Star Wars the final trilogy - Eps 7-9

[livingdead70]

I think we are too late, Im pretty sure there was a queen amidala perfume, I know they testes a make up line.
Im sure its been done in other countrys too, probaly Japan I can totally see Japanese SW cologne.
trey

[toystalker]

well i know boba in the flesh lol
ill be running all these quieries and conspiracy theorys by him haha

[livingdead70]

Jeremy Bulloch !!
Cool.
trey

[BlackKnight]

Obviously Jermey doesn't realize his character of Boba was just another StormTrooper in a different suit.

[trekman101]

CGI isn't a bad thing.You have to realize that there are different levels to it.The low budget stuff is not to great but the high budget stuff is very impressive as Vader would say.The clone wars CGI is in the mid to upper range of quality(people are still hard to get just right,thats why they make them cartoony)
As for episodes 7-9, I read somewhere that they take place 25 to 30 years after episode 6 (which would work just fine for the original cast)with the plot line of Han Solo and princess Leah's third child(Anakin Solo)possessing the force to such a degree and power (a pure embodiment of good)that he was immune to the dark side.The emperor learning the ability to come back from the dead and taking it to the next level of being able to posses a living being namely Luke skywalker(who is still tempted by the dark side)and the epic battle that takes place between Anakin and Luke(aka the emperor)
For the record,episode 3 was worthy of the originals even if it was a little choppy.

[huedell]

Not that I want to see my favorite SW character Luke die---
but whatever route they'd take for a plot for 7-9
---it'd be cool to end with Luke's death----a fitting trilogy ending, I think.

[livingdead70]

CGI isn't a bad thing.You have to realize that there are different levels to it.The low budget stuff is not to great but the high budget stuff is very impressive as Vader would say.The clone wars CGI is in the mid to upper range of quality(people are still hard to get just right,thats why they make them cartoony)
As for episodes 7-9, I read somewhere that they take place 25 to 30 years after episode 6 (which would work just fine for the original cast)with the plot line of Han Solo and princess Leah's third child(Anakin Solo)possessing the force to such a degree and power (a pure embodiment of good)that he was immune to the dark side.The emperor learning the ability to come back from the dead and taking it to the next level of being able to posses a living being namely Luke skywalker(who is still tempted by the dark side)and the epic battle that takes place between Anakin and Luke(aka the emperor)
For the record,episode 3 was worthy of the originals even if it was a little choppy.

I have yet to see a movie with CGI that looked better than old school models and such. It all looks cartooney. Nothing is ever going to beat the "real" thing. I havent seen any CGI that is "impressive" . Its animation and always going to look like animation and is always going to look silly next to anything real in the shot. And from what I have read CGI actually cost more to do that masks, models, real sets etc....... Another way the major studios have taken the magic out of movies.
I still just dont think they should make any Star Wars films. Read the novels, they cover alot of cool stuff and I believe there is a run that is supposed to essentialy be eps 7-9.
trey

[huedell]

Trey---I'll tell ya---if no one would have ever told me, I wouldn't
have known which characters were CGI and which weren't in the prequels.

I thought they looked great.

AND if you factor how quickly CGI has improved since ROTS and is
still improving AND the fact that Eps. 7-9 could be TOTALLY CGI
(without "real" stuff to contrast it), well a CGI Star Wars movie COULD be
indeed quite impressive.

As far as the novels?

The novels are whatever George wans 'em to be....canon or non-canon.

I say use only a few nice elements of the books (how could they NOT
use Mara Jade or Organa-Solo twins?) but keep the other details
"fresh" and closer to a trilogy movie concept plot format----that'd be cool.

Like I said---having the third movie end with Luke's death---
something that HASN'T happened in the novels as far as I know
----would be great.

[livingdead70]

I guess its the old school in me man !!! I dunno, I just like a man in a mask or a model ship.
As far as all CGI movies, thats just , spooky. Shoot a CGI can probaly act better than some of the actors out there today tho !!
You know this, it, Im a big music fan too and I hate all the processed crap out there today, Pro Tools created bs. Its just killing everything.
Its like movies arent made to tell a story anymore, music isnt put out because its good anymore, its all put out because of $$$ and how quick whatever coporation behind it can get that $$$. And I think they go too far with stuff these days, and when the sequels tire out they remake it.
Its seems like in 30 years there wont be any new movies, only remakes and relaunchs of stuff, see what I mean.
Star Wars is a big part of why Im even here talking to you guys, as Im sure its the same for alot of you who are children or young adults of the 70s. I was 7 when It came out and it blew me out of the water, it blew the whole world out of the water. Whens the last time a movie did that? It will never happen again, and the sad thing is that it very well can if done right. Its something we love that help create what I am *****ing about right now. Kinda weird isnt it?
I was reading an article in Game Informer last year where they were talking to some devolpers about why there are some many bad games now and the developers were like, well you got places like Wal Mart and Fast Food places and film compnays going "well this should be in there and if not we wont sell it or market it." Thats totally true and you can see it.
trey

[huedell]

Trey---that's a LOT of stuff said right there---and I'll try to answer it short
and sweet by saying that I fall on the side of technology being more
a help than a hinderance---that is until someone destroys the world with it,
ya know

There's a LOT that technology has helped me enjoy and the rest of it, I ignore
----grab the good like a happy kid---and leave the rest without thing too
much about it

I'm an "easy sell" though---the perfect example pf today's instant gratification guy for better or worse.

That goes, not only as a fan---but as an artist.

If digital work can help my work, then I'm all for it.

My band records digitally----and the convenience is a dream come true.

With the right skill you can make killer albums at HOME.

I never would have considered THAT back in the 80s

[livingdead70]

Im not knocking technology, it can be a very usefull tool. With out we wouldnt be having this conversation.
And being a muscian you have to see that stuff like Pro Tools, synths and all that stuff are way out of hand. They arent being used as tools by some, they are being used in the way wrong way.
Digital recording can be cool, but nothing beats a good analog recording man.
Ive started back buying vinyl because you cant top that sound. I still buy cds, I still buy tapes, hell I even make mix tapes still too ( ive had about 4 car stereos stolen), I said F&^& it about a year ago, found me a car tape deck and hey, aint nobody gonna steal that. It wasnt so much the stereos gettin takin it was the damage these toolbags were doing to my car that prompted that.
So its not that i hate computers, digital etc, they are very usefull ( one of my favourite bands is Depeche Mode for example, I am also a fan of all the 80s new wave stuff).
Dude I just brought some big old early 70s wooden Pioneer speakers, aint no plastic computer crap gonna sound better that , ever. Put them on some milk crates, Is it live or is it Memorex?

And just out of curiosity why couldnt you record at home back in the 80s? I did it all the time?
I can think of tons of bands that home recorded back then and put out some good stuff. Probaly half the indie/punk stuff done then and now was homemade........... I know alot of the Cures Disentigration cd was done in Robert Smiths house ( bathroom was the vocal booth.). There was local band here that recorded in an abandoned jail and it sounded great. Did you not have or see a portastudio back then? It dont matter where you record it its all in that final mix man. I knew people that could take a basement tape and make it sound like it was done in a million dollar record plant. Its the skills as much as the tools man, which is alot of what Im getting at overall, Lack of talent. Lack of creativity. Lack of brains. But a big desire for $$$.
The reason alot of this stuff is going on is because they have to pay less people, in Music and Movies. You want to pay five guys royalties on an album plus an engineer, or just have to pay a songwriter and jerk with Pro Tools and a beat machine?
You want to have to pay 50 actors a writer FX guys, or just pay some nerds with crays? They arent using it as tools, they are using it as a way out. Less people means less money out and more money in. There is a big difference there, a real big one.
What kind of band are you in?
trey

[huedell]

Digital recording can be cool, but nothing beats a good analog
recording man.
Ive started back buying vinyl because you cant top that sound. I still buy cds...

You sound like an extreme audiophile---I am not. I can not and do not care
to tell any significant differences between the mediums.

Dude I just brought some big old early 70s wooden Pioneer speakers,
aint no plastic computer crap gonna sound better that , ever.

Having decent speakers is admittedly great to me---I play my digital stuff
on speakers other than my computer and it sounds killer.

How much BETTER it would sound if it weren't digital in origin,
I don't care to know---and what a task to have stuff stored
any other way than digitally.

With digital storage for music---I am a "free man"

And just out of curiosity why couldnt you record at home back in
the 80s?

I could record at home in the 80s---of course I could----but NOW
---with today's ProTools technology I can make a finished album at
home that sounds just as good as ANY band from ANY era.

To me.

I'm sure many would disagree...but what can I say?

I agree with you that it's more about the skills than the tools---but because the TOOLS are easier to use now to "show off" your SKILLS---
that's why I think there's a huge advantage with ProTools 2 or 3 decades
later from the 80s. You said it---you can "fix it in the mix"
(and temper it in your recording method as well, even WITH ProTools)

As far as how these new tools are being used---well, it's the same as usual
---in the right hands it's cool---in the wrong hands...not so much.

I'm not as judgemental about new product as you and others of the older
generation are here on this board----so I'm not really in synch with
your conclusions although I certainly see where you're coming from.

BTW---the kind of band I'm in is a "hard rock" band.

[livingdead70]

I wouldnt call myself an audiophile, Ive just noticed over the years that analog tends to sound better.
I see your points now and they are taken, you elaborated a little more.
They are "tools" in the right hands, I just think that many are using them the opposite way.
Im not knocking these new products ( thats why I named a little of the stuff I like to show I have no probs with digital, synths, etc....).
And id never not buy an album because I saw it was a DDD recording.
Those recordings do sound great, I just think some of the older stuff had more bite to it man.
Can you imagine If Kiss Alive 2 was a digital recording, itd be missing something I think!!!!
Im digging this conversation tho, I love a good debate especially when the other party can talk and not resort to name calling and crap like that!!!
So what do you play? Your band gotta a myspace or something? id love to hear it ................. and what do you listen too? Im all over the place , but you can draw a line from Kiss up till the 80s , with everything in there !!!!!!
trey

[huedell]

I wouldnt call myself an audiophile, Ive just noticed over the years that analog tends to sound better.
I see your points now and they are taken, you elaborated a little more.
They are "tools" in the right hands, I just think that many are using them the opposite way.
Im not knocking these new products ( thats why I named a little of the stuff I like to show I have no probs with digital, synths, etc....).
And id never not buy an album because I saw it was a DDD recording.
Those recordings do sound great, I just think some of the older stuff had more bite to it man.
Can you imagine If Kiss Alive 2 was a digital recording, itd be missing something I think!!!!
Im digging this conversation tho, I love a good debate especially when the other party can talk and not resort to name calling and crap like that!!!
So what do you play? Your band gotta a myspace or something? id love to hear it ................. and what do you listen too? Im all over the place , but you can draw a line from Kiss up till the 80s , with everything in there !!!!!!
trey

despite the fact that I'm a big KISS fan---I still wouldn't be against KISS
or the modern equivalent of KISS using digital means to record a live show
in 1978 or now---
I mean---it's basically the norm now, and I'm fine with it now,
so I'd be fine with it then ya know?

Anyways----I'm not really into debating the merits or weak points
of stuff like this----like I said I'm pretty much cut and dry with
audio and just go with what is "easier" without much though
of the differences.

Basically I just like to point out that there
are guys like me out there that really enjoy the digital age of music
and won't miss the analog age.

However, thanks for the cool acknowledgemewnt of our
good conversation---

Plus, check your private message box---
soon I'll send you a link to my band's myspace and a download of
our album as well---on one song we even end it with a
little "Get up" "Get down" Detroit Rock City tribute

Thanks Trey----Sincerely, Hugh

[trekman101]

Like it or not CGI is here to stay....CGI is a "green"technology and for that reason alone it is going to dominate the industry.There's alot of CGI out there that people never realize they're looking at.Animated features are almost always done in "Cartoon" style thats why they look that way.CGI done in TV sci-fi for example is totally realistic looking and couldn't be done any other way.Does anyone think Lucas had a choice whether or not to use CGI.His vision of what he wanted to see would have had an impossible price tag if done with real back drops,sets and costumes.The movies could never recoup that cost.