http://therpf.com/pulse/article/661/more-star-wars-rogue-one-leaked-set-images?utm_campaign=influencer&utm_medium=share&utm_source=art-andrews

Neat stuff, cross referencing things we now have a good idea what a "rebel" dropship looks like (see previous drone imagery, and the banner in the attached link).

Not only is it cool that we're getting what looks like a Chinook/Blackhawk type transport, but it also looks like the dropship from Rogue One isn't going to be the same as the First Order Higgns boats we've seen in the EP VII materials.

So..... Horray more spacey-ships!

Also, in the event of a water landing, stormtroopers may be used as a flotation device....

I'm worried that there's a sort of half-built looking ship in there but with people in full costume. Makes me think there'll be a lot of CG used to "finish the set".

I'm worried that there's a sort of half-built looking ship in there but with people in full costume. Makes me think there'll be a lot of CG used to "finish the set".

On the plus side, it looks like a classic X-wing, given the location of the engines and the length of the "nose."

I'm actually okay with using CGI to finish up a set, so long as the majority of the set is on-location or using a proper soundstage.

Neat stuff, cross referencing things we now have a good idea what a "rebel" dropship looks like (see previous drone imagery, and the banner in the attached link).

Not only is it cool that we're getting what looks like a Chinook/Blackhawk type transport, but it also looks like the dropship from Rogue One isn't going to be the same as the First Order Higgns boats we've seen in the EP VII materials.

So..... Horray more spacey-ships!

I started typing that the concept banner art doesn't really prove it, even though I think and hope you are right. Then I looked again at the half-mock up of the downed craft. Yes those 4 engines appear to look quite a bit like the concept art of the craft in the banner. While it's hard to tell, the landing craft from Episode 7 appear to have two large high-mounted engines at the back, not 4. Those aren't X-wing engines we are looking at, but they do seem similar to the Rogue 1 concept art in the banner. BUT, the front of the Rogue 1 lander does appear very similar to the Ep. 7 lander.

So, I think the Rogue 1 and Ep 7 landers will be different craft, but they still appear to have similarities. Perhaps Rogue 1 has taken the opportunity to put some new connections in between the classic era and Ep. 7? The Rogue 1 lander was a 4-engined early model that the First Order later uses a newer model of, even if the Empire never did?

On the plus side, it looks like a classic X-wing, given the location of the engines and the length of the "nose."

Initially my thought as well. But look closer at these shots and you'll see it's more likely a crashed dropship.

1) Image with a dropship in the background. Note the sloped forward ramp, the side "helicopter" doors, and the 4 x-wing style engines.

2) Leaked image showing what looks like the dropship prow (doors also visible in the orange section). Most likey that's the part the actor have to interact with, with the rest of the ship digitally added later.

3) Newest leak. Overly simplified design probably means it's there as an effect stand in (looks like it's rigged for smoke ect) with the actor not having to interact with it much, but providing a very solid reference to digitally add the whole craft in later

I'm worried that there's a sort of half-built looking ship in there but with people in full costume. Makes me think there'll be a lot of CG used to "finish the set".

Oh no, CG. The horror.

I'm worried that there's a sort of half-built looking ship in there but with people in full costume. Makes me think there'll be a lot of CG used to "finish the set".

Depends on how they do the CG.

Just look at Mad Max Fury Road... tons of CG for filling in the backgrounds, but the "meat and potatoes" is still real.

That's the biggest flaw with many movies today, they use CG to do the vital stuntwork and actual sets people are interacting with, instead of relegating CG to the background stuff.

It almost never works, because you can tell that the CG stuff that gets interacted with (or even worse, completely CG sequences) lack weight and "presence", which is a bad thing.

There's been some level of CG in most of the films (fair enough a lot of it was matte paintings in the OT ) - granted nothing like the prequel trilogy, but there does exist a concept video from the 70s or 80s somewhere of early ILM attempts on CG X-wings. I think maybe it's in the bluray boxed set ...?

I'm all for the "back to basics" rhetoric of LF these days, but as has been stated by JJ multiple times: there's going to be hundreds (if not thousands) of CG shots in Ep VII - I mean, do you think they built that Star Destroyer on Jakku in 1:1 scale? Then the X-wing in front of it and invented a speeder biek for Rey to drive across the desert with?

I'm more or less in agreement with Oddball above. It depends how they do it, and adding one wings and background as CG is not a big thing - adding a character that is completely animated, well, we've seen The Hulk, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Jar Jar. It's effective and works, but also it doesn't come across as believable - to the same extent as good masks and make up. Not yet at least.

Dibs on that speeder bike!!!

What would a crashed Gonatzi look like?

By that I mean it's rear thrusters, no that's still too small to be that, could that be a crashed Y-Wing in that photo near the start of the linked article?

I'm worried that there's a sort of half-built looking ship in there but with people in full costume. Makes me think there'll be a lot of CG used to "finish the set".

Oh no, CG. The horror.

I'm not "against CG", Mad Max is a great example of how it was used really well in conjunction with real effects, which does look to be what they're planning here, but like most Star Wars fans of a certain age I'm naturally somewhat paranoid about CG in Star Wars going overboard because of this:

^---- This. All kinds of this.

What would a crashed Gonatzi look like?

By that I mean it's rear thrusters, no that's still too small to be that, could that be a crashed Y-Wing in that photo near the start of the linked article?

That engine configuration matches the drop ship in the promotional image. Odds are it is one of those.

To each his own I guess. I thought the prequels looked great. I am of the OT generation and I thought the OT looked great, but the special editions looked better.

CG is always improving, but the less human-like the character is, the more “realistic” they’re likely to be able to make it look.

There’s this thing called the Uncanny Valley, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley>.

So, the dinosaurs in the original “Jurassic Park” movie were the first creature I recall seeing that looked totally believable to me — all of them, not just the ones where I know they used animatronics on set, but also the CG ones, like the “flocking” dinosaurs that Sam and the group had to run away from.

With regards to creatures that have fur, the first example I know of that looked totally believable to me was in the movie “Mighty Joe Young”.

The movie “Avatar” was the first time I saw CG humanoids that looked believable, but they weren’t human, just humanoid.

So far as I know, the closest we’ve gotten to believable CG humans is when they do “holograms” on TV or in movies, and that’s based on a CG character and not just video effects being applied to a real actor. The hologram effects makes it much more believable to me.

They did do CG humans for some distance shots in “Titanic”, and I know one of the guys who worked as a system administrator in the Digital Domain effects department. They simulated them as matchsticks with color applied, and the viewpoint was so far away from them that when they added the fake film grain on top, you couldn’t tell the difference.

But that’s not the same as doing a close-up of a CG human character. So far as I know, we still have not yet seen that.

And none of the CG Yodas cut it for me. IMO, the puppet was better than any CG Yoda that I have ever seen.

So long as they keep the CG stuff in the background (the way they used to do matte paintings), or for simulating technological items, they have a pretty good shot of being able to make it look realistic to me. But they can still botch even that, if they don’t do it right.

And doing all the shooting on green screen and filling in the background with CG, I feel that almost always has a strong negative impact on what the actors are able to bring to the screen.

Personally, I think JJ is doing it right — mostly physical effects on real sets, and then fill in with CG where necessary. But with a preference for physical effects on real sets wherever possible.

I haven’t liked so much most of his other movies that I’ve seen, but they’ve been okay. I’m hoping that Star Wars will be a better vehicle for him to tell stories his way, and that he’ll be able to do a much better job with Episode 7 than I have seen in the past from him.

I saw the Lego Episode 7 Lander in a store. That 4-engined crashed craft is not the Ep. 7 Lander. It turns out the Ep. 7 Lander DOES have four engines, but they are not round. They are flat and wide more like Selbulba's pod racer:

http://www.koolofferz.com/koolofferz/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2fcc8469c4b6.jpg

The Lego Ep. 7 Lander does have some small lights near the front, but not the large fins/wings we see behind the ramp in the Rogue 1 lander. But, the Ep. 7 Lander does have a nub sticking up on the left top roof of the landing ramp - just like the Rogue 1 lander. So, I'm still thinking we are seeing an older version of the lander in Rogue 1, a newer one in Ep. 7?

FYI:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

FYI:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

I think what the people in that thread fail to realize (and I only read 2 pages) is that all of those "practical" sets and miniatures were shot, and then processed through a computer to be added to the scenes digitally with extra effects. The way it was done made many, many things feel sterile and fake.

CGI is used all the time in films these days. We don't notice the good CGI.