Does anyone think they'll ever do a follow up to Return of the Jedi?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Lucas has no intention of doing it, and I don't think he'd allow any one else to touch the series.
Besides, why would anyone want to? Star Wars is the story of the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. He be dead.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Right. Sure it is.
By the time Lucas has finished with the prequels, ILM's secret project will be ready to go, and Lucas will be able to take over the world!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And the secret project will be:
Ultra Special editions of the original trilogy.
Then Special editions of episodes 1-3.
Then special DVD releases of the Ultra Special Editions of 4-6.
Then Ultra Special Editions of episodes 1-3.
Then DVD versions of the Ultra Special Editions of episodes 1-3.
Then a big DVD box set, that contains the Ultra Special Editions of episodes 1-6, but with ONE extra scene inserted somewhere.
Then we repeat, adding "Super" inbetween Ultra and Special.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yep. That's just about the size of it, Psy. Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
You're forgetting the "Duper", which comes after the "Super."
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Besides, how the fuck would they 'follow it up' anyway? Mark Hamil is fat as the Pillsbury doughboy, Carrie Fisher has mental problems, Harrison Ford has aged about as gracefully as Sean Connery, and Alec Guiness is dead.
Yeah, I think we can squeeze another trilogy outta that...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Harrison Ford has aged about as gracefully as Sean Connery
I'm curious as to the sort of aethetic point of view that could consider this a bad thing.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, I take it back. I really do like Sean Connery and Harrison Ford. My point is that Ford is lookin' pretty grey and haggard these days. Sorry for the inaccurate comparrison. Guess I shouldn't screw with James Bond... Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Sean Connery has aged pretty gracefully. Things went a bit awry in middle age, but we're past that now. Ford, on the other hand, did pretty well throughout middle age, yet now, at the age of nearly 60, is starting to look pretty haggard. He seems to think having a spiky haircut will help him look younger. He's wrong.
I mean, Ford is the same age as my Dad yet everyone thinks my Dad is looking a lot better. . .
Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Ford is approaching the age when it hurts to pee.
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
You could do it with their (Luke,Han,Leia and Lando's) kids. Alec was already dead in the film so that won't be a problem. Or you could just get new people.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Carrie Fisher has mental problems"
Although appearing on the Graham Norton show might count against her on this, how exactly has she got mental problems? (Now.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wasn't there a story some time ago about her being hauled off to the looney bin or some-such? If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but you don't really have to rip apart my statement like this. I think it's pretty obvious to all of us that there's no f-ing way the classic Star Wars actors are going to do a follow-up, and that's really all I was trying to say. Sorry for being slanderous.
-MMoM
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I don't think Carrie Fisher went gaga, but I remember that Margot Kidder did for a while. o_0
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
maybe they could do a sequel not with the original characters and actors. but with others. like from the rogue squadron books. or maybe make the next sequel with CG like Final Fantasy. that'd be cool
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
How come everyone is always talking about doing shit in CGI nowadays? You want to do it with TOS (Trek) and now you want to do it with Star Wars? Pull-eeese! I'm sorry to those who are fans of the game, but Final Fantasy the movie sucked majorly. I personally don't like computer-generated movies at all. It's good to use CGI for some effects, but not make everything in the entire film totally CGI. It doesn't look as realistic as some folks would have you believe. It looks fake. CGI images are essentially very very detailed MODELS. Just as if you made amovie with very very detailed claymation models. CGI is great to use for scenes of ships in space and explosions and dinosaurs (all of which are shown jointly with physical models/animatronic puppets, BTW) but not for PEOPLE. It's just ludicrous!
PS- I know it's one of George Lucas' own pet projects to create CGI that will replace live actors, and it may very well come to pass someday. But for right now, it's waaay too early and quite ridiculous to be talking about re-making Trek and SW in CGI.
-MMoM
[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Using CGI to make effects (explosions, vehicles, terrain) is cool. but they still need work on makeing people. specially small things like hair, eye color, wrinkles, and so on.they could always draw the next star wars movie. maybe anime style (God forbid)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
My question is WHY they would even WANT to make CGI people. I for one would not at all be interested in going to see a movie with CGI actors, unless it was intended to be an animated film or some such. I would never go to see a movie with CGI that was trying to pass for actual people.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Why CGI people?
1. once a character is perfected, you can reuse it over and over again, using the same program. And it won't demand $20 million per film and a cut of the gross.
2. CGI people can do things real people can't do as well. Especially good for superheroes, who have to stretch the bounds of physical credibility.
3. You could use the technology to 'resurrect' dead actors, or 'de-age' older actors. So that, say, Data would stay young, and you could put Jeremy Brett in as his holographic Sherlock Holmes mentor. Or something.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
quote:3. You could use the technology to 'resurrect' dead actors, or 'de-age' older actors. So that, say, Data would stay young, and you could put Jeremy Brett in as his holographic Sherlock Holmes mentor. Or something.
Well ... but when you start using CGI likenesses of real people, you'll probably have to wind up paying money to their estate ... ("Damn! We've got to pay the Spiner Estate $300 million to use Brent's likeness in Star Trek Thirty-Seven: Planet of the Bird People!")
Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :
CGI will never completely replace live actors. Just like movies never completely replaced theater and TV never completely replaced movies.
At a fundamental level, drama is about the human condition and sharing emotions/experiences/etc. between people. Nobody is going to watch a computer go through a human experience.
Maybe for no-think straight up action movies it might be I reality, but I seriously doubt even that.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Wasn't there a story some time ago about her being hauled off to the looney bin or some-such? If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but you don't really have to rip apart my statement like this."
She had drug problems. She got over them. She's quite funny now, but she's quite obviously out of her head at several points during Empire (and, if Dubya wants to convince children that drugs = bad, he can't do much worse than show them the final few minutes of the Star Wars Holiday Special. And, if they still takes drugs, he could show them the rest of it).
You thought me asking how she currently has mental problems was ripping into the answer Mim? Do must have the politest arguments ever.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
No, No, Psy. I was kidding. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I hate you and all your kind. Begone.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Bah! May the wrath of all the Monkeys of Mim be upon you, thou damned frigging stand-up comedian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Monkeyboy here gets the award forexcessive punctuation abuse.
Back to the thread- I see no reason why CGI characters cannot replace aging actors/actresses. The technology is certainly there. The software for Final Fantasy was started in 1998- one can come quite a long way in 3 years. AND- if one can create a photorealistic CGI character, how would you tell the difference? Many modellers make their characters to look like the actors who play their voices. If the models react and move just like actors, how could you tell the difference? Would it make a difference? Not likely.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Well, again, (b/c I think I've said this before) it wouldn't "solve" the problem of not-having to pay, say, Harrison Ford $20 million (or whatever he gets) for being in a film. Instead, you'd be paying Harrison Ford or the Ford Estate for the rights to use his likeness in "Indiana Jones XIII: The Quest For Arthur's Sword"
Not to mention, you'd lose great improv. Anyone remember the great scene in Raiders when Indy shoots the dude with the sword? If not for Harrison being a bit under the weather, we'd lose that great scene. Computers can replace humans, yeah, okay, but they'll never surpass them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh huh. Well, we know what side of the plasma beam you'll be on when the revolution comes.
[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Ooh, pithy.
Posted by Dr Phlox (Member # 680) on :
I agree with MeGotBeer. CGI character will never truly replace actors. And if they do that will be a sad day in hollywood.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I found some manga pics of a japanese star wars comic series. the ships look pretty cool. and chewie looks real scary. and obi wan looks like a super samurai avenger. doesn't look like Alec G. though.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
I remember when those came out. My friend was telling me about them, and he did a piss-poor job cause I thought he was saying that the Japanese were releasing an animated remake of "Star Wars" ...
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
LMAO. I love reading what people who know shit about CGI think about it, i really do.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Da_bang80: "doesn't look like Alec G. though."
Vader: Your failure is complete. I will destroy you now... Alec G: Is it because I is black?
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
quote:I love reading what people who know shit about CGI think about it, i really do.
Well. Please ... elaborate on that.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
So...you know more things than we do about CGI, huh Wes? This should be interesting... "Pop quiz, hot shot!" Seriously, I think people would go see Star Wars if they added one more TIE fighter in the battle scenes. Or one more stormtrooper. You see, it's very popular. If he released Phantom Menace into theaters again, then ANH, then ESB, then RotJ, think of the box-office business. Titanic, look out!
[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
ok. I was a bit angered, sorry, i know you people probably know more then the average Joe.
I’ve practically spent my life preparing for a life in the professional visual effects business... so its sort of my area. (and it saddens me to see people have no faith in CG)
Anyway, I don’t think all-CG movies should replace real movies, but there will be a point were cg can compare to photorealism. We are closer now (Final Fantasy was breathtaking) then we ever were. We already can composite perfectly, (i bet there are scenes in movies with CG elements that you didn’t even know were fake...) and i'm pretty damn sure most of the environments in FF were completely photorealistic. Its CG humans that we need to work on. Human figures are the hardest thing to get looking realistic. That’s what threw a lot of people off in FF, the characters at times didn’t seem all that realistic (I even noticed some clipping errors one of the many times I saw it).
CG movies will be a factor in our future, they wont replace real actors, but I'm betting we will see more and more of higher quality released. Personally, I think some of the best visual effects comes from Sony Imageworks.
Contact is an incredible example.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I liked "Contact," too. Good visuals, good story.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Yeah I think it's pretty much inevitable that there will be CG characters who look so much like people on screen that it will be very hard to tell. It's a ways off yet. As for a CG Ep7, I wouldn't rule it out. In like fifteen years, maybe the technology would be there, and maybe Lucas will have squandered his fortune on the construction of a 1/3 size recreation of an orbiting death star as a Star Wars themed amusment park. Maybe he'll need the cash and make three more pictures with some breathtaking new technology...
But I think PsyLiam is right he's gonna milk all the DVD money out of us he can first. (as it is, I've spent a little over $200 on the various releases of the Laser Discs)
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
George Lucas said, after being asked if he thinks CG will replace human characters, he said he'd never think of doing that.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Balaam, I know the feeling. Damn laserdiscs.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
And DVX! Who here bought DVX? Suckers! Actually, laser discs were the best things to have until DVDs came out in '97.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
From what I've read, at current rates we're 10 years away from computer graphics being photorealistic. And that means not pre-rendered photorealism. Granted, that may not apply to humans, but if everything else will look 100% life like when generated on the fly, surely pre-rendered human looking characters would be possible.
Which reminds me, I really need to replace my TNT 2...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
the 3dmark 2001 benchmark had a scene of a meadow that'd looked pretty photo-realistic.i don't think it'll take 10 years for computers to make photo-realistic images. at the rate that computer components are being developed, it could be half that.
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
photorealistic and at 60fps.... oh wait its called Max Payne... ok not really, but its DAMN close to photorealisim.
