why don't they just make CGI look like it's a

>>80965030
Isn't that the point?

>>80965030
Stop motion looks great on mechanical creatures.They could have removed a few frames per second to achieve the staccato effect. That's how they did Treebeard's face in LOTR.

Non-living things like machines already look great in CGI.

Things with skin, muscles, and hair still don't look right, but that will all be fixed soon.

File: ss+(2017-03-28+at+02.34.09).jpg (98KB, 1002x423px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1002x423px

Was the star destroyer ship in Rogue One a model? Because it sure looks like it is.

Pic related.

>>80967448
All CGI. They scanned the original models and then added in more detail.

>>80967513
>All CGI

Knew it. I could tell just by looking at it that there was something off about it. Nothing can substitute for the real thing.

>they scanned the original models

Then why not just use the fucking models and add details to them in post? Holy shit.

>>80967618
You could tell by the pixels?

>>80967618
>implying CGI hasn't been fooling people for years

Do we need to post the Zodiac CGI video again?

>>80967647
It just doesn't look the same. Synthetic is never exactly the same.

File: Lightmaker (1).jpg (266KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 2000x1333px

>>80967618
I mean, they really went at it with the detail.

File: fe3d61c49993c15092c290e4c139551a.jpg (44KB, 1421x738px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1421x738px

>>80966222

"Non-living things (machines) ALREADY look great in CGI

Things w/ skin, muscles, and hair still don't look right, but that will all be fixed soon!"

>>80967845
I can't put into words how sad this image is.

>cool Kotor ship with a shitty redesign
>putting it in this shitty movie
>literally chopping a star destroyer in half with another star destroyer

This felt like a god damn cartoon.

>>80966222
Empire Strikes Back asteroid field scene is more believable and immersive than any CGI space battle shitfest of the past 10 years.

>>80968648
You are now aware some of those asteroids were potatoes and shoes

>>80968648
Mainly cause the music was better in Empire than any recent Star Wars film.

>>80968838
That's like learning that Brando put in the least amount of effort into his acting roles. It only makes theme more amazing.

File: starwars14.jpg (107KB, 691x272px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 691x272px

>>80968914

>>80968840
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVulaCFNL4A
You might be right. Just listening to the OST I can see the entire scene in my head.

>>80969002
Was there an autistic eu explanation for this?

>>80969053
No.
t. Tismo

>>80968648
It's actually not. The Rogue One battle scene is more scientifically accurate than the Empire Strikes Back asteroid field lmao.

In a real life asteroid field the asteroids are hundreds/thousands of miles apart.

>>80968648
Nigger, have you seen The Zodiac and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Everything there is CGI and you won't be able to tell which.

>>80968648
That couldn't be further from the truth, and anyone who says the space shit in the OT is believable has zero idea how space actually works.

You're like the faggots who think the swordfighting in the OT is better than in the prequels.

I mean, it's retarded in the prequels too, but at least for those movies they actually made an attempt to emulate normal human reflex in motor function. The duels in the OT are like how a toddler would try to fight with a sword. The actors clearly have very little understanding of melee combat.

>>80968319
yes because star wars has always been the epitome of realism and in-depth space combat

>>80969536
There's nothing that says there can't be a cluster of asteroids together for whatever reason.

>>80969536
>>80969792
I understand Star Wars was never about realism but there is a clear difference between the OT and the cartoons they show on tv now, and this scene>>80967845 feels specifically like something out of one of those cartoons.

>>80966222
>but that will all be fixed soon
r-r-r-right guys?

>>80965030
Because CGI doesn't make the assistant's hair fall out.

>>80969002
but at least a shoe and a potato are real

>>80969623
Those movies aren't in space anon

>>80969991
this
yep cgi looks cartoony

>>80969925
C3PO refers to it as "an" asteroid field when he states the odds, not "this" asteroid field. You can infer through this that all asteroid fields in Star Wars are of similar composition.

File: space-slug.jpg (97KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 768x432px

>>80969991
Everything about that scene is more plausible than pic related. OT fags need to fuck off with their mental gymnastics.

>>80970154
How so?

>>80970125
This is just autism.

>>80965030
Because practical effects look fake.

>>80965030
Phil, stop touching the miniatures.

>>80970295
Complex life can't exist in a vacuum. Spacecraft can, however, ram and push other spacecraft.

Seriously, ask an astrophysicist which scene has a stronger basis in reality.

>>80970382
Ok, so your argument is that a scene in a Star Wars movie isn't realistic.

See>>80969991

There's a difference between a giant worm trying to eat a ship and chopping a star destroyer in half with another star destroyer.

>>80970580
Yeah, a giant space worm is less believable.

>>80970692
So is the force.

>>80970580
>There's a difference between a giant worm trying to eat a ship and chopping a star destroyer in half with another star destroyer.
Right, the former is like something out of a cartoon, and the latter is like something out of a science fiction.

They didn't even chop it in half, they just rammed them together and the collision tore off the tactical stations and command structures. Did you even watch the movie?

https://i.imgur.com/syqseal.gifv

File: Purgill_SWCT.png (1MB, 1630x745px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1630x745px

Cartoon has space whales

>>80970841
>They didn't even chop it in half,
This. Nearly the entire hull remains in tact following the collision.

>>80970841
Are you one of those autistic kids that needs everything to be described with flawless accuracy or else you throw a fit? Yes, I know they didn't literally chop it in half, but they copped a huge piece of it off. Is that better? That doesn't change the fact that the scene was more cartoony than the giant worm.

>>80970382
>Complex life can't exist in a vacuum.
Complex life as we know it can't exist in a vacuum.

>>80970893
VERY phallic

>>80970154
Yep that was as dumb as any JJ CGI monster scene. And it was in the beloved Empire. Don't get me wrong I love the films but you really have to look past some garbage in every single one of them.

>>80970971
>the scene was more cartoony than the giant worm.
Except it wasn't, and it's been explained why to you multiple times now.
>>80971029
But spacecraft as we know it can ram and push other spacecraft.

>>80967618
>was it CGI or a model I can't tell
It was CGI
>yeah, I knew it all along

>>80971120
That's interesting because I don't feel embarrassed when I watch the worm scene, but the chopping scene made me ashamed to be sitting in that theater watching it.

>>80971150
I wasn't the guy who asked.

>>80970021

Adam Lanza was entirely CGI. They keep the good stuff secret so people don't believe it's possible.

>>80971170
Okay. I guess it's a good thing your feelings have absolutely no bearing on how physically plausible something is.

>>80971170
>I don't feel embarrassed when I watch the worm scene
It's funny, because I've always felt that scene was laughably cringey. Maybe it's because I first watched it as an adult.
>>80971118
Spot on. It's astounding the mental hurdles OT diehards will repeatedly jump over to convince themselves that the originals are anything less than perfect.

>>80971224
Hey, you can be condescending to me all you want, but you're the guy who liked Rogue One.

File: sad george.jpg (118KB, 634x482px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 634x482px

>when people try to call out your space fantasy on not being science fiction

>>80971344
I know the idea of non CGI effects is foreign and silly to an 18 year old like yourself, but that doesn't make the scene bad.

>>80971363
>you're the guy who liked Rogue One.
I didn't like it, though. I like the originals significantly more. I just don't desperately try to make excuses for their bullshit.

>>80971371
>hyper advanced technology isn't sci fi

>>80971435
I'm not making excuses, I just don't think the cartoon show needs to be jammed into the live action movie.

>>80971419
The effects themselves are not in question, but rather the scenario depicted. The worm itself looks fine. The concept of a giant worm living on asteroid is batshit retarded.

File: neon_demon.webm (3MB, 1280x534px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x534px

>>80965030
>make CGI godzilla look like a sock puppet
>reuse 60 year old sound effects
>it works
you might be into something, OP

>>80967682
Yes

>>80968319
There is not much wrong with the scene. It's more believable than literally any of the space dogfights they show.

>>80968648
>star wars space maneuvers
>believable
The destroyer crash scene was actually way more faithful to zero g combat than any time they show ships swooping around like fucking ww1 biplanes with no atmosphere to arrest their momentum.

>>80971469

>being THIS pleb

"muh technology" does not make something science fiction.

>>80971486
The concepts of the force and faster than light travel are no less retarded.

>>80971574
It literally does. Would Star Trek be sci fi if all of their technology was present day and they didn't travel in space?

>>80971586
No shit. The argument was that the star destroyer collision felt like a cartoon. The counter argument is that it's actually more realistic than 90% of the shit that happens in Star Wars space.

>>80971486
Yeah pretty complex ecosystem on that there asteroid to support a giant worm. Also there's there. Big fucking asteroid I guess? It was silly Jim Henson stuff.

>>80971625

Foolish question. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

>>80971703
I accidentally a word. Meant to put there's gravity there on the asteroid.

>>80971719
>it's necessary

You're literally agreeing with me then. You're trying to tell me Star Wars is fantasy right? Why can't it be both? Sci-fi/ fantasy.

>>80971638
It's still stupid though. Being more realistic doesn't make it less stupid.

>>80971806

>not not sufficient

You literally have no idea what sci-fi is. Absolutely disgusting.

>>80971835
If the star destroyer collision, one of the most realistic space maneuvers in the franchise, is stupid, what does that make the rest of the franchise?

>>80971625
depends. not the whole world needs to be advanced, sliders was sci fi and so was Knight Rider

>>80971806
because you need a scientific bases for Sci-fi when none of the laws physics are observed its not Sci-fi

>>80971897
>not not

???

>>80971898
It wasn't a star destroyer collision. It was literally a 6 year old's fantasy

>>80971955
Knight Rider had advanced technology though. I didn't say it had to be common. Robocop is sci fi because of the title character and robots like ED-209.

>>80971371
Poor Lucas, I know he got a fuckton of money for Tard Wars (that he allegedly donated) but you can tell that he feels like they are fucking his child in the ass from his facial expression.
Also
>jeans and running shoes

File: space opera.jpg (6KB, 293x27px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 293x27px

>>80971992

>>80967513
These are not the problem. It's the battle scenes where things look fake. They used to go to extra effort to have motion blur and whatnot but now they just shake the camera so hard you literally cannot even briefly focus on something, so you don't go wtf this is fake as shit.

>>80972083
>It wasn't a star destroyer collision.
You're retarded aren't you?

>>80972168

>wikipedia

>>80972083
So these fucking ships can crash land on a planet with only a little structural damage, but crashing into each other completely destroys them.

See also Star Trek, which did the same thing.


inb4 structural integrity fields on off shit

>>80971625
>star trek
>sci fi
Only in the broadest of definitions. There is no science to its fiction.

>>80972341
>completely destroys them.
>except it didn't even crack the hull
>expecting star wars to obey the laws of physics which it has been conveniently ignoring since A New Hope.

>>80971835
It's not stupid, it's one of the rare things that doesn't violate basic physics. The little ship accelerating a bigger ship is not stupid - spaceships in real life literally use tiny ass rockets to orient and translate themselves, using the big rocket to make big maneuvers. The tiny starship has arbitrarily powerful rockets in its drive. So is the other ship crumbling - a million tons at a few dozen m/s is still a million fucking tons.

>>80970295
>>80970580
>>80970971
>>80971170
>>80971363
>>80971469
>>80971419
>>80971835
>>80972083
Holy fuck, OT nuthuggers are beyond retarded and this shit proves it without a doubt.

>>80972441
holy shit, you just answered your own question. the hammerhead corvette was pushing the hull, THE TOUGHEST PART OF THE STAR DESTROYER, into the command center of the other star destroyer, supposedly the weakest part of the star destroyer due to the need to house the commanders. no shit it tore apart.

>>80972441
wait didnt mean to respond to you with this>>80973346. meant to respond to >>80972341 while using >>80972441
this as evidence.