New Star Wars teaser trailer. I'm stoked

Wheels, if you think the remakes of the original three were "improved," I have a bridge to sell ya...

 

My buddy Jake (Anakin) was on the prequel and I hate to say it, it blew donkey dick. He was only a kid so it's hard to blame him on its failure (and you can't fault him for the writing) but the overall presentation of the film fell on its face. It was and had the potential (and swarms coming to see it) to be bigger than fcuking Jesus's second coming. But Lucas is a lunatic and decided to make it "cutesy." EP. III was the only decent one and even then fell short with very awkward actors, overdone and cheap-feeling CGI, and a terrible array of child-friendly characters who (unlike the original comedic relief of EP. IV-VI) spoiled the fun and ruined the plot lines worse than a dog licking your foot in the middle of coitus.

 

As far as these new ones go, I think they will be a win. Lucas selling rights to Disney was the best decision he ever made right after having someone else direct Empire and ROTJ.

Wha?? In making the original films with plastic and resin models on sticks (as the video shows) and putting the cast in real costumes with real props, they created enough believability to change the entire film industry and blow away multiple generations of viewers.

 

So did King Kong in 1933, but that doesn't mean it was comparable in realism to say Jurassic Park. Modern CG effects have created higher standards for realism in special effects. Jurassic Park blew people away when it first came out, but now even its dinosaur special effects look a bit cheesy.

 

The only time the sets became not real was when a building sized backdrop was required and even then, no one noticed. CG gave Lucas near-infinite creative freedom, which I say blatantly ruined the prequels and really screwed up the re-releases. Refreshing frames and fixing blue screen errors is one thing, but introducing new characters and plot twists just because CG can allow it is entirely different.

 

But that's not a criticism of CG, that's a criticism of Lucas and his crazy plot ideas. CG does not call for a Jar Jar Binks or "Roger Roger" robots. The prequels were bad because of Lucas, not because of CG.

 

On a large scale, entire worlds and sets became CG and this isolated audiences as remote observers. On a small scale, CG lacked believability when (in the midst of marginally believable CG sets) fully CG characters were marginally believable (clone troopers, Jar Jar Binks, etc.). They dressed the original stormtroopers in a ton of vacuum formed plastic back in 1977 and created an icon, yet somehow paying an army of CG nerds millions of dollars created a pile of garbage that people would rather forget. The original trilogy was up-close and personal, much like these trailer shots of the stormtroopers lining up, so I see where Abrams is going with this. The freedom that CG provides needs to be closely monitored or it can take something really great and crap all over it ala Jurassic Park 2, 3, etc. or Star Wars I, II, III.

 

Jurassic Park 2 I thought was very well done, don't see what the complaint is there. The Jurassic films went down the crapper starting with the third film. I agree in terms of how CG can be overly-utilized and this is bad when it is done poorly. Two examples of poorly-done CG IMO were in The Dark Knight when Batman's Bat Pod motorcycle pops out the Tumbler. That was clearly CG. The other was when Selina Kyle is riding the Bat Pod in The Dark Knight Rises and does that trick where the wheels turn sideways, in order to execute a 180 degree turn. This was also clearly CG. IMO, if the stuntperson wasn't capable of actually doing that, then they shouldn't have put it in.

 

For everyone (except Fortis), it's probably worth sitting through these reviews by redlettermedia, http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/ (also on YouTube). Fortis should watch 'em once he's done with the movies, lol. Not only are they hilarious, but very well constructed. EP1 being my favorite, gaining traction at about 1:54.

 

For hilariousness as well, check out the Star Wars LEGO films (they are from the video games, but you can find them all on Youtube).

 

Wheels, if you think the remakes of the original three were "improved," I have a bridge to sell ya...

 

My buddy Jake (Anakin) was on the prequel and I hate to say it, it blew donkey dick. He was only a kid so it's hard to blame him on its failure (and you can't fault him for the writing) but the overall presentation of the film fell on its face. It was and had the potential (and swarms coming to see it) to be bigger than fcuking Jesus's second coming. But Lucas is a lunatic and decided to make it "cutesy." EP. III was the only decent one and even then fell short with very awkward actors, overdone and cheap-feeling CGI, and a terrible array of child-friendly characters who (unlike the original comedic relief of EP. IV-VI) spoiled the fun and ruined the plot lines worse than a dog licking your foot in the middle of coitus.

 

As far as these new ones go, I think they will be a win. Lucas selling rights to Disney was the best decision he ever made right after having someone else direct Empire and ROTJ.

 

Agree with everything you said except the first part, the remakes of the originals were great IMO.

I would love it if they could make the Stormtroopers move like real soldiers, instead of the ultra-campy clutzy-ness they have always had.

Agree with everything you said except the first part, the remakes of the originals were great IMO.

You're the fcuking reason Han shot first...

You're the fcuking reason Han shot first...

 

When did he shoot first, I forget?

So did King Kong in 1933, but that doesn't mean it was comparable in realism to say Jurassic Park. Modern CG effects have created higher standards for realism in special effects. Jurassic Park blew people away when it first came out, but now even its dinosaur special effects look a bit cheesy.

They were bad because of how CG was used, and yes, in many cases it was bad and intrusive. From a technical perspective, off the top of my head,

 

- CG Yoda in Attack of the Clones...total crap.

- CG Jabba in the special editions...atrocious.

- CG clone troopers tactically blurred throughout...weak.

- CG animals all over the fking screen...kill me.

- CG Han Solo head jink from dodging Greedo's blast...seriously?

 

I'm not claiming older movies are less or more realistic. I use the word "believability" because it describes our ability to become absorbed with the story rather than trip over our innate senses. Achieving believability isn't a 1 or a 0. It's movie magic -- artistry that can happen in any decade. Top Gun was also unable to be technically accurate or "realistic," but it sure looked believable enough to fuel an unbeatable 20-year long Navy recruiting program.

 

When did he shoot first, I forget?

...you'll need to buy either a VHS tape or a vintage laser disc player to see it.

They were bad because of how CG was used, and yes, in many cases it was bad and intrusive. From a technical perspective, off the top of my head,

 

- CG Yoda in Attack of the Clones...total crap.

 

Yes, but in the The Phantom Menace (Episode I), they used a physical Yoda, and people complained he looked too much like a puppet. CG was the only way to make him look more real, but they didn't do it well enough I suppose.

 

- CG Jabba in the special editions...atrocious.

- CG clone troopers tactically blurred throughout...weak.

- CG animals all over the fking screen...kill me.

- CG Han Solo head jink from dodging Greedo's blast...seriously?

 

Agree.

 

I'm not claiming older movies are less or more realistic. I use the word "believability" because it describes our ability to become absorbed with the story rather than trip over our innate senses. Achieving believability isn't a 1 or a 0. It's movie magic -- artistry that can happen in any decade. Top Gun was also unable to be technically accurate or "realistic," but it sure looked believable enough to fuel an unbeatable 20-year long Navy recruiting program.

 

Top Gun used real planes with great aerial photography, so in that sense it was pretty realistic, minus a few things perhaps, and of course the storyline. But I think well-done CG, such as in Avatar for example, can only help enhance the story. Star Wars used some really lame CG.

 

...you'll either have to buy a VHS tape or a vintage laser disc player to see it.

 

I have seen the original Star Wars special effects, they look impressive for the time to me, but not by modern standards.

 

So long as JJ doesn't do to Star Wars what he did to Star Trek, though, what he did to Star Trek was far more suited for a Star Wars film, so there is that. His Star Trek films should have been called Space Jockeys. They were pretty much Star Trek in name alone. A Star Trek for people that didn't like Star Trek. Entertaining, but hardly Star Trek. The goal was to make money, and in that regard, mission accomplished. The TNG movies were tired. I can freely admit that.

 

Practical, to be clear, well done practical, effects will always trump CG, and this is coming from someone that makes his living with CG. A virtual object will never be able to achieve what a tangible one can. What the virtual brings is the ability to display a wider range of the fantastic world created in one's mind. It is also easier to build a virtual set or character that can be changed at the last minute, which often ends up being the case. Movie houses now opt for CG because of budgetary reasons, the need for immediate change due to time constraints, the need to create something that just can't be done practically, or just plain old laziness. CG is best used as a supplement, not the main course (Unless it is a CG production). Watch a BTS of the Game Of Thrones sets. You will have a hard time pointing out the practical from the CG, and there is a lot of CG. That is a proper use of CG.

 

That Yoda puppet in the prequels was not the same as the one from the originals. Hell, it wasn't even close. The prequels were just an overall lazy effort. Better forgotten than anything else. They were added to canon, but die hard SW fans see them as not existing. Also, the remakes of the originals were abysmal. You want to watch SW for the first time, watch the originals (IV, V, VI) then stop.

 

This old SW fan is hopefully optimistic. The teaser was indeed a nice teaser.

When did he shoot first, I forget?

 

You're dead to me.

So any guesses as to what this movie will bring in opening weekend? $200mil?

So long as JJ doesn't do to Star Wars what he did to Star Trek, though, what he did to Star Trek was far more suited for a Star Wars film, so there is that. His Star Trek films should have been called Space Jockeys. They were pretty much Star Trek in name alone. A Star Trek for people that didn't like Star Trek. Entertaining, but hardly Star Trek. The goal was to make money, and in that regard, mission accomplished. The TNG movies were tired. I can freely admit that.

 

Practical, to be clear, well done practical, effects will always trump CG, and this is coming from someone that makes his living with CG. A virtual object will never be able to achieve what a tangible one can. What the virtual brings is the ability to display a wider range of the fantastic world created in one's mind. It is also easier to build a virtual set or character that can be changed at the last minute, which often ends up being the case. Movie houses now opt for CG because of budgetary reasons, the need for immediate change due to time constraints, the need to create something that just can't be done practically, or just plain old laziness. CG is best used as a supplement, not the main course (Unless it is a CG production). Watch a BTS of the Game Of Thrones sets. You will have a hard time pointing out the practical from the CG, and there is a lot of CG. That is a proper use of CG.

 

That Yoda puppet in the prequels was not the same as the one from the originals. Hell, it wasn't even close. The prequels were just an overall lazy effort. Better forgotten than anything else. They were added to canon, but die hard SW fans see them as not existing. Also, the remakes of the originals were abysmal. You want to watch SW for the first time, watch the originals (IV, V, VI) then stop.

 

This old SW fan is hopefully optimistic. The teaser was indeed a nice teaser.

 

What did you think of Avatar's CG? Also, what is it about the remakes of the originals that people don't like? I mean they are still the original films for the most part, minus a few extra scenes here and there.

You're dead to me.

 

I just forget which part you are referring to; did some Googling, I see you are referring to the Han vs Greedo scene? In the 1977 version, Han shoots Greedo, but in the 1997 re-release, Greedo shoots first.

Yes, but in the The Phantom Menace (Episode I), they used a physical Yoda, and people complained he looked too much like a puppet. CG was the only way to make him look more real, but they didn't do it well enough I suppose.

Years ago I was watching some kinda' making-of/behind-the-scenes thing on Star Wars. The orignal crew for the Yoda scenes in Empire (Frank Oz, etc.) was commenting on the import of their task. Oz mentioned how they didn't do much life-like work with puppets before, being focused on things like the Muppet Show and Sesame Street. Before the puppet was made, he knew they ran a terrible risk of screwing it up and he talked about how he and the crew realized that the entire movie would crumble if they failed to create a believable character. They were 100% right. If Yoda failed, the whole thing would collapse and be just another runner-up sequel. Imagine how Empire (and 1983's Jedi) would have suffered if Yoda wasn't believable. Here we are years later with bad Yodas and bad movies.

 

Top Gun used real planes with great aerial photography, so in that sense it was pretty realistic, minus a few things perhaps, and of course the storyline.

Top Gun was my example of creating believability outside the CG debate. There was plenty to it that was in no way representative of what flying tactical jets is like (I'll testify), but the audience believed it. Sure, there was a lot of photography that was cool and hadn't been done before, but your perception of what is "realistic" is inevitably your own. I'm talking about the suspension of disbelief as an important principle in movie magic worth looking into...link.

 

I just forget which part you are referring to; did some Googling, I see you are referring to the Han vs Greedo scene? In the 1977 version, Han shoots Greedo, but in the 1997 re-release, Greedo shoots first.

Hence taking CG and using it to edit a scene into a total abortion of not only the film's appearance, but of the characters' personalities, forcing the re-release into a vacuum of suck.

Top Gun was my example of creating believability outside the CG debate. There was plenty to it that was in no way representative of what flying tactical jets is like (I'll testify), but the audience believed it. Sure, there was a lot of photography that was cool and hadn't been done before, but your perception of what is "realistic" is inevitably your own. I'm talking about the suspension of disbelief as an important principle in movie magic worth looking into...link.

 

By "realistic" I didn't mean in terms of fighter plane tactics (as I have no idea there), I just meant in terms of the appearance of the aircraft on the screen, they were very realistic-looking because they were actual aircraft. By the storyline, I said that because the makers of the film said that they purposely sought to create a fantasy movie regarding the Navy, that they didn't want to make it strictly realistic.

 

Hence taking CG and using it to edit a scene into a total abortion of not only the film's appearance, but of the characters' personalities, forcing the re-release into a vacuum of suck.

 

Seemed fine to me IMO. Changing some of the scenery was a great improvement I think, unless one is a purist.

 

Seemed fine to me IMO. Changing some of the scenery was a great improvement I think, unless one is a purist.

It's not purism. It's fundamentally changing a main character's development in the story, a building block of the entire movie. It changes who Han Solo is. He was once a guy who wasn't even phased by blowing Greedo away out of convenience. Now he's a guy defending himself, and what would be Greedo's motivation to shoot [first] mid-conversation anyway? Add the unnatural CG head jink and before you know it, Roman is hunting Wheels down with a Barrett. Those are two totally different Han Solos at the hands of CG freedom. Now Abrams has the burden of avoiding those traps. All that real stormtrooper armor in the trailer appears to be the first step. I'm bracing myself for the rest of it, just in case. I still hope that it's great.

It's not purism. It's fundamentally changing a main character's development in the story, a building block of the entire movie. It changes who Han Solo is. He was once a guy who wasn't even phased by blowing Greedo away out of convenience. Now he's a guy defending himself, and what would be Greedo's motivation to shoot [first] mid-conversation anyway? Add the unnatural CG head jink and before you know it, Roman is hunting Wheels down with a Barrett. Those are two totally different Han Solos at the hands of CG freedom. Now Abrams has the burden of avoiding those traps. All that real stormtrooper armor in the trailer appears to be the first step. I'm bracing myself for the rest of it, just in case. I still hope that it's great.

 

Those are legitimate points, but not all the additions in the Star Wars re-releases were changes to the characters' actions. That was one particular messup. A good one I thought was how they replaced the actor who was Jabba the Hut in Episode IV with the CG Jabba, because otherwise it just didn't make sense. I also think it makes sense to change the voice of Boba Fett to that of the guy who played Jango Fett in the prequels, which they did for the newest re-releases versions.

This was a recent addition to the Star Wars re-releases, I now officially want to murder George Lucas (I hated this line in Episode III):

 

A good one I thought was how they replaced the actor who was Jabba the Hutt in Episode IV with the CG Jabba, because otherwise it just didn't make sense. I also think it makes sense to change the voice of Boba Fett to that of the guy who played Jango Fett in the prequels, which they did for the newest re-releases versions.

With that example, they didn't need to replace an actor with a crappy CG character because the scene didn't exist in the original film anyway; i.e. there was nothing to worry about making sense. Once again, CG breaths new life into a scene that died in the cutting room for a reason. The entire segment was pointless and they screwed it up with terrible CG.

With that example, they didn't need to replace an actor with a crappy CG character because the scene didn't exist in the original film anyway; i.e. there was nothing to worry about making sense. Once again, CG breaths new life into a scene that died in the cutting room for a reason. The entire segment was pointless and they screwed it up with terrible CG.

 

Oh fcuk me... Han steps on jabbas tail? fcuking craptacular.

 

 

Oh fcuk me... Han steps on jabbas tail? fcuking craptacular.

 

 

 

I recall the reasoning why they did that. Originally, Jabba was a human gangster and later changed into the big tub of lard we know and love. Han walks behind the human character and suddenly the shot was in shambles when they wanted to add it into the special edition. So they made Han step on his tail as a way to successfully add the shot.

 

Original Jabba:

I recall the reasoning why they did that. Originally, Jabba was a human gangster and later changed into the big tub of lard we know and love. Han walks behind the human character and suddenly the shot was in shambles when they wanted to add it into the special edition. So they made Han step on his tail as a way to successfully add the shot.

 

Original Jabba:

 

 

Yeah... I know all that.. But if any normal person is the director, he sees that redux and says "fcuk it... Didn't work... Leave it out..."

With that example, they didn't need to replace an actor with a crappy CG character because the scene didn't exist in the original film anyway; i.e. there was nothing to worry about making sense. Once again, CG breaths new life into a scene that died in the cutting room for a reason. The entire segment was pointless and they screwed it up with terrible CG.

 

I see; I didn't know that the scene with Jabba didn't exist in the original.