What didn't you like about TFA? SPOILERS — Page 49

Kepling said:

During the battle over Takodana, when Finn stops to watch the dogfight, the end of that sequence some storm troopers in front of a wall get blown up by a X-wing - Really bad and noticeable CG

Are you sure about that? The only CG bit in that shot was the x-wing. The wall exploding and the troopers were all practical. You only have to watch the behind the scenes footage to see that shot being filmed -completely practical

SilverWook said:

I’m pretty sure the giant pig creature was CGI, the early leaked photos of it was the stand in used on location. That hardly looked like it was capable of moving the way it did in the film.

Having seen the movie twice in 70mm Imax, the CGI creatures held up pretty well. (I saw details in Maz’s face I did not see in digital projection.) Better than anything I saw in the prequels. Snoke might be the exception, but we really only see him as a hologram.

The pig creature was fully practical. It could even walk ( although we didn’t actually get to see that in the film)

Lord Haseo said:

IKnowWhatYouDidLastSummer said:

All those wink, wink moments and references and jokes to the OT got really tiring.

Definitely. It was to be expected but things like the 14 parsecs thing were way too on the nose.

I disliked most of those references, but to me the “worst offender” was the chessboard’s scene: it made me shake my head 😄

SilverWook said:

Is there any effects house left that still makes physical models and shoots motion control today?

I highly doubt.

HansiG said:

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Better than anything I saw in the prequels.

I think that should be expected, considering 10 years technology difference.

Prequel CGI was outdated back when it released.

Then show me a film released at the same time with was supposed to be state-of-the-art at the time.

John Doom said:

Lord Haseo said:

IKnowWhatYouDidLastSummer said:

All those wink, wink moments and references and jokes to the OT got really tiring.

Definitely. It was to be expected but things like the 14 parsecs thing were way too on the nose.

I disliked most of those references, but to me the “worst offender” was the chessboard’s scene: it made me shake my head 😄

It actually made me smile. Plus, Phil Tippet got to recreate the original stop motion puppets and animate them old school. What’s not to love?

adywan said:

SilverWook said:

I’m pretty sure the giant pig creature was CGI, the early leaked photos of it was the stand in used on location. That hardly looked like it was capable of moving the way it did in the film.

Having seen the movie twice in 70mm Imax, the CGI creatures held up pretty well. (I saw details in Maz’s face I did not see in digital projection.) Better than anything I saw in the prequels. Snoke might be the exception, but we really only see him as a hologram.

The pig creature was fully practical. It could even walk ( although we didn’t actually get to see that in the film)

Oh, I see…

imperialscum said:

HansiG said:

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Better than anything I saw in the prequels.

I think that should be expected, considering 10 years technology difference.

Prequel CGI was outdated back when it released.

Then show me a film released at the same time with was supposed to be state-of-the-art at the time.

From memory, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Jurassic Park, I’m sure there’s many more.

LuckyGungan2001 said:

imperialscum said:

HansiG said:

imperialscum said:

SilverWook said:

Better than anything I saw in the prequels.

I think that should be expected, considering 10 years technology difference.

Prequel CGI was outdated back when it released.

Then show me a film released at the same time with was supposed to be state-of-the-art at the time.

From memory, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Jurassic Park, I’m sure there’s many more.

Now I remembered we already had exactly same debate year or so back and I got the very same suggestions. I would say PT has better CGI than all of those. Of course at this point it will be just my opinion against yours.

adywan said:

Kepling said:

During the battle over Takodana, when Finn stops to watch the dogfight, the end of that sequence some storm troopers in front of a wall get blown up by a X-wing - Really bad and noticeable CG

Are you sure about that? The only CG bit in that shot was the x-wing. The wall exploding and the troopers were all practical. You only have to watch the behind the scenes footage to see that shot being filmed -completely practical

I was referencing from memory and pointed to the wrong part, it’s at 1:16:00. Before Finn stops to gawk, not after.

It could very well be a combination of practical and CG, judging from the extra’s disk they seemed to do that quite a bit.

imperialscum said:

Then show me a film released at the same time with was supposed to be state-of-the-art at the time.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was advertised as state of the art at the time, and was 100% completely CG. I personally wasn’t impressed with it when it came out. Jurassic Park is a good example of CG in a live action movie because they used restraint and only used it when absolutely necessary. The LotR trilogy was the opposite and said that the movie wasn’t possible without the use of CG for many of the parts. The over use of CG got worse as that trilogy went on, and into the Hobbit it got even worse.

I just watched Two Towers a couple nights ago. Most of the CG holds up.

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone complaining about poor practical effects or overuse of CGI needs to watch the making-of doc or the creature featurette.

Why watch a featurette when you can complain?

I hated Maz Katana because the CGI was bad. It ruined the whole movie for me. The prequels are underrated by the way. I heard that AOTC was even better than ESB.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I just watched Two Towers a couple nights ago. Most of the CG holds up.

It does. It’s hard to believe it came out around the same time as AOTC.

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone complaining about poor practical effects or overuse of CGI needs to watch the making-of doc or the creature featurette.

While watching behind-the-scenes can disprove “overuse of CGI” complaint, it has zero relevance if someone complain about poor practical effects. If you complain about the final product being bad/poor then effort and time that was spent to make that final product is irrelevant. I am not saying I think there are poor practical effects. I am just correcting your misconception.

TV’s Frink said:

Saying that the OT’s practical effects were light years better than TFA’s is ridiculous.

Well if someone prefers (which is this case equal to “better” as it is a subjective matter) practical effects in a film 30 years ago to practical effects in a film made today, it just a matter of opinion. You may hold an opinion that someone’s opinion is ridiculous, but that goes both ways so it a pointless practice.

TV’s Frink said:

“Better” as defined as “obviously a practical effect” versus “not sure how it was done.”

I was speaking about “complaining about poor practical effects” part, which by itself indicates that what is being complained about is in fact a practical effect. If you wanted to point out that people don’t know whether something is a practical effect or not then you should have phrased your post properly to express that.