I didn't mind the way the ships maneuvered in TFA so much as the fact that there was only one (and very brief) actual space battle in the movie. The Poe/Finn TIE escape scene. Every other battle was in an atmosphere. The Falcon Jakku escape, the Maz's castle battle, the Starkiller base battle -- all in an atmosphere. Maybe it's just me, but I like space battles in my Star Wars movies.
Yes, but the flight patterns in the prequels looked great.
At one point I'd heard JJ say that he doesn't story board action scenes. He just figures out a lot on the spot, using the experience of the crew to help work it out.That was one of my gripes with the PT as well, very little space action.
Because it was done with the proper restraint, what little there was anyway. Although the close ups looked kinda cartoony, especially the Slave 1 during the asteroid chase.
I completely agree. And it still comes down to directing. Miller, Lucas, and Speilberg were all notorious story-boarders. That counts for a lotPhil Tippett was great at animating CGI characters since he knew from is SFX background in stop motion animation how not only give mass and scale to a creatures motion, but give it character as well. Most people look a CGI as some sort of competition, trying to out do each other in dramatic motion and dynamic camera moves.
SFX shots are not in a film to show off how clever you are, but to support the story, blending in so you are not really aware that you are watching CGI at all.
A lot of movies these days I have to watch repeatedly on disc until I can make sense of all that motion thrashing around
I think the biggest difference in Force Awakens flight behavior vs the original trilogy's behavior is simply due to CGI vs practical effects
The practical effects really limited what could be done with the models from a filming standpoint where as the CGI has no limitations
In this case, having no limitation is bad because you can pull off all kinds up simulated viewing angles and maneuvers which look fake compared to a real camera filming a real miniature in the real world
Sure they are both totally bunk for actual real physics in real space, but at least the practical effects follow our expectations
CGI is a powerful tool that can return totally unrealistic and cartoony looking sequences unless you can put some restraint on it
It was a fantastic space battle.I used to believe that totally, and still do to an extent. But damn if Gareth Edwards didn't craft a flawless space battle in Rogue One.
Yes, but the flight patterns in the prequels looked great.
I used to believe that totally, and still do to an extent. But damn if Gareth Edwards didn't craft a flawless space battle in Rogue One.
The mass is what really bothered me about the falcon antics in TFA. The two moments when it hit the ground it looked like a frisbee bouncing off a sidewalkThose are examples of CGI done correctly and with some restraint
Most of the times when CGI is noticeable (not in a good way) is when things are over the top and they lack a sense of mass or scale.
The mass is what really bothered me about the falcon antics in TFA. The two moments when it hit the ground it looked like a frisbee bouncing off a sidewalk
That first moment when it dug into the dirt should have rendered it inoperable.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Yes and yes.I’ve always figured the starships in SW are made of some kind of hyper materials, otherwise such small vehicles shouldn’t be able to withstand the stresses of space flight and the accelerations involved. The falcon just doesn’t have ROOM for the internal bracing that should be necessary to avoid the engines tearing the ship apart, therefore it must be made of something far more durable than the alloys known to science in our galaxy.
To say nothing of containing the energies involved.
Oh, absolutely. The slower camera movements used for practical effects give the impression that the ships actually have substantial mass even if they're only three or five feet long in real life. A lot of CG artists seem to overlook that element, and ships like the Falcon and the X-Wings end up looking like a dead leaves being blown around in a hurricane. They can invent all of the mysterious magical maneuvering technology they want to try to explain it away, but it still looks wrong.I think the biggest difference in Force Awakens flight behavior vs the original trilogy's behavior is simply due to CGI vs practical effects
The practical effects really limited what could be done with the models from a filming standpoint where as the CGI has no limitations
In this case, having no limitation is bad because you can pull off all kinds up simulated viewing angles and maneuvers which look fake compared to a real camera filming a real miniature in the real world
Sure they are both totally bunk for actual real physics in real space, but at least the practical effects follow our expectations
CGI is a powerful tool that can return totally unrealistic and cartoony looking sequences unless you can put some restraint on it
I agree, the ship movements in TFA were crap. Totally fake looking, overdone CGI.
Just last night I saw a trailer for TLJ, Poe’s x-wing made a 180* ‘drift’ turn....so it looks like we are in for more of it.
Ugh.
Getting briefly back to the subject of Bandai releases (and I love a good sidetrack): Building the sidewalls on the PF MF makes me drool at the idea of Bandai doing a PG star destroyer. I have no doubt that Bandai could make an exact replica, part for part, of the ANH devastator (and this version would be my preference) but I suspect most people would want the more detailed TESB version. Either way, I'd gladly pay another $370 for one!