JJ Abrams releases promo video on set of Star Wars Episode 7 - Polidicks

[video=youtube;XfNiC9iKM0Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfNiC9iKM0Q[/video] Looks to me like the set is a scene on Tatooine.

remove S in https I'm so happy J is working on it, he's a really great guy it seems Star trek he's done good. Gene Roddenberry himself said he wished someone to revision the original series and I feel he did it pretty good. the fact that he's using NON CGI, REAL PROPS, is a HUGE selling point for me. The prequels were horrible because it was an old man trying to throw as much shit into the movie as possible.

Physical props. Nice.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;44872163]Physical props. Nice.[/QUOTE] Everything in the video was actually CGI including JJ Abrams.

ftfy [video=youtube;XfNiC9iKM0Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfNiC9iKM0Q[/video] aww ya fixed it first...

I fixed it now

[QUOTE=seano12;44872179]Everything in the video was actually CGI including JJ Abrams.[/QUOTE] I don't see any shine on his glasses and everything though

That set boosted my hopes for the movie quite nicely.

That's cool I hope JJ just doesn't try to force "HEY NEW STARWARS! LOOK IT'S NOT LIKE THE 3 PREQUELS" on us.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44872162]remove S in https I'm so happy J is working on it, he's a really great guy it seems Star trek he's done good. Gene Roddenberry himself said he wished someone to revision the original series and I feel he did it pretty good. the fact that he's using NON CGI, REAL PROPS, is a HUGE selling point for me. The prequels were horrible because it was an old man trying to throw as much shit into the movie as possible.[/QUOTE] my only issue with his version of ST, is that he pretty much removed quite a bit of the whole optimistic message of star trek, in favor of turning into a somewhat more generic action movie in space.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44872236]my only issue with his version of ST, is that he pretty much removed quite a bit of the whole optimistic message of star trek, in favor of turning into a somewhat more generic action movie in space.[/QUOTE] to be fair, I don't like what he did with it being in a different dimension but I feel he did good.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44872243]to be fair, I don't like what he did with it being in a different dimension but I feel he did good.[/QUOTE] ST09 was a great, fun, origin story and great Star Trek story. However, I don't know about Into Darkness, I did feel it was more action than substance. I feel like the first movie was the better of the two.

So you're telling me that this entire movie isn't going to be shot in a big blue room?

Oh that's nice. Was that alien thing CGI? I'm guessing it was but everyone's talking about the lack of CGI so I have no idea.

No it wasn't. That was a head on a person.

Dude being in a Star Wars movie would be godly

I think JJ abrams is one of the best choices to make a new star wars movie. He seems to have a great grasp of soft scifi (ex Star Wars, Star Trek, Fringe)

i doubt this move will be mind-blowingly good but it's almost certainly going to be okay and it'll be made much better than that just by being a decent new SW film

[QUOTE=Kyle902;44873161]I think JJ abrams is one of the best choices to make a new star wars movie. He seems to have a great grasp of soft scifi (ex Star Wars, Star Trek, Fringe)[/QUOTE] The way that he took Star Trek (pretty much generic high sci-fi and fantasy and nothing but boom pow blam action) had me worried when he was handed the reigns, but seeing the set and the quality of the shown practical effects, my hopes have been restored and generously boosted.

Looking at fringe its also pretty clear that he can manage a good intricate story, unlike he who shall not be named.

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44872767]Oh that's nice. Was that alien thing CGI? I'm guessing it was but everyone's talking about the lack of CGI so I have no idea.[/QUOTE] How can you not tell that was real?

[QUOTE=Delta616;44873308]How can you not tell that was real?[/QUOTE] Judging by the pixels it was obviously fake

Why is everyone arguing if that was CGI? I think it's very clear that was the real JJ Abrams

my member is tumescent

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44872767]Oh that's nice. Was that alien thing CGI? I'm guessing it was but everyone's talking about the lack of CGI so I have no idea.[/QUOTE] The new star wars is actually taking a giant step back from CG, I think it's even being shot mostly with a 35mm camera.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;44873608]The new star wars is actually taking a giant step back from CG, I think it's even being shot mostly with a 35mm camera.[/QUOTE] funny thing about CGI is that as amazing and wonderful it is it actually it partway a bad thing if used right, it's the greatest shit ever. BUT, the late 80's / 90's were the golden age of film effects IMHO. This is because they used actual props leading to a very realistic feel to it, rather than shoving CGI everywhere. CGI is best used subtly, unless there is something big that needs cgi, like in transformers, etc. its a step back from CG and a giant step forward for film making. The humanity of physical props is what helped make the originals true masterpieces and the lack of those props is what made the prequels the worst shit ever.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44872162][b]the fact that he's using NON CGI, REAL PROPS, is a HUGE selling point for me.[/b] The prequels were horrible because it was an old man trying to throw as much shit into the movie as possible.[/QUOTE] This, props, sets and actual locations instead of a studio with a big green backdrop. Maybe the acting won't suffer because they can actually envision and interact with their setting.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44873870]funny thing about CGI is that as amazing and wonderful it is it actually it partway a bad thing if used right, it's the greatest shit ever. BUT, the late 80's / 90's were the golden age of film effects IMHO. This is because they used actual props leading to a very realistic feel to it, rather than shoving CGI everywhere. CGI is best used subtly, unless there is something big that needs cgi, like in transformers, etc. its a step back from CG and a giant step forward for film making. The humanity of physical props is what helped make the originals true masterpieces and the lack of those props is what made the prequels the worst shit ever.[/QUOTE] I like CGI, but I like it when it's used to enhance a scene, not cut and paste an entire scene. Think of the Titanic movie. There was an entire life size part of the ship built, accented with CGI in post. Now take The Walking Dead. It has a TON of it, and it still isn't good enough that it doesn't blend in 100% so it breaks the immersion/feel. I don't if it's just me but It's a whole lot easier to spot fake stuff in a scene when the majority of it is fake, than it is the small bits of CGI attached onto an actual real scene [img]http://awesomenator.com/content/2013/01/walking-dead-cgi.jpg[/img] Or take the Star Wars prequels. So many scenes were just pure CGI. There was so much CGI that even the actors' performance suffered and were boring and unconvincing because they had NOTHING to set the scene but blue walls around them It's great for budget purposes, but it still isn't so good that it can replace old fashioned special effects

[QUOTE=Sungrazer;44874314]This, props, sets and actual locations instead of a studio with a big green backdrop. Maybe the acting won't suffer because they can actually envision and interact with their setting.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TheTalon;44874559]I like CGI, but I like it when it's used to enhance a scene, not cut and paste an entire scene. Think of the Titanic movie. There was an entire life size part of the ship built, accented with CGI in post. Now take The Walking Dead. It has a TON of it, and it still isn't good enough that it doesn't blend in 100% so it breaks the immersion/feel. I don't if it's just me but It's a whole lot easier to spot fake stuff in a scene when the majority of it is fake, than it is the small bits of CGI attached onto an actual real scene Or take the Star Wars prequels. So many scenes were just pure CGI, there was so much CGI that even the actors suffered and were boring and unconvincing because they had NOTHING to set the scene but blue walls around them[/QUOTE] even amazing actors in a sterile, bland enviroment with no interaction or emotion, a green/pink/blue screen are worse than almost bad actors with physical props and other people when you sacrifice interactivity with "ingenuity" you sacrifice more than expected unless done correctly.

I believe a combination of the two is usually what leads to the best results. The problem with props is that its hard to do it on a grand scale like some of the battles in DS9 and the one above Coruscant. Obviously just shoving it everywhere is pretty bad too. Like the old CGI scenes that Lucas added in, they look like complete garbage and out of place in 2014 [editline]22nd May 2014[/editline] Anyway Abrams is a pretty big Star Wars fanboy like a lot of us. He clearly listened since one of the first things that Mark Hamill brought up was that they need to cut back on cgi and use more animatronics