It is currently August 15th 2018 9:47 pm




 
Post Posted: May 28th 2015 1:42 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 16th 2014 7:03 pm
Posts: 82
Starwars.com new Vanity Fair content which includes the name for Andy Serkis' role in The Force Awakens:

millenniumfalcon.commillenniumfalcon.com

Supreme Leader Snoke.


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 2:13 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Posts: 573
Location: Michigan
...because in 1977, when ANH was made, motion tracking dots were the most important factor in getting the movie to look the way it did...

Sorry, I have to call out LFL/Disney etc. for pushing the "we won't rely on CGI so much" line of bullshit that was out there so aggressively when shooting began, when they actually are relying on it quite a bit. It feels disrespectful of George Lucas, and his vision for the untapped potential of the medium.


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 3:10 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2539
Location: Toronto, Canada
So when Andy Serkis was cast and everyone on Earth knew that he would be playing a mocap character you were good, but when it is confirmed you are irate?


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 4:34 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1702
that name sucks. Snoke. doesn't exactly send shivers down my spine. "When Lord Snoke finds out about this..." really?


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 4:44 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 16th 2014 7:03 pm
Posts: 82
The most interesting thing about the mocap is the necessity for it in the first place. Going into speculation mode, motion capture for Serkis tells me he’s either playing a cyborg guy missing chunks of his face or (and probably more likely) an alien — and a non-human being in charge of what’s left of the Empire, which was pretty much a No Homers Aliens Club in the movies, is pretty intriguing to me.


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 4:51 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2539
Location: Toronto, Canada
I'd say they're still batting above .500 with the ST names so far. The reality is that if Snoke is an awesome character, his name will start to become cool. On its own, Boba Fett is not a cool name. I remember it sounding lame in the 80s. It's a cool name now because the character is fucking legendary.

Good:
- Poe Dameron
- Captain Phasma (I think it's a good callback to goofy serials)
- Maz Kanata

Bad:
- Snoke

Indifferent:
- Rey
- Kylo Ren
- Finn

George was always pretty good with names but I still remember the hand-wringing about names like Count Dooku.


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 6:34 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1702
SUPREME LEADER Snoke is not a cool name and never will be. What, is he from North Korea??


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 7:14 pm
 

Join: March 11th 2005 9:23 am
Posts: 74
Location: Accord, NY
Well, if his character is interesting, I give two shits about the name. Seriously... Jabba is not a name that is particularly impressive, but a giant clime lord slug is. I'm inclined to not bash this film until I see it, because I'm hoping that everyone learned from the prequels how not to make a Star Wars film.


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 10:08 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Posts: 573
Location: Michigan
CoGro wrote:
So when Andy Serkis was cast and everyone on Earth knew that he would be playing a mocap character you were good, but when it is confirmed you are irate?



Eh, I wouldn't say I'm irate. I love great CGI when done to create the element of fantasy and escapism that Star Wars, and many other films, have achieved in recent years. All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of filmmakers distancing themselves so publicly from CGI in the lead up to making the film, while still, in softer voices, continuing to push the envelope of what can be done in the medium.

It felt like a underhanded chop at Lucas' use of the style for the prequels, which of course, is the simple-minded path to take when addressing the most recent films. I admit, I will defend Lucas to the last breath, as I'm doing on this interesting, but ultimately fairly insignificant issue.


Post Posted: May 28th 2015 11:17 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2539
Location: Toronto, Canada
They're mostly pandering to the general audience who believes that every single shot in the PT is CGI, when we know there were just as many models built as there were in the OT and that there is plenty filmed on location (mostly for TPM).

The best way I can sum up the failings of the PT VFX is to steal a quote from Jurassic Park: they were so preoccupied with whether they could that they never stopped to think if they should.

Nobody is complaining about Maul v. Qui-Gon v. Obi-wan battling in a massive room filled with energy generators, a dogfight in the asteroid belt, Watto, or even battle droids (well, some people complain about battle droids but that's for another reason).

Like you and I many fans of sci-fi and blockbuster adventure films don't dislike CGI at all. The more fair criticisms of the PT VFX aren't that there's a lot of CGI - it's that there's a lot of unnecessary and awful-looking CGI.

I'm talking CG clone troopers with floating Jango heads, CG floating fruit, CG stunt doubles riding CG alien cows and so forth. This shit didn't need to be done in CG and if GL was insistent that there needed to be an Anakin riding a silly space cow scene, it could have been done in a practical way (with a combination of animatronics, close ups and costumed animals) as to not take the audience out of the movie.

What's clear from what we've seen on TFA is that there is an emphasis to shoot on location and build sets, props, costumes, and creatures when the designs allow for it. When something is designed that can't actually be accomplished practically they'll use CGI. It's a more disciplined approach and we will see how it pays off.

Whether it translates into a good movie or not is yet to be determined.


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 12:28 am
 
User avatar

Join: October 16th 2014 7:03 pm
Posts: 82
For the most part, I thought TPM and ROTS had an acceptable balance of practical and digital. In some cases, digital effects were actually better than what could have been done practically, like replacing awkward puppet Yoda with CGI Yoda in TPM.

The pendulum swung into crazy town on AOTC, and I think this is the movie that left so many people scarred for life on the idea of heavy CGI use in Star Wars movies. Good actors might be able to maneuver their way around poor writing and average direction, but asking them to do that while having to completely imagine the surroundings and characters they're supposed to be interacting with is just asking for trouble.

I like what we've seen so far out of TFA on the effects front. Granted, we haven't seen a lot, but there hasn't been anything really glaring sticking out like the copy & pasted clones, cartoon Geonosians and Padme stuck in a Super Mario Bros. level (the droid factory conveyor belt) in the AOTC trailers.


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 5:58 am
 
OBGYN
User avatar

Join: August 25th 2004 12:31 pm
Posts: 3431
royalguard96 wrote:
Sorry, I have to call out LFL/Disney etc. for pushing the "we won't rely on CGI so much" line of bullshit that was out there so aggressively when shooting began...


They have always said it would be a balance between "practical" and CGI effects.
Kathleen Kennedy said they were using "all the tools in the toolbox," then the anti-CGI Internet nuts decided to misread that as "NO CGI," when in fact CGI is one of those tools in the toolbox.

As for the name "Snoke," so what? It's a funky name for an alien character in a Star Wars movie.
Like we've never had that before...


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 9:08 am
 
User avatar

Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Posts: 573
Location: Michigan
Good discussion here, and very good points made by many of you.

In watching the PT these days, I agree that AOTC's effects seem the most forced and dated. I also feel like AOTC, in general, felt more rushed as a production than the other two PT films. Could AOTC have at least been a better-looking film with a 2003 release date?

The dialogue and acting are what they are - beauty is in the eye of the beholder - but the visual effects in AOTC, 13 years later, feel to me like they were done to a "good enough" level, not indicative of the standards Lucas had for the other 5 films.

As much of a tease as motion dot trackers on actors' faces are, I'm just anxious to see what final form they take.


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 3:47 pm
 

Join: July 24th 2004 6:46 am
Posts: 878
Location: Norway
Yeah, TPM still looks good and ROTS took a lot of things learned over the last two movies and made great improvements, but AOTC looks more dated than either of them.


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 4:48 pm
 

Join: January 31st 2005 11:58 pm
Posts: 570
Location: Australia
Snoke is still a lot better that Droopy McCool or Sleazebaggano.


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 7:34 pm
 
User avatar

Join: May 2nd 2005 7:26 am
Posts: 1999
Location: Down the rabbit hole
or jar jar


Post Posted: May 29th 2015 8:11 pm
 

Join: December 30th 2004 7:13 am
Posts: 221
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Swokes_Swokes

My first impression of the name Snoke was that it read like the name of a bureaucrat.

Might there be a call back to the purple clad Emperor advisers from ROTJ ?


Post Posted: May 30th 2015 12:14 pm
 

Join: August 31st 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 20
Location: la habra, ca
https://youtu.be/sw2pzpQJRVE wonder if its pronounced like "snuke"


Post Posted: May 30th 2015 4:21 pm
 

Join: January 31st 2005 11:58 pm
Posts: 570
Location: Australia
Zaius wrote:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Swokes_Swokes

My first impression of the name Snoke was that it read like the name of a bureaucrat.



I was thinking more along the lines of "Boss Nass" - the leader of some indigenous species.


Post Posted: May 30th 2015 6:28 pm
 
Bush Pilot
User avatar

Join: March 23rd 2005 3:46 pm
Posts: 1453
I thought of a ruler akin to the one from Battlestar Galactica. Another possibility being a grotesque sultan like Jabba.

millenniumfalcon.com


Post Posted: May 31st 2015 9:30 pm
 

Join: October 21st 2014 3:40 pm
Posts: 10
Zaius wrote:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Swokes_Swokes

My first impression of the name Snoke was that it read like the name of a bureaucrat.

Might there be a call back to the purple clad Emperor advisers from ROTJ ?

On that note, while it is easy to assume that he and Kylo Ren are Sith, maybe they're not actually Dark Lords AKA Darths?

So far, nobody has mentioned a Darth title, not for one character...


Post Posted: June 5th 2015 8:13 pm
 

Join: December 30th 2004 7:13 am
Posts: 221
"It was quite an unusual situation," Serkis tells us in the new issue of Empire. "I worked specifically with Domhnall Gleeson and with Adam Driver. My first day was basically standing on a 25-foot podium doing Lord Snoke without the faintest idea what he looked like... or in fact who he was! I was very high up, totally on my own, away from everybody else, but acting with them."


http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news ... der-snoke/

filmwaffle.com /comment-the-meaning-of-supreme-leader-snokes-name-in-star-wars-the-force-awakens/


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 



Jump to:  
cron




millenniumfalcon.com©
phpBB©