was Yoda CG or puppet?
It was the ESB style yoda
shareIt was a puppet, but something was off about it.
And the "spirit glow" effect was shit for the birds in this.
They said they took casts of the original Yoda puppet and made this one... So it's a copy of a copy.
No wonder his face looked all scrunched up. They should have simply replicated it from scratch. Also, whatever material they used for the puppet was a bad choice because his face could barely express anything at all.
He looked like a bad puppet. The Yoda from nearly 40 years ago looked SO much better.
Also, they didn't even make the ghost translucent. Completely solid with blue glow, can't even see the fire through his body.
That was lazy.
Is there one single frame of this film you don't feel compelled to tear apart?
shareIt shouldn't be hard to make Yoda look right and to do the Jedi ghost effect properly. Yoda's already been seen as a ghost once before and now he's solid instead of translucent.
And to answer your question, I've actually spoken out many times here about the parts of the movie I loved. Not sure why you're pretending I've only said negative things.
My apologies...I've only seemed to run across your negative ones.
shareIt's understandable, no worries. I've been trying to move more positive overall as well lately, both because there is already enough negativity AND because the parts I liked are becoming stronger in my memory.
And as I said to someone else, even the parts I didn't care for are still decent scenes to watch for the most part. The movie's weaknesses aren't all that bad, and its strengths are quite strong.
I put it above Return of the Jedi. What say you?
Still too soon and I've only seen it twice. I like it better than the prequels and The Force Awakens for sure. It's not on a par with ANH or ESB, but it is very good. It's definitely close to ROTJ.
Thanks for asking!
Well I'm glad you like questions because I have another one!
Do any of the "big 4" scenes and story elements that get complained about most (from my estimation) bother you? I personally thought the Leia scene was really well done and quite pretty, I thought the visual design for the Holdo kamikaze scene was beautiful and it was an inspired choice for a tactic, I like Luke's fate and I think it was smart to do Snoke like that (even though I really fell in love with the guy in this movie).
I may give Rian Johnson flack for certain choices and for some amateur slip-ups (although I'm sure he was rushed by the schedule), but one thing he did manage to do was to make a VERY memorable Star Wars movie.
I actually agree with all you said there. In regard to Luke...I did find him kind of unlikable in this for most of the movie. But I don't necessarily think it was detrimental to the movie. I found it even more thoroughly entertain the second viewing. I loved Snoke too and people need to see that face on the big screen...a masterful performance by Andy Serkis.
shareI bet a lot of people thought the initial "silly Yoda" in Empire Strikes Back was an odd choice at first, and the fact that he basically pretended he wasn't Yoda too until Luke figured it out.
shareYeah a great tactic. Also, a huge plot hole for all previous movies and all to come. Why fear the empire we could just Kamikaze their fleet into oblivion. Why fear the death star could punch some holes right threw that bad boy. Fear of death? Nah just have a droid at the controls.
sharePlot holes are all over Star Wars, but your point isn't a good one. A little A-Wing brought down a Super Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi when it crashed into the bridge. Why weren't they doing that on purpose for years beforehand?
Secondly, you're acting like the Rebels and Resistance had unlimited resources and could spare a whole bunch of capital ships to use as missiles. That just isn't true.
I mean, you realize militaries here on Earth could have just rammed minimally manned battleships into other battleships and won sea battles, right? We've had kamikaze tactics used here on Earth in war and it was effective, so why isn't it used all the time? The answer is because it's too expensive and wasteful, basically. The HOPE is that people can win battles with all their ships intact.
Terrorists didn't go through the trouble of buying or building passenger jets to fly into buildings in 2001. That's extremely expensive. Instead, they stole jets that were already flying over the country, jets which themselves would normally be targets, so the wasted resource isn't their resource.
1. The only reason the A wing took out the SSD is because they just lost their Bridge deflector shield. All Fighters and cruisers had been concentrating their assault on it during that point in the battle. We even see an X-wing take out one of ships shield generators. If they had been just straight ramming ships they would have exploded on the deflector shield without doing any damage.
2. Kamikaze tactics are what you would rely on if you were under staffed and equipped. Why not use 1 ship to take down a hole fleet as we saw in the TLJ versus fighting them head to head and losing 10-20 ships to achieve the same outcome.
3. This is star wars a long time ago in a Galaxy far far away. lets keep the logic in that universe and relate it to our own. But anyway your wrong we don't use Kamikaze tactics because people don't sign up for the military to be used as human sacrifices. Kamikaze is a desperation tactic not a choice.
and he used the force ... from beyond the grave?
share