StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Aparently the ball droid (BB-8) is not CGI at all acording to Mark Hamill.

Linky

Anacronian wrote:Aparently the ball droid (BB-8) is not CGI at all acording to Mark Hamill.

I'm still somewhat becroggled to discover the ball droid is going to be an actual named character. Did the "mouse droid" scuttling around the decks of the Death Star have a name...?

Yup, MSE-6

SpottedKitty wrote:

Anacronian wrote:Aparently the ball droid (BB-8) is not CGI at all acording to Mark Hamill.

I'm still somewhat becroggled to discover the ball droid is going to be an actual named character. Did the "mouse droid" scuttling around the decks of the Death Star have a name...?

pretty much everything has a name in Star Wars, even some of the more prominent "background" jedi were named for the movies and not by EU material

as the ball droid not being CGI, robotics have advanced quite alot since 1970s-1980s when the orginal trilogy was made so it's not unlikely and they did use on-set props for some droids/aliens in the prequels too.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:In defense of CGI clones, they did have the advantage of looking more like real soldiers thanks to being based on motion capture of them. For every moment of clone trooper CGI feeling off, there is one of OT stormtroopers bumping their heads into doorways or consistently shooting from the hip with bad tactics. While obviously this could be done with trained extras, it is easier and cheaper with CGI.

Not sure how that would necessarily be a negative now. If anything, shows and movies even up to the 90's didn't show firearm and squad discipline very well until the past decade or so where-in they do seem to pay more attention to detail.

Anacronian wrote:Aparently the ball droid (BB-8) is not CGI at all acording to Mark Hamill.

Linky

One advantage of practical effects over CGI is that they give the merchandising arm a starting point for designing a mass produced version.

As for how it works, I'm guessing something similar to this XKCD comic.

as the ball droid not being CGI, robotics have advanced quite alot since 1970s-1980s when the orginal trilogy was made so it's not unlikely and they did use on-set props for some droids/aliens in the prequels too.

Even during the Prequels, Kenny Baker was only brought in because of tradition. R2 could have been fully automated and run without him at all.

Borgholio wrote:

as the ball droid not being CGI, robotics have advanced quite alot since 1970s-1980s when the orginal trilogy was made so it's not unlikely and they did use on-set props for some droids/aliens in the prequels too.

Even during the Prequels, Kenny Baker was only brought in because of tradition. R2 could have been fully automated and run without him at all.

In many cases it was, Grant Imahara of Mythbusters fame was involved with the remote control version in TPM and AOTC. He even had a cameo in the Beneath the Dome mockumentary.

Soontir C'boath wrote:Not sure how that would necessarily be a negative now. If anything, shows and movies even up to the 90's didn't show firearm and squad discipline very well until the past decade or so where-in they do seem to pay more attention to detail.

This is true, I was merely pointing out that there was an advantage to the PT's CGI clones over the OT's extras in suits. If the new films managed to have the best of both worlds it would be nice, but part of the problem with the original stormtroopera was that in reality the actors couldn't see anything with their helmets on.

I thought it was a very beautiful trailer, but it didn't really excite me since Star Wars has always been beautiful. I don't have a problem with the graphics of the prequels. I want more from the story, the characters, and the depth of the world presented (as in the beginnings of all of the original films). I can't fault a teaser trailer for not doing this (I don't expect it to), but it was still a "meh. I'll have to see if this group can really make a good Star Wars movie. This doesn't show anything."

Borgholio wrote:

I think it is a terrible idea to have a blacklash against the prequels for using too much CGI when fans nowadays clearly have no problems with films that uses even more CGI than the prequels.

Is that so? I challenge you to find one person (other than yourself) who thinks it was a good idea to CGI every single clonetrooper in Episode 3.

I don't really have a problem with it. Never noticed anything too off when watching.

Panzersharkcat wrote:

Borgholio wrote:

I think it is a terrible idea to have a blacklash against the prequels for using too much CGI when fans nowadays clearly have no problems with films that uses even more CGI than the prequels.

Is that so? I challenge you to find one person (other than yourself) who thinks it was a good idea to CGI every single clonetrooper in Episode 3.

I don't really have a problem with it. Never noticed anything too off when watching.

Challenge complete.

Seriously though I guess it depends on the person. When I looked at the Clone Troopers in Episodes 2 and 3, they just looked fake to me. I mean maybe as far as CGI goes they were pretty good for the time, I still noticed the lack of realism. More than likely due to the fact I play a lot of video games and I was subconsciously comparing them to the kinds of graphics I'm used to on the PC.

I will admit their fakeness only became apparent to me in EP3, and since that memory is a decade old it might have been in the Rewatching of it later than that. I am not saying I didn't know the clones were CGI in EP2, just that they CGI was good enough at a technical level and contemporary standards that it didn't take me out of the movie (the sterile CGI environments they created did that, which was an implementation failure not a technical limit) The three films of the trilogy were released from 1999 to 2005 and the actual production of them was even earlier than that. Its hard to look back and not only realize how much better CGI has become since then but also how much it changed between those dates. At some point I am sure decisions were made not to "decartoon" material in order to maintain consistency between the first and third films even if CGI had moved on. Oh I am sure technically the CGI improved, but style wise consistency was necessary.

What seemed impressive in 1999 was just blah by 2005. Hell, probably long before that actually. This is another advantage physical sets have. While the actual set design might not age well with physical buttons instead to touch screens for instance, the actual things themselves are as real as they ever were. CGI has the same issues with set design aging, but they will always look less real as time goes on (unless they are intentionally stylized instead of made "as real as we can make it"). Eventually CGI will get so good the human eye can't tell the difference, improvements will be purely technical like upping the hertz of your TV and implementation not capability will be the difference between good and bad. We are not anywhere near that yet.

Grumman wrote:That would be pretty awful, in my opinion. A good Force user takes out the two bad Force users who ruled the galaxy with an iron fist, and now they decide Force users are bad? I see enough of that nonsense in superhero comics, thank you very much.

First of all, which comics have you scene that in? Second of all, the galaxy with the exception of literally a handful of people have no idea that Palpatine and Vader are Force users or even think the Force is real. None of them even know who the fuck Luke Skywalker even is.

Anacronian wrote:The Captain also wears black - also there Black clad officers on the Death Star like the one that informs Lord Vader that the rebel fighters are to small to hit with Turbolasers so i don't think they are so unusual, Also the stormtroopers dosen't stop remembering the sensitive information once Vader leaves, At the end of the day i find it unlikely that Vader would mention something very secret in front of 8-10 troopers plus the second officer and somebody with the rank of Commander.

It's more likely that Devastator is a black operations ship crewed by the most trusted crew in the empire.

The officers in black are merely the Stormtrooper officers as opposed to the ships officers or the officers in tan and beige on the Death Star.

The Devastator is more likely just a Stardestroyer that Vader commandeered, or that he was already on, to chase down the Death Star plans from where ever in the Empire they stole them from, which was more than likely Coruscant as it was Leia's private ship.

If you want to say that there was anything special about the ship, it would be that possibly it was a special detachment of stormtroopers that Vader brings with him that he knows and is comfortable with on missions as even Vader needs some support.

If you read Wookiepedia, the EU says some shit like that is the case.

Also IIRC, it has been stated that the TPM used like three times the practical FX shots as ROTJ and each subsequent movie used more each time.

It's not a question of CGI vs Practical, it's a question of the design of the effect. Clone troopers, the only CGI any one ever bitches about, looked like shit from the get go, CGI or not.

Havok wrote:

Anacronian wrote:The Captain also wears black - also there Black clad officers on the Death Star like the one that informs Lord Vader that the rebel fighters are to small to hit with Turbolasers so i don't think they are so unusual, Also the stormtroopers dosen't stop remembering the sensitive information once Vader leaves, At the end of the day i find it unlikely that Vader would mention something very secret in front of 8-10 troopers plus the second officer and somebody with the rank of Commander.

It's more likely that Devastator is a black operations ship crewed by the most trusted crew in the empire.

The officers in black are merely the Stormtrooper officers as opposed to the ships officers or the officers in tan and beige on the Death Star.

The Devastator is more likely just a Stardestroyer that Vader commandeered, or that he was already on, to chase down the Death Star plans from where ever in the Empire they stole them from, which was more than likely Coruscant as it was Leia's private ship.

If you want to say that there was anything special about the ship, it would be that possibly it was a special detachment of stormtroopers that Vader brings with him that he knows and is comfortable with on missions as even Vader needs some support.

If you read Wookiepedia, the EU says some shit like that is the case.

I doubt the rebels got the plans from Coruscant because as I recall its said at the beginning of the film that the plans were stolen during a battle and attacking Coruscant openly at that point would have been insane.

Than again what is a battle in this context? A battle could be a few rebel starfighters attacking an outpost to distract the imperials as their spy escapes.

Havok wrote:

Grumman wrote:That would be pretty awful, in my opinion. A good Force user takes out the two bad Force users who ruled the galaxy with an iron fist, and now they decide Force users are bad? I see enough of that nonsense in superhero comics, thank you very much.

First of all, which comics have you scene that in?

The Civil War event is probably the broadest example and the X-Men are likely the longest-lasting, but there have been a lot of comics where civilians turn on the superheroes given the slightest excuse.

Consider things from this angle.
What are jedi and sith? Force users.
What does that mean? They are magical superheroes.

What is the difference between them? You don't know. Some sort of ideological or religious thing. But they some times switch sides and stuff. And one is generally evil. But the other that's good always has a decent chance of turning evil for no good reason. And the ones that do switch tend to be even more evil than the original ones so as to prove their eviltude or something. History teaches us that.

What are they best known for? Well there was this long time that one of the groups were basically a secret police monk organization with the old republic.

How did that end? They all died after trying to overthrow the republic at the end of a bloody civil war thought over what started as a botched diplomatic mission to unblocade some backward planet. Oh, and there is the whole evil empire of doom that blows up planets part. Kind of important that.

So a logical response might well be to just decide you'd be better off without the lot.

Grumman wrote:The Civil War event is probably the broadest example and the X-Men are likely the longest-lasting, but there have been a lot of comics where civilians turn on the superheroes given the slightest excuse.

Not a Superhero comic, but The Incredibles also featured this plot.

Havok wrote:Also IIRC, it has been stated that the TPM used like three times the practical FX shots as ROTJ and each subsequent movie used more each time.

It's not a question of CGI vs Practical, it's a question of the design of the effect. Clone troopers, the only CGI any one ever bitches about, looked like shit from the get go, CGI or not.

For me, my big problem are when things are COMPLETELY CGI. The best uses of CGI are to augment practical effects. That is, the actors are on a real set, but what the audience sees is a touched up version of that using CGI. In fact, that's how the vast vast majority of CGI is actually implemented. What has a tendency to look like shit (though it's gotten better since the prequel trilogy) is when they have scenes that are essentially 100% CGI: they just film actors with fucking tennis balls taped to them in a green room. I mean, arguably the pinnacle of that type of technology was "Avatar", and even that didn't look real. Don't get me wrong, it looked COOL, but it still had a very video game patina to it.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:For me, my big problem are when things are COMPLETELY CGI. The best uses of CGI are to augment practical effects. That is, the actors are on a real set, but what the audience sees is a touched up version of that using CGI. In fact, that's how the vast vast majority of CGI is actually implemented. What has a tendency to look like shit (though it's gotten better since the prequel trilogy) is when they have scenes that are essentially 100% CGI: they just film actors with fucking tennis balls taped to them in a green room. I mean, arguably the pinnacle of that type of technology was "Avatar", and even that didn't look real. Don't get me wrong, it looked COOL, but it still had a very video game patina to it.

Even Jurassic Park, the classic case of the success of CGI had a great deal of practical effects in addition to the digital ones. Among the most notable cases were the kitchen scene in which the raptors chase the kids. Said raptors were people in suits. Amusingly there is actually a point at which if you look closely enough you can see the hand of a crew member steady the tail of one of the raptors, showing a disadvantage of suits versus CGI.

Part of the problem with pure CGI is that it allows one to do things that feel so alien that they will always seem somewhat fake. This is largely the case with Avatar and to a lesser extent the Star Wars prequels, especially Kamino, Mustafar and several other brief locations in ROTS.

Another major issue that I noticed when watching The Avengers on DVD* is that watching CGI effects on the lower resolution of DVD often causes them to look slightly fake due to the lack of sufficient detail after the conversion. This is never an issue with older practical effects, though quality CGI usually looks comparable on Blu-ray. Having never seen ROTS on Blu-ray, I would guess that it is also an issue there.

* Oddly, after going back from DVD to Blu-ray, my feelings as to the overall quality if the movie improved, despite the absurd number of plot issues.

Purple wrote:Consider things from this angle.
What are jedi and sith? Force users.
What does that mean? They are magical superheroes.

What is the difference between them? You don't know. Some sort of ideological or religious thing. But they some times switch sides and stuff. And one is generally evil. But the other that's good always has a decent chance of turning evil for no good reason. And the ones that do switch tend to be even more evil than the original ones so as to prove their eviltude or something. History teaches us that.

What are they best known for? Well there was this long time that one of the groups were basically a secret police monk organization with the old republic.

How did that end? They all died after trying to overthrow the republic at the end of a bloody civil war thought over what started as a botched diplomatic mission to unblocade some backward planet. Oh, and there is the whole evil empire of doom that blows up planets part. Kind of important that.

So a logical response might well be to just decide you'd be better off without the lot.

That's overly complicated and cynical for a SW theme. More like there is two ways to go, almost Spiderman in it's simplicity, with great power comes great responsibility. You either serve the people with that great power and things go well, or you use that power for your own cause and things go to shit. It is a simple theme, which makes it a good theme because everyone on the planet can relate to that idea.

Knife wrote:That's overly complicated and cynical for a SW theme.

Have you seen the prequels?

Knife wrote: That's overly complicated and cynical for a SW theme. More like there is two ways to go, almost Spiderman in it's simplicity, with great power comes great responsibility. You either serve the people with that great power and things go well, or you use that power for your own cause and things go to shit. It is a simple theme, which makes it a good theme because everyone on the planet can relate to that idea.

What Purple wrote is functionally what the Emperor's propaganda machine would output at the end of the Clone Wars once he takes down the Jedi Order. Nevermind the effects of 30 years of being ruled by the Sith....and blowing up a peaceful planet....