ST Rian Johnson to write and direct Episode VIII (and also new SW Trilogy - see page 194)

I think this might be true. However, "imaginative" is not always positive. I really disliked a lot of the designs in AOTC and ROTS (loved them in TPM, except for much of the gungan stuff), and am glad that the conceptual team has pared things back. I don't want any more of the kind of stuff below, which looks like it came from the first round of a bad video game design process. "Editing" is your friend. Conceptual design 101 seems to have been lost completely by the AOTC and ROTS design team.

 

It makes sense that Lucas would want that, as at this point, it's a pioneering approach. The last decade has been the decade of "throw CGI at every problem" films. Lucas probably saw that the development of CGI, along with the development of practical effects, materials sciences, and set development, were pointing toward a future where VFX techniques were perfected through a seamless combination of digital and practical. Those that insist that practical effects are backward-looking are not giving any credit to the significant development in this space.

Film art is moving in a "make it as convincing/ realistic as possible, because audiences are far more discerning today" direction. I think Lucas saw that, and was probably innovating again.

Fury Road was a picture of big budget films to come, including Star Wars: a seamless combination of practical and CGI effects that looks and feels as photoreal as possible. For me, this is a thrilling development. I can't for the life of me empathize with people seeing it as a negative.

 

Nah.

 

In the end what matters is what better serves the movies and Force Awakens is looking to do just that in terms of aesthetic. It's got new elements and old elements in a nice looking package.

 

Oh, I agree that it makes perfect sense for Lucas to have wanted that JabbatheHumanBeing. Also completely agree that this approach is a step forward, not backward, as some have argued.

 

Well, that approach is also what's trending in Hollywood right now. MAD MAX, MI: ROGUE NATION, SPECTRE, and STAR WARS have all gone out of their way to market that idea of more real sets, more stunts, real explosions, less CGI, etc etc...

 

TFA has no imaginative design in it!

 

NO, ABRAMS IS NOT KNOWN FOR IMAGINATION. ESPECIALLY IN TFA WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN YET, IT DEFINITELY IS TOO SAFE AND DOESN'T LOOK TO THE FUTURE IN THE DESIGN DEPARTMENT. DELETE YOUR POST IMMEDIATELY.

If there's anything good in TFA it must be attributed to George Lucas' genius and not Abrams, all the bad stuff can be blamed on Abrams though!

 

why would he? so he can be blamed for something else?

 

Certainly understand why he wouldn't be inclined to do so. I'm just selfishly wishing he did, as it would have provided more interesting insight into the development of the film. Hopefully, his part in the process will be revealed in Rinzler's book (has it been confirmed he will be doing one, BTW?)

 

Aww, I like Felucia. I like it when planets don't always look like something that can be found on our own planet.

Also the Republic gunship design is bitchin'. I loved it the minute I saw it and have ever since.

 

I don't mind non-Earthlike planets (Bespin is one of my favorites, and I like Coruscant a lot). I just think that if you're gonna go there, you should make it look better than a giant screensaver.

As an outdoors-person, digital nature still looks terrible to me.

I dislike the Republic gunship for two reasons:

1. Over-designed. Too much stuff popping out of it. Lols like three ships in one.
2. It looks oddly like something that cooks exist on Earth in the near future. Mix between a combat helicopter and an upside-down jet. Or something.

Totally fine that you like it, though.

 

Seriously, some people here are blaiming others for being Abrams haters but their comments are just Abrams cheerleader-ish. I really smell some prequel hate around here. Which I always find sad.

TFA features some new and amazing new designs, but so did the ST. Some people love the new TFA designs and some does not. But probably they do it for the same reason, they look a lot like the OT. There is not a better choice here IMO. Either you like this direction or not.

 

That's actually not digital nature, it's a model

 

Which? Felucia? I know there's an Utapau miniature, for example (though much of the Obi-Wan/Grievous fight was done digitally).

In any event, I don't like "practical effects nature" either. In other words, studio-created nature. That's why I've never really been able to enjoy the scenes on Dagobah, apart from the ones at night, when you could barely see anything. And the Hobbit films took this to the extreme, creating indoor forests that looked so extraordinarily fake.

 

It is in this case where most of the ship designs in this movie look like the same old stuff we have seen before, boring and rehashed. Especially the X-wings which is just a recolored version with minuscule differences that no one will tell unless they spend a while looking at stills of it.

You have no right to complain about stuff in Star Wars looking like it came from a video game while ignoring that has always been the case since the first one came out.
Hell people to this day still say how the Death Star run is basically the equivalent of a final stage in a flying game . The AT-AT walkers themselves look like something you would find in a video game being slow and having to dodge and take them out, big reason why they fit well to a video game because they were practically already like one. Along with the same Death Star run in ROTJ which is something you see in an obstacle game where here you try to avoid the edges and race to the finish.
Star Wars has always had elements that look like they came from a video game and it is a big reason why they make for good video games when done well. Using that as a reason to criticize the PT is hypocritical when the OT were just as guilty of that.

The looks of the ships and weapon of the PT showed us a more vibrant and diverse galaxy before the Empire came in with their more strict and uniform approach to things.
The Y-wings were awesome, showing us the unknown origins of what would be the X-wing but also looking different and being their own.
The Acklays and Varactyl looked great for alien designs both unique and different in their own way.
And the look of some battlefields like Kashyyyk were awesome, showing off the kind of destruction you would expect in a galaxy war raged by two factions. They were no different then what we saw from the Battle of Hoth in the OT in terms of destruction and chaos.

And it seems to have been lost by both the OT and the upcoming movies based on your flawed way of thinking.

Oh please out of those measly 5 images you found only one of them show off a ship design and it barley looks all that different from the Imperial fighters we saw in the OT.

And for all those other designs you showed there were many more that we saw in just one of each movie in the PT.

That logic makes no sense when it comes to creative designs. The planets in the PT were excellent, being both new and imaginative showing off each world that was fundamentally different then what we saw in the OT, besides Tatooine for obvious reasons.

If your only reason to call the planet in the PT badly designed is because they were digitally rendered then that is a god awful argument. We are talking about design, not effects, and the design of the planets in the PT was marvelous. Much better then what we are seeing from the upcoming movie with places like Jakku which is more and more starting to look like Tatooine 2.0 with the same barren flat lanscapes and even freaking moist evaporators, and that Snowy planet which is just looking like a less impressive Hoth with some trees. Compare this to distinct planets like Naboo with it's lush green plains, Kamino with its rainy oceans, Geonosis which despite being a desert actually looks unique with it's canyon like landscapes, Utapau with it's Sink hole cities, and Mustafar with it's chaotic volcanic atmosphere.

Right because ships in Star Wars have never looked over-designed before the PT





You are trying to portray that as a bad thing when it is just a way to make things look high tech and impressive on screen. The gunship does not even look that mashed together compare to many design in the OT, not like it should be bad thing.

you do know that is exactly the same in the OT right? The guns in the OT as well as costumes were taken from real historical items used in WW2 and other real life military. That only serves to make the gunship look better in all honesty because the influences behind it only remind us of the cool things in real life.

 

Uh oh.

Come now, no PT vs OT stuff.

 

NostalgiaFan

Uh, I'm pretty sure I have the right to make subjective observations about conceptual design...This isn't the People's Republic of the Devil Wears Prada. And please don't turn this into an OT-PT thing, as that is not what I'm talking about. TPM is, IMO, one of the best-designed science fiction films I have ever seen.

Simple answer to your suggestion that the Falcon and SD from the OT are over-designed:

IMO, they are absolutely not, and there's a simple reason for that. They have very basic forms (one a triangle, and the other a circle with a beak attached to it), which are then filled in. As in all good design, the silhouette (e.g. the form) is critically important, and should be coherent. You can then go nuts with details inside that form, as you got with the Falcon and the SD you reference.

Doug Chiang understood this with his designs in The Phantom Menace, which is why I find that film to be the visually most impressive one in the PT.

Ralph McQuarrie understood this as well, and that understanding shows across the OT.

Ryan Church employed a different philosophy with AOTC and ROTS, and I didn't care for it.

Nothing to be angry about.

 

That seems like kind of a backwards complaint, considering that there no games in 1978 that even had "final stages." Heck, "Space Invaders" didn't even come out until 1977. Games copied SW, not the other way around (at least not back in 1977. Even by ROTJ, games were still in a pretty primitive form, and more likely stealing from SW than the other way around.)

 

Where? I never said the OT had bad design, just noting the hypocrisy of others who like to complain about the so called "problems" of the PT that also existed in the OT.

The "you don't have the right" was figurative dude. It a common phrase to say that in no way is seriously mean to imply you have no rights or whatever you are saying. I was just getting across that it is unfair to criticize the PT for "being to much like a video game" while ignoring how much the OT had the same thing.

When did I say anything like that? Seriously I never said the OT was bad just saying that a lot of problems you call it out for are also in the OT so it is kinda hypocritical. Never said how bad the OT was.

Except you are ignoring that they have loads of stuff sticking out as well. Your basically ignoring that and focusing on just the basic design which the same can be said about others you like to criticize. And are you implying that only simple design are good?

Just the same with all those other vehicles you call bad, their forms are not that crazy looking, they actually look pretty slick and smooth while still having the insane details on the inside like the ships in the OT so what is the problem?

So instead of getting something fresh and new you just want the same things regurgitated to your liking?
You can say you don't care for it but I would have rather have something new instead of the same old same old.

And you mind telling me what shows you I am angry?

 

Agreed. In any event, what does that have to do with its design? Design-wise, the Death Star's form is a sphere, with a smaller spherical depression on its surface (which vaguely resembles a great eye). All details fit into that perfectly elegant and attractive, yet ultimately deadly, form. Our heroes are initially drawn to it's organic form, thinking it a moon. But they are then swiftly repulsed by it as soon as they realize what it is. And then it's too late. They are caught in it's deadly embrace.

It's one of the most perfectly-designed things in film, IMO, and may never be forgotten

 

Can we just agree that some things are a matter of taste? The relentless picking on PT designs, yet another recapitulation of this tired, boring debate, is just growing frustrating. The fact is, whether you liked the designs or not, they were new, they didn't pander to fan 'expectations' and narrow OT-era aesthetic sensibilities. This was a great choice for the prequels.

Should the ST show diversity in its design palate? Yes, absolutely. Has the marketing campaign implied that a limited set of designs are actually going to be shown? Yes, it has. Whether or not VIII or IX veer off this path toward OT nostalgia is yet to be seen, but I sincerely hope they do. Others might disagree. But don't present your own problems with the PT designs as evidence that Abrams and co. should remain staid and boring in their approach to aesthetics.

 

I wasn't singling you out, I was talking about the tone of the discussion, which clearly is headed in that direction. It wouldn't be the first time.....