Star Wars: The Force Awakens (12/18/15)

[Python]

Davy Jones still looks incredible. Gollum from Two Towers has aged, he looks better in the Hobbit in the Riddles of the Dark. Andy Serkis' performance and the work of Weta in Two Towers and Return of the King is still incredible though.

My only point was, fake is fake. Force Awakens has plenty of CGI that isn't fooling me. Yes, there are nice landscape shots, characters in front of practical sets, etc. etc. but there is plenty of CGI. I'll bet money that there are more computer visual shots than the Phantom Menace. No matter what fuss they make, our eyes can tell. The emphasis on "we're going practical" and shoving it down everyone's throats is a buncha BS.



CGI used well isn't evil as long as it's just a tool like anything else.

We are very much on the same page.

 

[RIDDICK]

Perfect!

 

[jye4ever]

Idk, the marriage of cgi and practical in TFA is being handled very well, they are definately achieving a realistic look to it all.

If master a-dev-wan caught me doing this he'd be very grumpy.

 

[Cixx]

Davy Jones still looks incredible. Gollum from Two Towers has aged, he looks better in the Hobbit in the Riddles of the Dark. Andy Serkis' performance and the work of Weta in Two Towers and Return of the King is still incredible though.

My only point was, fake is fake. Force Awakens has plenty of CGI that isn't fooling me. Yes, there are nice landscape shots, characters in front of practical sets, etc. etc. but there is plenty of CGI. I'll bet money that there are more computer visual shots than the Phantom Menace. No matter what fuss they make, our eyes can tell. The emphasis on "we're going practical" and shoving it down everyone's throats is a buncha BS.





CGI used well isn't evil as long as it's just a tool like anything else.

They kinda had to to get people back on board after the PT. Cause Lucas didn't use it as a tool, he used it just because.

Anyways, i think this movie is going to surprise a lot of people and kick some ass. And i'm sure nerds from around the world will still hate it in this day and age even if it is miles better than the PT. It could be as good as Empire and people would still be too cool for school and hate on it. But we'll find out in two months, and i'm betting we get the first real good SW movie since '83.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The Iron Bat suit in BvS is 100% CGI, and I thought the helmet in the close up scenes or the scenes of him standing were a real suit.

Spoiler

 

[WWEJedi]

Oh how I wish I could see all your comments in 2002. I bet some of you were praising the CGI the same way some of you praised the OT when it originally released.

Only difference is that most of you have a nostalgia horseshoe so far up your *** you sure can turn back to the PT and talk bad about everything.... but the OT..... oh man.... never.

 

[DiFabio]

Idk, the marriage of cgi and practical in TFA is being handled very well, they are definately achieving a realistic look to it all.

If master a-dev-wan caught me doing this he'd be very grumpy.

View attachment 219385

The General looks great. I never realized his mask was so jacked up. Nice TV yo!

 

[jye4ever]

Oh how I wish I could see all your comments in 2002. I bet some of you were praising the CGI the same way some of you praised the OT when it originally released.

Only difference is that most of you have a nostalgia horseshoe so far up your *** you sure can turn back to the PT and talk bad about everything.... but the OT..... oh man.... never.

But that's not true, I believe most on here are in agreement that ROTJ is only 50% great and 50% bad.

The General looks great. I never realized his mask was so jacked up. Nice TV yo!

Thanks D, I definately don't mess around when it comes to TV picture quality, I calibrated these myself, took hours but something that actually relaxes me.

These are untouched photos.

 

[WWEJedi]

"If you only listen to internet trolls who want to retcon or remake the Prequels, you’d think they were the worst movies of all time. But in this place where we live called “reality” the Prequel Trilogy were both commercial and critical successes. The internet worships Roger Ebert, but when you tell them he gave The Phantom Menace 3 1/2 stars and called it “an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking”, they don’t believe you. But it’s true. People went to see these movies, they broke box office records. If they all sucked as the Prequel Haters want you to believe, their box office would look more like After Earth."

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

I calibrated these myself, took hours but something that actually relaxes me.

These are untouched photos.


View attachment 219388

Wow, you're like a wizard or something! Somehow you managed to make Cap's helmet look decent.

 

[DiFabio]

Damn, I wanna go watch movies at Jye's house.

 

[GasparZizou]

The Iron Bat suit in BvS is 100% CGI, and I thought the helmet in the close up scenes or the scenes of him standing were a real suit.

Spoiler

No ****ing way.

I mean, it's obvious it was CGI in the fight bits, but that standing scene? Damn.

 

[jye4ever]

Wow, you're like a wizard or something! Somehow you managed to make Cap's helmet look decent.

I was on a mission impossible, but I did alright I guess.

Damn, I wanna go watch movies at Jye's house.

lol

All you nerd clowns are always welcome!

 

[jye4ever]

No ****ing way.

I mean, it's obvious it was CGI in the fight bits, but that standing scene? Damn.

Yeah, I don't buy that, that looks very real. That is some high quality TFA cgi right there!

 

[GasparZizou]

Yeah, I don't buy that, that looks very real. That is some high quality TFA cgi right there!

right? I automatically thought it was one of the suits being exhibited around, but it that's CGI then damn.

 

[JAWS]

That whole scene looks just as fake to me, especially when they turn in file. Even has real actors superimposed on a balcony in front of the banner just like this for crying out loud.





The difference? One is 2001/2002 computer graphics and the other is 2014/2015 computer graphics. Yeah, it SHOULD look better! One of my favorite shots in the Lord of the Rings is Saruman commanding the Uruk-Hai from atop his, you guessed it, strong hold balcony and Wormtongue crying as he sees 10,000 Uruk Hai that are about to slaughter all of Rohan. All the orcs are fake, and look fake. Faker than these Force Awakens troops, pikes and all. Still a great scene, from a great movie.

Attack of the Clones? Not a great movie. Force Awakens? Remains to be seen. Still, all three scenes with their Nazi/Dictator/army symbolism are exactly the same. All required blatant CGI, which is the only point I'm making. There is nothing more practical about the Force Awakens from their visual shots, just that they look better than movies that are over a decade old. Well no ****! Still doesn't make them any more "real".


EDIT:

And yes, Dexter Jettster was terrible. I still don't get the point of that one.

Still, one thing that nobody ever talks about is Ewan Mcgregors performance in that scene. Yes, Dexter is an atrocity, especially around the time of a creature like Gollum, but Ewan Mcgregor does sell that Obi-Wan is buds with this guy and they have history when in reality, the poor guy is talking to a green screen tennis ball.

Point about Daxter is that the films are filled with that garbage... Awful awful awful garbage... So I can take a throwaway CGI robot in one scene compared to Daxter.

Thing about TTT is that the CGI while not always realistic came across as believable... Much of that due to the fact that real sets and bigatures were used. AOTC and ROTS used CGI when it didn't need to be used. LOTR had practical and CGI. That was the problem with the Hobbit films. More CG orcs then practical orcs when it was not needed.

Davy Jones still looks incredible. Gollum from Two Towers has aged, he looks better in the Hobbit in the Riddles of the Dark. Andy Serkis' performance and the work of Weta in Two Towers and Return of the King is still incredible though.

My only point was, fake is fake. Force Awakens has plenty of CGI that isn't fooling me. Yes, there are nice landscape shots, characters in front of practical sets, etc. etc. but there is plenty of CGI. I'll bet money that there are more computer visual shots than the Phantom Menace. No matter what fuss they make, our eyes can tell. The emphasis on "we're going practical" and shoving it down everyone's throats is a buncha BS.





CGI used well isn't evil as long as it's just a tool like anything else.

I think everyone is saying Practical effects but they don't mean all the time... Having a real alien, star ship or droid in the frame is a practical effect... So watching this video tells me that TFA did go back a bit and kept "one foot in the pre digital age"

"If you only listen to internet trolls who want to retcon or remake the Prequels, you’d think they were the worst movies of all time. But in this place where we live called “reality” the Prequel Trilogy were both commercial and critical successes. The internet worships Roger Ebert, but when you tell them he gave The Phantom Menace 3 1/2 stars and called it “an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking”, they don’t believe you. But it’s true. People went to see these movies, they broke box office records. If they all sucked as the Prequel Haters want you to believe, their box office would look more like After Earth."

Ebert did not Like Die Hard so that tells you what I think of him Having said that... Ebert is just a critic and his taste is just an opinion like everyone else. People who take Ebert's taste as gospel need to read all his reviews. He gets it wrong with popular opinion a lot.

To some the PT are some of the worst films ever... Would I give them that ranking... Probably not.. But I have sworn off watching them because they are not fun nor entertaining. Filled with bad performances, bad script writing, bad direction, and uneven CGI which is made worse by the former issues. That makes a bad movie in my book. As Huge blockbuster films go based on a beloved series... I would say they are some of the worst.

As I stated before much of the hate comes from the fact that after the films were done we thought that was it... It was final and that was all the SW we would get. Now that the new films have been announced and the first is around the corner it's natural that people are going to talk about the PT again.

 

[xipotec]

I will visit.....nerd guest number one

 

[WWEJedi]

Ebert did not Like Die Hard so that tells you what I think of him Having said that... Ebert is just a critic and his taste is just an opinion like everyone else. People who take Ebert's taste as gospel need to read all his reviews. He gets it wrong with popular opinion a lot.

To some the PT are some of the worst films ever... Would I give them that ranking... Probably not.. But I have sworn off watching them because they are not fun nor entertaining. Filled with bad performances, bad script writing, bad direction, and uneven CGI which is made worse by the former issues. That makes a bad movie in my book. As Huge blockbuster films go based on a beloved series... I would say they are some of the worst.

As I stated before much of the hate comes from the fact that after the films were done we thought that was it... It was final and that was all the SW we would get. Now that the new films have been announced and the first is around the corner it's natural that people are going to talk about the PT again.

Ebert never said that so I have no idea why you are taking about him.

He actually praised TPM and ROTS

 

[xipotec]

I think alot of people fail to remember that GL was much more interested in pushing his ideas about filmmaking that the story. I believe he intended PT to be a showcase of what could be done with CGI. The idea was that actual sets would be a thing of the past, expensive practical puppets could be discarded and even augmenting peoples faces were now the new norm. I believe he felt he was ushering in a new era of filmaking , but he forgot the most important part ....story. All the tricks and effects mean nothing if the film has no heart or direction.

He was hailed in the OT for his vision and what was done with the effects in Star Wars. (I remember because I was alive then). I think he was going for a "one up" and wanted to be remembered for being a pioneer in the "new" CGI world.

Plenty of directors have fallen to this pit...the Hobbit is a perfect example. I have tired 3 times to finish that horrible mess of a story...but I cannot get past the ridicules CGI

Closet film to get the groundbreaking CGI and Story correct was AVATAR. Thy deserve kudus for the facial recognition software alone. I personally liked the story, even tough its a re hash of many others.

 

[JAWS]

Ebert never said that so I have no idea why you are taking about him.

He actually praised TPM and ROTS

You brought Ebert up. He did write it and said it about Die Hard. Point is.. Ebert is not always right with popular opinion.

2 star rating for Die Hard.


Die Hard Movie Review & Film Summary (1988) | Roger Ebert


You can also watch him give it a thumbs down on his show...

Same show... Ebert love The Dead pool... Thumbs up but give Die Hard a thumbs down.