Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[spiderfan1985]

Originally Posted by poke smot

Well I enjoy the prequels. They all have their moments. I'll go into any Star Wars film with an open mind...I just hope the new ones come kinda close to the originals. A new hope was the first move I ever saw in the theater. I was 5 or 6 and it shaped the rest of my life. Movies....

I don't know if Beauty and the Beast was the first movie I saw in theaters or not. That is cool though. All it takes is one.

[Megalith]

Is "Finn" (idiotic name) seriously the offspring of a past character?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Elvis

umm it didn't even do the business that Spiderman did in 2002! The point I am making is 380 Million dollars for the grand finale that had been built up for almost 30 years was very weak. That's the point I am making...this has nothing to do with my personal "dislike" of the films and anyone trying to inject that into discussion I am making is just flat out wrong (even if I loved them) the numbers are still the numbers and they don't lie. These could be my favorite films of all time and I would still argue that 310 Million and 380 Million in early/mid 2000 dollars was far below expectations for these films. Which leads to the conclusion that they were not as well received or did not have the repeat business that had been hoped. I tend to think it was a little of both. I hope the new films will be good, and will be box office gold. Not so sure this will happen though.

I love how prequel haters bend every single little thing around to supporting their point of view (Obi-Wan would be proud, no?). So, first of all, the films are terrible blah blah blah, but even though they're all sooooooo bad Episode III was still supposed to have smashed every box office record known to humankind, even after the hysterically negative fanboy reactions to the first two prequels? Bollocks. You can't have it both ways. Personally I'm AMAZED that Ep III did as well as it did coming off the big drop on Episode II. It was #1 domestically by a massive margin in 2005 ($89m over Harry Potter), and only lost out on the worldwide #1 spot to Harry Potter by $48m.

In fact, if you look at the top domestic grossers all throughout the noughties (2000-2009), Ep III's US take would be #1 for half of those years, #2 in four more and only lost out on second place in 2009 because a little movie called Avatar cleaned up with Transformers 2 a distant second and Ep III would've ranked third.

[Geoff D]

On a different note: It's clear when watching the prequels now that they were way ahead of their time in terms of the VFX, perhaps too far ahead because of how important digital tech was to Lucas' process and how it was still quite limited in certain areas. Even though the advances in digital filmmaking had convinced Lucas that the time was right to get Star Wars started up again, I at look modern movies with their gorgeous digital photography and the wonderfully immersive and seamless VFX combined with concepts like motion capture and I think to myself: "what Lucas could've done with this level of tech...le sigh".

There's never a single moment in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes when I think "I'm looking at a CG ape" because the mo-capped performances and the peerless digital VFX combine to create these utterly realistic simian "synthespians", and you never know: if that sort of subtlety and range was available to Lucas back in the day, would he still have made Jar Jar such a highly strung goof of a character?

Still, the irony of all the complaints about the endless CG realms of the prequels is that so much of it was models & miniatures it's ridiculous. But what lets them down, what gives them that air of CG fakery, is the compositing of the real elements (i.e. those pesky human actors) into those miniature sets, which looks especially fake in Ep II because of the limited quality of the fledgeling digital cameras. And some stuff that really should've been done in-camera wasn't - give Temuera Morrison proper Clone Trooper armour, FFS! - which only adds to that off-kilter feeling that something isn't quite "real" with what we're seeing.

My point being, people like JJ will be lauded for how amazing these new Star Wars films will look even though they'll still be using a shitload of CG (which is the devil, natch ), and it'll all be thanks to people like Lucas and Jim Cameron and Peter Jackson who took various aspects of digital filmmaking by the scruff of the neck and dragged them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There's never a single moment in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes when I think "I'm looking at a CG ape"

Never?



On a serious note, there are many times I can definitely look at some of the apes, especially Caesar, and I find myself falling into the "uncanny valley".

But, you are right, if Lucas had waited a few more years, perhaps he could have hatched a better story and could have done better with the CGI. But alas, we got what we got. Which isn't great, but isn't unbearable.

[rickah88]

Regardless of which side of The Force you reside, this is the bottom line:

What one thinks Episode III should have done = Subjective
The box office numbers of Episode III = Objective

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Never?

Nope, never. They look so good, especially Koba and Maurice.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Regardless of which side of The Force you reside, this is the bottom line:

What one thinks Episode III should have done = Subjective
The box office numbers of Episode III = Objective

Man, you don't like any discussion of box office numbers whatsoever, do you?

[spiderfan1985]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Never?



On a serious note, there are many times I can definitely look at some of the apes, especially Caesar, and I find myself falling into the "uncanny valley".

But, you are right, if Lucas had waited a few more years, perhaps he could have hatched a better story and could have done better with the CGI. But alas, we got what we got. Which isn't great, but isn't unbearable.

I forgot the CG for the most part. The performances were just so strong across the board. And the animation on them was leaps and bounds above Rise and Rise still holds up remarkably well on most fronts with only a few shots sticking out. But those are so easy to overlook when stacked against everything else that movie gets right.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by spiderfan1985

I forgot the CG for the most part. The performances were just so strong across the board. And the animation on them was leaps and bounds above Rise and Rise still holds up remarkably well on most fronts with only a few shots sticking out. But those are so easy to overlook when stacked against everything else that movie gets right.

That's a good point. If you get a lot right, it's easier to overlook the wrong.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Man, you don't like any discussion of box office numbers whatsoever, do you?

LOL!
Of course I do.
I would actually rather see "tickets sold" instead of dollar amounts. Then we would really get to the "meat & potatos", and not have to worry about "adjusted for inflation". All that higher math makes my head spin.

At the end of the day when both sides have presented their case, and all the numbers have been put forth, it just comes down to this:

I like all the damn Star Wars films, peroid

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

On a different note: It's clear when watching the prequels now that they were way ahead of their time in terms of the VFX, perhaps too far ahead because of how important digital tech was to Lucas' process and how it was still quite limited in certain areas. Even though the advances in digital filmmaking had convinced Lucas that the time was right to get Star Wars started up again, I at look modern movies with their gorgeous digital photography and the wonderfully immersive and seamless VFX combined with concepts like motion capture and I think to myself: "what Lucas could've done with this level of tech...le sigh".

Well someone had to be first...and it was George. Once he did it, other filmmakers followed. He forged the path that others over the years have paved into a silky smooth expressway.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Megalith

Is "Finn" (idiotic name) seriously the offspring of a past character?

"Say it to my face!"

[manunited1]

Originally Posted by rickah88

LOL!
Of course I do.
I would actually rather see "tickets sold" instead of dollar amounts. Then we would really get to the "meat & potatos", and not have to worry about "adjusted for inflation". All that higher math makes my head spin.

At the end of the day when both sides have presented their case, and all the numbers have been put forth, it just comes down to this:

I like all the damn Star Wars films, peroid

If we look at tickets sold then Gone with the Wind blows everything out of the water. I don't know what that info has to do with anything but there it is.

Back on subject: Star Wars rules and the new one will be kickass.

[djakrse]

Originally Posted by manunited1

If we look at tickets sold then Gone with the Wind blows everything out of the water. I don't know what that info has to do with anything but there it is.

Back on subject: Star Wars rules and the new one will be kickass.

Nothing against you sir, for your astute remark, but I get sick of hearing this statistic because it had no competition. It's a lot like talking tennis before and after the open era, except a much larger discrepancy. The movie was literally in theaters for decades (I think I read that? And re-released numerous times) because there was little else to show.

It's true that the popularity of a movie should be measured in asses in seats versus gross box office, because inflation takes the numbers out of context. Tickets sold alone, Gone with the wind may take first prize (ignoring world-wide sales--the internationally expanding markets is impossible to correct for), but if you take into account competition and the rate tickets were sold during it's run in theaters, I don't think anything stands up to Star Wars. Include the immeasurable personal home viewings, and I can't imagine anything ever topping it. Of course, I've presented no facts and I'm no expert.

Edit: When I say competition, I'm thinking simply the limited runs films have in theaters to make way for other new releases. Truth be told, I have no idea what else was playing in the theater at the same time as Star Wars, but in that context, is there any more competitive time than now and the games played between Marvel and other releases? That tends to make The Avenger' run more impressive, but I imagine the next few years will produce incredible turnout in theaters.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by spiderfan1985

I forgot the CG for the most part. The performances were just so strong across the board. And the animation on them was leaps and bounds above Rise and Rise still holds up remarkably well on most fronts with only a few shots sticking out. But those are so easy to overlook when stacked against everything else that movie gets right.

I'm not saying the CG isn't good. I agree with all that the performances are very strong. The performance might even be so good that you may choose to "overlook" (interesting choice of words) the "few shots sticking out."

But for someone who has fairly good vision to come out and say that each shot is flawless, as if to say you can't tell the difference between the CG ape and a real one, regardless of how close in appearance they may appear to be. Well, you can attempt to deceive yourself, and attempt deceive others, but you can't deceive your brain (it knows better ).

[Ernest Rister]

If we look at TICKETS sold across the world, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs blows everything else out of the water. Not grosses (kids prices and all)...tickets sold.

[djakrse]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

If we look at TICKETS sold across the world, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs blows everything else out of the water. Not grosses (kids prices and all)...tickets sold.

Well that shocked me enough to look it up. This list has it at number ten. Is there some technicality (you said world- wide for instance) not included here?

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adj...st_yr=1&p=.htm

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nope, never. They look so good, especially Koba and Maurice.

Maurice I never could tell. I could tell most of the apes were CGI, the lighting kind of gave it away.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by djakrse

Well that shocked me enough to look it up. This list has it at number ten. Is there some technicality (you said world- wide for instance) not included here?

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adj...st_yr=1&p=.htm

The technicality? It should be obvious. Children's ticket prices versus adult ticket prices. That's why I used the dreaded ALL CAPS for the word, "tickets". Snow White -- well, at some point before the world population went bazinga -- had sold more TICKETS than any movie in history, bolstered by re-releases naturally.

The movie hasn't been re-released since 1993, but pretty sure it would still have a leg up on Gone With the Wind in terms of actual tickets sold.