ST Chewbacca / Peter Mayhew in Ep. VII

Jedinews says Mayhew is in the US:

http://www.jedinews.co.uk/news/news.aspx?newsID=17735

Maybe that person saw a different Wookiee. In that selfie with Iger, Chewie didn't have gray hair.

 

Maybe it was Lumpy?

 

Quite right. Perhaps I wasn't crystal clear in my first post. I expect plenty of CGI and I expect the CGI motion-capture characters to literally knock my socks off! Andy's in charge of that! I also expect plenty of practical sets/props etc when required. The point has been made by many others in other threads that the best tool for the job in each case will be the one used most likely. So armoured figures for example will most likely wear real armour, unless they're CGI aliens I suppose...

Anyway.... sorry Peter for derailing your thread!

 

Good question. Maybe Chewie is now Daisy's sidekick or even caretaker? Say Han and Leia are off and busy being important figures in the Rebellion/New Republic, and Chewie serves a major role in Daisy's upbringing as a sort of uncle. I wouldn't mind that dynamic.

 

Or if this person actually did see Chewie and Peter is back in the States, maybe they have another actor playing Chewie for more action-oriented scenes? I'm so glad Peter is back, absolutely, but there probably will be some scenes he isn't physically up to anymore.

 

I've said it before and others have echoed the sentiment, but I'd love to see Chewie and Daisy piloting the Falcon together.

 

That would be fun to see.

 

Star Wars was something noone ever saw before. Ep VII like the other Eps will be following its lead not radically departing from it. Technology leaping or what is or isnt CGI/fake is irrelevant, as long as it looks as real and believable as many of the stuff in the OT. Thats what makes people drop their jaws, relatability and believability with the fantastical, not obvious as much CGI crammed itnto a frame that will fit. But ultimately it is about the story, acting and direction.

 

Twisting my words.

I never said anything about "cramming" as much CGI as possible on screen in one moment as possible. My "gratuitous comment" is not about this - go back and read all related posts and it is obvious what I was saying.

Just take the first movie as an example, it was a combination of everything that made Episode IV a success - the VFX, sound, characters, story, designs, puppets, performances, etc.

Yes, of course it begins with the story - everyone knows that - but in the case of Star Wars it doesn't end there. Everything had to come together, just like LotR and The Hobbit - it has the story, people are interested, but they aren't going to the cinema to see a movies that look like straight to DVD B-Movies from Asylum. They has to look great too.

Avatar, for another example - not the original of stories (it is essentially Pocahontas) but it is the most financially successful film of all time - regardless of inflation, 3D prices, etc. - it has the numbers. And the general consensus on that is because people want see the VFX, etc.

How people can claim that the PT, somehow, looks fake while putting the OT on pedestal is beyond me. All movie have moments where the VFX don't cut it, but it is the story, characters or action that carries it through, just as it is true where is time where the performance or story flubs for a little but the action or VFX carries the audience on.

Here the "CGI/fake" remark is ridiculous - if it is CGI then it is fake (no other way of interpret that). If you have that attitude then you are clearly never going to buy in any of it.

Compare two similar moments - the rancor put and the Geonosis arena - both exist for the action, thrill and spectacle - to claim that the creatures in AotC look "fake", compared to the rancor would be absolutely bizarre.

As I said above, both trilogies have moments where ,even on first viewing, thinks don't look right - Darth Vader's voice out of sync, a Jedi Temple corridor background, a moment in the Endor speeder chase, etc. - so what? Nothing is perfect.

Most of the audience may not know what is "good direction" or what the director actually does - yes people often choose a movie by the director's name and may be a fan but couldn't tell the difference between one or another - they only know that they've enjoyed other stuff that he or she made.

Of they are could actors, they stand in front of goblins and Muppets and fight with laserswords and make it seem like the most natural thing in the world.

There is no disputing that the characters have to to be great - Episode VI needs to have villains we can hate and new heroes we can cheer for (as well as well as hold there own against the returning originals) - and that the story has to be exceptional, but it also has to look more epic than The Hobbit/LotR, and surpass Avatar, the Apes movies, etc.

 

Pip is filling in. Prepare to see some wicked Wookie parkour.

 

That would be amazing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Wow, who peed in your cheerios buddy? that was certainly mean of them.

And I very clearly said that Abrams will use CGI, just not as much as lucas. You seriously think Abrams is going to do stupid crap like cgi stormtrooper armor onto a mans body, when he could just spend less money on an actual suit?

 

Here's the difference.

Prequels - CGI because it's convenient.

Sequels - CGI when it tells the best story.

 

I simply pointed out that you haven't read the script, which is what your post implied.

Obviously, you know you haven't, and I never implied you did think that.

I'm assuming the "peeing in my cheerios" means you are trying to make out that I'm upset or angry or such.

I wasn't, and I can't fathom were you made that leap.

I was not attacking your comment, nor did I intend to embarrass you, I was simply pointing out the fact.

 

Does it really matter who plays Chewbacca? There isn't a lot of top notch acting required in playing Chewie. As long as you can find someone over 7 feet tall and can wear the Wookie costume, virtually anyone can play Chewbacca. Since Chewie pretty much shakes his head, howls, etc. It would be the same situation with someone playing a storm trooper or Darth Vader. There's not much required in the acting department since the voice would probably be replaced, the face would be covered with a mask, etc. But of course, it wouldn't be 'authentic' without Mayhew.. right??

 

Mayhew doesn't act - he performs - not the same thing.

His movement and body language go a long way to giving Chewbacca life.

He was replaced due to illness on the set of RotJ and it was obvious to Lucas that Mayhew performance was esstential for the character because the replacement was so different.

Any future performer taking the role will have to learn from Mayhew how to do it.

So, yes, it does matter.

 

“J.J. Abrams-directed Episode VII “will be the best Star Wars film I will have seen.” Mayhew added the film will utilize no, or very little, computer generated effects and will instead be very practical.

It is exciting to think that Peter Mayhew has such confidence in what he has seen of the film he is sure it will be the best. I think the digital effects comment is still a bit overblown.

As for behind the scenes tidbits, Mayhew revealed that the day this table read photo was taken, he had previously seen many of his former costars like Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher, but it was the first time in a while he had met with Harrison Ford. Mayhew said the actor nearly “throttled” him with a hug.​

It is awesome to know Han and Chewie are back together again.

When asked about being treated like royalty by younger actors, he said Hayden Christensen and even Ewan McGregor viewed him as an “old professor” on theEpisode III set. Mayhew said he advised Christensen how much Star Warsimpacts the lives of the people in it and when the young Anakin saw him again at a premiere and agreed, the once and future Wookiee told him he’d “graduated.”​

http://makingstarwars.net/2014/08/p...l-best-star-wars-film-little-digital-effects/

 

Another actor saying that this movie is going to knock our socks off... Can only be taken as a good sign.

 

I have to laugh at all this complaining about the alleged "overuse of CGI" in the PT and how the PT was allegedly "all about the FX and no story." Because the exact same thing was said about the OT, including the sacred ESB, back in the day: that it was all about FX and no story, that it "overused" FX, that it "ruined movies" by encouraging filmmakers to overdose on FX. And part of what made the OT so popular amongst the masses was...drum roll...the FX and how spectacular they were (for the time). We're just not supposed to remember that now.

And no, I am not "making things up about the OT to defend the PT," as I've been accused of doing more than once. I was alive back then, and aware. I remember it very well. I also remember how the OT was relegated to the doghouse and no one but the most extreme nerds dared say they liked it in the mid- to late-80s. I remember how Harrison Ford practically spat every time SW was mentioned in one of his interviews, and how he gloated about "moving past" those "little kiddie movies" and how glad he was to be doing "mature, adult" movies now. He was so enthused about it that he claimed that SW "was 15 years ago" in 1986, never mind that it was less than 10 years ago at the time. And the same happened, albeit to lesser extents, with reviews of Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill's work at the time.

And it's funny how the same people who complained about ROTS being "all CGI and greenscreen" in 2005 went ape (no pun intended) several months later over St. Peter "The Great" Jackson's "King Kong," which actually was all CGI and greenscreen -- but that was applauded as "groundbreaking" and "daring."

They likewise went ape over St. Peter's "Hobbit" flicks, insisting that this is how you do a prequel trilogy, George...never mind how heavy with CGI and greenscreen those movies were.

Oh, sorry. St. Peter only used CGI and greenscreen "when it was necessary for the story," right? It's a sign of convenience and laziness only when Lucas uses it.

 

you can never believe people who are trying to sell a product.

 

Sorry. Don't recall anyone saying that at all about ESB "back in the day." We weren't complaining about that film's special effects because we were, young and old, so darn blown away by them. And they enhanced the story in our eyes. Nice try though.

 

Then you have a faulty memory, because I remember lots of people saying that about ESB "back in the day." And I recall how ESB was considered a "little kiddie flick" along with the rest of the OT during the mid- to late-80s.

 

Fine. Your theory is that I suffer from faulty memory. Mine is that you lived in an alternative universe (which must have been fun by the way). Only way I can explain your remarks that "lots of people" were making those claims regarding ESB. Probably via social media too considering your universe must have been a whole lot more advanced than mine (no wonder you guys hated the special effects!).

 

And by the way, "we," meaning the general public, were blown away by the FX in ESB, and in ROTJ, and in ANH (although I know now we're supposed to think that ESB is the only SW movie worth mentioning), at the time. That was my point. We were blown away by the FX. My peers gushed about the battle scenes, on the ground and in space, not about how the movies had so much great character development. And subsequently, the self-styled arbiters of film and culture sneered about how Lucas was overdosing on FX and encouraging other filmmakers to do likewise and how he ruined movies with his "FX-laden, story-lite, juvenile" movies.

It wasn't until the backlash against the allegedly "little kiddie" PT started, and CGI/greenscreen became the devil (but only when used by Lucas), that suddenly the OT became a deep, adult-oriented story that only used FX when they were "necessary."