PT Prequel nostalgia. Yes, it's a real thing.

And now that I think of it, I wonder whether the opposite may be true for some GL-haters. I wonder that in addition to liking TFA some might get a little spiteful enjoyment from the fact that others can do Star Wars better than GL can because that would confirm their belief that he got lucky with ANH, that Kershner is the reason TESB was good, that GL became money-mad and arrogant, and that's what "ruined" the PT. I have to admit that it would hurt if I heard people gloating that the success of TFA proves that GL is a hack. Despite my misgivings about how he handled the SE, I think GL is a very nice, generous, caring human being, and I honestly think hearing people gloat in that way would cause me to like TFA less. Instead of avoiding spoilers, I guess I'll have to avoid fan-reaction, at least for a good generation or two.

I love you, Cryo!

 

I think that overall, Lucas did the best he could with the prequels, given the pressure he was under, both external and internal. After all, creating such a detailed world isn't easy, let alone keeping it consistent. Tolkien took 15 years just to write "The Lord of the Rings", while Lucas made the entire PT in 11 years.

 

More good points there.

 

As for Lucas being the be all and end all to Star Wars- when Roddenberry left Star Trek after TMP the next thing we got was Wrath of Khan. I'm hoping that TFA will be a similar issue.

 

JMO, but...

TMP is far superior to TWOK.

 

I have the feeling you keep seeing things that aren't there. Where has anyone said Lucas is the "be all and end all" to Star Wars?

I don't agree with you opinion, but I do really like TMP. I like it more than over half of the other Star Trek films, including the recent Abrams films. On the plus side, Paramount wasn't too concerned with making Star Trek very "Trek", so I won't blame Abrams for doing his job. They wanted someone to come in and make it nothing more than action series. I think Abrams did a great job overall directing the films because the problems with them came down to the scripts which were poor and generic. With Abrams gone, Paramount hired Justin Lin (Fast & Furious 3,4,5,6) to direct the next film, showing they really do just want action films to pull in some easy money.

 

It's the only "Star Trek" movie that marries authentic grandeur with a valiant sense of exploration and optimism.

Moreover, the Earth-toned Enterprise looks the business.

And that fantastic score by Jerry Goldsmith -- man!

It's the "2001" of Trek movies. The rest are like "Indiana Jones" in space. Not exactly bad; but if you want a more refined viewing experience...

The way I see it is...

A person of principle and real artistic scruples would have simply refused to take on that project.

Enter Abrams.

 

Yes. It's an awesome piece of work.

Well, I do agree with you, more than not.

I have a great fondness for the so-called "Genesis Trilogy". My personal opinion is that they get better as they go along.

Yes, I rank TVH the highest (possibly my second-favourite Trek movie; after TMP), I think TSFS is beautifully poetic and touching in lots of places, and I rate TWOK the least -- very drawn-out, flat, muddy, and hammy, in different measures. Does that mean I dislike TWOK or shun it from my world? Nope. Still sort of like it. Mainly for the last 20 minutes. A lot of it is too strained for my tastes, though. And I think it also looks cheap.

Boy, you said it, Chewie. I very much have the same feeling.

 

TMP is plain boring. If the 5 minute intro to the Enterprise doesn't have you wishing for a quick death then the lack of character development and interaction will. All of that was left on the cutting room floor in exchange for more special effects shots. The plot goes no where. It tries to be too serious and artsy and fails. Even the cast hated the script, and flat out refused to wear those costumes ever again.

Kahn is so much better. You have great character interaction moments, a thrilling battle of wits at the end, and some powerful themes of revenge, aging and sacrifice.

Not to get too much more off-topic, I wanted to show that there are precedents for the originaldriving force leaving a franchise and it all worked out ok.

 

We clearly have very divergent opinions on this...

I think TMP was beautifully executed. And I think it is visually sumptuous: from the cinematography, sets, effects, costumes, models, matte paintings, etc. The direction is slow, exacting, and the pace and mood somewhat languid and ponderous, but I love all of that. And the music simply couldn't be better.

Now, you say the actors hated certain aspects of it, and I'm aware that Leonard Nimoy still had negative opinions about the film right up to his passing, referring to it as a "beached whale" in an interview not too long ago. But that shouldn't dictate your own view about a movie. Harrison Ford was unimpressed with his experience making "Blade Runner" -- yet how many fans does that movie have; and how often is that film cited as one of the greatest science-fiction films ever made?

I find it incredibly lame when someone refers to actors as if they were some sort of holy authority that you can't go against. They're just mammals like you and I. Are you asking me to surrender my right to a different opinion; because it kind of sounds like you're trying to shame me out of it? Sometimes, as well, a shoot can be gruelling enough that actors tend to balk about their experiences; because a director really put them through their paces or other difficulties on set arose. There are many reasons actors may look back on something fondly or not. Again, they're mammals; and mammals have an array of thoughts and feelings that are profoundly shaped by their environment.

Two further things:

i) The fly-by of the Enterprise docked near the Earth is gorgeously cut and constructed. It's like a lovely waltz. It expresses the deep reverence that Kirk holds for the ship; how moved he is when he finally glimpses it again. And it doesn't have me wishing for "a quick death"; it makes me delight in being alive and gives me a quasi-mystical feeling. It has me longing for a peaceful age of space travel.

ii) Those costumes are, in my opinion, the best costumes the TOS cast ever wore. They look very sleek and modern and scientific: something explorers of the near future might wear on a science vessel up in space. Nothing at all like the clunky, preposterous "Napoleon"-era clothing that followed.

I'll give you character interaction and themes. And the final battle is competently assembled.

But the themes are also a bit on-the-nose, the action is much more cartoon-y and grubby than the transporting musical interludes in TMP, and there's a slightly bumpy, cheap feel to everything.

Also, TMP has some great character interaction; which is often underrated by fans who act like there are no interpersonal conflicts occurring. And the themes are rendered more abstractly through visuals and turning-point moments -- rather than everything being spelled out in dialogue.

Basically, I don't think TWOK is half the movie, half the experience, that TMP is.

That's it, really.

 

If by "all worked out ok" you mean the franchise will continue to exist and be successful, sure, nobody is arguing that.

But if I had to choose between material from the original creator of said universe and someone else, I'll take the former any day.

 

Going back to the discussion about the practical effects false narrative (I have to admit that I enjoyed that I just used that term!), I think it could actually be a limiting thing for the franchise. People have bought into this idea that CGI ruined the PT (when the PT used tons of practical effects and people probably disliked the films for others reasons), and now we have JJ and Disney pushing that the film is mostly practical (even though we've already seen CGI spaceships in the trailer). Where I think the ST might be hurt by this is the choice of locations. Very few people complained about Avatar's otherworldly forests and floating mountains. In fact, its exotic otherworldliness was part of Avatar's selling point, but because of this false narrative, we won't be getting the incredible alien worlds that could be realized by today's even more advanced CGI. So, TFA is being limited visually to fix a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

 

Which brings up yet another weird irony: Attack of the Clones, for example, features more location work and longer scenes on location than The Empire Strikes Back ... And Yet Abrams and Co. are apparently taking the franchise back to the basics of real world environments. Down the rabbit hole we go.

 

I haven't followed this all that closely, so I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but might it not be that going back to more practical effects doesn't necessarily suggest that there were little or no practical effects in the PT? Could it just mean that there was a greater proportion of practical effects v CG in the olden days because the proportion of CG at that time was, ya know, zero?

 

"Going back to more practical effects" already suggests a fallacy of sorts. There were numerous practical effects in the PT. And they haven't necessarily gone back to more practical effects. The ships, for example, are clearly CG. Whereas in the OT, and also in TPM, at least, they were physical models.

That's one implication. It also represents a regression. If Star Wars has always pushed the boundaries of visual effects, why slide back? Of course, it's also at least partly dishonest -- as the rather hard-to-miss presence of CG effects work (including CG ships) proves in the footage that has been released so far.

Then there is the fact that, yes, there was a time when CGI did not exist; but that time pre-dates Star Wars. The original movie, for example, has always featured an early wire-frame animation, rendered on a computer.

 

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see what appears on the screen in December.

A couple of observations, though:

Why would that necessarily be a regression? Surely a film doesn't need to be pushing technological boundaries in order to get the job done. And again, has it ever been said that there would be no CGI in TFA or that there were no practical effects in the PT?

I think it's safe to say that CGI as we imagine it now is a fair way from the computer work done in the OT. The technologies certainly aren't comparable enough to be suggesting that the films were made in the same way.

 

That's true. This is really a waiting game for everyone.

Sure.

Well, I think it's a bit regressive in the sense that there was always previously a technology ceiling that George Lucas was pushing against. He seemed to be aiming for higher and higher layers of envelope-expanding, artistic expression.

Perhaps the makers of TFA felt that technology has matured enough for them to not push as hard as Lucas did. Which is fine; but that suggests a different philosophy than the one that Lucas has always had concerning these movies.

It's never been said that there would be no CGI in TFA or that there were no practical effects in the PT. Bit of a strawman, no? Statements have been made, however, that seem to deliberately lend the impression that the PT was over-saturated in digital effects and that TFA will be far more practical-based.

The corollary being that TFA's brand of promised "realism" is more in-keeping with the OT and by definition superior to the PT. As if "practical-based" is the de facto standard that any self-respecting Star Wars movie must adhere to.

In other words, a picture of opposites has been painted concerning the PT and TFA. In practice, there is probably less of an aesthetic divide between them than has been implied in certain remarks; but like you said above, only December will tell.

In their defence, though, I will say that at least it appears they haven't gone "Hobbit"-mad with TFA. It does seem like a more fruitful middle-ground has been struck. Hopefully, it will be pleasing to a very wide audience.

LOL. True.

You did slightly make out that Star Wars and computer generated imagery were once strangers, however. And that is not technically accurate.

 

Fair points, Cryo, and articulately put as usual. Strawman? Well, you did imply that the presence of CGI ships in the trailer indicates some kind of dishonesty, so...

Anyway, I guess the point I was trying to make is that although it would be dishonest to suggest that there were little or no practical effects in the PT and no computer effects in the OT, it's also somewhat dishonest to suggest that these films were made in the same way with regard to visual effects. There was a far greater emphasis on practical effects in the OT because it's pretty much all they had. Pretty much...

Anyway, yes, roll on December.

 

It comes down to use of digital sets . Because anything that flies===CGI, and the environment it flies in===CGI most likely too. I think all the effects i saw in the trailer were obviously CGI.
Of course even as far as CGI sets, i mean they used matte painting's in the OT movies, and that's basically an ancestor of a CGI set.

 

Besides which I don't understand why it seems so many aspects are turned into arguments of superiority. It is simply a preference, nothing more.

 

Thank you, MOCYF.

Well...

Ships are a key part of the visual iconography of the series; and the sort of ships exhibited in the TFA teaser/s are of those classic OT designs (or close cousins of) which you might have expected to see preserved in practical form.

Okay, okay, not very likely, I suppose -- but there's little outcry about it. And this, after there has been tons of outcry over the digital effects work in the PT, as well as Lucas' digital inserts to the OT.

And yes, on the part of the makers, it kind of goes against their creed of physical effects being superior to, or worthy of being featured more than, computer generated imagery. Which they have implied in some of their remarks.

Do I think those ship effects look bad? Not particularly. The staging and cinematography, to me, are more important. I reckon they are for most people. But it was worthy of consternation and complaint when Lucas used digital ships; and now, apparently, it's completely groovy.

Yes. And that kind of underlines -- or underlies -- my point. The OT was limited in the technology available. This new trilogy isn't; or, at least, not to the same degree. And the makers have suggested that the OT is superior because it is so practical-based. As if "practical" equals "real" and "real" equals better.

Yet what do we see them having done? Gone and used digital ships, digital landscapes, digital compositing, etc. There may well be a good number of solid, well-constructed, flavoursome, eye-catching sets, props, models, etc. But they clearly haven't shied away from employing digital effects in a fairly big way.

Actually, yes.

For all my cynicism, I'm pretty darn excited... deep, deep down.

Can't completely suppress it.

 

LOL. Ok, Cryo. You enjoy the countdown.

 

I think another thing about it is that they keep connecting practical effects with the OT, even though they could easily connect it to the PT also. The Mustafar set was the largest practical set ever created, I believe. So, Kathleen Kennedy, and JJ, and even Peter Mayhew we're all saying that they going back to how they did it old school, even though the PT had tons and tons of effects that we're done old school, way more than mostly every film not made by Nolan today, but nobody complains about the well-done CGI in The Avengers, Man of Steel, Prometheus, etc.

Despite the evidence of the Trek films to the contrary, if JJ really did have a clear preference for practical effects that Nolan shows, then he could say, "I'm not a fan of CGI. I love the use of practical effects, and that's why I want to use huge practical models like the Super-Star Destroyer from TESB and the huge practical sets like those used for Mustafar." (And I'm just using Mustafar as a stand-in; I'm sure you've seen that incredible PT-thread that catalogs all the practical effects, ships, and models used in the PT. JJ has countless examples to choose from.) If JJ loves practical effects so much, then why doesn't he talk about the films where the most incredible ones were used -- the PT? The reason is because JJ isn't really concerned with practical effects at all (or as much as he claims), but instead he's trying to create a false link to the OT. On top of that, I don't think JJ dislikes CGI at all. He used tons of it in the Trek films. I do think JJ is sincere when he says he prefers film over digital, but I think JJ is just going along with this because this is the Disney company line, and I think JJ (unlike Peter Mayhew) is in the position to say, "Screw you. My career's established. I'm not going along with this dishonest crap. I don't like everything GL did, but this was not one of his failings."

Then that BB-8 demonstration was just sort of silly. It's no doubt that it's cool that he can move around like that, but that scene in the trailer where BB-8 is speeding along behind Finn and Rey as they run from the explosion is not a practical effect. That little practical BB-8 could move about 1 km per hour on a flat surface, and the BB-8 in the trailer is moving about 20 kph over uneven sand, but again, at SW Celebration, JJ and Kennedy made it out that every time you see BB-8 zipping around, you're seeing a practical model that can practically defy the laws of physics.

Maybe what's most annoying to me really is it seems like this practical effects narrative is just a moronic directive decided by stupid studio executives who are just as dumb as when they were concerned when Chewie wasn't wearing pants.