Discussion Art Direction for the new trilogy- what do you want to see?

Before 1999, we all thought we knew what Star Wars looked like. Worn looking gray ships blasting at each other in the cold vacuum of space, seedy brown cantinas where shady deals were made inside stained walls. Everything was used, dirty, and blocky, and we were totally comfortable with it.

For better or for worse, The Phantom Menace changed everything. Gone was the cold, rugged military aesthetic we had fallen in love with, replaced with sweeping, romantic vistas and luscious colors. The aliens were goofier, the ships were rounder and sleeker, and, most unlike its predecessors, everything looked new.

14 years later, most Star Wars media reflects the design ethic of both, as though the PT art direction has, over time, melded with the OT to create one mass that is "Star Wars". And I think most of us are comfortable with the way Star Wars generally looks right now.

Which is why the new trilogy has the opportunity to once again throw us a visual curveball.

I'm not saying they should. In fact, I would be thrilled if the new films looked similar to, say this trailer from Star Wars: The Old Republic:



The trailer, done by the awesome Blur studios, successfully blends the look of the two trilogies into something that feels comfortably "Star Wars". I think this would be a great visual starting point for the new trilogy.

Do you want something that feels "comfortably Star Wars" or do you want something totally new?

I want something totally new. Something gritty but clean, encompassing what we know as star wars but reinventing it. Hopefully the new blood guiding the franchise can pull this off instead of emulating what we have already seen.

Something that looks like a natural progression from the OT with some new stuff brought in. I want X-Wings & TIE-fighters/TIE-variants though for sure.

I generally don't understand why people say this. The only parts of the OT that looked "used" were the interior of the Millennium Falcon and the Tatooine scenes. The Death Star (I and II) interiors and Cloud City all looked new and shiny. In the PT, Tatooine looks just as lived-in as it does in the OT; most other parts looked old but well-maintained (e.g, Coruscant and Theed) or just old (Geonosis, Mustafar, Utapau). Really only Kamino and the Queen's ship comes to mind as something "shiny."

I think its all the excessive green screens and CGI in the PT that makes it seem more 'clean'

I'm glad to see that so far the majority of the votes are for "I'd like something that's a pretty even mix of both"

Agreed. Cloud City was clearly the design predecessor to Coruscant (with Cloud cars looking like that belong on Naboo).

Frankly, we just never saw much of the galaxy in the OT. It was all frontlines of the war.

Not to mention that podracers are a wonderful example of the OT style of ship design, right down to being covered in "greeblies."

It could be that, yeah. The CG sets in the PT have a lot less texture and fidelity than real sets, and I think that kind of forces everything to look shiner. But regardless of the reason, there is still a major difference between the look of the PT and OT

Most environments in the PT are miniatures.

And a ton of OT sets are just rotoscoped with matte paintings.


OMG SO STERILE!!!!11

I say a mixture of the OT and new stuff. Keep the overall look of the originals while showing us new stuff to excite us

Pencil sketches will be where it's at. None of that 3D and 2D nonsense; 1D represents the true cutting-edge of modern filmmaking!

No. The interior of Mustafar was a set; the interior Geonosis was a miniature; the interiors of Coruscant were both.

OMG WTF SO FAKE, JUST BUILD A REAL SET!!!!11!!!!

INORITE!!!????!?!

I say they should do a mix of the two, that old republic trailer looked sick!

Yes, Lando, yes! Walk into that matte painting! No one will notice! Because of TEH GRITTINESSS!!!!1

As usual people have no clue what is real and what is fake. Says to me ILM has earned their reputation.

Podrace arena, practical set composited. Mustafar, big freaking models. The lava was real flowing liquid. Actual lava flow and on location volcano filming. Real palaces in Spain and Italy for all the "shiny royal Naboo stuff". Giant practical podrace engine models.

Take a look at those matte paintings. They all look relatively realistic in the finished film. They all have a sense of texture. I for one didn't even realize the bridge on the executor wasn't a full set until I saw the Blu ray special features.

Now contrast it with this :

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/b/bf/Chancellors_Suite.jpg

Or this

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/eb/E2coru38.jpg

If you want to chalk it up to poorly aged CGI, fine. But don't pretend there isn't a difference.


Also, I should mention that I was never even complaining about the cgi, or the "clean" look, any of that. I was simply observing that there was a difference. I'm no prequel hater, so relax.