• Star Wars Episode VII Set Pics Show Off Creatures, Sets and Extras
    126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Venrez;44978914]What, you think we have Blasters, Combat-Walkers, Warp-Travel and Hyperspace, Lightsabers and Aliens living amongst us today? I know it starts off with 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' but come on. Dont be stupid for the sake of 5 seconds of trolling giggles.[/QUOTE] "don't be stupid" Seriously though, are you one to talk? How are you even this oblivious?
[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;44987599]what the fuck does this have to do with the fact that practical effects STILL AGE BETTER.[/QUOTE] When you reach the point where CGI is nearly impossible to distinguish from real life, you can no longer say it won't age well. What you're saying is based on old CGI and practical effects, and is not true anymore. Get with the times.
I think that a combination of practical effects and CGI makes for a better looking movie. I can't help but think about how awkward The Amazing Spiderman 2 looked because Spiderman was so animated. CGI allows for more interesting design and more elaborate set pieces. Practical effects stop the scene from veering into the uncanny valley. EXAMPLE: From 1:35 onwards you can easily tell that Spiderman is completely animated. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbp3Ra3Yp74[/media]
[QUOTE=Steve Stump;44981631][IMG]http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/8/2012/03/swtimeline-2-final.jpg[/IMG] Get wrecked.[/QUOTE] If you're trying to prove timeframe in relation to us, it's irrelevant. That list is to put the time of the films into perspective in a way we can understand, like it's looking back through a history book leading up to modern times PLUS, 90% of that whole list is not canon because it's "extended universe", automatically voided in lucasfilm's books. I regret not finishing the YJK series and just got the ending plot to what happens with jacen and jaina spoiled erblrblr [QUOTE=PaChIrA;44984950][url]http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/YT-1300_light_freighter[/url] The falcon is a modified version of that[/QUOTE] I'm still baffled by why han has a history of racing his interstellar semi truck [QUOTE=Tuskin;44987631]That is a weird looking [sp]X-Wing[/sp][/QUOTE] why are we spoilering this given the time gap between the original trilogy and the prequels, I'm going to have to point out that technologies evolve a LOT between movies. Also because the rebellion had very limited resources, a lot of their tech (like the classic x-wing) was slapped together and/or scrapped up from old models with bare essentials just to get the job done. Remember that giant space battle at the beginning of ep3? You had some pretty iconic designs in the works [t]http://i.imgur.com/VsHMnXq.png[/t] -you have the x-wing precursor with fold-out 's-foils' for weapon heat dispersal -there's the precursor to what would be a tie interceptor, which coupled with what the jedis were flying were precursors to a-wings I'm really curious to see it fully painted though [QUOTE=Tuskin;44987894]The [sp]X-wing[/sp] In the set pictures might be based off the Original Ralph McQuarrie art It has half-engines instead of full round ones like the in the Concept art.[/QUOTE] funnily enough, I've got a little replica of the original concept out in my car right now, I'll get a picture over lunch
[QUOTE=paul simon;44988665]When you reach the point where CGI is nearly impossible to distinguish from real life, you can no longer say it won't age well. What you're saying is based on old CGI and practical effects, and is not true anymore. Get with the times.[/QUOTE] anyone who says "PRACTICAL EFFECTS AGE BETTER" needs to watch the original Jurassic Park + Forrest Gump Both movies are 20+ years old and both movies have CGI that still holds up to even the best CGI today
CGI is a supplement, not a replacement. I can guarantee that the practical effects won't be exclusive in this movie at ALL. They've got the budget to make them work, and to hell with most comparisons involving caddyshack or any other 80's-90's movies for use of special effects. It was a cheesy humor low budget era. Practical effects with the right budget and the right direction are amazing
[QUOTE=-n3o-;44983873]Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most/all the previous star wars movies, filmed using digital, not print?[/QUOTE] Digital filming wasn't around back when the original trilogy was made (1977-1983).
[QUOTE=paul simon;44988665]When you reach the point where CGI is nearly impossible to distinguish from real life, you can no longer say it won't age well. What you're saying is based on old CGI and practical effects, and is not true anymore. Get with the times.[/QUOTE] Wow good thing CGI still looks awkward and easy to distinguish from real life so that point is completely moot.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44988971]Wow good thing CGI still looks awkward and easy to distinguish from real life so that point is completely moot.[/QUOTE] Plus having your actors stand around in a blue, empty room with nothing to interact with is a horrible idea. Everyone in the prequels acted like dull, clueless drones because of that.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44988971]Wow good thing CGI still looks awkward and easy to distinguish from real life so that point is completely moot.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;JSEdBNslGOk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSEdBNslGOk[/video] [video=youtube;M2QGUkVqv-M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2QGUkVqv-M[/video]
[QUOTE=Steve Stump;44981631][IMG]http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/8/2012/03/swtimeline-2-final.jpg[/IMG] Get wrecked.[/QUOTE] oh boy i just love the huge, detailed, and well-thought explanation as to how the author synced these events up to our timeline It was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Can't we just leave it at that?
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44988971]Wow good thing CGI still looks awkward and easy to distinguish from real life so that point is completely moot.[/QUOTE] You have no idea how many scenes in films you've witnessed that were largely built with CGI without you realizing it.
[QUOTE=dai;44988786]funnily enough, I've got a little replica of the original concept out in my car right now, I'll get a picture over lunch[/QUOTE] got it [t]http://i.imgur.com/Oi1rdIl.png[/t] just rescued the bugger from the depths of my old basement the other day
[QUOTE=paul simon;44989782]You have no idea how many scenes in films you've witnessed that were largely built with CGI without you realizing it.[/QUOTE] Such as? The best examples of CG I can think that I've seen were the battle scenes in LoTR, scenes which were largely shot with real actors wearing prop equipment which were simply multiplied with CGI.
By the way, if anyone is interested, here's a better link to those pictures that aren't shat all over by TMZ. Bigger size, no giant watermark claiming the photo as their own. [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646455/Photos-set-new-Star-Wars-movie-reveal-eerily-familiar-desert-landscape-featuring-giant-pig-like-creature-R2-droids-extras-taking-selfies.html"]Here.[/URL] Dailymail isn't much better, but they didn't screw with the photos.
[QUOTE=dai;44989865]got it [t]http://i.imgur.com/Oi1rdIl.png[/t] just rescued the bugger from the depths of my old basement the other day[/QUOTE] Oh wow, I think that design inspired the Z-95. The bubble cockpit, round rear [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;44989782]You have no idea how many scenes in films you've witnessed that were largely built with CGI without you realizing it.[/QUOTE] There is also the opposite, there are a lot of environments in in the Star Wars prequels that were miniatures augmented with CGI. That shot if Padame's ship landing in Mos Espa in episode 2? Most of the city was miniatures. Most of the CG in the Star Wars films were on the sets. The large wide shots, like the pod race arena were Miniatures.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44990039]Such as? The best examples of CG I can think that I've seen were the battle scenes in LoTR, scenes which were largely shot with real actors wearing prop equipment which were simply multiplied with CGI.[/QUOTE] are you serious [video=vimeo;83506810]http://vimeo.com/83506810[/video] [video=vimeo;19544267]http://vimeo.com/19544267[/video]
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44990227]are you serious [video=vimeo;83506810]http://vimeo.com/83506810[/video] [video=vimeo;19544267]http://vimeo.com/19544267[/video][/QUOTE] I don't see what the point here is supposed to be? There are some good CG effects in there for today, but they are all still noticeably awkward and a select few are just painful to watch on their own, let alone in comparison to practical effects.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;44990119]There is also the opposite, there are a lot of environments in in the Star Wars prequels that were miniatures augmented with CGI. That shot if Padame's ship landing in Mos Espa in episode 2? Most of the city was miniatures. Most of the CG in the Star Wars films were on the sets. The large wide shots, like the pod race arena were Miniatures.[/QUOTE] I still laugh about the pod racing. The wide shots with crowds in the distance were done by the mythbusters, who rigged up a bunch of painted q-tips in a wire mesh and blew on them with hairdryers Adam, Jaimie, and Tory are crouched somewhere under the bleachers in this scene [t]http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/star-wars-movie-set-4.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/star-wars-movie-set-7.jpg[/t] [editline]d[/editline] 25,000 posts jesus
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44990039]Such as? The best examples of CG I can think that I've seen were the battle scenes in LoTR, scenes which were largely shot with real actors wearing prop equipment which were simply multiplied with CGI.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbQrDcgctrY[/media] Many modern films that take place in older times use CGI to create the background cities, the cars etc. But since it's not monsters or anything unrealistic, you never really think about it and you don't notice it because it doesn't stick out. Seriously, CGI can easily be indistinguishable from reality nowadays. [url=http://www.maxwellrender.com/gallery/albums/nature/jar.jpg]cool example[/url]
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990469]Many modern films that take place in older times use CGI to create the background cities, the cars etc. But since it's not monsters or anything unrealistic, you never really think about it and you don't notice it because it doesn't stick out. Seriously, CGI can easily be indistinguishable from reality nowadays. [url=http://www.maxwellrender.com/gallery/albums/nature/jar.jpg]cool example[/url][/QUOTE] CGI has it's uses and it's purposes But you can't act, or even be remotely serious in thinking practical effects are useless/bad looking. They aren't.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990469]Many modern films that take place in older times use CGI to create the background cities, the cars etc. But since it's not monsters or anything unrealistic, you never really think about it and you don't notice it because it doesn't stick out. Seriously, CGI can easily be indistinguishable from reality nowadays. [URL="http://www.maxwellrender.com/gallery/albums/nature/jar.jpg"]cool example[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm not saying that CGI is bad. A truly good filmmaker understands that both CG and practical effects are important. To make a truly beautiful movie, you use practical effects all the way up until you literally can't do anything more with them (IE money issues, not being able to change the weather, etc.) and then you add in CG. In the case of those shots in the OP, using a real scene and real monsters can only look better than the same shot done with largely CG. And considering it's JJ, I'm sure it'll be a lot like the Star Trek movies, largely practical effects, with a bit of CG sprinkled on top.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990469] Seriously, CGI can easily be indistinguishable from reality nowadays. [url=http://www.maxwellrender.com/gallery/albums/nature/jar.jpg]cool example[/url][/QUOTE] I can tell that's fake.
[QUOTE=dai;44990374] [t]http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/star-wars-movie-set-7.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I think that is a little figurine of Prince Xizor from Shadows of the Empire on the stairs.
[QUOTE=agentgamma;44980864]In my opinion, most of the CGI added to Episodes IV-VI looks dated as hell while the original effects still hold up. One of the worst looking effects that comes to mind is CGI Jabba. [img]http://i.imgur.com/5kpJqVL.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] For the record, both of those are CGI. In the original scene it was just some fat guy playing as Jabba, as it was before the character was fully fleshed out. The scene was deleted but for some reason they decided to add it back in to the 1997 and 2004 re-releases.
[QUOTE=Delta616;44990502]I can tell that's fake.[/QUOTE] By what, the fact that I'm telling you it's fake? You wouldn't have known otherwise.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990519]By what, the fact that I'm telling you it's fake? You wouldn't have known otherwise.[/QUOTE] a still image isn't proof that CGI in a film is the best way forward all the time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990481]CGI has it's uses and it's purposes But you can't act, or even be remotely serious in thinking practical effects are useless/bad looking. They aren't.[/QUOTE] I believe CGI is superior for characters.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;44990515]For the record, both of those are CGI. In the original scene it was just some fat guy playing as Jabba, as it was before the character was fully fleshed out.[/QUOTE] Actually, Lucas knew more or less what he wanted Jabba to look like, but didn't have the budget until Episode 6, so the scene was filmed with the intention of re-releasing the movie with that scene added back in with CG-Jabba.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990519]By what, the fact that I'm telling you it's fake? You wouldn't have known otherwise.[/QUOTE] The jaggies on the jar lid, and the reflections
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.