. Tacky, goofy, impossible to take seriously, about as menacing as a plastic spoon.

Rogue One's Krennic showed how it should be done.

Tony EH

Have to agree there. Thought Gleeson was laughable. A silly caricature.

Mendelsohn played Krennic as a person. A person in a fantasy Empire, but still a believable person and one who you want want to be on the wrong end of.

Hux is just...well eyerollingly stupid. But, he's like some other characters in 'The Force Awakens'. Hello Finn!!!

The more I watch that film the more irritating they become.

Apparently,

both Hux and Phasma are rumoured to return in the next one.

That's already a black mark against it for me.

Seanachai

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I like Ridley, Boyega - fine, I don't particularly like the comic character but he's OK, Driver I feel has yet to truly deliver but has potential but Gleeson's character is beyond redemption in my eyes. It's just awful, he's totally mis-cast in that role. Tacky, goofy, impossible to take seriously, about as menacing as a plastic spoon.

Rogue One's Krennic showed how it should be done.

If you have to try so hard to be villainous then it's just not there, Ben Mendelsohn was brilliant, but he's got the minerals to pull it off, Gleeson just doesn't.