Star Wars

[davenportram]

20 hours ago, Leicester Ram said:

They went as close to the original costume as possible for this (down to the fingerprints on the mask, I believe),which may have been to Vaders detriment.

There was something off about the voice for me too. Not booming enough. Also a pun.

It was the same actor though, maybe his voice has changed.

[Sith Happens]

14 hours ago, davenportram said:

It was the same actor though, maybe his voice has changed.

James earl Jones is a lot older...maybe this has something to do with it.

[StaffsRam]

Seen in twice.

Easily the best SW movie since the OT, including TFA.

The third act is arguably the greatest 30/40 minutes in SW history. Great stuff.

[TimRam]

Agree....the last third is gripping. Great film.

[TigerTedd]

2 hours ago, TimRam said:

Agree....the last third is gripping. Great film.

Just seen it and agree that third act is amazing. The rest is good and deserves credit, but that is amazing and really puts so much more gravitas on that simple line in the first film that 'a lot of good people died to get us these plans'. They're not kidding, and if that's what they went through, they definitely deserve more than one throwaway line. 

However (without trying to be too spoilery) one sub mission of the last act that a lot of people died for was to re establish communications, this was to get a message through to send instructions to do something that, ultimately, they were going to do anyway, so that all seemed a bit pointless, which is a shame, as everyone was tremendously heroic in achieving the objective. 

[EssendonRam]

On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 18:30, Paul71 said:

For me the one thing that just didnt seem right was Darth Vader, his voice didnt seem right, and also the look just seemed as though something was wrong, like some fella had hired a fancy dress costume....dont know if its because the actor protraying him isnt as tall and imposing as David Prowse or something else.

Yes...yes...yes...

For starters, Vader's walk was not only not a march; not only lacking in authority, it bordered on downright effeminate.

For mine, I immediately thought it WAS a woman under the Vader gear. Vader's legs and butt were very 'fine' (ie thin). Several friends of mine laughed at the idea....until they saw it back. Every one of those who thought me mad for suggesting it now agree.

If it's not a woman, it is the same guy in the mask on Top Gear.

The other thing which I liked at first - but came to find it grating after a while - were all the acknowledgements of other movies / franchises. As a big Battlestar Galactica fan, I liked the ships being modelled on the BSG designs. But by the time the cultural nods got to Tea Leoni (I won't explain in order not to spoil it for those who've not seen it yet), I was a tad over the 'nods'.  

But I admit both are minor quibbles forgotten until discussing it with mates later. The film is sensational and it is the first film I have thought was actually walked out of thinking "I'm glad I paid the extra for the Imax 3D and sound". 

 

[Wolfie]

8 hours ago, EssendonRam said:

As a big Battlestar Galactica fan, I liked the ships being modelled on the BSG designs.

More likely the other way round, surely?. The ships are consistent with those in Epsiodes 4-6, 1977-1983

[Sith Happens]

14 hours ago, EssendonRam said:

Yes...yes...yes...

For starters, Vader's walk was not only not a march; not only lacking in authority, it bordered on downright effeminate.

For mine, I immediately thought it WAS a woman under the Vader gear. Vader's legs and butt were very 'fine' (ie thin). Several friends of mine laughed at the idea....until they saw it back. Every one of those who thought me mad for suggesting it now agree.

If it's not a woman, it is the same guy in the mask on Top Gear.

The other thing which I liked at first - but came to find it grating after a while - were all the acknowledgements of other movies / franchises. As a big Battlestar Galactica fan, I liked the ships being modelled on the BSG designs. But by the time the cultural nods got to Tea Leoni (I won't explain in order not to spoil it for those who've not seen it yet), I was a tad over the 'nods'.  

But I admit both are minor quibbles forgotten until discussing it with mates later. The film is sensational and it is the first film I have thought was actually walked out of thinking "I'm glad I paid the extra for the Imax 3D and sound". 

 

i looked it up, he looks a big bloke, taller than david prowse so not sure what it was.

still think too many references, no need for all the grand moff tarkin or even the leia scene imo, could have easily told the same story without them.

[davenportram]

1 minute ago, Paul71 said:

i looked it up, he looks a big bloke, taller than david prowse so not sure what it was.

still think too many references, no need for all the grand moff tarkin or even the leia scene imo, could have easily told the same story without them.

No need for Tarkin? He was in charge of the Death Star and known as being "holding Vaders Leash" ( Princess Leia A new Hope) to have the Death Star and Vader and no Tarkin would have made no sense at all when taking into account the reference of him and Vader being a double act.

[Sith Happens]

34 minutes ago, davenportram said:

No need for Tarkin? He was in charge of the Death Star and known as being "holding Vaders Leash" ( Princess Leia A new Hope) to have the Death Star and Vader and no Tarkin would have made no sense at all when taking into account the reference of him and Vader being a double act.

No need for him on screen imo, yes they could have referenced him, even had 'verbal' communications, but for me while it was good cgi, it still look weird.

[Stive Pesley]

To be fair, I went with my eldest lad and he's 20. He didn't realise that Takin was CGI until I told him afterwards, so I don't necessarily buy this view that the effect was dodgy. Even though I knew it must be CGI I was pretty impressed, but someone who had no idea that Peter Cushing was dead didn't even notice

[Chester40]

1 hour ago, StivePesley said:

To be fair, I went with my eldest lad and he's 20. He didn't realise that Takin was CGI until I told him afterwards, so I don't necessarily buy this view that the effect was dodgy. Even though I knew it must be CGI I was pretty impressed, but someone who had no idea that Peter Cushing was dead didn't even notice

Seriously? Are you sure it was your son with you and not a CGI version??

[Sith Happens]

I hate CGI, I know it looks good and no doubt easier and cheaper than the old way but when I was a kid I used to love watching stuff like making of empire strikes back...now you see it and think its been done on a computer and its not the same. I know its clever stuff but I'm not a fan. Same as Arnie in the latest terminator movie it looked good but for me there is just something not quite right.

Maybe for me if they had used old unused footage somehow for tarkin and Leia, a bit like they did with Ds9 and the tribble episode.

[TigerTedd]

3 hours ago, StivePesley said:

To be fair, I went with my eldest lad and he's 20. He didn't realise that Takin was CGI until I told him afterwards, so I don't necessarily buy this view that the effect was dodgy. Even though I knew it must be CGI I was pretty impressed, but someone who had no idea that Peter Cushing was dead didn't even notice

I'm with you on that. If I didn't already know, I wouldn't have known. Leía looked a bit weird, but was only there for a brief scene. She looked like the young Tony Stark in civil war, just a bit too smooth. 

But then look at Toy story one compared with toy story 3. Or Jurassic park compared with Jurassic world. Or the dead effect in polar express compared with avatar. 

It really doesn't take long in the world of chi to work out these kinks. By episode 9 they could probably still have Carrie fisher in the whole film and you'd never know. 

(They have already said it's mega expensive and they'd really rather not though, and you'd have to get the fisher family's permission of course). 

[davenportram]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I hate CGI, I know it looks good and no doubt easier and cheaper than the old way but when I was a kid I used to love watching stuff like making of empire strikes back...now you see it and think its been done on a computer and its not the same. I know its clever stuff but I'm not a fan. Same as Arnie in the latest terminator movie it looked good but for me there is just something not quite right.

Maybe for me if they had used old unused footage somehow for tarkin and Leia, a bit like they did with Ds9 and the tribble episode.

Watch the making of force awakens on the DVD bonus disc. Most of the sets, ships etc are built and the CGI is added in via blue/green screen afterwards. Even the motion capture is done live with the actors then the character mapped in afterwards. The bulk of the film is set it models still.

its not much different than the old way just the computers are more sophisticated and less reliance on painted back drops, (but in force awakens the snowy forest scene was shot on a stage built set with massive painted backdrops to give it depth. There was a speeder chase deleted scene which having seen it was heavy on CGI and looked **** - probably why it was dropped)

[jono]

Was disappointed with ep7 .. Great to see the Falcon, Han Solo et al but the story was an awful hash / re do ... Super Dark side bad guy plus apprentice. Jees and even the end game was just a pastiche and repeat without the amazement that the original series had. It's like going back to that amazing beach with a bar on sand you went to long ago and finding its more crowded, the Snacks are a bit plastic and although the bar now has air con and the toilets are clean it just isn't what it was. Effects were good but the rest was a damp squib. 

Rogue one however ... Loved it ! Brilliant linking with ep4 .. Retained the 70's technology .. Loved to see the CGI Peter Cushing .... but knew it wasn't because they just can't do his unique voice. 

Yes it was a bit tortuous early on setting the scene but as it progressed you knew where it was going yet it still had some surprises in store ... Great fun for a fan 

[rynny]

 

[Rample]

6 minutes ago, rynny said:

 

You know you're a geek when you think the new films title is a big deal. I like it. Red logo rather than yellow is interesting.

[1of4]

Sorry can't see the fascination with the whole Star Wars thing, high point for me was Carrie Fisher dressed as a slav and don't tell me that was CGI.

[Rample]

21 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Sorry can't see the fascination with the whole Star Wars thing, high point for me was Carrie Fisher dressed as a slav and don't tell me that was CGI.

I've always thought it was generational, if you were the right age at the right time you couldn't escape it or help but love it. It's the biggest phenomenon in my life time and 35 years plus after the first time I saw it it's still one of my favourite things in life. Not even dodgy prequels or ropey spin offs can change that. Probably only a couple of really bad sequels in the main series or killing off all original human characters could stop me, but even then I'd have 4-7 and presumably 8 and 9 if they're similar to keep me going.