Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)

[Westies14]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Don't forget about matte paintings - just like with the PT, partial sets for the OT were constructed and matted into a hand-painted extension. That could explain some of the claim. There were a lot of paintings in the OT. Amazing how something created organically by hand, though far simpler, can be far more effective at deceiving the human eye and mind! As someone mentioned earlier - one of the biggest issues with CG, historically, had been the camera movements it allows (and abuses) rather than the modeling or composition.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Exactly... the camera work exposes CGI most of the time. The most convincing CGI shots are those you don't even pay attention to or realize is CGI... and camera work has a lot to do with that. Most of the time the camera focuses in on the CGI effect and gives us a swirl around it to really show it off. Seriously... it's 2013 for ****s sake... not 1995... I would think we should have moved on having the CGI be a character in the movie, instead of what it actually is: a tool to build the world of the movie. You don't see the camera zeroing in on the set dressing such as a chair and giving us swirls around those just to show off the craftsmanship put into making it. That's how ridiculous it is to single out the CGI effect, with the inbuilt posturing: "look how much we paid for this... doesn't it look cool" nonsense. CGI is not the new tool anymore... so why keep making it stand out, when it's usually there to be unnoticed.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

^^^^^ Love that post! ^^^^^

 

[Bigdaddy]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

TMG: Nailed it! :thumbsup

 

[Edwardowan]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Exactly... the camera work exposes CGI most of the time. The most convincing CGI shots are those you don't even pay attention to or realize is CGI... and camera work has a lot to do with that. Most of the time the camera focuses in on the CGI effect and gives us a swirl around it to really show it off. Seriously... it's 2013 for ****s sake... not 1995... I would think we should have moved on having the CGI be a character in the movie, instead of what it actually is: a tool to build the world of the movie. You don't see the camera zeroing in on the set dressing such as a chair and giving us swirls around those just to show off the craftsmanship put into making it. That's how ridiculous it is to single out the CGI effect, with the inbuilt posturing: "look how much we paid for this... doesn't it look cool" nonsense. CGI is not the new tool anymore... so why keep making it stand out, when it's usually there to be unnoticed.

I third that... this is exactly what needs to be memo'd to any film production company... with one of the new coversheets on that TPS report... should they get this memo... :lol

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The motion carries.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The motion carries.

I concur! Give that man a medal. :thumbsup

 

[OldKen]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

TMG busts out some solid truth sometimes! This being one of those times!

Great post.

It is odd. It would be different if there was a giant leap... but it's all small steps of improvement with each movie. Use it in a way where it isn't noticed. For the sake of the movie... not as a demo reel you are whoring out to sell your tech...

It's kinda stupid really...

 

[Lutso]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Seriously, this thread is going to die at 118 pages? I think not! I am the Necromancer!

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

...................

 

[rodneyfaile]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I don't know if stand along movies would work. A few might be good, but a flood of them might turn into 'Holiday Special' nonsense just for the sake of spooling out another one!

Any movie can be good, if there is good writing, and good acting. Concept isn't everything. "That 70's Show" wasn't good because it was set in the 70s. It was good because it had a great cast and great writing. They just can't lean on the Star Wars universe as a setting to do all the work for them. Sure, setting it in the Star Wars universe pretty much guarantees ticket sales, but I hope they are out to create great entertainment, not just ticket sales.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I don't know if stand along movies would work.

Agreed. I prefer to sit when I watch films. :lol

 

[jme3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I don't know if stand along movies would work. A few might be good, but a flood of them might turn into 'Holiday Special' nonsense just for the sake of spooling out another one!

I agree there's such a thing as too much of a good thing, but I don't know at what point I'd be saturated with SW. There's so much interesting ground that could be covered if, like others have said, it's done well. If it ultimately turns out to be junk for the sake of making another SW movie, then I'll move on, but it's early in the game and I'm going to be optimistic about things.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Bear in mind that much of Disney's stuff is direct-to-video/DVD/streaming and Disney Channel material. I mean, how many Lion King or Little Mermaid adventures have been made that never saw the inside of a theater? They might still be considered "movies" in a sense, if not necessarily theatrical productions.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Bear in mind that much of Disney's stuff is direct-to-video/DVD/streaming and Disney Channel material. I mean, how many Lion King or Little Mermaid adventures have been made that never saw the inside of a theater? They might still be considered "movies" in a sense, if not necessarily theatrical productions.

True. To be honest I hope that doesn't happen with Star Wars though. You get a lot of second rate stuff that way. If they're going to do it do it right like they have with Marvel. Stand alone adventures (hopefully with new characters) and then a "main event" every few years.

 

[jme3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Bear in mind that much of Disney's stuff is direct-to-video/DVD/streaming and Disney Channel material. I mean, how many Lion King or Little Mermaid adventures have been made that never saw the inside of a theater? They might still be considered "movies" in a sense, if not necessarily theatrical productions.

^That is true, though technically SW will still be a Lucasfilm operation going forward. Disney will doubtlessly hold the ultimate reigns, but hopefully Lucasfilm will be granted autonomy enough to do their thing.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

^That is true, though technically SW will still be a Lucasfilm operation going forward. Disney will doubtlessly hold the ultimate reigns, but hopefully Lucasfilm will be granted autonomy enough to do their thing.

I'm cynical about many things but I have no doubt that Disney will do just that. :thumbsup

 

[jme3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I'm cynical about many things but I have no doubt that Disney will do just that. :thumbsup

Why mess with a good thing, right?

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Why mess with a good thing, right?

Star Wars (and by extension, Lucasfilm) is a cash cow. I have a feeling that Disney's policy will be along the lines of "give us more of that".

 

[rodneyfaile]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

True. To be honest I hope that doesn't happen with Star Wars though. You get a lot of second rate stuff that way. If they're going to do it do it right like they have with Marvel. Stand alone adventures (hopefully with new characters) and then a "main event" every few years.

Hate to say it, but a second-rate direct-to-video Disney movie is probably a lot better than the prequel trilogy, and I am not even a prequel-hater.

I say bring it on! If there was a Disney Star Wars direct-to-video movie releasing tomorrow, I would be picking it up.