The Future of the Anthology Series
- Thread starter Logopolis
- Start date
I wonder how people react to Tarkin who don't know the actor is actually dead.
We look immediately for signs of CGI wizardry, of course, but if you don't expect it...?
Would Tarkin just freak them out a little with them not entirely realizing why?
Assuming the average ignoramus is not trained in spotting CGI artistry either.
We look immediately for signs of CGI wizardry, of course, but if you don't expect it...?
Would Tarkin just freak them out a little with them not entirely realizing why?
Assuming the average ignoramus is not trained in spotting CGI artistry either.
It all depends on what you bring to it. (By that I mean some people will find it flawless/amazing/wonderful, while others will talk about how distracting it was or how it was just okay.)
When I saw the third Hobbit movie I was taken aback by the fact that Billy Connelly was CGI. I knew he was in it but had no idea CG was involved 'til I saw it. I couldn't for the life of me think of a reason to do such a thing. I had to Google it afterwards.
When I saw the third Hobbit movie I was taken aback by the fact that Billy Connelly was CGI. I knew he was in it but had no idea CG was involved 'til I saw it. I couldn't for the life of me think of a reason to do such a thing. I had to Google it afterwards.
I don't mind what stories they do, but I would really like originality in their storytelling. Rogue One I could accept but Han Solo? Really don't find his character interesting at all, at least not to devote a whole movie over. Young Indiana Jones anyone...?
I wonder if people will be upset if they did anthology series movies that take place in the prequel era. There's still that big gap between Revenge of the Sith and Rogue One/A New Hope but you could also tell stuff that happened before Phantom Menace. I know people didn't like the prequel trilogy, but I think having some movies set during that time to help enhance those movies might change people's minds on them.
Besides, I would love to see more of Darth Maul, who I thought was the most interesting thing about Episode 1.
Besides, I would love to see more of Darth Maul, who I thought was the most interesting thing about Episode 1.
Why do people keep making the assumption that all STAR WARS fans did not like the Prequel Trilogy?
Did "Rogue One" enhance the Original Trilogy? Personally, I don't think "The Force Awakens" did.
And why do I get this feeling that Disney will end up depending more on stand alone movies, instead of a collection of movies serving as a trilogy, quartet, etc.?
For me, the only interesting thing about Darth Maul was his talent with a lightsaber. I'm not that into the "cool factor".
Plenty of Maul to see already anyway.
The Force Awakens likely will, but it is part one of three.
Rogue One informs us of the stakes in A New Hope far more than the destruction of Alderaan does.
The Prequels are fine, they just were not what people had expected them to be at that time.
The Force Awakens likely will, but it is part one of three.
Rogue One informs us of the stakes in A New Hope far more than the destruction of Alderaan does.
The Prequels are fine, they just were not what people had expected them to be at that time.
Last edited:
It isn't the job of a sequel to "enhance" what came before it. Nor should it be the job of a prequel. I'm not in the theater to to see how cleverly they connected dots to a 40 year old film, I want to be entertained and engaged.
Where did I say all Star Wars fans hated the prequel. I said people, meaning the prequel trilogy has a reputation of being awful.
I didn't know until my husband told me after the movie! It had been years since I'd seen A New Hope, and I thought the Tarkin guy looked familiar, but thought they just found a really convincing double. Leia looked obviously CGI to me though. If that's because they actually did a worse job on her or because of my knowledge going in, I can't say.
Another vote for 'give us ancient history'
We've had hints of backstory, go way back and give us a real Jedi/Sith origin story type tale. KOTOR was great for that reason, but even then there was ancient history. We've gotten teases of things, Luke's trying to hide out in an ancient Jedi site of some sort, give us a the long, long, LONG time ago story...
We've had hints of backstory, go way back and give us a real Jedi/Sith origin story type tale. KOTOR was great for that reason, but even then there was ancient history. We've gotten teases of things, Luke's trying to hide out in an ancient Jedi site of some sort, give us a the long, long, LONG time ago story...
...I had no idea they'd done that and after checking out a clip on youtube, I can totally see it and am now unable to un-see it! I recall feeling something was off, but I thought it was just Billy against some dodgy green screen compositing or perhaps they'd CG'd a different helmet on him so it could reflect the CG environment or some-such.
Perhaps there's your answer. If a person isn't necessarily looking for it, it way just scoot past unnoticed. On the other hand, there was so much ugly cg-stand in effects in that movie that it's possible it just blended in. In a movie like Rogue One it may stick out more.
With Leia the thing that bothered me is the dead doll-eyed stare. The eyes will always be problematic since they're the most important part of the human face when it comes to person-to-person emotional engagement and thus where every subtly has an effect, even if you're not conscious of it.
Even when drawing eyes in simple stylised 2D, a single line in slightly the wrong place can totally alter how a character looks. Next to hands it's probably the most difficult thing to deal with.
Even when drawing eyes in simple stylised 2D, a single line in slightly the wrong place can totally alter how a character looks. Next to hands it's probably the most difficult thing to deal with.
All that said, the technology is certainly getting better by leaps and bounds and these are by far the most convincing attempts I've seen yet. At least in so far as transposing and artificial face onto another performer while still having it look human is concerned. 'Captain America' & 'Benjamin Button' had the advantage of having the original actor's face and full performance to transpose, so it was more a question of hiding the seams rather than creating something out of whole cloth.
Either way, it's way better that what they tired with Wayne Pygram in RotS. That actually managed to look more creepy IMO.
Yeah, I don't care how good an actor Pygram is, I maintain that the make-up job they did on him for ROTS was so much worse than the only slightly off-putting CG mannequin in RO. At least with the CG version it actually looks like Tarkin and that it's only when it starts acting that something feels off. Even a still image of Pygram made him look terrible, as if Scorpius is trying to pass for human by wearing the stretched skin of a cadaver over his face. And it's subtle, but when he walked away, he moved like Scorpius, not Tarkin. It's all in the body language.
I think part of the problem with YIJ is that it wasn't as concerned with Indy's backstory as it was with "edutainment" and sort of being a test-run for ILM's CG. Reportedly had the show gone on, it would've gotten to more of the Raiders part of the backstory (although we did get a fair amount of "Crusade's")
Both Tarkin and Leia looked CGI to me. Actors should have been hired for more than just voice over and motion.
The entire "Young Indiana Jones" series was about his backstory.
The entire "Young Indiana Jones" series was about his backstory.
I thought it was great about Indiana's back story.
