New Star Wars teaser trailer. I'm stoked

New trailer! Well so far it looks awesome! Hoping this isn't a letdown like Lucas's.

 

New trailer! Well so far it looks awesome! Hoping this isn't a letdown like Lucas's.

 

 

Replace every time the say 'force' with chlamydia and it gives lulz.

New trailer! Well so far it looks awesome! Hoping this isn't a letdown like Lucas's.

 

 

I was so happy to see this post! I liked the first trailer, but many of my coworkers didn't care for it. I think that the second one looks even better. I'm super excited for the movie! Great to see Harrison Ford back. Hopefully he has no permanent injury from his recent plane crash.

 

Sorry I just read the 200 post clause, if a moderator wants to delete my comment go ahead. Sorry about that!

I was so happy to see this post! I liked the first trailer, but many of my coworkers didn't care for it. I think that the second one looks even better. I'm super excited for the movie! Great to see Harrison Ford back. Hopefully he has no permanent injury from his recent plane crash.

 

Sorry I just read the 200 post clause, if a moderator wants to delete my comment go ahead. Sorry about that!

 

Ha! This ISNT one of those threads...

Ha! This ISNT one of those threads...

 

Jedi mod mind trick?

Amazing robotics!

 

http://www.break.com/video/star-wars-revea...is-real-2847216

 

Ha! This ISNT one of those threads...

 

Didn't figure it was, I just saw the pinned topic at the top and didn't want to get in trouble. I figure the 200 post limit is more for political, religious, and more controversial subjects. Thanks.

Didn't figure it was, I just saw the pinned topic at the top and didn't want to get in trouble. I figure the 200 post limit is more for political, religious, and more controversial subjects. Thanks.

 

Actually you were right to be cautious on a movie thread because all 3 apply.

 

Can't wait for tickets to go on sale so I can buy a whole row

Amazing robotics!

 

http://www.break.com/video/star-wars-revea...is-real-2847216

 

 

If only they launch a toy that actually works like that after the movie...

If only they launch a toy that actually works like that after the movie...

I assume they will, as the company that designed it (Sphero) already has stuff on the market. That thing will sell like crazy, so I can't see them passing up that money train.

Interesting how simple the concept seems to be in many ways. It looks impossible but you look at how Sphero works, it has a gyroscope and wheels inside that turn and thus cause the sphere to roll along. Then you build a head and put some strong magnets inside that can probably pivot and you've got a cute little droid.

 

I wonder how he goes up and down stairs though?

Would be hilarious if they got one of those capable of doing like 70 mph and had it go out on a freeway and cruise.

If only they launch a toy that actually works like that after the movie...

 

 

More importantly, from the movie making side, it marks a serious change back to the way things used to be.. One of the problems the prequels suffered from was the flat feeling of all the CG sets and actors....

 

If you watched any footage of the film being shot you'd see ewan MacGregor and Hayden Christiansen standing on a green floor, with a huge green curtain behind them, jumping over obstacles that weren't there, running through sets that didn't exist, and talking to other characters who wouldn't be added until post production.... and the result s flat performances on cartoonish sets...

 

Now, if you're old enough to actually own one... Pull out your unmolested original vhs of Star Wars... When Han still shot first... Before Lucas got addicted to CG. The films feel real... The cantina scene feels far more emersive because it really is thirty dudes dressed up in costumes, inside a real hand constructed set, rather than just Mark and Alec interacting with a green curtain... Yoda as a puppet was much better than yoda as a cartoon...

 

 

There is still a place for CG. For instance it can and probably should replace a lot of what used to be done with miniature models... Watch that opening scene of Empire where the painfully obviously stop actioned tauntaun runs across the snowscape... Awful... But Lucas went too far in the opposite direction.

More importantly, from the movie making side, it marks a serious change back to the way things used to be.. One of the problems the prequels suffered from was the flat feeling of all the CG sets and actors....

 

If you watched any footage of the film being shot you'd see ewan MacGregor and Hayden Christiansen standing on a green floor, with a huge green curtain behind them, jumping over obstacles that weren't there, running through sets that didn't exist, and talking to other characters who wouldn't be added until post production.... and the result s flat performances on cartoonish sets...

 

Now, if you're old enough to actually own one... Pull out your unmolested original vhs of Star Wars... When Han still shot first... Before Lucas got addicted to CG. The films feel real... The cantina scene feels far more emersive because it really is thirty dudes dressed up in costumes, inside a real hand constructed set, rather than just Mark and Alec interacting with a green curtain... Yoda as a puppet was much better than yoda as a cartoon...

 

 

There is still a place for CG. For instance it can and probably should replace a lot of what used to be done with miniature models... Watch that opening scene of Empire where the painfully obviously stop actioned tauntaun runs across the snowscape... Awful... But Lucas went too far in the opposite direction.

Couldnt have said it better myself, The whole going back to Practical effects in the industry is awesome to see.

 

 

"A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." George Lucas when interviewed during episode 3 (it would seem he lost his way for the prequels)

More importantly, from the movie making side, it marks a serious change back to the way things used to be.. One of the problems the prequels suffered from was the flat feeling of all the CG sets and actors....

 

If you watched any footage of the film being shot you'd see ewan MacGregor and Hayden Christiansen standing on a green floor, with a huge green curtain behind them, jumping over obstacles that weren't there, running through sets that didn't exist, and talking to other characters who wouldn't be added until post production.... and the result s flat performances on cartoonish sets...

 

Now, if you're old enough to actually own one... Pull out your unmolested original vhs of Star Wars... When Han still shot first... Before Lucas got addicted to CG. The films feel real... The cantina scene feels far more emersive because it really is thirty dudes dressed up in costumes, inside a real hand constructed set, rather than just Mark and Alec interacting with a green curtain... Yoda as a puppet was much better than yoda as a cartoon...

 

 

There is still a place for CG. For instance it can and probably should replace a lot of what used to be done with miniature models... Watch that opening scene of Empire where the painfully obviously stop actioned tauntaun runs across the snowscape... Awful... But Lucas went too far in the opposite direction.

 

That is a good point about the overuse of CG. Even if realistic-looking, it can fall flat if the actors are running around jumping over things and talking to people that aren't there. A major flaw of Lucas's CG also was that it was so cartoonish-looking. It was an insult to special effects. It was nothing like for example the special effects in Avatar which were extremely realistic and very well-done IMO. Lucas also fouled up in portraying outer-space, as he went with the old black background with white dots and space is more complex than that.

 

Christopher Nolan in his Batman series was one of the first to start with practical effects again, having a real working Batmobile made. Obviously it wasn't real in being the way it was portrayed in the movie, but I mean it was a real car that could really jump over obstacles (with a ramp) and the afterburner flame was a real flame.

 

One of the worst CG sequences IMO was in Peter Jackson's King Kong where they are running from the stampede (and somehow the dinosaurs magically avoid trampling them), but it is extremely clear that it is a blue screen they're in front of. The scene where Adrian Brody helps Jack Black up from falling was really clearly green screen.

 

BTW the Yoda of the first prequel was very puppet-like, which a lot of fans complained about, so they purposely went with a CG Yoda for the sequel prequels.

I would also say that the prequels had some racist stereotypes, from Jar Jar Binks to the Jewish-stereotype flying alien on Tatooine.

That is a good point about the overuse of CG. Even if realistic-looking, it can fall flat if the actors are running around jumping over things and talking to people that aren't there. A major flaw of Lucas's CG also was that it was so cartoonish-looking. It was an insult to special effects. It was nothing like for example the special effects in Avatar which were extremely realistic and very well-done IMO. Lucas also fouled up in portraying outer-space, as he went with the old black background with white dots and space is more complex than that.

There were some huge advancements in tech used for Avatar, but it was still pretty "cartoony" looking, as far as I am concerned.

 

Christopher Nolan in his Batman series was one of the first to start with practical effects again, having a real working Batmobile made. Obviously it wasn't real in being the way it was portrayed in the movie, but I mean it was a real car that could really jump over obstacles (with a ramp) and the afterburner flame was a real flame.

Every single Batman movie to date has used a Batmobile that could be driven on set and off, do stunts, etc.

 

BTW the Yoda of the first prequel was very puppet-like, which a lot of fans complained about, so they purposely went with a CG Yoda for the sequel prequels.

The complaints were not because it was a puppet, but at how poorly it looked. It was nothing more than a poorly thrown together representation of Yoda. It looked like something a Cosplayer would put together, and there was no excuse for it. The advancement of puppetry and animatronics should've had Yoda looking exceptional when compared to the original and it was anything but that.

 

I don't think CGI is fundamentally incapable of bridging the uncanny valley at this point, the problem is that directors like to use it to create shots which would be impossible (or extraordinarily difficult) with a physical camera and props. You know, how in today's FX-heavy films, you see the camera get up really close to some enormous object moving ridiculously quickly, or right next to something exploding.

Also, when FX shots have quick cuts (as is typically the case in CG action sequences), it exposes the shot as unreal, because demanding physical-FX-heavy scenes will have limited angles from which to capture the footage, and need to be planned meticulously - so unless there are quick close-ups of the actors' faces, you tend to get more of a lingering look at what's going on from any given angle.

 

Tl;dr, I think it's the way CGI sequences are directed and edited, rather than the technology itself, which creates a disconnect in the viewer.

 

Take Jurassic Park for example, still a film praised for its CG, but all those effects shots were originally intended to be 100% practical shots using puppets and stop-motion. That's why it works so well, the camera never moves in a way that breaks believability.

That is a good point about the overuse of CG. Even if realistic-looking, it can fall flat if the actors are running around jumping over things and talking to people that aren't there. A major flaw of Lucas's CG also was that it was so cartoonish-looking. It was an insult to special effects. It was nothing like for example the special effects in Avatar which were extremely realistic and very well-done IMO. Lucas also fouled up in portraying outer-space, as he went with the old black background with white dots and space is more complex than that.

 

SHUT UP Trekkie! Star Wars is not, and has never been Science Fiction. Getting "what space is really supposed to look like" is a SCI-FI trekkie thing. The space and the science of space travel are the heart of Star Trek. Star Wars is at its heart, a Western. Good Guys, Bad Guys, bounty hunters. Set in a galaxy Far Far Away. Space travel is an aside. And none of it is "sciencey". In Star Trek, you fix the warp drive by having the Engineer explain in very complex terms what part of the reactor broke and what we need to do to fix it. In Star Wars, you fix the Hyper drive by, "never mind, R2 got it".

 

Christopher Nolan in his Batman series was one of the first to start with practical effects again, having a real working Batmobile made. Obviously it wasn't real in being the way it was portrayed in the movie, but I mean it was a real car that could really jump over obstacles (with a ramp) and the afterburner flame was a real flame.

Stop it with the batman shit already.

 

One of the worst CG sequences IMO was in Peter Jackson's King Kong where they are running from the stampede (and somehow the dinosaurs magically avoid trampling them), but it is extremely clear that it is a blue screen they're in front of. The scene where Adrian Brody helps Jack Black up from falling was really clearly green screen.

 

Nobody saw Peter Jacksons King Kong.

 

BTW the Yoda of the first prequel was very puppet-like, which a lot of fans complained about, so they purposely went with a CG Yoda for the sequel prequels.

I would also say that the prequels had some racist stereotypes, from Jar Jar Binks to the Jewish-stereotype flying alien on Tatooine.

 

 

Oh for christ's sake.... Of the fifty million fcuking reasons to hate the prequels, "racist stereotypes" has to be reason fifty million and nineteen. People didnt hate jar jar binks because it was a racist portrayal... People hated Jar Jar binks because he was fcuking stupid... It was a character created for pre-schoolers... Which, amazingly, was never the Star Wars audience.

 

People hated the flying bird dude because that whole tatooine/podrace/manaquein skywalker/middechlorians subplot was stupid and sucked ass. and he was part of it.

There were some huge advancements in tech used for Avatar, but it was still pretty "cartoony" looking, as far as I am concerned.

 

IMO it looked way more believable than the CG used for the Star Wars prequels.

 

Every single Batman movie to date has used a Batmobile that could be driven on set and off, do stunts, etc.

 

Coolbeans, didn't know that.

 

SHUT UP Trekkie! Star Wars is not, and has never been Science Fiction. Getting "what space is really supposed to look like" is a SCI-FI trekkie thing. The space and the science of space travel are the heart of Star Trek.

 

Trust me, I am no Trekkie! Also I do not think realistic portrayal of space is outside of Star Wars. Also Star Trek is as much a fantasy as Star Wars. It's a pure utopian communist fantasy. It also has never portrayed space realistically either.

 

Star Wars is at its heart, a Western. Good Guys, Bad Guys, bounty hunters. Set in a galaxy Far Far Away. Space travel is an aside. And none of it is "sciencey". In Star Trek, you fix the warp drive by having the Engineer explain in very complex terms what part of the reactor broke and what we need to do to fix it. In Star Wars, you fix the Hyper drive by, "never mind, R2 got it".

 

Neither of them are sciencey IMO. That space travel is an aside doesn't mean space can't be realistically portrayed.

 

Stop it with the batman shit already.

 

Batman Hater.

 

Stop it with the batman shit already.