Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Star Wars Trailer #2

Yeah, I'm excited. Never LOVED star wars, but i do like the 6 movies. People hated the last 3. I disagree. They weren't at the level of the first trilogy, but i liked them.
 
I can't wait. 4, 5 and 6 were awesome. I could watch 1 through 3 but not the same. But with Ford in 7 I can't wait. I hope Ford, and Hamill have some good screen time.
 
Back in the 70's it was always said there would be 9 of them in total so we're almost there..
 
I can't wait. 4, 5 and 6 were awesome. I could watch 1 through 3 but not the same. But with Ford in 7 I can't wait. I hope Ford, and Hamill have some good screen time.


My worry is that they are in the new movie for hype purposes only, and that their roles will be small and or insignificant for the large part.
 
My worry is that they are in the new movie for hype purposes only, and that their roles will be small and or insignificant for the large part.

Probably a good chance of that..as always I'll wait on watching it and see what others say.
 
I thought these movies were pretty awesome...



...when I was 12.
 
Well I am sure i will see it.. Is this number 7 in the series or should I be aware of other sequencing?
 
Probably a good chance of that..as always I'll wait on watching it and see what others say.

Screen time (not a true spoiler, just in terms of amount of screen time)

Han Solo has considerable screen time, the most of any of the returning stars from IV-VI.

Luke has the least screen time, but it appears he will have more in VIII based on how things played out in VII.

Good enough to see in the theater, but I do not watch the 3D versions so I cannot speak on how good the 3D effects were. I've never found any movie's 3D effects to be good enough to warrant wearing those damn glasses for 2 hours (not to mention extra cost), just give me a big screen and I'm happy.
 
Good enough to see in the theater, but I do not watch the 3D versions so I cannot speak on how good the 3D effects were. I've never found any movie's 3D effects to be good enough to warrant wearing those damn glasses for 2 hours (not to mention extra cost), just give me a big screen and I'm happy.

3D sucks. Why isn't there a 2D IMAX option?
 
3D sucks. Why isn't there a 2D IMAX option?

Right? I guess they figure 3D IMAX sells well and due to the limited number of IMAX screens, better to put 3D on all IMAX. Viewers vote with pockets, unfortunately there is a large 3D audience. Why? There I have no clue, especially when factoring in the very minimal "superiority" of 3D over 2D. I am yet to watch a 3D anything where I felt the director actually grasped how to film in 3D because they are all brought up in a 2D methodology of training.
 
Right? I guess they figure 3D IMAX sells well and due to the limited number of IMAX screens, better to put 3D on all IMAX. Viewers vote with pockets, unfortunately there is a large 3D audience. Why? There I have no clue, especially when factoring in the very minimal "superiority" of 3D over 2D. I am yet to watch a 3D anything where I felt the director actually grasped how to film in 3D because they are all brought up in a 2D methodology of training.

I think it's a fundamental aspect of film-making. With 2D the director picks the depth of field where the viewer's attention should be. He's already directing what we're looking at. Giving the viewer freedom to select the distance they want to focus on doesn't make sense in the context of an experience where the director is constantly deciding where a viewer should be paying attention.

3D is more appropriate for video games where the story unfolds in a way that doesn't require set pacing, or for all the elements to be included or presented in a specific order.
 
I think it's a fundamental aspect of film-making. With 2D the director picks the depth of field where the viewer's attention should be. He's already directing what we're looking at. Giving the viewer freedom to select the distance they want to focus on doesn't make sense in the context of an experience where the director is constantly deciding where a viewer should be paying attention.

3D is more appropriate for video games where the story unfolds in a way that doesn't require set pacing, or for all the elements to be included or presented in a specific order.

Completely agree, especially with why it works for video games where they have the entire screen in focus so where a player looks at any given second is in focus. Movies and games are very different in focus, you are spot on.
 
Back
Top