timdiggerm

TV's Frink said:

tl;dr either way.

;-)

True.

I have long assumed you're a redditor.

Just so you know, Danny, the accepted practice is to switch in and out of quotes

Something someone said

My response.

I never knew Bossk had avid fans!

Try to think about how Vader would have to be holding his sabre for the 2004 version to make sense.

Can someone explain the glow thing? Is it just the missing sabre blade?

Oh, just black shoes. TOMS, if that matters, but they're just black.

As for accuracy, see http://www.rarebricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lego-jango-fett.jpg for a reference. Both sides of the torso taper the whole way.

Those are pretty great, although I do think the minifig torso is a little more tapered than you're showing it to be.

Also, if you can do one of me... I look like my picture? Light-brown/tan pants, red shirt with the coca-cola logo in Arabic, perhaps?

It's just not sexy enough.

danny_boy said:

theprequelsrule said:

danny_boy said:

What would I have done to Jedi?

 

Nothing.

 

It is fine as is.

Agreed. This thread is unworthy of OOT fans.

Indeed!

I find it hypocritical that fans here curse Lucas for changing the OT,yet have no problems with introducing hypothetical changes of their own!

A lot of people here aren't so much upset with the changes existing as they are with the changes being the only version available.

I watched the whole thing and I missed it too - It's kinda subtle... which a good thing, I think.

What seems like the normal fun and silliness to us looks flaming to them. What looks like a really great and serious RP board to them looks pretty silly to us.

We're from different internet-cultures.

To be fair, the anti-GL vitriol around here does get ridiculous. But only sometimes.

As for the RP boards, it's because this site is full of old fogeys, and that collides poorly with innocent youths with fandom aspirations.

Fate Foretold said:

.

 

Incredible.

Ohmygodmycursor

And in the past, people used whale-oil lamps. Things change.

I'd say it's a mix. I'd say the one that really got me was when the lady walks into the bus-stop panel. I would have never guessed that it was entirely greenscreen.

This quote is undeniably true

theprequelsrule said:

acting without any sort of frame of reference (i.e. against a blank green screen instead of on an actual set) does not encourage good performances by your actors. As CGI gets cheaper we can expect less and less use of actual sets.

but I wonder if actors aren't getting better and better at it? Or directors?

You're going to hate this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

kilik64 said:

Who is tim and why are his "bits" interesting?

I am not sure what to say.

Tobar said:

Er...I thought that was an animatronic raptor and the CATG was imprinted in the ceiling tiles....

I think you just defeated theprequelsrule.

canofhumdingers said:

CATG?

http://www.eeggs.com/items/3371.html

Harmy said:

Yeah, I think CGI can be a great tool when in right hands. Jurassic Park is a great example of that, because they used it with moderation and more importantly in combination with animatronics, where that worked better.

Except the damn CATG shadows on the raptors in that one scene. Super-distracting.

theprequelsrule said:

Yes, but that is the point. Jabba is fucking fat! We don't expect him to move. It becomes part of the character, part of the storytelling. Jabba is a decadent, self-indulgent, lecherous crimelord so it makes sense that he is huge and can't move - a result of his disgusting lifestyle (insert cheap George Lucas joke here). Jabba should never have been depicted as moving; EVER.

It achieves Suspension Of Disbelief. You know, the opposite of that iguana-thing that Kenobi rides in ROTS.

Oh, I agree the Iguana-Thing is pretty awful. However, I maintain that just because CGI enables bad decisions doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Just because Jabba shouldn't move doesn't mean that he can't be CGI. Perhaps Lucas, the concept artists and the animators need to learn what is believable. That's not the same as not using CGI.

doubleKO said:

Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does.

I suspect this has something to do with the puppet never crawling around. I don't think it's the only issue, as the Jabba puppet really is pretty amazing, but I think it's part of the problem.

theprequelsrule said:

Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake.

Gollum didn't look fake to me. Maybe once or twice? Maybe? He looked really real, other than the fact that I know in my head that there's no one who looks like that.

A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.

No. The Gammorean Guards do not look real. They look like real rubber, yes, but they do not look like real living creatures. Looking like a physical object is not enough - Creatures need to look like creatures, not rubber.

Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033.

Most of the time. Occasionally I think he looks a little stiff.

Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033.

At worst he'll be considered a great example of the best that could be done at the time.

THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY.

Define 100% photorealistic. How will you know when we've reached it? You can't make this kind of demand without a satisfiable goal defined.

Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.

So you want filmmakers to intentionally display the shortcomings of available technologies instead of using what they have to create the illusions they think are best suited for their stories? Why would they do that?

Until you can provide me with a case in which the exception does not prove the rule, I will not believe that "the exception proves the rule" is a rule.

I'd like to know what you think about the DSII-plans hologram in ROTJ, though!