Star Wars Episode VII Set Pics Show Off Creatures, Sets and Extras
126 replies, posted
[img_thumb]http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Star-Wars-Episode-VII-TMZ-Leak-18-1280x720.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE]It looks like the world of Tatooine is really taking shape for [I]Star Wars Episode VII[/I].
TMZ has managed to obtain over 40 images from the Abu Dhabi set for [I]Star Wars Episode VII[/I]. While they don’t give away any sense of plot, nor do we see any of [URL="http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/04/29/star-wars-episode-vii-cast-officially-unveiled-by-disney/"]the main cast[/URL], it is still thrilling to see what’s happening in a galaxy far, far away. Some notable things do pop up in the images though:
We have no clue what the pig-nosed beast is, but the fact it’s on set instead of being CGI is awesome.
The giant engine looks a bit too big to be a Pod Racer engine. Lets hope we’re correct.
The sign written in Aurebesh – the written language of Star Wars – says “Warning.” (I had to look up the translation… I swear)
It appears that this set is some sort of market/animal pen.
You can see at least one moisture vaporator in the pictures lending credence to this being Tatooine.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/06/02/star-wars-episode-vii-set-pics/[/url]
holy practical effects obi-wan
These pics are awesome!
Someone on the set is getting fired.
P.S. I've worked in the film industry before, generally people working on a big movie like this would have to sign an NDA meaning they can't talk about or show the set to anybody. For these pictures to be released it means somebody on the set violated their NDA (or the security sucks) and therefore somebody is getting fired.
They keep showing us that they're going to Tatooine, but I want to see sets from other locations
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44978585]They keep showing us that they're going to Tatooine, but I want to see sets from other locations[/QUOTE]
Remember what happened last time they went to Tatooine? They wasted half the movie on bullshit nobody cares about.
Fucking TMZ and their fucking watermark
It's practically bigger than the actual picture
Thank god for real, practical effects. It's such a relief to see it back in a Star Wars movie.
It may be ignorant to say, but the new movies are almost guaranteed to be better because of it. Even if the story is as bad as the prequels, at least it'll look good!
I heard somewhere that they are actually using the same type of film that the original trilogy was filmed on.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;44978737]I heard somewhere that they are actually using the same type of film that the original trilogy was filmed on.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, JJ Abrams always films on film rather than digitally, so this'll be good!
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44978585]They keep showing us that they're going to Tatooine, but I want to see sets from other locations[/QUOTE]
They shouldn't show too much, I want to be surprised.
I don't want this movie to get too much coverage before it's out.
[QUOTE=Whiplash~;44978794]They shouldn't show too much, I want to be surprised.
I don't want this movie to get too much coverage before it's out.[/QUOTE]
I, and I'm sure others, like spoilers in books and movies.
That, and I'm very skeptical of a new Star Wars movie being any good, so I want to "keep tabs on it" so to speak.
I really dont see why Star Wars, a Sci-Fi film / series set in the far-future with fantastical technology, has to showcase Tatooine, a world that basically resembles the backwards Middle-East of today.
Why cant we see more of Imperial Core Worlds or Industrial places? Taris? Kashyyyk? Coruscant?
Sure, the movie(s) arent obviously entirely set on Tatooine, but any segments of film-time set on such a world are always so droll and dull.
Its great to see some physical assets though, for sure, and not just CGI.
[QUOTE=Venrez;44978806]I really dont see why Star Wars, a Sci-Fi film / [B]series set in the far-future[/B] with fantastical technology, has to showcase Tatooine, a world that basically resembles the backwards Middle-East of today.
Why cant we see more of Imperial Core Worlds or Industrial places? Taris? Kashyyyk? Coruscant?
Sure, the movie(s) arent obviously entirely set on Tatooine, but any segments of film-time set on such a world are always so droll and dull.
Its great to see some physical assets though, for sure, and not just CGI.[/QUOTE]
[I]A long time ago...[/I]
[QUOTE=Venrez;44978806]I really dont see why Star Wars, a Sci-Fi film / series set in the far-future with fantastical technology, has to showcase Tatooine, a world that basically resembles the backwards Middle-East of today.[/QUOTE]
It's a more interesting charm. In the prequel trilogy everything was shiny and chrome and CGIy, whereas in the original trilogy the practical effects made everything look more worn in, which in a bustling sci fi universe it totally would like.
[QUOTE=Venrez;44978806]I really dont see why Star Wars, a Sci-Fi film / series set in the far-future with fantastical technology, has to showcase Tatooine, a world that basically resembles the backwards Middle-East of today.
Why cant we see more of Imperial Core Worlds or Industrial places? Taris? Kashyyyk? Coruscant?
Sure, the movie(s) arent obviously entirely set on Tatooine, but any segments of film-time set on such a world are always so droll and dull.
Its great to see some physical assets though, for sure, and not just CGI.[/QUOTE]
Stop whining.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44978565]Someone on the set is getting fired.
P.S. I've worked in the film industry before, generally people working on a big movie like this would have to sign an NDA meaning they can't talk about or show the set to anybody. For these pictures to be released it means somebody on the set violated their NDA (or the security sucks) and therefore somebody is getting fired.[/QUOTE]
They already showed part of the set and a creature in a video from JJ himself. Doubt they're that bothered unless it shows plot-centric details.
[QUOTE=spekter;44978856]They already showed part of the set and a creature in a video from JJ himself. Doubt they're that bothered unless it shows plot-centric details.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't really matter though, generally they don't want any more information about the movie being release than they intended. Having some guy release pictures to a gossip website without any consent sets a precedent. Not to mention it's a violation of your NDA, doesn't matter if it's no harm done. I've seen people get fired for less.
During training for the film union they basically spent half the time saying "don't take pictures or you're going to get fired," production is full of worried whiny cunts.
[QUOTE=Selek;44978771]Yeah, JJ Abrams always films on film rather than digitally, so this'll be good![/QUOTE]
The hard-on for shooting on film has gotten really silly now. Watching the documentary [I]Side by Side[/I], which gives equal time to both advocates of film AND digital, it's obvious that digital movie cameras are on par with 35mm film, if not superior in some aspects (like exposure allowances), and that the film advocates stick to it for largely superficial reasons.
A lot of beautifully shot movies (like [I]Drive[/I]) were made with an Alexa or a Red Epic, and you wouldn't even know the difference from film. Shooting with film just means an annoying extra step of scanning the film to 4K/8K resolution since the rest of the workflow is handled digitally anyway (SFX and editing). I guess people cheer when some bigwig director boldly goes I'M SHOOTING THIS SUCKER ON *FILM* because he's showing some respect to methods of old, but making it a possible indicator of a mark of potential quality is wrong to do.
EDIT: not to mention, digital is much less prone to environment and temperature issues like film is. Also films like [I]Russian Ark[/I] wouldn't be possible without digital, due to film cartridges having a 10 minute time limit.
That is one huge pig-thing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44978825][I]A long time ago...[/I][/QUOTE]
What, you think we have Blasters, Combat-Walkers, Warp-Travel and Hyperspace, Lightsabers and Aliens living amongst us today?
I know it starts off with 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' but come on. Dont be stupid for the sake of 5 seconds of trolling giggles.
[QUOTE=HammerBrute;44978846]It's a more interesting charm. In the prequel trilogy everything was shiny and chrome and CGIy, whereas in the original trilogy the practical effects made everything look more worn in, which in a bustling sci fi universe it totally would like.[/QUOTE]
I never said it had to be 'chrome' and fancy and clean and prim and proper. I just dislike the incredibly bland desert-theme of Tatooine that wouldnt even look out of place here on Earth today.
There's no reason why we cant see a 'modern' city of their time-era that also happens to have grungy, run-down, rain-slick, oil-stained and rusted metalwork, crumbling masonry and neglected infrastructure.
But when its set in the ass-end of nowhere amidst endless sand-dunes and dusty rocks, why does anybody care about anything that happens in that backwater?
[QUOTE=Venrez;44978914]What, you think we have Blasters, Combat-Walkers, Warp-Travel and Hyperspace, Lightsabers and Aliens living amongst us today?
I know it starts off with 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' but come on. Dont be stupid for the sake of 5 seconds of trolling giggles.
[/QUOTE]
"The possibility that there are aliens more advanced than us elsewhere in the universe is nonsensical"
[QUOTE=Venrez;44978914]What, you think we have Blasters, Combat-Walkers, Warp-Travel and Hyperspace, Lightsabers and Aliens living amongst us today?
I know it starts off with 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' but come on. Dont be stupid for the sake of 5 seconds of trolling giggles.[/QUOTE]
"There's no way different civilizations can develop at different speeds, let alone different galaxies!"
I hope those physical effects don't look shit in motion
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
I don't see why the article is applauding it being on-set instead of CGI, that to me just means there's a bigger chance of it looking like crap in motion.
Good god, what I wouldn't give to be an extra in this film. I don't care if I'm on screen in the background for all of three seconds with my back turned to the camera while wearing some kind of hooded cloak and inaudibly chewing the fat with a local merchant. I just want to be in the new Star Wars movie.
I'm gonna need a stuffed, fluffy version of whatever that rhino pig creature is.
Star Wars isn't set in the future or past. It's straight up fantasy.
Fantasy doesn't always have to be set in the middle ages, you know?
If you are not sure if something is science fiction or fantasy just ask yourself: "Is there magic in it or is it based on our current understanding of the universe?" Former: fantasy, latter: science fiction. Neither: probably "science fiction" if there's space ships.
(not saying one is better than the other, Game of Thrones and Star Wars are just as good as Firefly or Gattaca)
[QUOTE=paul simon;44979320]I hope those physical effects don't look shit in motion
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
I don't see why the article is applauding it being on-set instead of CGI, that to me just means there's a bigger chance of it looking like crap in motion.[/QUOTE]
Yep, that's why the practical effects in the original trilogy aged so poorly and now look like crap... OH WAIT THEY STILL LOOK BETTER THEN THE CGI IN THE PREQUELS EVER DID.
[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;44980576]Yep, that's why the practical effects in the original trilogy aged so poorly and now look like crap... OH WAIT THEY STILL LOOK BETTER THEN THE CGI IN THE PREQUELS EVER DID.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion, most of the CGI added to Episodes IV-VI looks dated as hell while the original effects still hold up. One of the worst looking effects that comes to mind is CGI Jabba.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5kpJqVL.jpg[/img]
I didn't like that Jabba scene in the re-releases, hes way too small.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.