I'd love to see a more metropolitan environment or two, but that's a slippery slope because it can turn into a CGI-fest, which is kind of against LFL's mandate, here.

Still, if Blade Runner could pull it off convincingly in '82 with just models and paintings, Johnson & Co. can hopefully pull it off today.

Also: can anyone point me to the best of Rian Johnson's work?

I'd love to see a more metropolitan environment or two, but that's a slippery slope because it can turn into a CGI-fest, which is kind of against LFL's mandate, here.

Still, if Blade Runner could pull it off convincingly in '82 with just models and paintings, Johnson & Co. can hopefully pull it off today.

Also: can anyone point me to the best of Rian Johnson's work?

If you do an urban underworld thing like 1313, that's easy enough, could build some pretty convincing sets and just use mattes and a touch a CGI to flesh it out.

Also: can anyone point me to the best of Rian Johnson's work?

Looper would be your best bet with that. He also directed a few episodes of Breaking Bad - "Fly", "Fifty-One", and "Ozymandias".

Check out Brick. Sooooo good.

Take note of how unwieldy Rey is with the saber, yet the film shows she clearly knows how to kick ass with a staff. She kinda tries to use it like a staff in her final duel with Kylo. I think she'll build her own lightsaber, and I think it'll be double bladed so she's more comfortable with it. How cool would that be?

Take note of how unwieldy Rey is with the saber, yet the film shows she clearly knows how to kick ass with a staff. She kinda tries to use it like a staff in her final duel with Kylo. I think she'll build her own lightsaber, and I think it'll be double bladed so she's more comfortable with it. How cool would that be?

wouldnt surprise me at all, or perhaps a saber pike, that way she can just knock people out with it when not on. Not a bad idea actually, use truchen stats i guess

I hope in Ep VIII they reveal that Snoke isn't the main villains real name.

I hope in Ep VIII they reveal that Snoke isn't the main villains real name.

Initially, I was kind of floored by how bad Snoke's CG looked compared to everything else, especially since he really could have been an actor in makeup if need be. After all, he wasn't a nonhuman as far as we could tell.

That got me to thinking: what if he looks more fake to tip us off that, in-universe, Snoke is an assumed identity and how he appears in his hologram isn't his real appearance?

2 Possibilities:

-Snoke is an elaborate false identity created to capitalize on the Empire/Dark Side connection in order to better control the First Order, and we're going to find out that he's neither a scary old man nor a Force user.

-Snoke is real, but has to project himself because he can't otherwise communicate or interact with the outside world, the truth being that he's bound to a medical bed, sustained by a combination of the Force and cutting-edge mad science.

I hope in Ep VIII they reveal that Snoke isn't the main villains real name.

I have the feeling Snoke is the Main big bad of the Series, but not necessarily the Main Villain of the next Movie.

Benicio Del Toro has commented that he will be playing a Villain in Episode 8. Which I am hoping to bring some more dept to the First Order.

I'd like to see the entire movie done 100% CGI just because of all the stupid bitching people do about a tool used to bring movies to life. I will NEVER understand grizzled old Star Wars nerds and their unnatural hate towards CGI.

I'd like to see the entire movie done 100% CGI just because of all the stupid bitching people do about a tool used to bring movies to life. I will NEVER understand grizzled old Star Wars nerds and their unnatural hate towards CGI.

When it comes toward the unnatural hate, it really is more about the over use of CGI in general just because it is easy. CGI makes the impossible now possible on film, but to do it right is difficult. It is still looked at as the cost cutting measure compared to Practical effects by Studios and has often not had the time taken to be properly done (CGI Sharks). Of Course when done right you get something wonderful. While Practical Effects do limit you in what you can do, it lends itself to the feeling its real. Now there are failings there (Fantastic Four 2005 "Thing Suit"). Also, many Actors have said that having something on set to make a reference helps their performances.

I think it has more to do with finding a great balance than going to either extreme. TFA had a TON of CGI, but there is a balance they found. The Prequels did something unprecedented with CGI at the time, but the CGI backlash is more on a feeling George coping out than taking the time to do it right with a bigger mixture of both Practical and CGI. (ALL CGI Clone Troopers vs TFA's Storm Troopers).

You want your all CGI Star Wars Movie, technically you already had it. The Clone Wars movie.

I'd like to see the entire movie done 100% CGI just because of all the stupid bitching people do about a tool used to bring movies to life. I will NEVER understand grizzled old Star Wars nerds and their unnatural hate towards CGI.

When it comes toward the unnatural hate, it really is more about the over use of CGI in general just because it is easy. CGI makes the impossible now possible on film, but to do it right is difficult. It is still looked at as the cost cutting measure compared to Practical effects by Studios and has often not had the time taken to be properly done (CGI Sharks). Of Course when done right you get something wonderful. While Practical Effects do limit you in what you can do, it lends itself to the feeling its real. Now there are failings there (Fantastic Four 2005 "Thing Suit"). Also, many Actors have said that having something on set to make a reference helps their performances.

I think it has more to do with finding a great balance than going to either extreme. TFA had a TON of CGI, but there is a balance they found. The Prequels did something unprecedented with CGI at the time, but the CGI backlash is more on a feeling George coping out than taking the time to do it right with a bigger mixture of both Practical and CGI. (ALL CGI Clone Troopers vs TFA's Storm Troopers).

You want your all CGI Star Wars Movie, technically you already had it. The Clone Wars movie.

See but as you say, the Prequels CGI problem was that it was done cheaply and quickly, not that it was done at all, and the hate tends to ignore that. I wouldn't be surprised if most people who scowl at the mention of CGI would even know good CGI if they were looking at it. Because that's the entire purpose of good CGI, for it to be unnoticeable. The Clone Wars movie was technically CGI but that was cartoon CGI. I want a Gravity level of CGI movie. Almost everything but the actor's face was CGI in that and it looked real, not animated. There is technically a balance that should exist between the two, but every year that balance shrinks when looking at solid, proper CGI. And this becomes even more doable now with Disney in charge, they have the pocket books to do such a thing.

All CGI movie? Something like the upcoming Warcraft movie?

See but as you say, the Prequels CGI problem was that it was done cheaply and quickly, not that it was done at all, and the hate tends to ignore that. I wouldn't be surprised if most people who scowl at the mention of CGI would even know good CGI if they were looking at it. Because that's the entire purpose of good CGI, for it to be unnoticeable. The Clone Wars movie was technically CGI but that was cartoon CGI. I want a Gravity level of CGI movie. Almost everything but the actor's face was CGI in that and it looked real, not animated. There is technically a balance that should exist between the two, but every year that balance shrinks when looking at solid, proper CGI. And this becomes even more doable now with Disney in charge, they have the pocket books to do such a thing.

The Prequels CGI was not cheap or quickly. That is a disservice to what was done there. It set a brand new standard for what could be done. In fact, what you are asking for is thanks to the Prequels and we got a bit of that with the Clone Troopers. Remember no one was in Clone Armor at all during the Production. The actor's head was added to a CGI Body. The Prequels are a Gravity Level of amount of CGI. But neither are close to 100% CGI, but heavily rely on CGI. Gravity has some of the best Practical Effects for weightlessness ever. It bought out a look that we only got in Apollo 13 and they filmed part of that movie in Weightless like conditions. If you want to make a real argument for CGI over Practical. Use Avatar and not Gravity. Gravity did expand some of the uses of CGI, but it is limited by the scope of the story. It did not have to do as much diverse world building as Avatar or the Prequels did.

The need for balance is not shrinking at all. We are seeing a return to a more hybrid style in bigger films who have the budget to do High End CGI. Avengers is a great example, While we have a complete CGI Hulk VS Hulk Buster Fight, Tony's armor is a hybrid of CGI and Practical. The same was done with Ultron.

While you can argue that lower budget movies are relying on CGI heavily and many of those films the CGI is not that good. Gravity took 4 years after filming to bring it to the big Screen. That is an amount of time you are not going to get from a lot of Studios. Even the Walk, which is probably the movie that relied on CGI more than any other movie this year for signature shots. Was done as a mixture of both to anchor the CGI shots to make it feel real for the audience.

If you want a movie that is all CGI, but with a realistic feel. The best examples are the Two Final Fantasy Movies and Beowolf (2007).

All CGI movie? Something like the upcoming Warcraft movie?

Warcraft is not all CGI. Probably about 80-85% CGI.

I'd like to see the entire movie done 100% CGI just because of all the stupid bitching people do about a tool used to bring movies to life. I will NEVER understand grizzled old Star Wars nerds and their unnatural hate towards CGI.

Here's my reasons.

I don't mind some CGI, it's critically important in having really cool landscape/cityscape views I think. CGI's main shortcomings are this.

Actors I've all seen interviewed say acting in front of green screens is a pain and they don't like it. Having cool sets, like Edoras in LOTR, and they all talked about how inspired they were. That leads to better acting which = better movies I think.

The technical issue, and it's a big one in action movies, is that even with the tech where it is at, CGI fire and explosions look fake as f*ck imo, and that's a huge issue in an action flick. Lighting and shadows also look fake as **** still I think. So it's good for big perspective shots and some space stuff, but it still is crappy looking for up close and personal stuff.

So it ends up being why spend cash on something that looks shittier for my money.

The backstory on acquiring Luke's lightsaber...

Proper establishment of plot elements and locations. AKA better movie

Han Solo as a Force Ghost but purple!! And haunting Kylo Ren.

This clip pretty much covers my actual opinion on CG, because I do know that practical effects have a purpose, unless you're doing a Final Fantasy movie.

While I can't say anything to the actors disliking green screens, because sure, that's understandable, I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to lighting and fire. CG lighting is nearly perfect these days, the only time it struggles is with flesh and that's still improving by leaps and bounds on an almost yearly basis, and I can't remember the last time I've seen a bad CG fire. So either that clip is going to apply heavily to your opinion, or we're just going to really disagree lol

It is a good clip, but it does not make a stance that CGI is better than Practical Effects. It does make the stance for why people should back off the CGI hate, but doesn't support making complete CGI movies vs movies with hybrid effects. It references one of the best VFX movies of the year in Mad Max Fury Road, but it wasn't CGI that made that movie. It was the blending of both CGI and Practical Effects. It's Practical Effects laid the ground work for the CGI to finish up and deliver us some incredible visuals. We got the same thing again with TFA.

I'm gonna go out and assume when you mean Final Fantasy Movie, you mean Fantasy Movies like LOTR/Hobbit. Because the 2 Final Fantasy Movies that have been made are 100% CGI. Now they are not perfect recreations of live humans, but they do a great job of the details with things like clothing and skin.

We almost get a life like Star Wars CGI movie in how Battlefront looks.

Now I you need a High End PC to run this thing but ****. T

This clip pretty much covers my actual opinion on CG, because I do know that practical effects have a purpose, unless you're doing a Final Fantasy movie.

While I can't say anything to the actors disliking green screens, because sure, that's understandable, I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to lighting and fire. CG lighting is nearly perfect these days, the only time it struggles is with flesh and that's still improving by leaps and bounds on an almost yearly basis, and I can't remember the last time I've seen a bad CG fire. So either that clip is going to apply heavily to your opinion, or we're just going to really disagree lol

It is a good clip, but it does not make a stance that CGI is better than Practical Effects. It does make the stance for why people should back off the CGI hate, but doesn't support making complete CGI movies vs movies with hybrid effects. It references one of the best VFX movies of the year in Mad Max Fury Road, but it wasn't CGI that made that movie. It was the blending of both CGI and Practical Effects. It's Practical Effects laid the ground work for the CGI to finish up and deliver us some incredible visuals. We got the same thing again with TFA.

I'm gonna go out and assume when you mean Final Fantasy Movie, you mean Fantasy Movies like LOTR/Hobbit. Because the 2 Final Fantasy Movies that have been made are 100% CGI. Now they are not perfect recreations of live humans, but they do a great job of the details with things like clothing and skin.

We almost get a life like Star Wars CGI movie in how Battlefront looks.

Now I you need a High End PC to run this thing but ****. T

I feel like something got lost here. I said I /do/ understand that practical effects have a purpose and that I agree with the clip in that the best idea is the blending of them. My initial desire for a 100% CGI movie is to spite the haters, not because I actually think it's the best plan of action. I was referring to Advent Children and such as sort of a joke, practical effects would obviously not have a purpose in a movie that is 100% CGI.

And yea, I've wanted to mention the new Battlefront game's graphics as well but at the same time I view it as a perfect example of how being beautiful to look at is not the same as being good. Battlefront's look and visual performance used for Episode 8 would be fantastic and I would be all over that, assuming the rest of the movie was at that same level of amazing. Also I'm not sure the people who do hate on CGI would hate any less on a movie done using a video game engine. In fact they'd probably hate it even more for daring to step into the movie world. They seem to be the same people who hate on masterfully made animated shows and movies as being cartoons for children regardless of their content, so they'd say the same of video games.

In fact, I'm not even sure I can really get behind the idea that actors with green screens are such an issue. What about voice actors? They have even less than green screens and many of them are perfectly capable of acting just as solidly as practical actors. Sometimes better.

....

Yeah, I get what you are referring too when it comes to Advent Children. It got lost in the way you put it, but that is also why I stepped up to say something. You are fighting the good fight against the CGI haters. As you have seen, I don't understand their hate for it..

Referring the the Actors, I have seen in several Interviews that having the Practical pieces even with pieces covered in green to be added in later helps them visualize the scene as if they are on a completed set vs just being in a green room. The best reference I heard was someone trying to preform a play on an empty stage vs one with set pieces.

The Battlefront video, yeah I thought you might like that. It is not like that for everyone playing, but that is the High End side that justifies what can be done CGI. Yes there is a lot of that which is supported by Motion Capture, but MoCap is just a tool for an actor to be extraordinary.

When it comes to Voice Acting, it depends on what they are doing. They Might be doing MoCap, recording audio off a script, or recording off the script and video. I saw Jennifer Hale at a convention this summer and she commented on how Voice Acting almost has a different skill set from movies/tv. They have to sell it with their voice more than with their body. Of course Video games are starting to employ MoCap more which is changing that industries Cut Scenes.

As for content done for video games wait till Warcraft and Assassins Creed drop.

I'd like a Sith Lord that doesn't have the personality of a basement dwelling emo kid that does all their music shopping at Hot Topic. **** but Kylo was annoying.

Kylo Ren was a Sith Lord? Was that in the novelization?

Kylo Ren was a Sith Lord? Was that in the novelization?

Ah, no actually, I misspoke...er typed...regardless, I found his efforts to be an edgy edgelord grating.