Description from The Force.net (SPOILERS)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Some awesome highlights I should point out include (highlight to read) a hooded Anakin with glowing red eyes - much like Darth Maul's, a scene of the Emperor wielding a lightsaber, I'm assuming during his battle with Yoda, which looks like he is throwing across the room.
Guess the detractors will get their revenge over the Yoda duel in Episode II.
I''m most interested in seeing General Grievous. Any idea if he''s going to be in the trailer somewhere?
I just hope (!) that they don''t make him suck. Darth Maul was a cool villain, Darth Tyranus was not. More ass-kickery, less ass-hattery I say!
Which one''s the robot that looks like Bender?
General Grievous :wink:.
But does he talk like Bender? If they put a magnet on him, will he lose his inhibitions and start singing folk tunes on the battlefield?
Couldn''t be any worse than Jar-Jar as a Senator. At least everyone LIKES Bender.
John ""Bender"" DiMaggio only did the voice in Clone Wars. Lucas wanted Gary Oldman to do the voice in the movie, but he couldn''t because of some SAG rule, so the role is still up in the air.
The teaser leaked. Left me pretty unimpressed. Some CGI, nothing breathtaking though. Yoda looks lame. And Hayden Christiansen trying to look ''evil''. Boohoo scary.
More ass-kickery, less ass-hattery I say!
Say it brother!
The teaser leaked. Left me pretty unimpressed. Some CGI, nothing breathtaking though. Yoda looks lame. And Hayden Christiansen trying to look ''evil''. Boohoo scary.
Hard to get a feel just based on what was in there. CGI looked the same, so if you didn''t like it before, you wouldn''t like it now. No dialogue really to judge. Just a bunch of images thrown together at a fast pace. And I disagree, Hayden can ""look"" evil, he just hasn''t been able to ""sound"" evil yet. He looks like a psychopath in the footage from the trilogy DVDs, which I suppose how one would look if they had just fallen to the dark side.
CGI looked the same, so if you didn''t like it before, you wouldn''t like it now.
That''s quite correct. I found the Special FX in AotC rather weak. Massive, but oh so obvious.
He looks like a psychopath in the footage from the trilogy DVDs, which I suppose how one would look if they had just fallen to the dark side.
I dunno. Does an ''evil'' person has to look ''evil''? Or in this case, like a drug addict that needs a new shot? Of course, we''re talking about George Lucas'' version of ''Evil'' here, who also gave us the devil-look-alike Darth Maul. And sure, the original trilogy wasn''t exactly subtle either.
I saw a leaked version of it also and there may be spoilers ahead so tread on your own terms.
The teaser''s a bunch of whiz-bang imagery but nothing of substance. Also, half of it is footage we''ve seen in the other movies and the other half is quick flybys and fanboy teasings. CGI Yoda looks a lot worse in full light, Darth Sidious looks like a leftover from a vampire movie, and I have no idea who the person is with the smile that could skin a cat from across the room but it''s the creepiest thing I''ve seen in a long time. I''m really worried that the Wookies are going to be this movie''s Ewoks. They deserve better than that. And why don''t they just give us Tie Fighters and X-Wings instead of the weird ""antiquated"" hybrids with extra wings and do-dads.
Also, there''s no Grievious in the teaser. I know, I can''t wait to see him in his full-motion CGI Jedi-ass-kicking glory either.
All in all... I really want this film to work and I''ll be standing in line at midnight regardless but this teaser just didn''t get my blood racing as much as I had hoped.
I found the Special FX in AotC rather weak. Massive, but oh so obvious.
Hold thy tongue, knave! The special effects in Star Wars is obvious more because of the subject matter than the quality. Seriously, I have great respect for ILM and the work they did in the Star Wars prequels. I agree that not every scene is 100%, but overall they have excelled at integrating digital elements into live locations (I''m specifically talking pure technicalities here, NOT live actor responses to CGI :wink:).
That said, I agree that the CGI Yoda does not have the charm of the old puppet Yoda.
The special effects in Star Wars is obvious more because of the subject matter than the quality. Seriously, I have great respect for ILM and the work they did in the Star Wars prequels. I agree that not every scene is 100%, but overall they have excelled at integrating digital elements into live locations (I''m specifically talking pure technicalities here, NOT live actor responses to CGI icon_wink.gif).
When I saw the huge battle at whatever-the-planet''a-name-was in AotC I thoughtit might as well could have been the cutscene for the next Command&Conquer game. Everything in it simply screamed ""CGI!"". Or when Mace Windu and Yoda (hovering on a large dinner plate) were talking in that one scene, the background - some cathedral-style hall - looked to incredibly fake it wasn''t funny anymore. You know who, in my opinion, made it to integrate digital elements into live or model locations very well? WETA in the LotR trilogy.
You know who, in my opinion, made it to integrate digital elements into live or model locations very well? WETA in the LotR trilogy.
Hehe, I actually refrained from mentioning Lord of the Rings on purpose to avoid opening a can of worms :wink:. But now, since you brought it up, consider that can opened!
WETA did a good job, yes. Did they do a better job than ILM in Star Wars? IMHO no, they didn''t. I would say they both did about the same, though their various flaws are different of course.
Let me elaborate:
Lord of the Rings suffers a bit from the ""mysterious black shadow"" surrounding some of its CGI characters. Various scenes with Gollum exhibit this, as does some large-scale scenes where there are lots of CGI Orcs or Uruk-Hai on-screen (eg the cavern scene in Moria where the goblins descend from the ceiling, the flooding of Isengard, etc).
Star Wars does not suffer from this as much. CGI characters blend into background sets very convincingly, ESPECIALLY given that lots of the CGI work occur during brightly lit/daytime scenes. These type of scenes are notoriously difficult to do well with CGI (my opinion here), so that''s always the first place I''ll look for flaws.
A great deal of Lord of the Rings'' CGI shots are in darker areas (The Watcher, Moria, Helm''s Deep, etc.) And when the shots DO take place during daytime (Pellenor Fields) you can''t tell me with a straight face that they look better than the battle at the end of Attack of the Clones :wink:. (Note that I''m speaking from an extremely technical point of view here.)
Something that both of these movies still suffer from is spotty animation (Star Wars perhaps moreso because of Lucas'' insistance on using ""virtual stuntmen""). Some scenes on Kamino with Obi-Wan, and where Anakin rides a shaak on Naboo, are just horrible. Lord of the Rings must receive some of my deep dish as well - have a look at Merry and Pippin hitching a ride on Treebeard...
Ok, so the point of my rant is that one is not particularly worse or better than the other. (I hope I didn''t come accross as too confrontational? I quite enjoy good debates on CGI in movies :D.)
whatever-the-planet''a-name-was
It''s Geonosis! CONFORM!
Although I don''t disagree with a lot of your points Xan, LoTR effects were (in my simple mind) in some ways more complicated given that many of the environments were models made out of foam as opposed to full CGI recreations of scenery. There were only a few parts in the LoTR trilogy that the effects were blatant to me (the blue screening of Merry & Pippin riding on Treebeard, for example). I liked the effects in AotC only for what they were -- big battles. Otherwise I would also say that there a lot of obvious CGI insertions in the Star Wars prequels thus far.
I know this is just wishful thinking, and nothing like this will happen, but I''d like just one thing from my movie experience in May.
I want SOMETHING to happen, some revelation or insight, into the plots of Star Wars or the characters themselves, that will make me appreciate the original trilogy more. I read an article written after Episode One, where someone postulated that with all the ""non-Jedi"" things Obi-Wan was doing, that wouldn''t it be interesting if at some point, Anakin and Obi-Wan had switched places, and the person we always assumed was Obi-Wan was actually Luke''s father, and vice-versa. There were some proofs, and obviously that would never hold water, but it goes to prove my point. That would be the greatest mind-f*ck of all time, and you''d watch the original trilogy with open eyes; a clean slate.
Now maybe I don''t need a mind-f*ck. But something. Throw me a freaking bone here. Something that will make me appreciate his inevitable redemtion. Something that will make me appreciate that Luke was NOT drawn to the dark side (other than the fact that, well, his father was). But, I need something, George. Otherwise, what are we all here for?
Yeah, the point that always bugged me the most is that it appears that the Dark Side is stronger. As I always saw the movie, in the big fight seen at the end of RoTJ, Luke danced around a whole lot, getting his ass kicked. It was only when he went apeshit angry after hearing the threat on his sister that he was able to give Vader the beatdown.
What were we supposed to learn from that? That a good Jedi cannot win unless he gives into his anger for the 30 seconds needed to kick ass, at which point he shouldn''t go all the way and kill the guy so that guy can later save the good Jedi when he gets his ass kicked again (in this case electrocuted)?
I mean, didn''t we basically learn that the Emperor (and the dark side) was stronger than Luke? Didn''t we learn that ""good"" Jedi Luke was weaker than Vader, while nutso madman ""bad"" Jedi Luke was stronger than Vader?
What type of message was that intended to send? I could never quite wrap my head around it.
What were we supposed to learn from that? That a good Jedi cannot win unless he gives into his anger for the 30 seconds needed to kick ass, at which point he shouldn''t go all the way and kill the guy so that guy can later save the good Jedi when he gets his ass kicked again (in this case electrocuted)?
But... Obi wan did that and killed Darth Maul.
Look, this thing, it''s not as serious as you thought it was, that''s all.
In the end, the good in Darth Vader prevailed.
Something something.
Look, a birdie !
OK, I''m guessing at least someone here in GWJ has played the game altered beast on the sega. Do you remember when the god guy says ""RISE"" and some other crap like up from your grave? The emporer sounded like that guy! This is total altered star wars beast wookie mojo. It''s incredible.
~Al
Nimcosi, thanks for the link! Man, if only the movies were as good as the teasers. I remember thinking after each teaser that these movies were going to be awesome...until I saw them.
Those first two prequels were just down right horrible.
Ironically, if you watched the trailers to the first Star Wars, you might have thought it would have been the crappiest movie of all time. At least that was what most people back in ''77 thought, until the reviews and word of mouth started to come out.
"SlyFrog" wrote:What were we supposed to learn from that? That a good Jedi cannot win unless he gives into his anger for the 30 seconds needed to kick ass, at which point he shouldn''t go all the way and kill the guy so that guy can later save the good Jedi when he gets his ass kicked again (in this case electrocuted)?
But... Obi wan did that and killed Darth Maul.
Look, this thing, it''s not as serious as you thought it was, that''s all.
Believe me, I''ve thought of that too. That''s the point, it happens over and over again, and the actions of the character are painfully inverse to the babble about the force.
I never thought that it was serious, I just always thought that it was painfully and obvious nonconsistent, but I''ve never seen anyone else who noticed it. Which is odd, based on how popular the movies are (and how frighteningly seriously some people take them).
*Cough* If I were you I would not click here
*cough*
Thank you. I am now going to have nightmares of being attacked at Thanksgiving by my one-toothed shawl-wearing aunt Beatrice.
"Nimcosi" wrote:*Cough* If I were you I would not click here
*cough*Thank you. I am now going to have nightmares of being attacked at Thanksgiving by my one-toothed shawl-wearing aunt Beatrice.
Funny, I though that was more like Uncle Frank...
Might I add that the shot of Vader rising forward while strapped to the table with Hayden''s puny arms makes me ill? I mean come on, Prowse was a not exactly a small guy (body builder if I remember correctly), and Vaders forearms look like Pixie sticks. Reminds me of Uncle Francis. You know the one who was always ""different"" or in more modern terms ""Canadian"".
Now maybe I don''t need a mind-f*ck. But something.
There are two questions I have that I want to see answered: Did Obi-Wan intentionally push Anakin into the lava or was it an accident? And what exactly becomes of Padme? I''ve read a few rumors here and there but they seem to contradict each other. The answer to the first could explain why Obi-Wan didn''t see Vader as redeemable as Luke did in RotJ, whereas the second might explain why Vader was such a colder person than Anakin.
I''m just hoping that the force will be with me this time, so that if it tanks as badly as episode 2 in terms of plot, dialogue, um everything but special effects, that I''ll walk right out of the damn theater.
May the force be with me. 
After the first two prequels took their promise and chugged it right down the crapper, this is a definite rental unless some seriously amazing word-of-mouth spreads after its release.
Pages