|
PT was new Star Wars, ST was more Star Wars. They had some of the best artists in the world at their disposal and utterly wasted them.
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 13, 2025 19:19 |
|
|
BiggestBatman posted:The st's battles operate even more on a character- driven level. The space battles mostly serve to set up things for poe to do. Another thing I really missed from the OT was the clipped battle chatter - "come around to point oh-five," "my scope's negative!" "cut across the axis and draw their fire," "three from above," "I see it, Wedge" "I'm on the leader" "intensify the forward batteries," etc. Little glimpses of the characters as professionals speaking in a shared jargon, so that even if we don't know 100% what's supposed to be happening, the characters at least have a handle on it. It made the world feel bigger, deeper and more serious/credible, created another window on characters we know outside of battles, and gave the illusion of deeper character to people we only see in battles. Compared to the ST where everybody talks the same way whether they're in a battle or ship or not. We never get much sense that what they're doing in battle is technical or tactical; any dialogue is either emotional or explicitly expository. This removes the illusory layer of depth the battle chatter gave, and is another reason the ST battles feel hollow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Maybe another way to put it would be that in the OT and PT the characters talk to each other (at least sometimes) and in the ST they talk to the audience. Or that in the ST most (every?) character interaction/relationship has an emotional charge, while many in the OT/PT don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Ingmar terdman posted:For the Lucasfilm employee in charge of reading this thread and throwing it into the nostalgia slurry machine: when are we getting post-ROTJ versions of the naboo fighter aka the best starfighter design since 1977       full post here, all art by Pablo Dominguez, who actually did work on Ep. IX (mostly lookdev for the battle of Exegol, instead of ship design). This is his (personal) take on N1s that have been kept flying in to OT times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:did star wars fans ever complain about the death star violating the roche limit The first Death Star definitely ended up as a ring around Yavin, which is something I don't think I've ever seen depicted. I have a fan art project in mind that would show the evacuation of the Rebel base immediately after the battle, and one of the things they'd have to be on the lookout for would be the dense parts of the debris ring.  These guys would be seeing hella shooting stars, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Ingmar terdman posted:I always had a feeling you posted here Rian lol drat. I was thinking less shouting and tactical blunders and more like the opening of Top Gun - moody, atmospheric, slow paced shots of ships warming up and eventually taking off. Oh and in LEGO.    Some style tests for a teaser trailer for that idea, that I might someday actually get around to animating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2022 06:36
|
|
|
Robot Style posted:That might be for the best - they released a video where they were using "we brick-built all the ships" as a selling point, and the shot they use to illustrate it has a ship that's very loosely based on an official set, but it seems to give up halfway - with complex multi-piece builds being mixed with enormously scaled individual pieces, and built onto a base model that's detailed to "suggest" Lego bricks without actually using any real pieces. It's a tough problem, you lose all the charm of Lego if you truly do everything at minifig scale - from anything other than an extreme closeup a kilometer long ship just looks like you "cheated" and put in a regular 3D model. But a half measure like that Venator doesn't work well either. There are fan creations that are really true to the movie designs, and not as obviously LEGO, but you still get the huge brick scale issue if the camera gets close.  Vigilance - Venator-class Star Destroyer by Martin Latta, on Flickr In a LEGO film you could build the ships at different scales based on how much screen space it occupies, make detailed (but still not minifig scale) sections for closeups, and then cut between them in the edit, like real filming miniatures. But a continuous shot (or consistent 3D model like in a game) that holds up from far to close is an unsolved LEGO aesthetic problem as far as I can tell. Maybe in a game you could do a cheeky LOD effect, where once a brick passes a certain screen angle threshold or distance to camera a more detailed build pops in to replace it (maybe with some quick animation!), and vice versa, so by the time a Star Destroyer should look like a small wedge on screen it's down to just a few (wildly scaled up but distant) plates. That way everything always looks like LEGO, but you've completely broken brick scale, and objects will have a weird periodic shimmer as those LODs swap. Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 17, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
Glottis posted:but the LEGO corporation must have fully detailed models of literally everything, right? Someone loving solidworksed that poo poo. Those diagrams were not hand drawn. You mean the original film ship designs? Sure, probably, but that doesn't translate very easily or directly to LEGO builds. It'll help you a lot with proportions and angles and details if you're trying to do a really accurate build, but most official physical LEGO versions of ships are more about being strong, cheap(ish), and easily built by children. That's the difference between the custom Venator I posted and the official set Robot Style posted. If LEGO wanted to build hyper-accurate LEGO versions of the ships for their games they could, but once individual bricks stop being identifiable and start acting like simple voxels you've lost the LEGO magic:   Ok, it's life size, and as accurate as it can be in LEGO... and it looks totally artless and stiff. It's the same tiny brick repeated a half million times. Importantly, it's also not really immediately identifiable as LEGO. You might think it was a Minecraft build, or a 3D printed model. Compare that to a tiny custom build - sure you lose 90% of the detail but if the design is good enough (on both the original and LEGO ends) the result is a pleasing caricature that's still identifiable. And look, more than one kind of brick!   Imagine that the LEGO starfighters you're piloting in the game are built to a scale/detail level like the second example - about right for a LEGO minifigure to fit in, and matching actual playsets. That'll look pretty good. Now imagine the capital ships like Star Destroyers, which are vastly bigger - proportionally they'd be much larger than the life-size car:  Sure, you could do a very accurate LEGO voxel version, but it would either look stiff and algorithm-generated like the life size car (only worse because of how much larger it is), or, since the Venator is mostly flat shapes, if you used techniques to get the angles just right like the custom Venator I posted, the bricks would completely disappear. It wouldn't look like LEGO at all unless you got really close and started seeing the seams between tiles, or individual studs. The scale difference means a style clash is almost inevitable. Even the LEGO movies struggled with this a little bit in establishing shots - it just stops looking like LEGO past a certain scale, though of course it can still look good/cool:   It's hard to tell exactly how big those builds (foreground/middleground) would be in real life, but I think they're smaller than a minifig-scale Venator, which would maybe fit on a tennis court if you angled it carefully. Lastly, games have to run in real time, and hyper-detailed LEGO Movie style environments (or ships as large as environments) would probably break the geometry budget.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Yeah but that, like Han Solo going to Hell, Luke dealing with literal snakes and lizards on dagobah, Luke’s speeder being obviously inspired by 50’s cars, One of the series most iconic scenes taking place in a Mexican cantina, etc were all in the OT. I’m specifically wondering why, after the OT had stuff like that, the franchise spent the next 20 years pretending it didn’t, and then was surprised when Lucas came back and picked up from where he left off. I think this is a little overblown, the unaltered "real world" stuff stands out in the films because they're 99.9% (visually) bespoke otherwise. Clunky EU writing is mostly just clunky writing, full stop, not something unique to the franchise or genre. It just stands out when the writers reach for a new concept that isn't grounded in the films first and they have to invent or repurpose a word to do it, because 99.9% of written Star Wars media is normal English. It's easier to get a viewer to understand and accept a slightly altered real world item or concept, you can just show it, and have the characters react as though it's normal. "Oh, it's a space bed/door/gun/TV/creature." It's harder in writing, because all you have are words that already have meanings and associations. You can sometimes chop them up and glue them together in a new configuration and successfully get a new idea across - "transparisteel," "duraplast," "comnet," etc. Like kitbashing a prop. It's harder to make an invented word work without either repetition or lots of context clues. Some authors just overdo it. Also novels have a lot more "down time" than a film will, and so mundane situations (meals, hygiene, travel, absorbing local flavor, and EUisms re: same) come up more frequently. Then again when extremely mundane stuff does come up with no Star Wars gloss applied it can be just as strange - I just read a chapter in one of the X-Wing novels, and the characters are sneaking in to the offices of "X, Y and Z, Attorneys at Law." General Battuta can probably articulate this better and with much more insight, as an author and contributor to the EU.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
That sounds like it rules, looks like the cover art is in on it too. Calling Dex's a 1950s diner isn't quite right. The prefab stainless steel streamlined look is from the 30s (based on Streamline Moderne dining railcars), making it a more modern branch of Art Deco Coruscant, but only by a decade or so, not several. It's a (barely) pre WWII style. Which is appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
  Well, there are big, detailed toys...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
George H.W. oval office posted:Where the gently caress is my Star Wars top gun movie < Would you accept it in Lego form?   
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 01:17
|
|
>
|
You also see his obviously organic eyes in several close ups.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
Geo?no,spit
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Outpost22 posted:
Somehow, Palpatine respawned
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2025 21:19
|
|
I just remembered that the last episode whatever kicked off in Fortnite
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Ain't no rule that says an ewok can't
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2025 21:04
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:But it does have a lot of really cool stuff too. It's a film that's in some ways more than the sum of its parts. This scan of a Czech 35mm trailer makes me wish for a filmout version. The extra layer of analog artifacts and damage does a ton to integrate the effects and digital photography, while also reinforcing the whole noir/pulp/Hollywood golden age vibe. And the defamiliarized language makes it feel like some forgotten retro gem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeu1_sgd1Ac
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2025 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 13, 2025 19:19 |
|
|
Crazy how much better the film version looks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeu1_sgd1Ac
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2025 02:47
|
|