Star Wars: 2015

[Jim Raynor]

CGI is not the problem.

Not if it's done well. But you have to admit that the AATs rolling down Naboo looked fake as shit.

Better than stop motion Taun-tauns and AT-ATs. Yeah, I said it.

It seems as though Lucas abused CGI simply because it was simpler to film everything on a green-screen than to actually get out, find shooting locations and have people handcraft models, like he used to do.

Models are better for texture and color. They are horrible at depicting movement, or interacting with characters. It's all a trade-off, and that's a trade-off that the vast majority of the population would gladly accept. If a new scifi movie came out with starfighters that moved as stiffly as ANH's X-wings, or which dared to use an obsolete technology like stop-motion figurines, it would be laughed at.

[Formless]

So is the whole premise of this site a "shitty crossover fanfiction"? Is Curtis Saxton a "shitty crossover fanfiction" writer?

Yes? Mike always used "its fanfiction" as a rebuttal to people attempting to argue authorial intentions. The fiction section of the forums used to be called the fanfiction section once upon a time as well. Its okay to have a guilty pleasure, man, just as long as you understand that the fanfiction is and should be derived from the movies, not the other way around. Amazing idea, isn't it?

No, moron, what matters is logical narrative consistency.

See, I used to think so. But then I realized that if I took that to its logical extreme, it meant that Star Trek VI sucked because it was inconsistent with Star Trek V, let alone Insurrection. But that's basically the opposite of how I felt, and most of the fandom seems to agree. Each movie tells a stand alone story, and as long as each story is good or bad in its own right I really don't give a shit about continuity. Its the same reason that I can hate AOTC and its shitty climax, but also say that ROTS and ROTJ are both really good films. Consistency is overrated. Turbolaser firepower is a tangental issue to the film's quality except insofar as the Death Star still needs to be able to blow up planets.

And besides, I love how you get all miffed about this particular point when I made four others. Let me quote to you one of them:

2) the new movies aren't going to invalidate the old films. They pretty much can't, as long as the Death Star remains an integral part of the OT plot.

So yeah. Whatever these new movies bring, unless its a reboot, the sanctity of 200GT turbolasers is safe and sound. The only other exception I can think of is if they decide to do some technobabble to explain it, but if so I would say that the sequels have an entirely different set of problems.

Hilarious strawman/non-sequitor. "This might mean X for the versus debate" does not equate to "it's impossible to tell good stories without bigatons".

Except you ARE making a big deal out of gigatonage, and you are having this argument precisely because you can't understand why no one else is. You aren't fooling anyone, save perhaps for yourself.

You clearly have no idea what any of those fallacies are, or how to identify their use, because none of them applied to the things I've said. In fact, you yourself are guilty of a fallacy-- Ad Hominim. Hypocrisy on my part is irrelevant.

Maybe you just lack self awareness of your own behavior. Either way, these aren't hard concepts to grasp, and I see no reason you needed to do the whole "cut the post into its constituent sentences and repeat myself endlessly" shpeal.

[Connor MacLeod]

I can solve any possible 'contradictions' in a very simple manner: Just becuase they have the technology they simply choose not to (or can't) use it in a widespread basis. Maybe it was never put into full deployment, or it may have been of very narrow usage (EG it wasn't used for ship to ship combat or routine purposes but for rare cases like destroying worlds. Which is consistent with BDZ being one of the prime 'sources' for those high yields.) Or it was politically unacceptable in a widespread manner. The actual why would be irrelevant, much as its irrelevant to explain why they only ever built one Death Star at a time, or never used all those resources to build millions of executors or billions of Star destroyers or whatever.

What it comes down to is that, depending on the logic and reasoning you use (which can be open ended), the potential capacity to do something does not translate into that capability actually existing or being widespread.

There crisis averted. Edit: now skywalker can get back to making generalizations about what writing fundamentals or something.

[Boeing 757]

Wow, there are virtually no details yet on this film, and people are already bringing up the ICS firepower figures. It's not like it really matters either way, since it has no bearing on how good the overall plot will be, and seeing that the films themselves are the source for some of the better firepower estimates, I reckon that we can all sleep safely on this issue

And who knows...perhaps we will be lucky enough to witness a BDZ in episode 7 or turbolasers causing massive upheaval on a planetary scale.

[Batman]

Given the fears voiced about how Disney might ruin the franchise I'd think invalidation of the Saxton figures is going to be the least of our worries WRT wether or not the new movies will be any good, especially as we all somehow managed to find the OT positively awesome when ROTJ hit the theaters 12 years before SWTC was born, nevermind the PT or the ICSes. Yes, the information used in the Vs debate is derived from the movies, but it is essentially irrelevant to wether or not those movies are enjoyable. If the new movies give us firepower below Trek or even real world levels but are thouroughly entertaining, who the hell cares?

[Korgeta]

The REAL Batman would fit in his 'goddam' line somewhere in that statement!

But Batman is right, It is somewhat inevitable this would dip into saxton writings about fire power and vs with a certain other series but who cares! Saxton, Mike Wong, darkstar etc do not write the shows of either ST, SW, B5. Their free to give their interpertation on the series just as any of us are free to give a damm or not about them but the idea that we shouldn't even care about the series if it dosen't follow the fan estimates of what a lightsaber should do or how many rounds a turbolaser should fire is absurd.

Its great to use movies to compare the series to another and such, throw in a debate here, raise possible questions and theories but the movies are to entertain and not strive for hardcore science and logic, the people above can comment as much as they want about the series but they don't write it so are people caring it could 'trample over saxton, EU or be weaker then Trek' rubbish, will it be the end of the world for me? No why should it? Why can't people just look forward to getting a sequal post ROTJ which is what most fans ahve been after since ROTJ came out!

[Batman]

The real Batman (that'd be me) would use the term Valendamned, 'Goddamned' is invariably and exclusively used by third parties referring to the Batman.

[Luke Skywalker]

Yes? Mike always used "its fanfiction" as a rebuttal to people attempting to argue authorial intentions. The fiction section of the forums used to be called the fanfiction section once upon a time as well. Its okay to have a guilty pleasure, man, just as long as you understand that the fanfiction is and should be derived from the movies, not the other way around. Amazing idea, isn't it?

Quick! Let us make a collaborative email apologizing to Karen Traviss for implying that perpetuating a 4 million man clone army is moronic. After all, by your inane logic, it is foolish to demand that the source material be internally consistent.

Granted, I still find your strawman that “this could have a major effect on the versus debate” means “the film is ruined if Disney doesn’t show BIGATONS!” to be oddly amusing, given that the quote you responded to wasn’t a qualifying statement, and it certainly did not make any connection from “yields might be messed up” to “MOVIE WILL THEREFORE SUCK!” You just deluded yourself into making yet another massive strawman

See, I used to think so. But then I realized that if I took that to its logical extreme, it meant that Star Trek VI sucked because it was inconsistent with Star Trek V, let alone Insurrection.

Newflash: developments in graphics and necessary retcons can be beneficial if they contribute to the quality of the story, and/or fix something that was nonsensical in the first place. That doesn’t eliminate the need for consistency in any circumstance.

But that's basically the opposite of how I felt, and most of the fandom seems to agree. Each movie tells a stand alone story, and as long as each story is good or bad in its own right I really don't give a shit about continuity.

Bullshit. First off, each entry in a trilogy by definition is not standalone – why the fuck is it called a trilogy? Second, the films could just as easily prove to be inconsistent with themselves.

Its the same reason that I can hate AOTC and its shitty climax, but also say that ROTS and ROTJ are both really good films. Consistency is overrated. Turbolaser firepower is a tangental issue to the film's quality except insofar as the Death Star still needs to be able to blow up planets.

1. “Tangental issue” =/= irrelevant.
2. Quit strawmanning the fuck out of my argument and presuming that I’m going to judge the quality of the movie by versus criteria, rather than simply pointing out the implications in that subsection of my interest in Star Wars, for fuck’s sake.

So yeah. Whatever these new movies bring, unless its a reboot, the sanctity of 200GT
turbolasers is safe and sound. The only other exception I can think of is if they decide to do some technobabble to explain it, but if so I would say that the sequels have an entirely different set of problems.

Except that current theories must be adapted to explain seemingly contradictory evidence, which may involve asinine technobabble, as you point out. I could easily nitpick Star Trek episodes that put your typical photon torpedo at a few tons of TNT, and then conclude that, barring a retcon, my evidence is incontrovertible to any future releases. This, of course, would be false.

Except you ARE making a big deal out of gigatonage, and you are having this argument precisely because you can't understand why no one else is. You aren't fooling anyone, save perhaps for yourself.

Kindly show me where I make a “big deal” out of gigatonage, and how this compares to constructing a website and performing integral calculus to determine the firepower of a medium turbolaser battery.

Oops – you think you can read my mind, don’t you? You just assume that my mentioning of the versus debate is an indication that it takes priority over other aspects of the film, rather than simply me bringing something up that hadn’t been mentioned yet.

You clearly have no idea what any of those fallacies are, or how to identify their use, because none of them applied to the things I've said.

Haha. Nice try, but assuming that the mere mention of the versus debate indicates an obsession with it is only not a fallacy in your deluded train of thought.

In fact, you yourself are guilty of a fallacy-- Ad Hominim. Hypocrisy on my part is irrelevant.

Newsflash, bro: your entire criticism of…whatever it is you’re trying to criticize is a combination of an ad hominem and an appeal to popularity. Oops.

Maybe you just lack self awareness of your own behavior. Either way, these aren't hard concepts to grasp, and I see no reason you needed to do the whole "cut the post into its constituent sentences and repeat myself endlessly" shpeal.

Yeah, I’d still love to see where you extrapolated that me jokingly bringing up the topic of the fucking board constitutes some sort of never before mentioned obsession with growing Star War’s dick.

[Formless]

You know what, I have to be up at 5:00AM tomorrow to go on a hunting trip, so frankly I don't have time to keep indulging in your endless wanking and whining. Basically no one else cares, everyone has stated as much, and I have preparations to do. Probably won't be able to do this tomorrow either, no Wifi up in the mountains. I don't know how its possible for you to fail to see the obvious, but whatev.

[Galvatron]

All I can say is this: Episode VII will be worthless to me if we don't get a definitive explanation for the red stripes on Han's trousers.

[Optimus Metallus]

First, most movies take place on Earth, so its a lot easier to find an appropriate location for the film. Star Wars on the other hand is Sci-Fi. Even Fantasy movies are easier, because those still predominately take place in terrestrial envoronments. Second of all, CGI just keeps getting cheaper. The Prequel Trilogy and Avatar both demonstrated that CGI is cost effective now, whereas that wasn't always the case.

A set is a set is a set. Whether you make it look like a 1920's hotel, a medieval castle, or a room in Cloud City, the work is about equal, save for a bit more conceptual work at the start (and even the first two will also require additional work, as you have to maintain historical accuracy, whereas people creating sci-fi sets can just make up whatever they want). Even filming in modern day settings isn't just about simply finding place that fits what you want. In Thor, for instance, they built that entire town from scratch so they could blow it up. Lots of movies do that. Star Wars did that.

Nothing requires it to end there, but that doesn't mean it didn't add a lot of atmosphere to the movie's climax. We could go all day with the "is this necessary" game, but at the end of the day you would have a completely different movie and cinematic experience if all those proposed changes were made. Its a red herring argument, so you can just cut it out right now.

You're right, we would have a different cinematic experience. It'd be one which would be better, because it'd feel realer to the audience.

Also, there is a lot of CGI used in the Batman films that you just don't realize are there. For instance, Two Face's scars were entirely done with CGI, not makeup. Surprised the hell out of me, but the behind the scenes footage doesn't lie. Nolan does a good job of making the effects inconspicuous. I actually wouldn't be surprised if that explosion was enhanced with CGI effects work.

There's a huge difference between using CGI to complement a film or using it when you have things which can't be done otherwise and using it to the exclusion of all else when it isn't at all necessary.

Yes. Stop and ask yourself what parts of my argument you failed to address. Hint: everything.

Only in your deluded mind.

Ask Lucas himself why he didn't do the PT sooner. He has always stated that the effects of the time weren't up to the task of depicting the worlds he envisioned. He's a best selling filmmaker, an innovator in special effects... and he waited until CGI was up to the task before shooting his dream movies. Like those movies or not, do you really expect people to take your word over his?

People don't have to take my word over his. I stated my opinion and if nobody agrees with it then fine. But I AM going to call bullshit on the idea that he couldn't have accomplished some of the more important story elements from those films back in the day. For instance, take the battle between the Gungans and the droid army in The Phantom Menace. Is there any reason that scene couldn't have been filmed in 1977? It doesn't take place on a bizarre alien landscape, but an open grassland. It features two humanoid armies which could've easily been represented by actors in costume and makeup. The only vehicles in use were slow-moving vehicles. That could've been done without a hitch without CGI. Hell, the lack of CGI would've probably made it better in several ways, as it would've actually felt real as opposed to a cartoon battle. Not to mention that the limitations on costuming might've resulted in the combatants looking better. Those droids look pathetic, but if Lucas were required to have actors in suits portraying them then he would've necessarily had to bulk them up, which would've at least made them look more threatening (Even the old-style Cylons from the original Battlestar Galactica looked meaner than those Trade Federation droids). Likewise, we may not have gotten the silliness of the Gungans if Lucas had to stick to more human proportions.

But here's why you aren't getting a single thing I'm saying. CGI is more cost effective, easier to work with, and can create certain environments that physical sets cannot. All three of these are reasons they will be used in future Star Wars movies, and most likely used a lot. Get used to it, or stop watching these movies. (Oh, by the way, I probably won't be seeing the movie either. Just wanted to point that out. Its just not because I hate CGI)

I don't hate CGI either. I just don't like how they were used in the prequel trilogy. CGI is another tool in the toolbox, it's not the ONLY tool, or the primary tool, which is how Lucas treats it. Which, given the behind-the-scenes videos we've seen of his filming the prequel trilogy, is an excuse for him not to get up out of his chair.

Stop and ask yourself why Lucas has these preferences (assuming he does and you aren't just projecting your hatred of the man onto the man himself).

My "hatred"? Get a grip. I don't "hate" him. On the negative side, I think he's a pretty bad filmmaker who doesn't know his limitations when it comes to screenwriting and directing, he's overly reliant on special effects to the exclusion of all else, and probably more than a little bit lazy. But on the plus side, he's a good businessman, good at world creation, and good at developing special effects, but that's the extent of his talents. But apparently criticising someone's work somehow equates to utterly loathing that person. What're you, his son?

That's all I fucking ask. Stop and put yourself into the shoes of a blockbuster filmmaker and really ask yourself whether you would like to shoot in front of a greenscreen, or get sand in your shoes in 150 degree weather in the middle of Africa.

I'd prefer the former, but that's because I'm a lazy bastard. A filmmaker, though, SHOULD be willing to go through the discomfort of the latter if it'll result in a superior film. If you're not willing to do that then why in the world are you in the business to begin with? Or hell, if Lucas is unwilling to do it then he can easily hand off the directing job to someone else who IS willing to get sand in his shoes in 150 degree weather in the middle of Africa if he thinks he'll get a better movie out of it. God knows that the prequel trilogy would've been better if he'd been willing to let go some of the power.

Maybe its because you aren't going to find an army of one million identical men to be your extras?

They're in armor, you nitwit. They don't have to be identical.

Come on. Your objections are just fucking stupid, and AOTC is the one Star Wars movie I actually loathe.

Says the guy who thinks you need dozens of twin actors to portray the armored Clone Troopers? If there's anyone who's dripping in stupidity, it's you, as you're seriously lacking in reader comprehension. I specifically compared Clone Troopers to Storm Troopers, who were played by real actors in armored costumes. The same could've easily been done for the prequel trilogy. Sure, their brief appearance in Kamino would've necessitated some CGI (Not even all the time. Some of those shots could've featured similar looking actors who look the same from behind. Mix that in with camera tricks, and you get the same effect of an army of look-alikes without having to CGI them in every shot), but their latter armored appearances didn't require CGI.

And sticking to tradition is good, no matter how much money we could be saving or how much easier the new technology is to work with!

Buddy, you just don't have an argument.

Oh really? Here's your argument:

1) Use CGI to the exclusion of all else, even if actual sets or people in costume are feasible and will make the movie better.
2) The director's comfort should take precedence over producing a superior film.

We have the original Star Wars films which were made with more traditional forms of filmmaking and we have the special editions in which Lucas loaded up a bunch of scenes with CGI. Which ones are the better films? According to you I guess it'd be the latter, but I imagine that most people would say it's the former, so no, CGI doesn't automatically make a superior film. Star Wars already seemed plenty alien before Lucas came back 20 years later and started filling the screen with tons of CGI garbage. CGI has its uses, without a doubt, but as I said, CGI should be one of many tools in the toolkit. It is NOT a Swiss Army Knife that you can use for nearly every aspect of filmmaking. There are times when a film would be better without the heavy or constant use of CGI.

You're right in that a lot of the scenes in the prequel trilogy couldn't have done back then, like the podrace scene, the "Padme trying to survive in an automated factory" scene, etc, but really, there's nothing about a lot of those scenes that was groundbreaking filmmaking which elevated those movies beyond anything that was in the original trilogy, so they're hardly making your argument. My comment about its being "CGI porn" though is, in retrospect, pretty accurate as Lucas was seemingly more concerned with doing crazy stuff with CGI just for the sake of doing crazy stuff with CGI, even when it did nothing to service the story or was at the expense of the story.

So yeah, from where I stand, you're the one who doesn't have a leg to stand on, and no amount of emoticon use on your part will make your idiotic argument make any more sense.

[Optimus Metallus]

All I can say is this: Episode VII will be worthless to me if we don't get a definitive explanation for the red stripes on Han's trousers.

That was the style back in the day on Alderaan. Sadly for Han when the Empire blew up Alderaan they didn't just commit genocide, but destroyed a fashion trend in the process.

[The Vortex Empire]

All I can say is this: Episode VII will be worthless to me if we don't get a definitive explanation for the red stripes on Han's trousers.

Well, the EU has its explanation.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Bloodstripe

[jollyreaper]

Regardless of who they go with and the writing, I wonder how bad the CGI and editing will be. It's not just shakycam and jump cuts, it's trying to be so hyper-kinetic that the visual storytelling goes out the window. The RLM critique did a good job of pointing out the difference in approach between the two trilogies. The limits of technology in the original meant that they had to work with less. Use a couple of good spices to compliment the food. The new trilogy was like dumping every spice from the shelf in the stew because more is more and more is better, right?

In waiting for the next big director to deliberately go for long scenes with few cuts. It would be simply a return to the form of decades ago but I bet it will be seen as cutting edge and directors will then compete to see who can remain still the longest without any understanding of why it should or shouldn't be done in the first place.

[Guardsman Bass]

All I can say is this: Episode VII will be worthless to me if we don't get a definitive explanation for the red stripes on Han's trousers.

Well, the EU has its explanation.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Bloodstripe

That definitely seems like it's trying too hard to explain something that could have easily just been a mostly pointless fashion element (like having pleated pants versus straight pants).

[Ace Pace]

That definitely seems like it's trying too hard to explain something that could have easily just been a mostly pointless fashion element (like having pleated pants versus straight pants).

Well isn't that a symptom of the entire EU or any large enough sci-fi/fantasy universe. Inventing meaning behind everything. Every guard has a heroic story, every peasant is a royal person in hiding.

[PeZook]

It is also possible that the bloodstripes were, on rare occasions, awarded to non-Corellians. Luke Skywalker wore brown pants displaying second-class bloodstripes during the award ceremony on Yavin 4 that followed the battle of the original Death Star, in which he had personally fired the shot that had destroyed the battle station while under fire from pursuing Imperial starfighters.

Or...it was a fashion thing and thus popular amongst people who wanted to look stylish

Man, I love this constant need to explain absolute minutae.

[Jim Raynor]

People don't have to take my word over his. I stated my opinion and if nobody agrees with it then fine. But I AM going to call bullshit on the idea that he couldn't have accomplished some of the more important story elements from those films back in the day. For instance, take the battle between the Gungans and the droid army in The Phantom Menace. Is there any reason that scene couldn't have been filmed in 1977?

No, they definitely could not have filmed that in 1977. If they had, it would've looked far worse. The robots would've been barely-mobile men in clunky costumes, not nearly as spindly and mechanical. The Gungans would've been men in modest "alien" make up, stupid looking rubber suits, or just plain humans if they didn't want to bother with all that. No one would've been able to interact with the hovertanks the way that they actually did, such as hanging off of a cannon while the vehicle was moving at full speed. We would not have seen vehicles swerving and crashing with movement anywhere near as convincing.

Remember, the Original Trilogy was considered cutting edge for its time. And what did we get for a ground battle? Gumby effects.

Take off the rose-colored glasses, because nobody else truly thinks effects were better back in the good ol' days. People both young and old don't want to go back to that after seeing modern movies, because they LIKE the spectacle. It's only on the internet where we see people acting like old school film techniques are actually better. Lucas is not alone in his heavy use of CGI either. Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan, J.J. Abrams, James Cameron, Joss Whedon, etc. have all made heavy use of CGI.

[Jim Raynor]

Were there aged 1950s cowboy movie fans (REAL horses and gunfights!) back in 1980 when Lucas made TESB? Did they complain about his use of "fake" looking technology to cartoonishly animate his AT-ATs? Because as I said before, they could've filmed the Battle of Hoth with the same exact story using a bunch of dressed up tracked vehicles. Sure it would've looked humdrum, without the towering coolness of the Imperial walkers or any of the other worldly scifi feel of the actual battle, but spectacle means nothing right?

This is such hipster Luddite nonsense. CGI is the present and future. The trend is not going to reverse.

[the atom]

And I have no idea who, if any, of the returning cast they can salvage. Harrison Ford is not too fond of the franchise. Mark Hamill is very old; although makeup can do wonders, I guess.

Eh, give him a big beard and the appropriate costume and I think he could probably quite easily pull off the 'old wizened master' look.

[Darth Quorthon]

Kind of makes me wonder if they'll follow this pattern:

Episode 1: The old, wizened master (Qui-Gon) gets cut down after a heroic battle, leaving his student (Obi-wan) to continue on without him.

Episode 4: The old, wizened master (Obi-wan) gets cut down after a heroic battle, leaving his student (Luke) to continue on without him.

Alec Guiness was around 61 (assuming they filmed it around 1975) when he filmed ANH, and he was able to pull off a fight scene at the end, even if it was awkward as hell by modern standards. Mark Hamill is also currently 61. Plus, didn't Lucas use CGI to put Christopher Lee's head on another actor's body for his fight scene in Episode 3?

I'd be bummed if Harrison Ford didn't return for Episode 7, but wasn't he pretty close to pulling out of Episode 6 and that's why they stuck him in carbonite at the end of Episode 5?

[Simon_Jester]

I really don't think reusing actors from the old movies is the way to go artistically. It could work, but there's no guarantee. And God help you if Harrison Ford slips and falls in the bath half-way through filming. The man is seventy years old.

[Ralin]

Quick! Let us make a collaborative email apologizing to Karen Traviss for implying that perpetuating a 4 million man clone army is moronic. After all, by your inane logic, it is foolish to demand that the source material be internally consistent.

You know, this is just my personal impression, but I'm pretty sure that even here at SD.net most people really wouldn't have given a fuck about the 6 million clone army thing if Traviss hadn't gone batshit insane when people pointed out that it didn't make sense. Plenty of popular sci-fi authors make scale mistakes. I see very few people getting angry about Zahn saying that two hundred thirty year old warships would make a difference in a galactic war. This probably has something to do with the fact that he doesn't talk about how he wants to rip out the tracheas of the ones who do.

[Jim Raynor]

Exactly. We criticized the West End Games sourcebooks for years. Without checking, can anyone even name a single WEG author? Three million clones was stupid but not out of he ordinary in the EU. It was about the author elevating things into a feud, before immaturely writing lousy stories with an eye toward supporting her initial mistake.

[Batman]

Actually from what I've seen 3 million (or 4, or 6, or whatever the actual number was) clones would've been patently silly even by EU standards.