Talk:Star Wars (film)

Paul Blake

Is Paul Blake (Greedo) credited in the cast list in the actual film? I just noticed his only mention in the article is in the filming section in a paragraph devoted to Jabba the Hutt. I imagine he deserves to be in the cast section, but if he is not credited at all in the film credits I'm not sure. Sidebar, the paragraph discussing Jabba fails to mention he was played by Declan Mulholland in the deleted scene that Lucas reinserted into the film with the 1997 special edition. It'd be nice to find a source for that (I'd imagine Rinzler's book states it). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Blake was one of two Greedos, the mask sucked so bad Greedo was a re-shot in CA, played by Maria de Aragon[1]. Would think they go in the Uncredited actors paragraph. Declan Mulholland's Jabba is covered at Changes in Star Wars re-releases. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

CGI

I notice my addition regarding computer animation was reverted (re-reading it, the sentence itself should probably have been rewritten). Since there already is a segment about the computer animation, the new information feels relevant, as it explains why the animation was made in the first place. Lucas could have used a miniature or traditional animation to make the short instruction video in the briefing room, but he wanted the audience to know they were looking at CGI, and for that purpose he decided to use wire-frame models, which is not a representation of what computers were capable of in the 70s (but it did take a lot of effort, about two minutes for each frame). Which explain his choice.

Quotes from the article:

"With Star Wars already in production, George Lucas issued a call for bids from companies and individuals to produce various bits of instrumentation animation — in particular the briefing room sequence. A number of computer artists and some cel animators responded. (The article later says: "The briefing room sequence is the only scene in Star Wars in which digital computer animation was used — other than for occasional background displays as part of the Deathstar set")

Some of the computer people had very sophisticated equipment capable of producing colored and shaded planes and forms. One computer artist even wanted to do most of the model sequences entirely on computers. George spoke with each of the artists and viewed their work, but Larry seemed to understand the kind of look that George wanted for the film.

On the screen the Star Wars audience sees the computer realization of the trench sequence in the form of a “wire cage’’ model rather than as a series of solid forms and planes. One of the early problems in computer graphics was the wire cage versus solid form display. At first computer programs could only call up figures in wire cage format. It was only a few years ago that programs were devised to remove the “hidden lines;’’ the program had to determine which lines would be “hidden’’ by a front surface or plane and remove those lines.

“When George Lucas specified the kind of animation he wanted for the scene, he knew enough about computer animation to ask for a true perspective without the ‘hidden lines’ removed. He wanted the trench and the Deathstar to appear as wire cage figures with all lines and vertices visible. George thought that this sort of image would suggest ‘computer animation’ by having a very mechanical look.”

Larry Cuba suggests that in the future computers will be able to generate pictures of such quality that they will look as though they had been photographed by a camera. In the case of Star Wars, it was thought that such photographic realism might be confusing to the audience, so a wire cage model was specified so that the audience would readily understand that the images were to have been created by a machine.

“I set up a Mitchell 35mm camera with an animation motor in front of the screen and connected it to the computer so that a signal from the program could trigger the animation motor when the image was complete.”

“I suggested that they wait and shoot the sequence in England blue screen; they could print the computer effects in later and have the thing perfect. But no, they wanted to rear project it so that the guys in the briefing room would play to the images while they were talking. Well, my first take worked. There were a couple of problems, but they edited around them.”

Also sounds like there was a little more CGI than just the briefing room, even if it's just some minor stuff. Silbad (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed post. However, I still don't see how this is notable enough for the article. It seems like something that only people very interested in animation would care about. Many readers who have seen the film are not going to remember the scene or the animation in question, so a discussion of the animation without supporting images is not going to be interesting or informative. Wafflewombat (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was just a few words regarding Lucas' choice. Everything else in the post is just an explanation. But I have a couple additions in regard of the animation without expanding any further about the specific wireframe CGI. Silbad (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at your newest contribution and made some changes, mostly to clarify things for the average reader. I also removed some content that seemed non-essential and would not be understood by the average reader. Please let me know if you find my edits acceptable, or if they have had a negative impact. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine. But I changed "Yavin Prime" to "mother planet" as it feels like a better description. Silbad (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search, and I don't think "mother planet" is a common-enough phrase that we can use it in an encyclopedia. Also, when you say "traditional methods," what are you describing, exactly? Traditional methods of what? We might want to change it to "All the other computer monitors and targeting displays featured in the film used various methods, such as backlit gels, to simulate computer graphics." Wafflewombat (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked by googling "moons" and "mother planet", and found articles from websites like BBC Science Focus Magazine, Harvard Gazette, Smithsonian Magazine, NASA, Science.org and Astronomy & Astrophysics using the phrase, and I also find it pretty self-explanatory. The "traditional methods" is a reference to the article about the creation of these effects, where John Wash explains: “Both Jay and I had done a lot of mimicking computer animation using downshooters, using animation cameras, backlit gels…”. The video the article is linking to calls the handcrafted techniques "old school graphics". Silbad (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with using "mother planet" since those sources are credible. But I just think it's a little unclear what "traditional methods" means on the page. If you don't feel that substituting the word "various" for "traditional" is appropriate, can you try re-wording the segment in another way so it's more clear? Wafflewombat (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"Mother planet" is used as a reference to the planet its moon or moons are orbiting. Some articles that use the phrase: 20 of the most amazing moons in the Solar System, 21 moons ‘swarm’ planet Uranus, The Seven Most Amazing Discoveries We’ve Made by Exploring Jupiter, Sixty moons for Saturn, How the Moon Found Its Orbit, Asymmetric impacts of near-Earth asteroids on the Moon, Exploring planets and asteroids with 6DoF sensors: Utopia and realism, James B. Pollack and NASA’s Planetary Missions: a Tribute, Is there life on moons? and Pluto – a dwarf in the darkness. Traditional methods simply means pre-CGI methods. John Wash describes the process: "The attack we used was fairly similar to that done on DARK STAR. This was basically generating imagery from bottom-lit artwork which was generated conventionally on standard animation cranes Because things were in such a rush, we’d be briefed on what the shot was to be". Maybe one could describe it as "hand-drawn backlit animation" or "hand-drawn backlight animation" (some write it as backlight, others as backlit). Silbad (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I did a little more editing on the segment. Let me know if you find it acceptable. Thank you for being willing to collaborate on this 🙂 Wafflewombat (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. The edit looks OK. If hand-drawn backlit animation was the only method, or if they also used others, is difficult to find any info about (unlike articles about the digital CGI). Unless more details are found or becomes available (there is probably something in some old Cinefex issue or other magazines that is not yet available online), the present edit is probably the best way to describe it. Silbad (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Like Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back, I do think the special effects of Star Wars are notable enough in their own right for a separate article. In fact, you could make an article that covers both the original film's special effects (models, matte paintings, etc.) and all the extra CGI from the Special edition onwards... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the movie had such a noticeable production in regard of effects that books have literally been written about it. It should be more than enough material for a whole article about how it was made. Should anyone face the challenge about creating it, one could always add some contributions. Silbad (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about lead

Should we mention the fact that the Death Star is a space station? As it reads, "the Empire's newest weapon, the Death Star" seems to leave it very vague, as a "weapon" can mean anything. I'm thinking expand it to "the Empire's newest weapon, a space station known as the Death Star." – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's okay either way. A little clarification is nice, but the Death Star is described as a space station at the beginning of the Plot section, and the lead doesn't need to have more than the most basic plot summary. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Wafflewombat, plus there is a link to the Death Star article in any case. I don't oppose the proposed clarification, though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for plot

Earlier I made an edit in the plot about the TIE fighter dogfight, however, it was deemed unnecessary as it was supposedly 'not essential for a summary'. However, I believe it should be mentioned. It's a scene of its own nevertheless.

The other edit was about Luke referring to Obi-Wan as Ben Kenobi, and at the beginning of the movie, Luke is confused about the name Obi-Wan. I believe Ben Kenobi should be mentioned somewhere, and is revealed to be Obi-Wan. One place it could be is here: "He is rescued by Obi-Wan, an elderly hermit. Obi-Wan tells Luke about....". It was removed because of the little leeway on grammar.

Also, one last suggestion is to add a link to Obi-Wan's name in the current plot. This was not from my original edit.

Thank you for your time Auser468 (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post. I added the "Obi-Wan Kenobi" link that you suggested. As far as the TIE dogfight, I wanted to offer a couple quotes from the page How to write a plot summary:

"The objective point of a plot summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story, nor to cover every detail. For those who have not read or seen the story, it should serve as a general overview that fills in on the major points. For those who have, it should be detailed enough to refresh their memory, no more."

"A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story."

I hope this helps explain my decision to remove the TIE segment. If not, please let me know. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Auser468 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I added the Obi-Wan revelation in a way that is concise and (I believe) grammatically correct. Let me know if you like this version. Wafflewombat (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)