I agree, imperialscum. Some things look better with CGI than practical effects. I have no problem with CGI in a movie, as long as it works well with everything else and doesn't look really fake.
RicOlie_2 said:
cain spaans said:
But maybe there was another small jedi purge caused by one sith who has learned from an ancient holocron and this time it is not like what we saw in Episode III and I can possibly see a resurrected empire so if the darkness theme is not pointed directly at the jedi it should be about the rise of an even worse empire.
That sounds really dumb and clichéd, no offense. That's what the EU has done way too many times already and exactly what shouldn't happen in the movie.
OK I guess you are right they did a little too much of that in the EU but some darkness has to happen after 30 years if this is going to take another 3 movies.
What’s worse George Lucas changing the OT or selling the rights to Disney
imperialscum said:
emanswfan said:
I feel so sad watching this:
Star Wars Ep. VII's FX need to be made this way. It's just real and shows human behind it. We need SFX, not VFX.
But maybe the channel is posting these for a reason?
Atleast I can hope...
Let's be honest here. Real models are unsurpassed by CGI when it comes to reproducing stationary environment, buildings, space ships, etc. But when it comes to reproducing creatures, puppet based SFX just suck compared to CGI. CGI can reproduce more natural behaviour and motion of a creature. In the end they both look fake.
I just don't see the reason in investing great amount of time, effort and money in making a stop-motion SFX with a puppet. Especially when it usually look very unnatural. The way to solve this is either putting a guy into a costume or using CGI.
Go watch "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" or "Pan's Labyrinth" and tell me that Watto looks more realistic than the characters in those film.
And you repeat the common misunderstanding that good CGI doesn't take time, effort, and money. Do you have any idea how much they spent on The Hulk in Avengers? In British pounds, it's buttloads.
TheBoost said:
Go watch "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" or "Pan's Labyrinth" and tell me that Watto looks more realistic than the characters in those film.
And you repeat the common misunderstanding that good CGI doesn't take time, effort, and money. Do you have any idea how much they spent on The Hulk in Avengers? In British pounds, it's buttloads.
Well as I said, it both look fake if one is honest.
I did not say good CGI is cheap and fast. I just said it is faster and less limiting than stop-motion stuff.
真実
I wish CPY was a mod here and could ban this guy.
TV's Frink said:
I wish CPY was a mod here and could ban this guy.
Oh, I hope you didn't cry over this... whatever it was that hurt your feelings because quite frankly I don't know what was it.
真実
My feelings are just fine, thanks.
TV's Frink said:
My feelings are just fine, thanks.
What a relief.
真実
imperialscum said:
when it comes to reproducing creatures, puppet based SFX just suck compared to CGI. CGI can reproduce more natural behaviour and motion of a creature. In the end they both look fake.
I'll take the less-than-fluid movements of puppets over the plastic surfaces and weightlessness of CGI any day.
I just don't see the reason in investing great amount of time, effort and money in making a stop-motion SFX with a puppet. Especially when it usually look very unnatural. The way to solve this is either putting a guy into a costume or using CGI.
You do realize that in this day and age, the herky-jerkiness of stop-motion can be corrected, don't you?
It's unfortunate ILM pretty much abandoned Go Motion. With stop motion animation alive and kicking, I'm surprised nobody else has revived and refined the technique.
Where were you in '77?
DuracellEnergizer said:
imperialscum said:
when it comes to reproducing creatures, puppet based SFX just suck compared to CGI. CGI can reproduce more natural behaviour and motion of a creature. In the end they both look fake.
I'll take the less-than-fluid movements of puppets over the plastic surfaces and weightlessness of CGI any day.
What if sometimes one is better, and sometimes the other is better?
I just don't see the reason in investing great amount of time, effort and money in making a stop-motion SFX with a puppet. Especially when it usually look very unnatural. The way to solve this is either putting a guy into a costume or using CGI.
You do realize that in this day and age, the herky-jerkiness of stop-motion can be corrected, don't you?
How? With...computers?!
I wish I could find a longer clip of this, but in 2004 they did a new episode of the old "Davey And Goliath" show with newer stop motion techniques and it looks very smooth.
There's a video that shows off how they did it, but I can't find it on Youtube.
timdiggerm said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
imperialscum said:
when it comes to reproducing creatures, puppet based SFX just suck compared to CGI. CGI can reproduce more natural behaviour and motion of a creature. In the end they both look fake.
I'll take the less-than-fluid movements of puppets over the plastic surfaces and weightlessness of CGI any day.
What if sometimes one is better, and sometimes the other is better?
Then exceptions can be made.
I just don't see the reason in investing great amount of time, effort and money in making a stop-motion SFX with a puppet. Especially when it usually look very unnatural. The way to solve this is either putting a guy into a costume or using CGI.
You do realize that in this day and age, the herky-jerkiness of stop-motion can be corrected, don't you?
How? With...computers?!
Yes, with computers. Not that I mind, since it's not computer effects I'm against, but the unnecessary overuse of computer effects.
CGI should mainly be used as an enhancement. If it can be done practically, that's the best way to go. As digital elements will never perfectly match their real world counterparts.
This video is a perfect example. It wouldn't be half as charming if it had been done with a CG model.
Isn't it possible modern stop motion seems more fluid because they are shooting digital these days? (Which also allows instant playback classic animators like Ray Harryhausen could only have dreamed of.)
It all still boils down to an animator moving the figures slightly and clicking off a frame.
Where were you in '77?
It's not just the instant preview, there's software now that can interpolate through all the frames and stabilize the sequence. I've seen it done on a stop motion 360° of a real life fountain, whatever software they used, smoothed out the bumps from the camera moving along the irregular pavement. I wish I could find the video.
Check out anything Aardman Animation have done in the last decade or so. It's all perfectly smooth as silk. If they can do it with plasticine then it can be done with rubber puppets and physical models.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Check out anything Aardman Animation have done in the last decade or so. It's all perfectly smooth as silk. If they can do it with plasticine then it can be done it with rubber puppets and physical models.
Oh yes, I remember their stop motion films. I have the Chicken Run and Wallace & Grommit movies on DVD.
Some of the best stop motion animation out there for sure.
Sidenote- I just Aardman Animation is bringing back my favorite series as a little kid! Morph
aflip said:
It really should have been Spielberg. He understands REAL moviemaking, not just CGI and fast editing. Star wars should have more in common with ET than Transformers.
Which was produced by Spielberg. ;)
Super 8 has more in common with ET than anything Spielberg's done in the last few decades.
I thought Speilberg's involvement with the Transformers movies was more for marquee value? (Kind of like George's producer credit on Howard The Duck.) They seemed to have downplayed it for the sequels once the first one made truckloads of moolah anyway...
Where were you in '77?
What if Palpatine was actually possessed by Talzin from TCW?
I'd love if IX ends with C-3PO saying, "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away..."
I'd love if IX ends with Riker saying "Computer: end program."
Since the "thirty years" line came from Iger and not from Abrams or Kasdan or Kennedy, I'm taking that news with a grain of salt. He's probably just saying that because it's been thirty years IRL since Jedi was made. Setting this at the forty year mark the books are currently at would make way more sense, since Luke's son is now almost twenty.* It's also worth noting that the actors in the OT were older than the characters they were playing, so setting it an extra ten years later basically evens it out.
I am, of course, still assuming that the existing EU isn't getting steamrolled to fit with the new movies, which remains a distinct possibility.
*Then again, who knows. There's been a lot of rumor and speculation from all the casting news. Abrams could very well intend Luke's son to be a kid only Anakin's age in Episode I. The guy made a whole movie starring a mostly younger cast (Super 8), so it's not like he'd be a stranger to this kinda thing. Also, Iger's line about "a new trio" can probably be taken at face value.
It's not just coming from Iger. The official Star Wars blog stated the same as well.