Disney Buys Lucasfilm, Announces New "Star Wars" Movie For 2015

[carabas]

Pretty much this. The newer movies with all of their fancy technology look more fake than the movies made 20 years ago.

There's a reason for that...







Designs like this are going to look fake whether you do them in CGI, use traditional models, or whatever method you want to use.
CGI X-Wings and TIE Fighters, and newer designs more in line with the classics, like Maul's ship, the Trade Federation base ships, or the proto Star Destroyers look perfectly fine.

[ChrisIII]

People say that the PT used only 'clean' ships, but I only really see this for the shiny Naboo stuff, all the other ships seemed to have a lot of dirt, chipped paint, burns etc even in their CG forms. Heck even the Naboo starfighters briefly seen at the beginning in AOTC have some visible damage.

You even have some very clean looking stuff in the OT-Cloud City (even before the SE overhaul) with the exception of the carbon freezing chamber, and the interiors of many of the larger starships and stations.

[Vibranium]

Honestly, the boldest text describes a large majority of the prequels in my opinion.

Overall, this is my general issue with CGI. Some exceptions obviously exist, but it always seems like CGI ages fairly quickly and within 5 years the CGI in a movie just looks bland and outdated. Meanwhile, using miniatures and models tend to stand a test of time.

but also cost more and take more time to construct

that's where you are all missing the point, it's not about art, it's about time...you have a very specific window in which to get these things done these days..the studio announces a release date and you are officially on a ticking clock

[Phil Clark]

...The old ships look more real because they actually were real, they used friggen models of ships.
The new stuff looked pretty, but there will always be an issue with cgi...

Actually, the issue isn't so much with CGI. The issue is that in Episodes 4-6, the ships were old. Beaten up. Weathered. And that alone made them more real, and set the standard for ships as suddenly all the models in other movies were made dirtier to make them look more real. So we became used to that.

In Episodes 1-3 the ships don't look as real not because of the CGI, but instead because of the aesthetic decision to make the ships newer. So they were not dirty, beaten up, ragged. And that newness read to us as less realistic. The ships weren't less realistic, they were more so, but the aesthetic choice of making them clean made most people think of them as less real. Not because they looked less realistic, but because they were not aesthetically what we were used to in a Star Wars film.

[verslibre]

In Episodes 1-3 the ships don't look as real not because of the CGI, but instead because of the aesthetic decision to make the ships newer. So they were not dirty, beaten up, ragged. And that newness read to us as less realistic. The ships weren't less realistic, they were more so, but the aesthetic choice of making them clean made most people think of them as less real. Not because they looked less realistic, but because they were not aesthetically what we were used to in a Star Wars film.

Nope, I have to disagree. Organic miniatures and digital effects are quite discernible to the human eye. The pix posted a few posts above look like stills from a video game. When the graphics are in motion, suspension of disbelief is what diminishes the aspect of "fakeness" for the viewer. It's got nothing to do with "clean" and "dirty" crafts and everything to do with green screen.

[SephirothDZX]

but also cost more and take more time to construct

that's where you are all missing the point, it's not about art, it's about time...you have a very specific window in which to get these things done these days..the studio announces a release date and you are officially on a ticking clock

Oh, I'm well aware that CGI nowadays is more time friendly and cost efficient. I just wish someone would step back and go "this is fucking Star Wars, we can take our time and do it right"

[Vibranium]

Oh, I'm well aware that CGI nowadays is more time friendly and cost efficient. I just wish someone would step back and go "this is fucking Star Wars, we can take our time and do it right"

and I'm sure people have....and the response from the studio probably is is "you have until the release date, get it done"

[Treqqor]

Oh, I'm well aware that CGI nowadays is more time friendly and cost efficient. I just wish someone would step back and go "this is fucking Star Wars, we can take our time and do it right"

We all have different definitions of "right".

Motion control technology also hasn't kept up (with CGI, why bother?) which creates many hurdles and headaches fore elaborate shots and sequences. You can get some more visually dynamic shots in CG, which is PERFECT for Star Wars, shots that are probably near impossible practically. There is literally no reason (save a few people who have a lack of imagination) to go back to models these days.

Don't forget, 10 years of computer technology will have passed since the last Star Wars movie, things are always looking better. To keep going back to stills from Phantom Menace, literally the last century of computer technology, is pretty stupid, and to think technology can't do better than that is even dumber. Time to leave the dark ages.

[The Batman]

We all have different definitions of "right".

Motion control technology also hasn't kept up (with CGI, why bother?) which creates many hurdles and headaches fore elaborate shots and sequences. You can get some more visually dynamic shots in CG, which is PERFECT for Star Wars, shots that are probably near impossible practically. There is literally no reason (save a few people who have a lack of imagination) to go back to models these days.

Don't forget, 10 years of computer technology will have passed since the last Star Wars movie, things are always looking better. To keep going back to stills from Phantom Menace, literally the last century of computer technology, is pretty stupid, and to think technology can't do better than that is even dumber. Time to leave the dark ages.

It also ignores how much practical model work still played a role in the making of The Phantom Menace too.

[verslibre]

We all have different definitions of "right".

Motion control technology also hasn't kept up (with CGI, why bother?) which creates many hurdles and headaches fore elaborate shots and sequences. You can get some more visually dynamic shots in CG, which is PERFECT for Star Wars, shots that are probably near impossible practically. There is literally no reason (save a few people who have a lack of imagination) to go back to models these days.

Don't forget, 10 years of computer technology will have passed since the last Star Wars movie, things are always looking better. To keep going back to stills from Phantom Menace, literally the last century of computer technology, is pretty stupid, and to think technology can't do better than that is even dumber. Time to leave the dark ages.

Yes, it HAS been ten years and they'll have no excuse for the FX to not look good. SyFy's Battlestar Galactica looked better than the PT. Yes, it did, and haters can suck it.

[carabas]

The pix posted a few posts above look like stills from a video game.

At least one of them probably is a still from a video game. That is not the point. The point remains exactly thesame whether I posted photos of actual, physical miniatures or oil paintings of those design monstrosities.

When the graphics are in motion, suspension of disbelief is what diminishes the aspect of "fakeness" for the viewer. It's got nothing to do with "clean" and "dirty" crafts and everything to do with green screen.

There somehow was absolutely none of that in the souped up A New Hope with the CGI TIEs and X-Wings.

[Phil Clark]

Disney/Lucasfilm will in the end do whichever/whatever it takes to hit the deadline. And if that means CGI, then that is what they will do. In the nearly 10 years since ROTS hit, computer technology has taken major leaps (not steps, leaps). And with each leap the previous leap looks like just a step. It is getting that good. So why don't all you CGI haters just sit on your thumbs and wait until we see some FINISHED footage from the next film before you continue to beat the dead 300 lb. horse in the room.

Let's play the waiting game and see what happens.

[carabas]

and I'm sure people have....and the response from the studio probably is is "you have until the release date, get it done"

They were independant films, not beholden to any kind of studio suit.

Also, Star Wars is not dedicated to nostalgic films, not nostalgic film-making techniques. Using new technology, even inventing new technologies to create the films is very much in the spirit of the classic trilogy.

[verslibre]

The point remains exactly thesame whether I posted photos of actual, physical miniatures or oil paintings of those design monstrosities.

I wasn't zeroing in on your point (spacecraft designs), but at the same time I don't agree they're the reason for the "fakeness" of the PT's FX versus those in the OT. The crafts in the second still do look clunky (and the R2 unit on the side of the one craft looks like an easy target for enemy fire), but if those designs had been in the OT, nobody would have complained. Really, do the Y-Wings look all that special?

[verslibre]

So why don't all you CGI haters just sit on your thumbs and wait until we see some FINISHED footage from the next film before you continue to beat the dead 300 lb. horse in the room.

It's not about hating CGI, it's about cultivating an immersive digital environment that doesn't funk you out of your cinematic stupor while you're jonesing on the movie. Did you see Green Lantern? The CGI in that film was woefully abysmal. And that was the least of its problems, sadly.