I mean in so far as Disney wanted to leave the PT era creatively. I also think the show was far too $$$ for what they wanted to spend.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release) (Spoilers)
- Thread starter OldKen
- Start date
I mean in so far as Disney wanted to leave the PT era creatively. I also think the show was far too $$$ for what they wanted to spend.
no wonder why i dont remember it! i never saw the unfinished episodes
- - - Updated - - -
i JUST (like 30 minutes ago) picked up these
i have to agree with you, i havent collected figures since 2005 with ROTS came out. though i still always hit up the toy section in walmart to see the new figures here and there, i think previous figures have been fair more detailed then these
i am a huge rebels fan, so it doesnt bother me, these will hang on the wall and not open because heck.. i dont play with figures anymore. 31 i grew up and now all i do is swing around lightsabers :wacko
joshvanrad
Sr Member
Anyone else see reports of this?
http://www.theforceawakensblog.com/new-the-force-awakens-trailer-released-on-october-19th/
http://www.theforceawakensblog.com/new-the-force-awakens-trailer-released-on-october-19th/
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I'm hesitant to believe it for some reason. Someone make me believe.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I'm more interested that that's the proposed ticket sales date.
Sometimes a staff is just a staff....
http://makingstarwars.net/2015/10/star-wars-the-force-awakens-and-reys-not-so-sithly-staff/
http://makingstarwars.net/2015/10/star-wars-the-force-awakens-and-reys-not-so-sithly-staff/
I never heard the Darth Plagueis thing, which doesn't make sense to me, but I just thought it might be like the staffs those Shadow Guards in The Force Unleashed had. Jakku sounds pretty interesting though if that's true.
http://www.moviecastingcall.org/201...ch-for-star-wars-episode-viii-lead-roles.html
Harrison returning in VIII? misdirection?
Harrison returning in VIII? misdirection?
Riceball
Master Member
Why? Except for some partial 1:1 builds CG is just much more practical and easier, and probably cheaper too.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
Full scale in some aspects.
Why? WHY? Why do you think you don't see any newer movie ships that last very long. Every single ship in the original Star Wars trilogy was actually built by hand and as popular today as it was back then (even more so). You can fake alot of things in CGI that you can't with the actual physical object. Light falls differently on a actual model then it does on a CGI model because all the formulas that have been created for ray casting still haven't been perfected and you can always tell the difference. The nuances of little happy mistakes aren't possible with CGI. So many of the best effects in movies were because of little happy mistakes that no one was planning for. Not to mention the fact that the actual physical models can go on tour and make them even MORE money... can't do that with a CGI model. Sure the 1:1 scales are nice, but nothing sparks the imagine more then actually seeing something with your own eyes. I've seen photos of Jupiter and Saturn millions of times and thought nothing of it, but when I finally got my first powerful telescope and saw the eye of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn with my own eyes, that everything changed. It just floored me to know that I could go outside on any given night and point the telescope up at the sky and see these beautiful planets any time I wanted with my own eyes. It changes something inside you. Gives you more of a visceral experience to know it is actually there, it really exists, you could reach out and touch it. Its hard to explain... but it also helps the actors see what the ship they are flying up looks like up close and personal. Helps them imagine the scene much more visually and emotionally. I think Lucas made a point of bringing the actors in to touch and feel the models that were made so they could get a better sense of what they were dealing with. In essence, the actual physical models are 100% better then any CGI computer rendered garbage and can inspire much more then some pixels artificially generated in a computer. As for cheaper and easier, ILM was able to crank out hundreds of ships in a short amount of time at a fraction of the cost as it would take to design, build, and animate in a computer farm these days at a fraction of the cost. The real question is this... what would you rather have... real chocolate or artificially chocolate flavored substitute? Why do you think that we modelers love to build those ships? Because it gives us the tactile feel and ties us to it in a more connected way. I admit, CGI has come a long way since it started, but NOTHING beats the real thing!
Last edited:
seelsa73
Sr Member
Could be one of three things that I can come up with.
1. Yes, possible misdirection.
2. The stars list on that page is inaccurate...I do believe the same website got a few wrong during TFA casting too.
Or, and this is my own personal belief
3. Harrison Ford is genuinely happy to be a part of the new movies and no longer wants Solo to bite the blaster bolt and therefore Han doesn't die in TFA.
I realize most everybody on this site is so focused on details, since you have to be to get accurate props, you could find every CG imperfection and consider it therefore "crap", but its not going to pop out or even register to your average moviegoer/fan who goes into a movie looking for a fun time and doesn't look so closely at every little detail in each frame. So the filmmakers will try to get the most satisfying result and do it the easiest and/or cheapest way possible.
Riceball
Master Member
I'd rather have what works best, not a lesser product because of nostalgia. In most cases that's going to be CG and honestly, I feel that most people who pine for practical and complain about CG being fake and everything can't actually tell the difference but only convince themselves that they can tell simply because they know it's CG. You can't watch a movie like The Martian and tell me that it could have been done any better doing it the old school method, all practically with miniatures or that you could tell which scenes were done practically and which with CG.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I don't want to derail, but I'd say I prefer practical to CGI 7 out of 10 times. I think when you get your environment to act more naturally around the visuals you are using it creates a more immersive picture. The way light reacts to objects still hasn't been perfected with CGI.
I will say that CGI is crucial in taking out items from scenes, and I think CGI is an important tool that should be used whenever it fits. But designing entire scenes, entire landscapes, and characters with CGI just takes me out of it.
I will say that CGI is crucial in taking out items from scenes, and I think CGI is an important tool that should be used whenever it fits. But designing entire scenes, entire landscapes, and characters with CGI just takes me out of it.
Similar threads
