This topic can be the source for our episode VIII movie discussions like we had for Ep VII

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

In Ep 8 news today (and as rumored), the release date has been delayed from May 2017 to Dec  2017.  We know Ep 7 was delayed due to a major script rewrites. I believe it's for a similar reason.

 

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-viii-to-open-december-15-2017?cmp=smc|339573415&linkId=20528616

Star Wars: Episode VIII to Open December 15, 2017

The release date for the next film in the saga is confirmed.

Today, Disney and Lucasfilm announced that Star Wars: Episode VIII, originally scheduled for release in summer 2017, will now debut on December 15, 2017.

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, Star Wars: Episode VIII is currently in preproduction and will begin principal photography in London next month. Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman will produce and J.J. Abrams, Jason McGatlin, and Tom Karnowski will executive produce.

It's reported they are half-way through the shoot.

I've seen the rumor that Rey is the reincarnation of Vader. At least that would be a nice change from Empire and not another Force Remakens. However, Haden Christenson is an abysmal actor and that should be skipped. There's a reason he isn't making big films.

They're halfway through shooting and we have to wait until December 2017 to see the finished product?   Good Lord that's a long wait.  Post-production doesn't take over a year does it?

Edited April 30, 20169 yr by zskid00

3 minutes ago, zskid00 said:

Their halfway through shooting and we have to wait until December 2017 to see the finished product?   Good Lord that's a long wait.  Post-production doesn't take over a year does it?

CG, sound, score, marketing, editing probably does.

5 minutes ago, zskid00 said:

Their halfway through shooting and we have to wait until December 2017 to see the finished product?   Good Lord that's a long wait.  Post-production doesn't take over a year does it?

The release was pushed back, it was supposed to open in May 2017. That's purely for marketing reasons, Disney figured they could make more money releasing all movies during the holiday season I guess. The new PotC was rescheduled to open in May instead of July 2017 as a result.

Edited April 30, 20169 yr by Pomodoro

1 minute ago, Pomodoro said:

The release was pushed back, it was supposed to open in May 2017. That's purely for marketing reasons, Disney figured they could make more money releasing all movies during the holiday season I guess.

You can watch Avatar and eps 8 in one day 

well, apparently the MF spends some time again on " Ahch-To " and a cool new building set of some sort.

On 4/30/2016 at 9:15 PM, zskid00 said:

They're halfway through shooting and we have to wait until December 2017 to see the finished product?   Good Lord that's a long wait.  Post-production doesn't take over a year does it?

It usually takes 3 years between Star Wars movies. December 2017 is only 2 years. These guys are in a rush if anything.

So the Millennium Falcon touches down at Malin Head....

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/first-glimpse-millennium-falcon-being-7934752

I love how they built the whole MF in it's entirety instead of using CGI. This is what made TFA feel authentic. The number of sets, vehicles, and aliens they actually built/made is incredible. They cover a lot of this on the TFA blu-ray.   

14 minutes ago, jbacunn said:

I love how they built the whole MF in it's entirety instead of using CGI. This is what made TFA feel authentic. The number of sets, vehicles, and aliens they actually built/made is incredible. They cover a lot of this on the TFA blu-ray.   

Lol They went out of their way to make sure people knew TFA was done with as little CGI as possible.  And they also politely never mentioned ep 1,2, or 3 in any TFA related publication.

That was the beauty of TFA.  It felt like the star wars universe we were all used to growing up with.  It was filthy, gritty, lived in.  It looked like a universe that you could say is realistic in nature.

Then you look at Episodes 1-3, and it's so insanely clean and not a spec of dust exists in the universe.  It makes no sense that the entire universe would get so gritty so fast.  It felt too clean, too unrealistic.  On top of all the other problems.  But for just the atmosphere alone, it felt right with all the physical effects they did for TFA.

35 minutes ago, citymorgue said:

That was the beauty of TFA.  It felt like the star wars universe we were all used to growing up with.  It was filthy, gritty, lived in.  It looked like a universe that you could say is realistic in nature.

Then you look at Episodes 1-3, and it's so insanely clean and not a spec of dust exists in the universe.  It makes no sense that the entire universe would get so gritty so fast.  It felt too clean, too unrealistic.  On top of all the other problems.  But for just the atmosphere alone, it felt right with all the physical effects they did for TFA.

There are actually more models and actual sets in the prequels than in the original trilogy. The entire universe didn't get so gritty. The only gritty parts we saw were Tatooine and the Falcon. Everything else, from Leia's ship, the Death Star, Star Destroyers, etc. were pristine. Naboo did not look any cleaner than Endor, Hoth or Yavin to me, Coruscant, Kimono and Bespin appear to have had the same cleaning staff, etc. Nothing about Geonosis, Mustafar or Utapau looked clean.

4 minutes ago, jeff_14 said:

There are actually more models and actual sets in the prequels than in the original trilogy. The entire universe didn't get so gritty. The only gritty parts we saw were Tatooine and the Falcon. Everything else, from Leia's ship, the Death Star, Star Destroyers, etc. were pristine. Naboo did not look any cleaner than Endor, Hoth or Yavin to me, Coruscant, Kimono and Bespin appear to have had the same cleaning staff, etc. Nothing about Geonosis, Mustafar or Utapau looked clean.

Sorry, you can absolutely tell the difference, even between PT movies. There was a difference between Tatooine dust, dirt, & wind in ep1 and the "dust & dirt" in Geonosis arena in ep2.  There was something so unnaturally clean and proper about Geonosis even after so much dust and debris created as result of the fights

14 hours ago, jeff_14 said:

There are actually more models and actual sets in the prequels than in the original trilogy. The entire universe didn't get so gritty. The only gritty parts we saw were Tatooine and the Falcon. Everything else, from Leia's ship, the Death Star, Star Destroyers, etc. were pristine. Naboo did not look any cleaner than Endor, Hoth or Yavin to me, Coruscant, Kimono and Bespin appear to have had the same cleaning staff, etc. Nothing about Geonosis, Mustafar or Utapau looked clean.

That's pretty ridiculous.  Sure the empire part was pretty clean, but everything else was very well lived in and showed a universe that had character.  You are forgetting endor, hoth, dagobah, etc.

You know even with empire, although it appeared to be clean, it never had that stupid perfectly shiny chrome feeling to it.  Plus no matter how good CGI is, if all you use is CGI in literally EVERY single frame of the movie, it will feel completely synthetic.  That was the beauty of epidsode VII.  The only part you could feel that was fake was Snoke and Maz, only because they were pure CGI.  But even then, they still felt genuine only because they had character and were written to be believable, unlike the clunky dialogue we got with the prequels.

I don't know if the whole they had more models and sets is true or not, but they also had quite the limited budget back then, so everything was miniatures, and even then, a 40 year old movie has stood the test of time better than any of the prequels.  That's the power of practical effects and make up.

Nothing ridiculous about it as it's true. I think you are viewing the old movies through very lived in rose coloured glasses. How am I forgetting Endor, Hoth and Dagobah when I mentioned them in my comment? What looked "lived-in" in a forest, frozen wasteland, and swamp? The Naboo swamps, the Mygeeto frozen wastes, and the Geonosis caverns looked just as lived in. We see very few living areas at all in the OT. Just a few places on Tattooine and the Falcon in the first movie, 3 rooms on Hoth, a Dagobah hut, and the very fake looking Cloud City in the second, and Jabba's Palace in the third. When you watch the OT the cheap FX are quite transparent. You could do a drinking game based on the bad matte paintings used in them. The prequels used more models, miniatures, etc. then the OT. It's a fact. You are going through confirmation bias where a few obvious CGI effects in the prequels colour your entire memory of the movies. 

I felt a lot was fake about Force Awakens. You should read some of the conversations with the FX people and how they used CGI all over the place. Starkiller base in particular never looked "real". It's more a matter of the CGI has gotten so much better in the last 10 years, similar to how CGI vastly improved on the old matte paintings. I assure you, there is CGI in literally every frame of Force Awakens. 

"Limited budget"? Star Wars cost $11 million to make, which was an exorbitant amount in 1977 and the cost was why it kept getting turned down by so many studios. FX alone made up more than 1/3 of the budget, more if you count set construction.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5875998/behold-the-1977-budget-breakdown-for-star-wars

Them's the facts folks. That 40 year old movie stood the test of time because of how novel it was. Even then, most people rank it as at best the 2nd best Star Wars movie, with most people preferring Empire and a lot even preferring Revenge of the Sith over the original, and that was a CGI orgy-fest.

Went for a spin today, This is what i saw. Is this the Falcon?????????

6 hours ago, jeff_14 said:

Nothing ridiculous about it as it's true. I think you are viewing the old movies through very lived in rose coloured glasses. How am I forgetting Endor, Hoth and Dagobah when I mentioned them in my comment? What looked "lived-in" in a forest, frozen wasteland, and swamp? The Naboo swamps, the Mygeeto frozen wastes, and the Geonosis caverns looked just as lived in. We see very few living areas at all in the OT. Just a few places on Tattooine and the Falcon in the first movie, 3 rooms on Hoth, a Dagobah hut, and the very fake looking Cloud City in the second, and Jabba's Palace in the third. When you watch the OT the cheap FX are quite transparent. You could do a drinking game based on the bad matte paintings used in them. The prequels used more models, miniatures, etc. then the OT. It's a fact. You are going through confirmation bias where a few obvious CGI effects in the prequels colour your entire memory of the movies. 

I felt a lot was fake about Force Awakens. You should read some of the conversations with the FX people and how they used CGI all over the place. Starkiller base in particular never looked "real". It's more a matter of the CGI has gotten so much better in the last 10 years, similar to how CGI vastly improved on the old matte paintings. I assure you, there is CGI in literally every frame of Force Awakens. 

"Limited budget"? Star Wars cost $11 million to make, which was an exorbitant amount in 1977 and the cost was why it kept getting turned down by so many studios. FX alone made up more than 1/3 of the budget, more if you count set construction.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5875998/behold-the-1977-budget-breakdown-for-star-wars

Them's the facts folks. That 40 year old movie stood the test of time because of how novel it was. Even then, most people rank it as at best the 2nd best Star Wars movie, with most people preferring Empire and a lot even preferring Revenge of the Sith over the original, and that was a CGI orgy-fest.

Yeah, that's not accurate.

Five Thirty Eight conducted a Star Wars poll in 2014. You can read about it here.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americas-favorite-star-wars-movies-and-least-favorite-characters/

I saw all the PT movies in the theaters, and I enjoyed them at the time (Revenge of the Sith was my favorite), but upon revisiting them recently, they have not aged well at all. Between the over-reliance on CG, the hamfisted acting, the corny dialogue, and the needlessly complicated and boring political storyline, they are borderline unwatchable. 

 

22 minutes ago, CrabslayerT said:

Went for a spin today, This is what i saw. Is this the Falcon?????????

I'm pretty sure I saw something yesterday (probably on Reddit that was a similar picture to yours, confirming that's the Falcon.

7 hours ago, jeff_14 said:

 

I felt a lot was fake about Force Awakens. You should read some of the conversations with the FX people and how they used CGI all over the place. Starkiller base in particular never looked "real".

So you wanted them to build an entire ice covered planet with a lethal planet destroying weapon built inside of it?  

3 hours ago, jbacunn said:

So you wanted them to build an entire ice covered planet with a lethal planet destroying weapon built inside of it?  

Don't forget the chocolate syrup and cherry on top!

Basically, from the looks of it the people who actually like the prequel trilogy are generally of the age where they were very young when they first came out.  I was young too and even then I enjoyed them to a point.  I only watched them maybe once or twice, but the original trilogy, I've seen many, many, many times over.  You may call it rose colored glasses, but I think those that always try to defend the prequel trilogy as the ones seeing with rose colored glasses.  Those movies are pretty much horrible in every aspect.  We could've done without the episode 1 period.  They could've thrown out all the politics, which covers about half the remaining films.  Get rid of the insanely rapey (sorry if this is against the terms, but there was wayyy to much free candy in an old van vibe to it,) vibe of the love story between Anakin and padme, and you have probably about 40 minutes total watchable film between all 3, and those still really aren't even watchable minutes either.

You know just because a movie started out well doesn't mean that it's a good movie.  Once the beer goggles wore off, and rewatched it after the initial adrenaline rush kicked in when it was first announced, people started to realize they were duped with those movies.

23 hours ago, jeff_14 said:

Them's the facts folks. That 40 year old movie stood the test of time because of how novel it was. Even then, most people rank it as at best the 2nd best Star Wars movie, with most people preferring Empire and a lot even preferring Revenge of the Sith over the original, and that was a CGI orgy-fest.

I would LOVE to know where that came from.  I've heard a lot of opinions about people like episode 3, but almost never have I heard anyone rank it better than any of the original trilogy.

And even then, that entire movie was completely pointless.  Finding out that was in George Lucas' head for how Vader became Vader, destroyed who Vader was imagined.  He just apparently turned out to be a stupid whiny little b**** ******* that deserved to die for that alone. 

17 hours ago, tjj1984 said:

Yeah, that's not accurate.

Five Thirty Eight conducted a Star Wars poll in 2014. You can read about it here.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americas-favorite-star-wars-movies-and-least-favorite-characters/

I saw all the PT movies in the theaters, and I enjoyed them at the time (Revenge of the Sith was my favorite), but upon revisiting them recently, they have not aged well at all. Between the over-reliance on CG, the hamfisted acting, the corny dialogue, and the needlessly complicated and boring political storyline, they are borderline unwatchable. 

 

Your entire evidence for something not being accurate is one poll of 471 people? There are many other polls with much broader samples that say otherwise. There is nothing unwatchable about them at all. Hamfisted acting, corny dialogue? This is Star Wars we're talking about. That's the OT in a nutshell. There was nothing complicated or boring about the politics. Maybe you just didn't understand it. My 10 year old gets it just fine. 

Luke's hidey hole being built in Kerry on the side of a cliff, next stop Boston 

46 minutes ago, citymorgue said:

Basically, from the looks of it the people who actually like the prequel trilogy are generally of the age where they were very young when they first came out.  I was young too and even then I enjoyed them to a point.  I only watched them maybe once or twice, but the original trilogy, I've seen many, many, many times over.  You may call it rose colored glasses, but I think those that always try to defend the prequel trilogy as the ones seeing with rose colored glasses.  Those movies are pretty much horrible in every aspect.  We could've done without the episode 1 period.  They could've thrown out all the politics, which covers about half the remaining films.  Get rid of the insanely rapey (sorry if this is against the terms, but there was wayyy to much free candy in an old van vibe to it,) vibe of the love story between Anakin and padme, and you have probably about 40 minutes total watchable film between all 3, and those still really aren't even watchable minutes either.

You know just because a movie started out well doesn't mean that it's a good movie.  Once the beer goggles wore off, and rewatched it after the initial adrenaline rush kicked in when it was first announced, people started to realize they were duped with those movies.

I would LOVE to know where that came from.  I've heard a lot of opinions about people like episode 3, but almost never have I heard anyone rank it better than any of the original trilogy.

And even then, that entire movie was completely pointless.  Finding out that was in George Lucas' head for how Vader became Vader, destroyed who Vader was imagined.  He just apparently turned out to be a stupid whiny little b**** ******* that deserved to die for that alone. 

If you don't have the episode 1 period you lose most of the story beats that pay off over the trilogy. You could watch the OT without watching New Hope. Basically everything they tell you about Darth Vader is a lie and they give you all the info you need to know to understand what happened in that movie in Empire. You can see a Death Star get blown up in ROTJ and have it be fresh and original. 

The beer goggles wearing off is exactly what's happening with Force Awakens. I realized we'd been duped the moment the death planet appeared and now people looking back on it realize they were tricked into watching a movie they'd already seen before. Disney never advertised it as a remake but that's what we got. I'll take an original story over a remake anyday. At least it's new. The PT movies have an ongoing story which appeals to those of us who enjoy layered stories like Game of Thrones. The OT was thrown together movie to movie. Look at how much of the Darth Vader stuff had to be awkwardly retconned in each movie. Originally Boba Fett was supposed to be the main villain in ROTJ and then they made him a joke and decided to go with another Death Star. I keep finding that people who hate the PT are really just upset that Lucas didn't remake the OT, as has just happened with Force Awakens. What really made the OT work was how they defied expectations. No one had ever seen anything like New Hope before, and Empire looked nothing like New Hope. ROTJ is considered the weakest because it recycled a few plotlines and threw in the stupid Ewoks. It's a damning indictment of movie fans that they reward remakes over trying to broaden the story. Oh look, the next Star Wars movie has a death star too. How original.