GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
I mean, I'm sure the gonk droid will be in episode 8, but you know...
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
So after the Star Wars panel, JJ Abrams announced to the crowd that everyone currently in Hall H was invited to a Star Wars concert, happening right then.
So after the Star Wars panel, JJ Abrams announced to the crowd that everyone currently in Hall H was invited to a Star Wars concert, happening right then.
Man, that reel was like the most effective thing released yet to remind how important Star Was has been to me during my childhood. Got me right in the nostalgia.
+4
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Man, that reel was like the most effective thing released yet to remind how important Star Was has been to me during my childhood. Got me right in the nostalgia.
All I needed to hear was "Real sets. Practical effects." and I was fucking pumped
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I mean I dislike bad CGI as much as the next guy, but having practical effects doesn't instantly make them better. I understand there's a huge push against overuse of CGI (like with prequels, eugh) but I feel like it's swung too far the other way where now practical effects are the holy grail. I like them and all, but it's not like they're automatically better than CG effects.
I dunno, it just feels like all the movies bombarding cinemas with bad CGI have had made a lot of people super rabid about how good practical and old style effects are. They can be bad too (Star Wars won't though, because lolbudget) just like CGI can be bad or good.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I mean I dislike bad CGI as much as the next guy, but having practical effects doesn't instantly make them better. I understand there's a huge push against overuse of CGI (like with prequels, eugh) but I feel like it's swung too far the other way where now practical effects are the holy grail. I like them and all, but it's not like they're automatically better than CG effects.
I dunno, it just feels like all the movies bombarding cinemas with bad CGI have had made a lot of people super rabid about how good practical and old style effects are. They can be bad too (Star Wars won't though, because lolbudget) just like CGI can be bad or good.
I prefer the practical effects in the OT to the CGI insanity of the prequels in almost every case.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
and it's not like the sets and practical effects they're doing won't be run through a blender with CGI touchups anyway.
One important aspect of practical effects is I would say how influences the whole aproach to filming a scene. For example Fury Road is full of CGI, the sequence where the convoy drives into the storm is completely CGI. Miller still filmed the sequence in the desert with the real vehicles to lay out the shot and get the camera path right. Stuff like that just makes the whole movie feel more "real".
Not only that, but they weren't actually driving through a mountain valley! They were just driving on a flat plain and CGI'd in the entire mountain! I never noticed! Ahhhhh! I can't tell what's real and what's not.
+1
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
CGI should be the seasoning for the special effect, not the centrepiece of the dish.
Usually it comes down to camera angles and lighting.
Filming it for real or with models and touching it up with computers means you have actual references to work from whereas filming it on a green soundstage does not, and that makes all the difference in the world no matter how talented your CGI people are or how much money you throw into it.
Having practical effects can help make the physics and movement of characters and objects feel more right. With CG, they don't have to worry as much about things like mass and momentum so movement can come to a full stop much faster than it should, movements and collisions that should affect the entire object may only affect only part of the object, and things that should be extremely heavy can be move or bounce in unrealistic ways.
Also, not overusing CGI can make directors more aware of bad CGI and work more to mask it. This is part of why some of the films that pioneered CGI use like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park held up so well. There were a lot of shots where the special effects were quick or shot in lighting that hid the imperfections.
Does Christopher Lee not count as a very old man in Lucas' eyes? Or Yoda?
EDIT: Hell, or Sidious for that matter.
Right, it's Lucas talking out his arse for the sake of making it sound like he's always had this planned and is so smart.
I mean, nobody would have faulted him if he just said "The technology is better now so we can have more elaborate fights going on" instead of the hand-wavey bullshit.
You were just complaining about how Troopers are way better at their jobs in the prequels when the the answer to that is that their narrative purpose is different.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Having practical effects can help make the physics and movement of characters and objects feel more right. With CG, they don't have to worry as much about things like mass and momentum so movement can come to a full stop much faster than it should, movements and collisions that should affect the entire object may only affect only part of the object, and things that should be extremely heavy can be move or bounce in unrealistic ways.
Also, not overusing CGI can make directors more aware of bad CGI and work more to mask it. This is part of why some of the films that pioneered CGI use like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park held up so well. There were a lot of shots where the special effects were quick or shot in lighting that hid the imperfections.
Jurassic Park still looks better than 90% of films that rely on heavy CG today, and that's crazy.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
The trailer had a bit where there was concept art of a crashed TIE fighter and then a miniature and CG model of it and then a full-sized practical crashed TIE fighter in the middle of the desert.
Having practical effects can help make the physics and movement of characters and objects feel more right. With CG, they don't have to worry as much about things like mass and momentum so movement can come to a full stop much faster than it should, movements and collisions that should affect the entire object may only affect only part of the object, and things that should be extremely heavy can be move or bounce in unrealistic ways.
Also, not overusing CGI can make directors more aware of bad CGI and work more to mask it. This is part of why some of the films that pioneered CGI use like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park held up so well. There were a lot of shots where the special effects were quick or shot in lighting that hid the imperfections.
Jurassic Park still looks better than 90% of films that rely on heavy CG today, and that's crazy.
Look. I love the movie.
The mechanical tree while in stills, still (hah!) looks amazing due to the limitations in the mechanical movement she is kinda jerky and bouncy in some of the shots. And the scene where she breaks through the fence is cgi is pretty bad.
Having practical effects can help make the physics and movement of characters and objects feel more right. With CG, they don't have to worry as much about things like mass and momentum so movement can come to a full stop much faster than it should, movements and collisions that should affect the entire object may only affect only part of the object, and things that should be extremely heavy can be move or bounce in unrealistic ways.
Also, not overusing CGI can make directors more aware of bad CGI and work more to mask it. This is part of why some of the films that pioneered CGI use like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park held up so well. There were a lot of shots where the special effects were quick or shot in lighting that hid the imperfections.
Jurassic Park still looks better than 90% of films that rely on heavy CG today, and that's crazy.
Look. I love the movie.
The mechanical tree while in stills, still (hah!) looks amazing due to the limitations in the mechanical movement she is kinda jerky and bouncy in some of the shots. And the scene where she breaks through the fence is cgi is pretty bad.
The raptors are ace though.
I don't remember a mechanical tree in Jurassic Park.
That reel is exactly how to get people excited for a movie. So well put together.
On CG - I think the CG got in the way in the prequels, but more because using virtual sets allowed them to go too many places too quickly. When you have to plan sets and where to film, the scope of the movie immediately trims itself down to a reasonable amount. Jedi for example had really 3 locations - Jabba's palace, Endor and the Death Star. There were short scenes in other places (like visiting Yoda), but only briefly. It gives the movie a structure.
Phantom Menace bounced around - you were on a spaceship, then underwater, then a city, then Tattoine, then a race takes place that feels completely different, then a huge city and a senate, then back to the original city, then a battle that is on the same planet but really doesn't feel like it, then a space battle, and then a hanger. Over and over again the movie just jumps all over the place and CG enables that poor behavior. There are scenes where the CG works, I really love the design of Amidala's palace for example, but it really prevents any one place from being memorable.
+6
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Posts
star wars episode vii movie of the year
And things only got better from there.
Yeah, I have a friend there who kept me updated via Facebook. I hate her and love her in equal measure through my jealousy.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Wow
All I needed to hear was "Real sets. Practical effects." and I was fucking pumped
I mean I dislike bad CGI as much as the next guy, but having practical effects doesn't instantly make them better. I understand there's a huge push against overuse of CGI (like with prequels, eugh) but I feel like it's swung too far the other way where now practical effects are the holy grail. I like them and all, but it's not like they're automatically better than CG effects.
I dunno, it just feels like all the movies bombarding cinemas with bad CGI have had made a lot of people super rabid about how good practical and old style effects are. They can be bad too (Star Wars won't though, because lolbudget) just like CGI can be bad or good.
I prefer the practical effects in the OT to the CGI insanity of the prequels in almost every case.
Dude got moff written all over him
One important aspect of practical effects is I would say how influences the whole aproach to filming a scene. For example Fury Road is full of CGI, the sequence where the convoy drives into the storm is completely CGI. Miller still filmed the sequence in the desert with the real vehicles to lay out the shot and get the camera path right. Stuff like that just makes the whole movie feel more "real".
Satans..... hints.....
Filming it for real or with models and touching it up with computers means you have actual references to work from whereas filming it on a green soundstage does not, and that makes all the difference in the world no matter how talented your CGI people are or how much money you throw into it.
Also, not overusing CGI can make directors more aware of bad CGI and work more to mask it. This is part of why some of the films that pioneered CGI use like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park held up so well. There were a lot of shots where the special effects were quick or shot in lighting that hid the imperfections.
You were just complaining about how Troopers are way better at their jobs in the prequels when the the answer to that is that their narrative purpose is different.
Jurassic Park still looks better than 90% of films that rely on heavy CG today, and that's crazy.
Wonderful.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The mechanical tree while in stills, still (hah!) looks amazing due to the limitations in the mechanical movement she is kinda jerky and bouncy in some of the shots. And the scene where she breaks through the fence is cgi is pretty bad.
The raptors are ace though.
Satans..... hints.....
I don't remember a mechanical tree in Jurassic Park.
*STOMP*
*STOMP*
DOOOOOONNNNNNN'TBEEEEEEEEEHASTY!
*STOMP* *STOMP *STOMP
SLOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWDOOOOWWWNNN!
And he's immortal
LALALALALALALALALA
Well he did choose wisely.
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
that tends to end poorly
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
Fuck that.
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
On CG - I think the CG got in the way in the prequels, but more because using virtual sets allowed them to go too many places too quickly. When you have to plan sets and where to film, the scope of the movie immediately trims itself down to a reasonable amount. Jedi for example had really 3 locations - Jabba's palace, Endor and the Death Star. There were short scenes in other places (like visiting Yoda), but only briefly. It gives the movie a structure.
Phantom Menace bounced around - you were on a spaceship, then underwater, then a city, then Tattoine, then a race takes place that feels completely different, then a huge city and a senate, then back to the original city, then a battle that is on the same planet but really doesn't feel like it, then a space battle, and then a hanger. Over and over again the movie just jumps all over the place and CG enables that poor behavior. There are scenes where the CG works, I really love the design of Amidala's palace for example, but it really prevents any one place from being memorable.
The grail only granted immortality for as long as he did not cross the seal at the start of the temple.
Which he crossed.