• Star Wars Episode VII Set Pics Show Off Creatures, Sets and Extras
    126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990540]I believe CGI is superior for characters.[/QUOTE] in what sense? For "people"? Or monsters? Practical effects look better in so many situations. No, you can't do everything with practical, but doing everything with CGI isn't good either.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990531]a still image isn't proof that CGI in a film is the best way forward all the time.[/QUOTE] Of course it is. But sure, have more video instead: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ-3aRhvFwU[/media]
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990558]Of course it is. But sure, have more video instead: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ-3aRhvFwU[/media][/QUOTE] "My opinion is fact."
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990558]Of course it is. But sure, have more video instead: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ-3aRhvFwU[/media][/QUOTE] I work in the film industry. Saying it like you're right, like you know better than the directors and DoP's who do this for a living is insulting.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990558]Of course it is. But sure, have more video instead: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ-3aRhvFwU[/media][/QUOTE] Is that supposed to be an example of realistic CG? It looks like Pixar adopted a new style.
[QUOTE=Delta616;44990552]The jaggies on the jar lid, and the reflections[/QUOTE] It's not rendered in a way where aliasing is a problem, so that would be more of a scaling thing and it can happen with any sufficiently sharp photograph. [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990556]in what sense? For "people"? Or monsters? Practical effects look better in so many situations. No, you can't do everything with practical, but doing everything with CGI isn't good either.[/QUOTE] For monsters that do not fit human proportions.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990579]It's not rendered in a way where aliasing is a problem, so that would be more of a scaling thing and it can happen with any sufficiently sharp photograph. [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] For monsters that do not fit human proportions.[/QUOTE] but a person still acts out those monsters so there's something to animate to it relies on a practical effect.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44990541]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] Ah, well that's kind of odd. It's funny considering the puppet-Jabba in Return of the Jedi looked better than either of those renditions ever did. Frankly, the whole scene was kind of pointless, there was no need to reveal him until later in the series.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44982154]I'm not sure how that proves anything, the dates in the middle are totally arbitrary.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;44989142]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] IIRC those dates are fudged based on [url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Into_the_Great_Unknown]"Into the Great Unknown"[/url] a non-canon crossover comic. Han Solo makes a hyperspace jump and crash-lands on Earth. He dies, but Chewie survives and ends up influencing the legend of the Bigfoot. Indiana Jones later comes across the wreck of the Falcon, but decides to leave it be. [t]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/18lr796mhp2b7jpg.jpg[/t][t]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--3o-7D1RA--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18lr796mmhowojpg.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990597]but a person still acts out those monsters so there's something to animate to it relies on a practical effect.[/QUOTE] Absolutely! The newest Hobbit movie did this in a wonderful way. Motion capturing a human for an enormous dragon, and using that data for the CGI. It worked very well, and I mean, this is what i mean by replacing those sort of practical effects. Just gives you a tad more freedom, see? Based on your comment I think you might have misunderstood me a bit. I just find motion capture + CGI better than animatronics and similiar.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;44990606]Ah, well that's kind of odd. It's funny considering the puppet-Jabba in Return of the Jedi looked better than either of those renditions ever did. Frankly, the whole scene was kind of pointless, there was no need to reveal him until later in the series.[/QUOTE] That's the main example I use when people say that Lucas "got bad over time" or something. The only reason Star Wars was so good was because he wasn't trusted yet so he couldn't really go batshit and had people second-guessing him every step of the way, and the only reason Empire and Jedi were so good were because he wasn't directing. The prequels are an example of George Lucas' true nature, and the fact that he intentionally filmed a stupid scene so he could retouch it and add it back in to an already perfect movie later is the perfect example of that. [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;44990625]The newest Hobbit movie did this in a wonderful way. Motion capturing a human for an enormous dragon, and using that data for the CGI. It worked very well, and I mean, this is what i mean by replacing those sort of practical effects. Just gives you a tad more freedom, see?[/QUOTE] Funny example because the CG in Desolation of Smaug was sickeningly bad.
[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;44990623]IIRC those dates are fudged based on [url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Into_the_Great_Unknown]"Into the Great Unknown"[/url] a non-canon crossover comic. Han Solo makes a hyperspace jump and crash-lands on Earth. He dies, but Chewie survives and ends up influencing the legend of the Bigfoot. Indiana Jones later comes across the wreck of the Falcon, but decides to leave it be. [t]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/18lr796mhp2b7jpg.jpg[/t][t]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--3o-7D1RA--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18lr796mmhowojpg.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Which at the time where the EU was Canon, it wasn't canon.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44990625]Absolutely! The newest Hobbit movie did this in a wonderful way. Motion capturing a human for an enormous dragon, and using that data for the CGI. It worked very well, and I mean, this is what i mean by replacing those sort of practical effects. Just gives you a tad more freedom, see? Based on your comment I think you might have misunderstood me a bit. I just find motion capture better than animatronics and similiar.[/QUOTE] no one here is arguing that CGI shouldn't' be used. You're the one saying practical effects are always bad which is wrong Look at a film from 2005 that did pure CGI. Look at a pure CGI film now. Guess what? The old film forever looks like shit. Practical effects look real and stay looking real because they are real. I'm a huge, huge fan of miniatures and the level of realism they bring. It's a dead art now unfortunately but it looks better in miniature than it does in CGI almost every time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990577]I work in the film industry. Saying it like you're right, like you know better than the directors and DoP's who do this for a living is insulting.[/QUOTE] Oh, I'm not telling anyone how to do their work. I'm just saying it's entirely possible and that I support the motion of it.
[QUOTE=Selek;44978771]Yeah, JJ Abrams always films on film rather than digitally, so this'll be good![/QUOTE] he's also great at improvising stuff, like the whole shakey parts of star trek were really just the camera guy bonking the camera while the cast just flung themselves sideways, or the space-diving part which was filmed by just having the guys hanging over a mirror with a fan blowing upwards
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990658]no one here is arguing that CGI shouldn't' be used. You're the one saying practical effects are always bad which is horseshit. Look at a film from 2005 that did pure CGI. Look at a pure CGI film now. Guess what? The old film forever looks like shit. Practical effects look real and stay looking real because they are real.[/QUOTE] I don't remember saying practical effects are "always bad", I do however remember saying modern CGI is better. And that is my opinion. Again, we've reached a point where we are capable of creating CGI that is hard to distinguish from reality, and if it's hard to see the difference today then why wouldn't it be tomorrow. I don't think anyone is going to watch "ripper street" in the future and go all "oh that's obviously shitty CGI". Characters, however, are more of a "we're getting there". Though I suppose you could argue that unrealistic characters will always look a bit off because they're, well... unrealistic.
[QUOTE=Sableye;44990684]he's also great at improvising stuff, like the whole shakey parts of star trek were really just the camera guy bonking the camera while the cast just flung themselves sideways, [/QUOTE] I think most of Star Trek series and movies were done that way, so that isn't surprising.
I think CG works best when the limitations are understood and worked with. [img]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120323190339/terminator/images/0/05/Clip_atr_of_t-1000_torso.jpg[/img] The T-100 is liquid metal, meaning that it can be highly reflective and mostly untextured. It also is a robot, so stiff or unnatural animations can be written off as part of the character. [img]http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100604162948/pirates/images/b/b7/Kraken_attacks_18_Davy_Jones.png[/img] Davy Jones is a fish-man, so his skin can have a wet or unnatural feeling to it (unlike human skin). Because he is a mutated human, Bill Nighy was able to be on-set making the basic performance, some features like his eyes could be easily retained. [B]Spoilers for Breaking Bad season 4[/B] [url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E8LJdwFGNLw/UeCwuCnRPHI/AAAAAAAAK_o/yGj3N_RqHFE/s1600/Breaking-Bad-Face-Off-Gus-Zombie.jpg]image[/url] [sp]The shot of Gus' face-off was accomplished by first applying makeup to Giancarlo's face, then composting that with a model of the shattered skull. This allowed the actor to be on-set while still being able to 'take away' from the face - you can even see through his head. In addition, the scene was shot in a few takes so CG was used to maintain the room's layout.[/sp]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44990658]no one here is arguing that CGI shouldn't' be used. You're the one saying practical effects are always bad which is wrong Look at a film from 2005 that did pure CGI. Look at a pure CGI film now. Guess what? The old film forever looks like shit. Practical effects look real and stay looking real because they are real. I'm a huge, huge fan of miniatures and the level of realism they bring. It's a dead art now unfortunately but it looks better in miniature than it does in CGI almost every time.[/QUOTE] ya i was watching dune the other night and i can't for the life of me figure out how they made the effects so [I]good[/I], same with blade runner, the level of detail and the look they were able to achieve was and still is far more believable than that of CGI, however practically though CGI is great for making normal stuff look unbelievable, like take a normal building and remove it from its supports and surroundings and suddenly its the future and its floating instead of just being a cool looking building anchored to a hillside CGI in my opinion should only be used for touch-ups or to make real stuff look like something else, for setting, and for characters it should never be used for anything that people interact with. Smaug was actually pretty good until they started CGI'ing the entire dwarf place togather and having him smash shit up and [sp] lakes of gold[/sp], the scenes where bilbo was just talking to him were perfect because they made part of the mound and used CGI to make it big and shiney [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tuskin;44990725]I think most of Star Trek series and movies were done that way, so that isn't surprising.[/QUOTE] star trek got away with super small budgets oddly enough. most of the time the star-battle scenes were just them blowing up old ToS props or TNG props, and for the last few movies they just used TNG sets anyways
CG and practical effects both have their place. [video=youtube;f1YQOIginV0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1YQOIginV0[/video] [video=youtube;gwx0EArlgQE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwx0EArlgQE[/video]
As a VFX artist, animator, and cinematographer I say the more you can do practical the better. CGI and visual effects can help give some extra push to scenes, or fill them out, but as soon as you replace entire sets of characters thinks get get uncanny fast.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44990640]Funny example because the CG in Desolation of Smaug was sickeningly bad.[/QUOTE] You have extreme standards. Or maybe you're just allergic to CGI.
It goes back to what I said earlier about limitations - you need to have restraint. You can do [I]anything[/I] with CG - creatures, costumes, locations, camera angles... [t]http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120907014131/lotr/images/3/31/580751_418602258175385_1601212863_n.jpg[/t][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Smaugmoviestill.jpg[/t] The best scenes in both [I]Hobbit[/I] movies, IMO, were the sequences where Bilbo was talking with a CGI character. Smaug was awe-inspiring - massive on an incredible scale, intelligent and cunning, incredibly powerful and threatening. Although he was invisible, you could tell Bilbo was in great danger from the beast. But then there's the extended action sequence. Although there are a lot of snazzy visuals, Smaug's impressive nature gets highly diminished by all the dwarf-chasing shenanigans where he just barely misses them, gets bamboozled, runs into things, and gets dazzled by a gold statue. It's simply too much. Now, a practical Smaug wouldn't have been able to perform all those yakety-sax shenanigans. [I]However,[/I] that initial impressive scene wouldn't have been as astounding and impressive, thanks to Cumberbatch's mo-cap performance and the amazing 3-D model. Consider Gollum, too - an incredibly popular supporting character in three of these movies, brought to life by CGI. Sure, you could get an emaciated actor or make an animatronic or puppet, but you couldn't get Gollum's bug-eyed, big-headed, tooth-lacking, skin-and-bones appearance any other way.
This all looks better than I expected. I was really afraid when I heard about Disney doing this, but the pictures actually look like how Star Wars should look like. Also, I like the old effects in the old movies. Also how Jabba and Yoda looked like. For me, that really has that special Star Wars charme and I really like it.
WHATEVER THEN
Little late there, these were posted last page.
the set pictures were taken down. any other place I can see them at?
[QUOTE=Ducksink;44997999]the set pictures were taken down. any other place I can see them at?[/QUOTE] Here's all of them, [url]http://imgur.com/a/ezqEX[/url]
Yea Millenium Falcon totally not confirmed, you heard JJ [sp]It's totally confirmed by JJ[/sp] [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/1959278_10152053615557035_5234736180717939876_n.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;44998171]Yea Millenium Falcon totally not confirmed, you heard JJ [sp]It's totally confirmed by JJ[/sp] [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/1959278_10152053615557035_5234736180717939876_n.png[/img][/QUOTE] For those that don't get what the note is lying on top of (like me): [img]http://i.imgur.com/WK7blMj.png?1[/img] Which is located inside the Millennium Falcon.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.