Jump to content
 

Star Wars Episode 9 (SPOILERS!!!!)


Ghent
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ghent said:

I think TFA was a perfect blend. I prefer characters and creatures to be practical if at all possible.. But there is no reason not to utilize CGI for things that are otherwise impossible to explore. Nothing to be scared of

I agree, the combination of the two is the best, which is what the new movies have been doing really well in my opinion.

half the time people complaining about CGI don’t even realize what they’re talking about. Like people complain the the entire prequel trilogy was CGI (and there definitely was a lot of it) but don’t realize that more practical miniature sets were built and used in those movies than in the original trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it crazy how dated the special effects of Episode 1 look already? At the time that was groundbreaking stuff. For instance, the Gungan bubble shields at the end. That blew my mind back in the day, but it looks kind of fake now. Doesn't look shitty or anything, just outdated AF

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ghent said:

Isn't it crazy how dated the special effects of Episode 1 look already? At the time that was groundbreaking stuff. For instance, the Gungan bubble shields at the end. That blew my mind back in the day, but it looks kind of fake now. Doesn't look shitty or anything, just outdated AF

And yet it still looks all better than Snoke. Decade later.  Plus the choreographed duel at the end of ep. 1 is landslides better than anything in the sequels.

  • Crab 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cheerios4u98 said:

It is! The Mandalorian is just more obvious about it because the budget is lower and it looks more fake lol 

Being anti-CGI is so weird though. 99% of CGI effects are unnoticeable and they help make modern movies look great.

That's simply not true unless you're including touch-ups.  Touch ups are unnoticeable but anyone who's using CGI for primary effects (aka full on characters, flying, violence, etc) vs practical is a noticeable drop-off in the cinematic experience.  This isn't debatable.

  • Like 1
  • Crab 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NJanSaid said:

That's simply not true unless you're including touch-ups.  Touch ups are unnoticeable but anyone who's using CGI for primary effects (aka full on characters, flying, violence, etc) vs practical is a noticeable drop-off in the cinematic experience.  This isn't debatable.

yeah Avengers Endgame would have been great if it was all puppets and costumes and stop motion. That would have improved the cinematic experience for sure! 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Cheerios4u98 said:

yeah Avengers Endgame would have been great if it was all puppets and costumes and stop motion. That would have improved the cinematic experience for sure! 

Movie sucked regardless not sure what to tell you 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cheerios4u98 said:

yeah Avengers Endgame would have been great if it was all puppets and costumes and stop motion. That would have improved the cinematic experience for sure! 

Bro I mean come on! Have you ever seen Pirates of the Caribbean? The movie obviously would’ve been far better had Davey Jones looked like this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFwsYCIefh4vPtgTv1KiA
instead of this:

tenor.gif?itemid=14136409

special effects ruin films.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always find examples that work for one and not the other.  If you ask me, it obviously is best in this day and age to find the right blend of both.

But on the other side of the coin, honestly, when I compare the 2 most recent live action iterations of The Thing for Fantastic Four, I prefer the practical effects version of the early 2000s version over the CGI version of the more recent Fant4stic.  Neither are particularly great mind you, but the practical effects version really aint all that bad.  Hell, even the low budget never released '94 Fantastic Four practical effects version of The Thing isn't half bad either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Cheerios4u98 said:

Star Wars has always been about special effects. If you want it to stay stuck in the ‘70s that’s fine but not realistic.

How did you feel about Rogue One? I thought that captured the feeling and aesthetic of the original movie pretty well, aside from the CGI human faces.

Tarantino, Scorsese films, most Nolan films, Breaking Bad, all use practical for action sequences.  Notice how much more bad ass those are? Watching super heros zoom around or giant supreme leader retards takes me out of any movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...