PDA

View Full Version : Bear Clan Members



Jek Porky 2002
01-18-2003, 11:02 AM
Does anyone know the names of all the Bear Clan members?
So far I know of:
Liam- Human Boy
Chian- Alien, figure comes with yoda
Ashla- Alien
Jempa- Shaak Ti species
J.K Burtola- Not sure which one she/he is

There is also another alien that looks similar to Chian on the opposite side
There's a blonde girl
A brown haired girl
There's the boy that answers Yoda's question
And a smaller boy next to him
There's a chubby boy at the back in white robes
And also a darker skinned boy (I hope that's PC)

They are the more distinct ones, I know that's not all of them, there's 14 all together.

So do we have any names for these?

mini-rock
01-18-2003, 01:35 PM
According to the official site Mari Amithest was another of the Bear Clan. Not sure which one though.

Jek Porky 2002
01-18-2003, 01:41 PM
Ah yes, I forgot about Mari Amithest, I always thought that she was Jempa.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-18-2003, 07:28 PM
On one of the documentaries, there was a black boy who I didn't se in the film - perhaps he turned out to be the Whiphid boy, Ashla or Chian. There was also a little asian girl who got a whole lot of publicity, who I think was Mari Amithest, but I didn't see in the movie either.
Hmm . . . dangerous and disturbing this puzzle is.:confused:

Beast
01-18-2003, 07:34 PM
Well, they didn't want to have to put such little kiddies in make-up. So they CGI'd alien heads over three of the human actors. That's probably why you see a couple kiddies in the documentaries, that don't appear in the actual film. :)


The two Jedi children that were to have speaking parts were identified simply as "Jedi Child Jack" and "Jedi Child May" in the script, though they were given the more elaborate names of J.K. Burtola and Mari Amithest later on. Mari's lines were cut from the finished film.

In the final sequence, a number of children had digitally superimposed computer-generated masks covering their faces, since lengthy prosthetic alien makeup wasn't possible with such young actors.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/bearclan/bts.html

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Pendo
01-19-2003, 05:20 AM
Imagine the excitment of knowing your children are going to be in a Star Wars movie, then you go and watch it only to realise that they have superimposed crappy CGI over their faces :mad:!

PENDO!

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-19-2003, 11:50 AM
Hey cool JJB, thanks!:)

And dang Pendo, you really don't like computer animation, do you?:p

Pendo
01-19-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL
And dang Pendo, you really don't like computer animation, do you?:p

No.

PENDO!

mini-rock
01-19-2003, 09:27 PM
Yeah, just as bad as being hid behind a stormtrooper helmet, fur, or a rubbermask. Or even worse, your not even physically in the film just your voice is.

Beast
01-19-2003, 09:33 PM
Agreed, Mini-Rock. They used CGI, because you can't really put kids that young in makeup. Could have been worse, they could have completly CGI'd out the kids. Not just added alien masks on them in post. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Darth Trymybestus
01-19-2003, 09:36 PM
just think if Lucas did the original trilogy now... all the Ewoks would be CGI, Chewbacca would be, Jabba would be... woah, most would be CG.
I'm actually shocked that he didn't have the younglings as completely CGI really, they would have looked convincing I think.
I don't care really, CG is very cool and the prequels look fantastic so there :D :p

Beast
01-19-2003, 09:40 PM
I don't think he would go with everything CGI. Many of the aliens in the movie that can be costumed people, still are. They could have included larger numbers of Ewoks overpowering the Stormies though in the end battle. Which would have made the scene even better. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Darth Trymybestus
01-19-2003, 09:48 PM
I wonder what he'd have done with the Battle of Hoth or the Cantina in Episode 4, I love CGI but also, I loved Chewie in the suit, I mean, I knew he wasn't real but he felt it (does that make sense?:))

Beast
01-19-2003, 09:53 PM
I assume the battle of Hoth, would have been more of an actual battle like AOTC's. Not just the rebels fighting the AT-AT's, but ground forces of SnowTroopers as well. Hopefully he'll do somthing like that, with the Archival version of ESB. :)

Well, they did use the Chewbacca costume and other costumes for some of the human shaped aliens in the prequels. Senator Yarua is a slightly recolored Chewbacca costume/mask for instance. Same with the rodians and other aliens that pop up from the prequels. There are some new masks of course, since alot of the old ones arn't in the greatest shape. :)

Just like he could have went CGI for all the alien Jedi's and the Neimodians in E1 and E2. But they went with people in suits. Heck, Jar Jar was originally supposed to just have a CGI'd head, but as many shots as he was in, it ended up just being cheaper to fully render him. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Darth Trymybestus
01-19-2003, 10:01 PM
The singer in Jabba's palace, she was made CGI for the Special Edition, a lot of people I've spoken to didn't really like that.
I guess it's best to go with what works. I hope Lucas makes the battles a larger scale, I mean that's his vision, Star Wars movies are epic.
CGI has come such a long way, like when Obi-Wan gets his hands wrapped up by Jango Fett, he's completely CGI and to me, it just looked seamless.. I only found out about that scene from seeing the documentary.
I got a question for you JJB :)... in the Phantom Menace, the alien that owns the stall in Mos Espa, when Jar Jar steals something, the alien says something like "that's seven wuipee", is that alien CGI or a rubber suit? I can't tell :)

Beast
01-19-2003, 10:13 PM
Sy Snootles is better looking in the CGI version, in my opinion. Atleast she can actually move. Instead of being stuck in one spot, like the large rod puppet that she was. Not to mention the mouth that doesn't move or articulate well, cause it's on a wire from her microphone. :)

I believe Graga (Swokes Swokes) is a large costume/puppet, since I think you can see her in the documentary on the DVD. She has that large costume look to her. Even the pictures from StarWars.com look like a costume to me. I would have to toss the DVD in again and take a look. :)

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/gragra/index_eu.html
http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/snapshot/1999/05/snapshot19990521.html

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-20-2003, 11:38 AM
She's definitely a rubber costume. On the documentary on AOTC about extras, Anthony Daniels stands by Swokes Swokes and she ain't CGI.:)

Also, while the 97 Sy Snootles is far superior to the 83 one, by today's CGI standards she looks horrid.:dead:

Pendo
01-20-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL
Also, while the 97 Sy Snootles is far superior to the 83 one

You really think so? I think the puppet looks ALOT better than that CGI thing, and I aint just saying that because I hate CGI. The CG Snootles is the WORST case of CGI EVER :mad:!!!

PENDO!

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-20-2003, 04:59 PM
When comparing the two in a still picture, the 83 may be better (more realistic). But as soon as they start to move, while the 97 one sucks *ss, the 83 one EATS *ss. :D They need to change it again for the AE of ROTJ. And I like CGI, but I agree with you, the CG Sy is the worst looking thing in all the saga.:eek: . . . except maybe for ANH Jabba.

Jek Porky 2002
01-26-2003, 05:03 AM
In a way all of the Jedi Younglings where CG, because if you listen to the commentary on the DVD, someone says that because the little kids werent very good at standing still for long amounts of time, they took there heads and put them onto his son's body, you can sort of tell at one point because thier lightsabers move in a funny way.

And as for Sy Snootles, I think that her species should be in Episode III because she looks so cool, and also we'd be able to see how much better she looks! (Oh, and Yo Yowser sucks too!)

Mr. JabbaJohnL
01-26-2003, 11:45 AM
It's Joh Yowza.

I think that's interesting though, now Hasbro has a reason to use the same bodies on all the kid figures.:D

mini-rock
01-27-2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL
I think that's interesting though, now Hasbro has a reason to use the same bodies on all the kid figures.:D

I'm all for it if thats what it takes to release some 6" AOTC figs this year.:D

scruffziller
01-27-2003, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Pendo
Imagine the excitment of knowing your children are going to be in a Star Wars movie, then you go and watch it only to realise that they have superimposed crappy CGI over their faces :mad:!

PENDO!

Yes but Pendo what did you think of the CGI in LOTR:TT?
A major improvement upon AOTC.

mini-rock
01-27-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by scruffziller
Yes but Pendo what did you think of the CGI in LOTR:TT?
A major improvement upon AOTC.

Really? I don't think one is better than the other. Both have equally fantastic CGI IMO.

Pendo
01-27-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by scruffziller
Yes but Pendo what did you think of the CGI in LOTR:TT?
A major improvement upon AOTC.

I agree that Gollum was a vast improvement from Ep2. He actually looked like we was in the movie, and not just pasted ontop of everything, however you could still tell that he was not real. There is just some quality of real life that cannot be coppied onto CGI, no matter how much detail is put into it.

PENDO!

Beast
01-27-2003, 05:50 PM
It's called suspension of disbelief. Stop motion animation doesn't look that realistic, but you can actually enjoy the movies if you don't dwell on how they did stuff. Man, people never complained this much with any other advance in movie making technology. Never heard anyone complain Stereo was fake, and they wanted good old mono sound. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Chiesa
01-27-2003, 09:20 PM
I believe that the standard of CGI in both AoTC and LoTR are both great! I felt that Yoda was a great piece of CGI though some may defer on that. After watching the DVD and knowing how much attention was spent on the details of Yoda, I was thoroughly impressed with all the merticulous hardwork put into it. Gollum was great to, at one point I was actually wondering who the actor was.

I just hope that the CGI in episodeIII would be better than before!

Pendo
01-28-2003, 02:28 AM
The problem with CGI is that the actors have nothing to act with. Sometimes they're just in a blue/green room and have to act to thin air. I don't know one actor who could give a 100% full performance in these situations.

CGI also looks like a bunch of cartoons. All CGI characters I have seen look like a cartoon, even Gollum does at times. They can also look 2D. It really takes away the seriousness of the situations when Buggs Bunny walks on screen :rolleyes:.

Puppets had that real quality. Watching the movies you really felt like to could reach out and toutch these weird aliens. With CGI I don't feel that real quality. If I toutched something that's CGI my hand would probably pass through it.

I think CGI would be a great tool when perfected and everything actually looks real, but I think movies have been using it too early before it has even come close to perfection.

PENDO!

Beast
01-28-2003, 02:49 AM
Pendo, they have used front screen and rear screen projection way before there were computer effects. And actors didn't have anything to react to, in stop motion effect movies. Doesn't mean those movies arn't any good. Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans. We're talking classics here. :)

Puppets look fake and rubbery most of the time. But people use the suspension of disbelief to actually enjoy the movies. Why should CGI be any different. It's only because Star Wars is already nitpicked to death, that the CGI arguments come about. No other movies face the ammount of scrutiny and nitpicking that it seems Star Wars films do lately.

If you don't like CGI fine, that is your opinion. But it looks a hell of alot better then most of the traditional effects that are used to create fantastical sci-fi charecters and environments. It's the state of the art, just like King Kong was back in his day. Sure he doesn't look 100% real, and you can see the fur ripple when they move the stop motion puppet. But that doesn't mean it ruins the movie. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Pendo
01-28-2003, 02:53 AM
I'm not trying to say CGI ruins the movie. I always judge a movie by its plot, never by effects. I'm just saying that, well put simply, I HATE CGI :mad:!

:p

PENDO!

mini-rock
01-28-2003, 05:24 AM
I forsee some real unhappy times coming for Pendo I'm afraid. The days of puppets and stop-motion are going bye bye. CGI has become the preffered tool.:)

Pendo
01-28-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
I forsee some real unhappy times coming for Pendo I'm afraid. The days of puppets and stop-motion are going bye bye. CGI has become the preffered tool.:)

No, that's not true! That's impossible!!!

I know CGI is the way forward and as the future comes there will be less and less of the old methods and more of that CGI crap :p, but once CGI has been perfected and actually (IMO) looks good then i wont have a problem with it. :)

PENDO!

stillakid
01-28-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Puppets look fake and rubbery most of the time. But people use the suspension of disbelief to actually enjoy the movies. Why should CGI be any different.

To a certain extent, yeah. But not in all instances. For my money, the Yoda puppets in ESB and Jedi appear as real to me as Luke does. And as a consequence, I entirely believe the performance and can accept that it is an actual alien creature. In contrast, the 2D feel of Yoda in AOTC, particularly in the close-ups, tends to be a distraction. I definitely feel as if I'm watching an "effect."

The real lesson for filmmakers is that CGI is a tool, just like anything else. Just like the Steadicam, or high speed cameras, or motion control. All of those things are simply tools that you pull out when they are necessary to do the job they were designed to do. It would be silly to use motion control to shoot every shot. The logic holds for CGI. Yes, because of CGI, Yoda was able to do things that a puppet could never accomplish. But the technology, as employed in his example, isn't good enough yet to compete with the alternative. So using a CGI Yoda for the long shots and action sequences is necessary and at times acceptable. But there was no reason at all to overdo it and use a substandard rendering for the extreme closeups.

For another example, compare the "realism" of ROTJ Jabba with that of ANH: SE Jabba. The issue goes way beyond "suspension of disbelief." It's about a quality of effect that helps the story enough to balance out any harm that an inferior effect might cause. Put simply, if the effect isn't convincing enough, whatever it is, the audience will get yanked out of the story.

I'm not just laying the responsibility upon CGI. There are plenty of other effects that can do the same harm. Obvious and bad rubber puppets, as mentioned. Bad pyrotechnics. Bad rotoscope. Bad fx mattes. Bad matte paintings. Bad prosthetic makeup. The list goes on and on.

But when done right, the audience doesn't even know they are looking at an effect and that "suspension of disbelief" clause doesn't even have to apply to excuse a substandard special effect.

If there is anything unique about the criticism of Star Wars, it's that such great measures have to be employed consistently across the board to rationalize all it's shortcomings.

Ratts Tyerell
01-30-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Jek Porky 2002
Does anyone know the names of all the Bear Clan members?
So far I know of:
Liam- Human Boy
Chian- Alien, figure comes with yoda
Ashla- Alien
Jempa- Shaak Ti species
J.K Burtola- Not sure which one she/he is


You've got Ashla and Jemba mixed up. Ashla is the Togruta and Jempa is the whiphid. And Chian is a Nikto.

Jek Porky 2002
02-01-2003, 01:39 PM
Thanks for pointing that out Ratts, I wasn't entirely sure.

And on a different note, I completely agree with Pendo, all the way, CG looks too smooth to be real.