Star Wars VII - The Force Awakens, on BluRay and Dvd April 5th, 2016

[electric indigo]

Wouldn't it be cool if they abandon all CGI and went back to model ships flying through space fighting? You could add special effects in post but the ships themselves should be built for real.

This would be a great addition to the puppet creature shown in the images.

You'll be surprised how many physical models were used in the prequels.

I really wish people would stop bashing CGI for bad directing and writing...

[anime52k8]

You'll be surprised how many physical models were used in the prequels.

I really wish people would stop bashing CGI for bad directing and writing...

Exactly. They could have built actual working space ships and flown them in space for real and the prequels would still have been crap.

Edited June 16, 2014 by anime52k8

[Duke Togo]

You'll be surprised how many physical models were used in the prequels.

No, I wouldn't. I also know about the tremendous amount of green screen that actors were forced to perform before.

[Mr March]

I really wish people would stop bashing CGI for bad directing and writing...

When good CGI isn't front and center in a film as showcase sequences, it's typically invisible. Most can't even tell good CGI unless it's thrown right at their face. So it's a mixed blessing when you make great CGI. It's also important to note that most who make these films want to "see the money on the screen" so a lot of visual effects get created for spectacle rather than embelishment. And those poor instances of silly CGI splashed all over the screen are the most common

[Gakken85]

[David Hingtgen]

Man, I feel geeky for recognizing what that note is sitting on. Props(ha!) to JJ for it though.

[Kanedas Bike]

Man, I feel geeky for recognizing what that note is sitting on. Props(ha!) to JJ for it though.

Let the wookie win.

-b.

[Mommar]

It's not that geeky.

[Mr March]

Man, I feel geeky for recognizing what that note is sitting on. Props(ha!) to JJ for it though.

Indeed, but there are so many of us geeky about Star Wars, it's socially acceptable

[Dynaman]

When good CGI isn't front and center in a film as showcase sequences, it's typically invisible. Most can't even tell good CGI unless it's thrown right at their face.

Darn straight, when I saw the making of Titanic I was surprised to find out that the boat was a prop and the people were CGI (in the disaster crowd scenes! Not the main cast - that I know of).

Also, in Babylon 5 The Lost Tales people were complaining about the horrible CGI - but the exact scene they were complaining about had no CGI in it, the set was a real set.

[Black Valkyrie]

Exactly. They could have build actual working space ships and flown them in space for real and the prequels would still have been crap.

Because of the script.

[Scyla]

Does anyone know if filming in front of a greenscreen has any negative influence on the acting? I'd imagine that performing in a fully built set allows the actor to embrace the role he is playing much more.

Regarding my previous comment. I don't think that CGI is bad or something but as model-kit builder I like the idea building something out of actual stuff. I know making sets and props and such things costs more than render them with software.

On the other hands CGI is still expensive and I guess this is the reason the Transformers are not really in the live-action Transformers movies. It is just that expensive to render the designs so they hat do cut the Transformers part down and replace it with.... other things. Or why many scenes are shot in the night because they can render a less deep field of view like in Pacific Rim.

I'm no expert in such things so if I wrong please don't be offended and explain to me why I'm wrong because I like to learn new things.

[Mr March]

I don't know that much about the technical aspects of performance when working in and around special effects, at least not more than most casual fans have already heard. But I can discuss acting in general. You will generally find that many actors (but not all) consider acting as "reacting" and that performance is as much dependent upon the actor across from you as it is your own performance as an actor. You can actually see this in play on screen sometimes when a great actor is brought down by performing a scene with a weaker actor. To use a Star Wars example, Portman opposite Christensen is a good example, although to be fair both actors were incredibly weakened by bad dialog from poor scripts and a director not known as an actors director. Which brings up another good point that some directors are more concerned with performance than other directors, which can affect performance regardless of whether it's in front of a green screen, a stage or a location. Each director will have their own strengths and weakenesses, or perhaps better to say they have interests in film that differ from one another. Joss Whedon is known as a writer-director and particularly loves dialog. Edgar Wright likes visual styling and story-through-picture. Christopher Nolan adores the cerebral in film and has a penchant for puzzle and the surreal. Each one will bring their own vision to a project and may stress more or less performance from that actors involved dependent upon the priorities of the project.

Digressing, actors generally like to be acting off one another, hence why chemistry between them is so essential. Acting across from a tennis ball on the end of a stick in front of a green screen isn't exactly conducive to great performance. Having said that, most modern actors have green screen experience now simply because of proliferation of special effects across film and television. So you do have a lot greater pool of talent able to act under such circumstances than decades past. Still, many actors appreciate immersion and the more you can offer them to feel a part of a fictional world (sets, costumes, props, location, etc) the stronger the performance.

[Black Valkyrie]

Jedi Master Luke Skywalker !

[valkyrie_cadman]

nice

Edited June 5, 2014 by valkyrie_cadman

[taksraven]

Jedi Master Luke Skywalker !

Wow.

[peter]

Jedi Master Luke Skywalker !

I see he's forgotten how to hold a lightsaber.

[EXO]

I can see Hammil as an old jedi more than I can see Harrison Ford running around with the pew pew. And Carrie Fisher... let's just say I wish Marion stayed the way I remembered her in the original Raiders. Hopefully they'll just be Owen and Beruing it in the kitchen for the movies.

[derex3592]

I see he's forgotten how to hold a lightsaber.

This. LOL.

[Kanedas Bike]

I can see Hammil as an old jedi more than I can see Harrison Ford running around with the pew pew. And Carrie Fisher... let's just say I wish Marion stayed the way I remembered her in the original Raiders. Hopefully they'll just be Owen and Beruing it in the kitchen for the movies.

LOL - classic.

-b.

[Gakken85]

He looks like hes in better shape.

[David Hingtgen]

Does anyone know if filming in front of a greenscreen has any negative influence on the acting? I'd imagine that performing in a fully built set allows the actor to embrace the role he is playing much more.

Pretty sure Ian McKellan said something to the effect that it was much harder acting in The Hobbit vs LOTR, due to the decrease in real sets and increase in green screens---even playing the same character in the same setting! (Hobbiton)

Also---Hamill+beard=awesome. Go with the Obi-Wan look, I think it'd work really well for an older Luke.

[EXO]

Does anyone know if filming in front of a greenscreen has any negative influence on the acting? I'd imagine that performing in a fully built set allows the actor to embrace the role he is playing much more.

Regarding my previous comment. I don't think that CGI is bad or something but as model-kit builder I like the idea building something out of actual stuff. I know making sets and props and such things costs more than render them with software.

On the other hands CGI is still expensive and I guess this is the reason the Transformers are not really in the live-action Transformers movies. It is just that expensive to render the designs so they hat do cut the Transformers part down and replace it with.... other things. Or why many scenes are shot in the night because they can render a less deep field of view like in Pacific Rim.

I'm no expert in such things so if I wrong please don't be offended and explain to me why I'm wrong because I like to learn new things.

They definitely would prefer something with a face or something to emote with than a tennis ball. Imagine the kids in Jurassic Park acting scared of a giant pillow with dots versus the giant TRex with the eyes that actually adjusts its iris from the light. On the opposite side of it, actors hate wearing costumes that don't let them move. They would prefer to wear a green screen suit than a heavy and motion limiting armor. Unless it's made well and light and not too hot. This more in the sci-fi type movies. Actors love wearing period costumes. Personally I like creatures done well in CG... but that type of graphics is really expensive. Most of the time we get crap even with big budget features. But there's special types of movies like The Thing that I can't imagine them doing with CG. As long as the creature has weight and mass that are believable, I don't really care what method they use. Check out Walking With Dinosaurs Live shows on youtube for incredible live creature effects.

One of the main reasons that production companies don't like to use physical effects, sets and props is the turn around time. The budget is looked at on a quarterly basis and the if the pencil pushers don't see a fast return on the company's investments then they see it as a loss. Storing things is also a huge money suck. Big sets, big miniatures sets, costumes and props that just sit there for weeks and then in between movies and especially after principle production is done just hurts the accountant's brain. They can't wait to toss that out into the junkyard if they can't make money from it. These type of guys run Hollywood and every aspect of the business is seen this way. You pretty much have three months to get your crap done or you're getting replaced. Even if you're HR Giger they'll replace you with HR Giger lite with a laptop or an Ipad because even that air in your airbrush cost money.

Metal, plastic , glass and rock are the easiest thing to do in 3D... it's always better to go with CG, so Transformers is best done that way than physical effects unless it's just the car of if an actor is interacting with a hand or something. Pacific Rim has top notch effects, especially the kaijus. Someone told me that it was ignored by the awards show in the FX department because robots are easy to do but they overlooked everything else. Gravity was innovative in the way it was shot but as far as effects it used a lot of standard methods.

[Scyla]

I just looked at some pictures from the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey and they looked spectacular. As cool as the systems around CGI are (like ray-tracers and such thinks) something about models is just as intriguing as images done in a computer. And I was amazed to see physical sets in real locations with what seems to be animatronics so I thought maybe we see some actual spaceship models in the new movies.

As I tried to elaborate that GCI comes with its own sets of problems. Like say in Transformers:AoE where Optimus Prime shifts from truck cap to robot with almost no resemblances of the truck left on his body.

I also think that physical costumes have a more important role as physical sets because the body language is different. If yous suppose to wear a heavy mech suit your movements will be different than when you only acting as if you would wear a mech suit I'd imagine.

So back to Star Wars. What is the prop the director attached the note about leaking images on?

[edit1:] Ah now I see it it is the table where they played holographic chess on in Episode IV.

[edit:2] Only 99 posts left until I dine in hell.... ...with pineapples.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Scyla

[Duke Togo]

Broken ankle is broken.

Harrison Ford Out Two Months After ‘Star Wars Episode VII’ Injury

[Kanedas Bike]

Broken ankle is broken.

Harrison Ford Out Two Months After ‘Star Wars Episode VII’ Injury

Blame EXO, he's the one that brought up Old Solo running around with the pew pew.

-b.

[aerocombatpilot]

Broken ankle is broken.

Harrison Ford Out Two Months After ‘Star Wars Episode VII’ Injury

Aw man that sucks , but still.. GO GET LANDO!!!

[EXO]

Blame EXO, he's the one that brought up Old Solo running around with the pew pew.

-b.

Wasn't my fault... he shot first!

...and I told you so!

[derex3592]

blame it on the droids who repaired the door on the Falcon that fell on his ankle and broke it.

[Kanedas Bike]

blame it on the droids who repaired the door on the Falcon that fell on his ankle and broke it.

OUCH. Is that what happened?

Hopefully they don't have to modify the story (much or at all) because of this, I don't want to hear about any "it was originally intended to be this, that or the other" until Old Solo got hurt.

-b.

[electric indigo]

Lucas would have CGed him instantly...

[derex3592]

Ha!!!!!

[Drad]

I wonder if Drew Struzan will be willing to do the posters for the upcoming movies? He's retired, I know.

I really hope he comes back to do the posters.

[Kanedas Bike]

Lucas would have CGed him instantly...

-b.

[Black Valkyrie]

Thats bad, wish him full recovery. Like Luke said : What a piece of junk !