Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just want the shots that were in the trailer but cut from the movie...

 insaniak wrote:
I just want the shots that were in the trailer but cut from the movie...

That's the funny thing about the movie. The missing trailer bits left people feeling like they missed out on something but we really didn't. Like the great shots of Jyn and Krennic were purely promotional and the TIE fighter was added to completely unrelated footage. All of that stuff was never scripted and were ideas literally created for the trailer. The only trailer footage we missed was sprint across the beach from when the ending was a far more drawn out ordeal involving two buildings. Nothing was cut because it was too much for Disney from what I've read.

That's actually not what I've read at all - quite the opposite. I've read later articles which tried to put that as the story though.

 Elbows wrote:
The original version of Rogue One would be awesome - but no Disney owned franchise will get that kind of thing.

Would you be referring to a previous eu-era effort to tell the story of how the death star plans were stolen? From that perspective, I was always fond of A.C.Crispin's Han Solo Trilogy, which also provided a very loose blueprint for Solo as well.

 LunarSol wrote:

That's the funny thing about the movie. The missing trailer bits left people feeling like they missed out on something but we really didn't.

Yes, we did. We missed out on the scenes that the trailer was teasing.

The fact that some of those shote were never intended to be in the movie (and that story has indeed changed over time, so there's no saying if that's actually the case or just a later justification) makes it worse, not better. The while purpose of a trailer is to show people what to expect from the movie. Showing stuff in the trailer that isn't in the movie is a massive, massive failure. Particularly when it's stuff that looks really cool, like the TIE shot.

 insaniak wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

That's the funny thing about the movie. The missing trailer bits left people feeling like they missed out on something but we really didn't.

Yes, we did. We missed out on the scenes that the trailer was teasing.

The fact that some of those shote were never intended to be in the movie (and that story has indeed changed over time, so there's no saying if that's actually the case or just a later justification) makes it worse, not better. The while purpose of a trailer is to show people what to expect from the movie. Showing stuff in the trailer that isn't in the movie is a massive, massive failure. Particularly when it's stuff that looks really cool, like the TIE shot.

in at least one of the scenes from the trailer it was done specificly for the trailer. the actress was back dropped against something and the director was like "hold on let's get some film of this it looks awesome"

I’m not fussed by trailers with altered scenes.

First example I can think of was those for Avengers. It’s the scene onboard the Helicarrier where Tony & Steve are willy waving (genius, playboy philanthropist, everything special about you came from a bottle, Thor laughs jovially). The scene exists in the film, but with a completely different mood.

It showed off a bit of the film without spoiling anything.

We also see misdirection in marketing. Remember TFA, where it turns out they took great pains to suggest Finn was the force user? Or red eyed C-3PO with Chewie’s bandolier and bow caster, suggesting Action Mince?

The TIE fighter non-scene? I get why it irks people, but that scene is still pretty tense overall, and I’m not entirely persuaded throwing the TIE in as well wouldn’t have jumped the shark.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Action Mince

I picture a butcher's shop trying out some unusual marketing.

More suggestions:

Ingmar Bergman's oeuvre - in colour.

Updated CGI effects in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

Lens flares removed from JJ Abrams films and replaced with a plot.

That’s like asking for Baysplosions to be removed. It’d be opening titles then credits.

BrianDavion wrote:
Jaws. the film is top notch, the acting amazing, the shark however.... looks horriable. go back and replace the shark with a CGI one.

Ugh. CGI sharks have for the most part, looked terrible in movies. The Meg shark was disappointing, and Deep Blue Sea CGI sharks were absolutely awful. Now THAT could use some better made CGI sharks.

It would be interesting to see new takes on some of the early computer animation movies, like Antz - but I suspect as you would then have to redo whole movie, it would be so expensive as to be completely impractical.

Best candidates would be those '90s movies and shows which sparingly used primitive CGI which has not aged so well - new ship and explosion textures for B5 or TNG/DS9, better vampire dustings for Buffy (oh and Buffy really needs a PROPER high definition transfer), better computer dinosaurs for early Jurassic Parks and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

Lens flares removed from JJ Abrams films and replaced with a plot.

What is this 'plo..t' effect you are talking about? Can we outsource it to some Indian studio?

 Just Tony wrote:
ST:TOS made great use of ch spit polish, and I'd love to see it used on TNG. Mainly to make the D less hideous.

Can anyone translate this into English? I can't follow what the intent is.

There was a rework of the original Star Trek some years back, replacing a lot of the old practical effects with CGI. It was horrible, but some people apparently liked it, and he wants to see the same thing done to the Next Generation.

 insaniak wrote:
There was a rework of the original Star Trek some years back, replacing a lot of the old practical effects with CGI. It was horrible, but some people apparently liked it, and he wants to see the same thing done to the Next Generation.

Oh god, do people actually exist that prefer those scenes as they were shot originally? Those exterior shots of the Enterprise were dated. They look absolutely terrible. Even for the sake of authenticity, I can't imagine any but the most absolute diehard fans of the franchise would prefer seeing those scenes as they were originally created.

it's not a movie, but there was a two season animated star trek series that had some good and bad episodes, I bought the dvd set and a few eps were ok.

The animation was pretty poor, very flat and people tended to move in cycles, but if they keep the soundtrack and did a whole new animation it could re released as a new special edition.

Of course the original effects look dated. They're from a TV series shot 50 years ago on a shoestring budget.

By today's standards, they're pretty poor. But they're an outstanding example of special effects from that era, and of what can be accomplished with a little ingenuity and reusing materials as much as possible. I have no more interest in replacing them with CGI than I do in replacing the original stop-motion King Kong with a CGI version... there's a whole new movie that does that. In the same vein, I would rather they had left the original series alone and focused that effort on something new instead.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
There was a rework of the original Star Trek some years back, replacing a lot of the old practical effects with CGI. It was horrible, but some people apparently liked it, and he wants to see the same thing done to the Next Generation.

Oh god, do people actually exist that prefer those scenes as they were shot originally? Those exterior shots of the Enterprise were dated. They look absolutely terrible. Even for the sake of authenticity, I can't imagine any but the most absolute diehard fans of the franchise would prefer seeing those scenes as they were originally created.

I liked the new cgi footage as it allowed the show to do what Roddenberry wanted to do but couldn't afford. In some eps an alien ship was just a flashing light on the screen, because they could not afford the effects. In the redo, we see some of the ships we never saw before. Also we see some brief scenes we never could see before, like the enterprise dropping satellites around that planet in "Operation annihilate".

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
There was a rework of the original Star Trek some years back, replacing a lot of the old practical effects with CGI. It was horrible, but some people apparently liked it, and he wants to see the same thing done to the Next Generation.

Oh god, do people actually exist that prefer those scenes as they were shot originally? Those exterior shots of the Enterprise were dated. They look absolutely terrible. Even for the sake of authenticity, I can't imagine any but the most absolute diehard fans of the franchise would prefer seeing those scenes as they were originally created.

I VASTLY prefer the remastered CGI TOS over the original models, to the point that I ditched my TOS DVD box sets and re-bought all 3 seasons when the remastered ones came out. It's not the best CGI, but it's consistent and also decidedly better than the poorly shot models, indistinct blobs they used for planets, and flashing red beams superimposed for "phasers"

There's also some shots in the 1997 Star Wars remake that were actually pretty great, like the X-Wings flying to assault the Death Star, or the vastly improved rotoscoping of the lightsabers. There's lots of subtle changes that really did improve the look. The problem with the Special Editions is all the extra scenes and crap that Lucas added. If he had simply used CGI to spruce up and tighten some of the effects it would have been great, but instead he used it to add awful CGI Jaba, CGI jawas riding CGI dinosaurs, and CGI Han into not shooting first. It changed the movies in some overly glaring ways instead of enhanced them, and often with CGI that just wasn't quite there yet.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Of course the original effects look dated. They're from a TV series shot 50 years ago on a shoestring budget.

By today's standards, they're pretty poor. But they're an outstanding example of special effects from that era, and of what can be accomplished with a little ingenuity and reusing materials as much as possible. I have no more interest in replacing them with CGI than I do in replacing the original stop-motion King Kong with a CGI version... there's a whole new movie that does that. In the same vein, I would rather they had left the original series alone and focused that effort on something new instead.

That's actually what I'd love to see more than movies and TV show remake/remasters. Some of those old cartoons were great cartoons, but the animation limitations either due to animation limitations or (more often) budget limitations really limit their watchability. I'd love to see Robotech reanimated in current animation quality, using the original RT dialogue (well, maybe re-dub Minmei and her "singing"). The original Gundam series animated in the Gundam: Origins quality would be amazing. I'd even love to see the old Battletech cartoon done with proper animation instead of that awful budget CGI they used back in 1994

The problem is that it's still the animation that's expensive, not the voice acting, so it makes much more sense to make another show than to re-draw an old one to match old voice work. Still would be nice.

 Kalamadea wrote:
There's also some shots in the 1997 Star Wars remake that were actually pretty great, like the X-Wings flying to assault the Death Star, or the vastly improved rotoscoping of the lightsabers.

That x-wing shot really bugs me. While adding shots that better show the size of the engagement, and having pilots moving inside the fighters is theoretically a good change, the fact that the CGI parts look noticeably different to the original shots using models is jarring. They needed to either reshoot all of the exterior ship shots with CGI, or use practical effects for the additions, just using CGI for the pilots' movement, if necessary.

The new X-Wing scene bothers me, too, because it takes me out of the movie. Star Wars was in many ways a product of its limitations, and so was Star Trek.

I love the new CGI Star Trek because it is a labor of love that tries to be everything the SW Special Editions failed to be, and mostly succeeds. However, I prefer Star Trek as it originally existed, with effects as dated as the acting and writing. Besides, those blinking light spaceships have a much better sense of scale and distance compared to TNG’s approach. Not every ship should be visible to the naked eye (or magic space telescope).

Backfire wrote:Ugh. CGI sharks have for the most part, looked terrible in movies. The Meg shark was disappointing, and Deep Blue Sea CGI sharks were absolutely awful. Now THAT could use some better made CGI sharks.

Problem with movie sharks is that you can't make them bend down to the ground and roar in the protagonist's face for five seconds before actually doing something. (Difficult to do that bonus spittle/fog-on-the-camera effect underwater, too)

What is this 'plo..t' effect you are talking about? Can we outsource it to some Indian studio?

Might have to cus Hollywood's running out.

insaniak wrote:There was a rework of the original Star Trek some years back, replacing a lot of the old practical effects with CGI. It was horrible, but some people apparently liked it, and he wants to see the same thing done to the Next Generation.

Old TOS, the effects looked like fuzzy wooden models.

New TOS, the effects look like tack-sharp shiny plastic models inna computer.

I can get it for some things like better-realized one-off ships, but otherwise it feels like... I dunno, doing photoshop effects on a Turner. Kinda spoils a cultural artifact, if that's not too skewed a comparison.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
...DS9 in particular...Modern FX would do the Dominion War a good deal of justice. I think that show has aged better than Babylon 5, but still looks pretty dated.

Seconded. The reuse of stock footage and the static sit-in-a-line-firing-beam-weapons mass battles were definitely a letdown in an otherwise fantastic show.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
ST:TOS made great use of ch spit polish, and I'd love to see it used on TNG. Mainly to make the D less hideous.

Can anyone translate this into English? I can't follow what the intent is.

The Galaxy class Enterprise looks like four bluish turds held together by one of those pretentious art deco statue things sold at Kirkland's. It's an abomination and I'd love to see it replaced with a ship that doesn't suck.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
ST:TOS made great use of ch spit polish, and I'd love to see it used on TNG. Mainly to make the D less hideous.

Can anyone translate this into English? I can't follow what the intent is.

The Galaxy class Enterprise looks like four bluish turds held together by one of those pretentious art deco statue things sold at Kirkland's. It's an abomination and I'd love to see it replaced with a ship that doesn't suck.

I wouldn't go quite THAT far, but it certainly lacks any sort of Star Trek style in it's design. It looks like a bare minimum effort to do something 'modern' but in the Star Trek aesthetic, failing to realize the two are quite different in their core and can't just be slapped together.

The Galaxy Class Enterprise perfectly captured the essence of next gen Star Trek: it is the first thing that comes to mind when one imagines a diplomacy science boat where the ship’s therapist sits beside the captain.

insaniak wrote:I just want the shots that were in the trailer but cut from the movie...

That reminds me of a scene that didn't make it into the theatrical release of Iron Man 2: Tony tries to solicit a kiss from Pepper, who instead kisses his helmet and tosses it out the back of the airplane saying "Go get em', boss." , to which Tony replies while diving backwards out the plane "You complete me!!!". I'd love that scene back in.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:The Galaxy Class Enterprise perfectly captured the essence of next gen Star Trek: it is the first thing that comes to mind when one imagines a diplomacy science boat where the ship’s therapist sits beside the captain.

Ostentatious, counterintuitive, and impractical? Yeah, sounds about like an even match. Thank Primus the Sovereign Class came in later, I honestly watch the D's destruction in Generations on infinite repeat when I want to relax.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Galaxy Class Enterprise perfectly captured the essence of next gen Star Trek: it is the first thing that comes to mind when one imagines a diplomacy science boat where the ship’s therapist sits beside the captain.

Hey, she can't violate the rights and privacy of strangers and allies from her office!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Galaxy Class Enterprise perfectly captured the essence of next gen Star Trek: it is the first thing that comes to mind when one imagines a diplomacy science boat where the ship’s therapist sits beside the captain.

Yeah, ugly and ridiculous.