>star wars
>shitting the bed with cgi
>>67969124
I like both.
The older one looks more imposing, but I like how the new one is more lit-up. Either way it's clearly a different lighting situation. Hopefully they do a better job of giving the ships a sense of scale in R1, because TFA basically didn't even both with it.
>>67969190
Yes they did, on the opening shot. They did a silhouette.
What is 2016 from?
They both look fine
>>67969239
rogue one trailer
Both look decent but the left is clearly a toy animated against a black background.
Right looks kind of like a model too.
>>67969124
Can someone explain how that hangar bay is supposed to work? It looks wrong.
>>67969124
Left is an ISD2 from Empire or Jedi.
Right an ISD1 meant to evoke the look from New Hope.
I know it's nerd talk but they were different props.
The nose of the ship is facing one way, the top is facing another. Damn thing looks like it's collapsing.
there is no single movie where cgi rules over models. You simply can't beat the real thing, cgi is always out of place unless the whole movie is animation
>>67969774
Mixing both would be preferable. Nolan's Interstellar is a good example of models enhanced with CGI
>>67969124
You can't judge the right one yet because they're still working on post-production.
>>67969537
This autist knows what's up
>>67969409
how so?
>>67969968
>promoting an unfinished product
BRAVO DISNEY
nice trampoline on the top
I think one reason why CGI looks bad is because its too sharp
Its kinda the same shit with how people say records through old tube/analog gear sound way better than something like a CD through a bunch of digital stuff
the thing that makes it better is degradation to the sound in a certain way (even order harmonics). With CGI it looks so fake and uninteresting compared to little models because theres too much detail, things are too sharp. Usually everything in the scene is sharp and highly detailed, unlike models (and real life)
>>67970136
But that's the same for any film heavily reliant on CGI, you can't until you see the final product.
>>67969124
>2016 version looks more like a model than an actual model
DISNEY ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>67970635
Anything large scale looks like a model in this context
both look fine you autist mongoloid
>>67970140
is you dumb nigga? thats a spring from the original mario game
how autistic do you have to be to NOT like the 2016 model
>>67970955
Seeing as we're all autistic on here, I'd have to say very high functioning seeing as it's shit.
The Star Destroyer model for A New Hope was different from the SD for ESB.
Rogue One got it right.
>>67970283
You just described why I prefer CGI in such situations. And somehow it is reason for CGI being bad, I guess some people prefer to stay in stone age.
>>67971146
WHO THE FUCK NOTICES THESE THINGS
>>67970283
this is absolute bullshit, go watch the star wars legacy restoration, practical effects in 4k look phenomenal
the CGI in the right actually looks pretty good though, it's much much better than the shitty TFA cartoony blurfest, this one actually looks like a model, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one
It looks fine, if anything it looks like they've gone to extra lengths to make it look like a hollow model, it literally looks like the light they've shone on it is bouncing around inside the model, like SSS in plastic. You could see that shit happening all over 2001, for example
I thought the CG work was the best part of the trailer. The Star Destroyer, AT-ATs and that shuttle getting blown up all looked better then the CGI from TFA.
>>67971418
I'm not so sure about the running robot, though
>>67971303
Obviously not retards like the OP.
>>67971146
autism
u
t
i
s
m
>>67971467
Yeah, didn't really get a good enough look at him. I hope the CG looks good, I've been wanting a combat droid main character forever
>>67971418
I'm not sure but that shuttle explosion looked practical, like a model with a firecracker in it.
I know it's only a half a second in the trailer but the way the wings flexed when it exploded just makes me assume it's not CGI. I could be horribly wrong though.
2016 looks better desu
>>67969124
The angle of the shot is wrong. They are shooting from below the Star Destroyer which, if you were shooting a person, would ostensibly impart a sense of strength or imposing figure.
But the first shot, where you can hardly see the bottom of the Star Destroyer, makes it feel more predatory. It looks like the fin of a shark peeking above the water. Much more sinister.
>>67972176
>I know it's only a half a second in the trailer but the way the wings flexed when it exploded just makes me assume it's not CGI.
You know they can do a lot with CGI, right? Architects were using computers for simulating the structural integrity of buildings and vehicles long before movies basically became cartoons.
>>67969124
But both look fine.
>>67972410
Fuck, why can't modern hollywood get anything right, jesus christ
10x the budget and still worse
>>67972449
Still, I thought it looked good. Also, yes, I know about architecture simulation for buildings on fault lines and whatnot.
>>67969190
>TFA basically didn't even both with it.
The scenes with Marysue exploring the downed Star Destroyer were amazing, but yeah, not the space scenes.
>>67972410
>>67972487
The angle of the shot isn't for the Star Destroyer, it's for the Death Star behind it...that much is painfully obvious that if you didn't get that you much be a drooling retard.
>>67971303
People who enjoy Star Wars, unlike the army of shitposters who will be running this board into the ground for the next few days with >wymn leads reeee
>>67969124
I bet if images were reversed you'd say the same thing.
>>67972410
>The angle of the shot is wrong
Wrong? It's different. Different lighting, different angle. Different movie! It's not a CGI recreation of episode IV, that was the last one.
>>67972591
I loved the entire introduction of Rey, all that was great. But Hans freighter and the new SD just felt like...well nothing. Then they're like "THIS is the size of a star destroyer...BUT THIS is the size of Starkiller Base".
Yeah, whatever, it didn't feel bigger and everyone on the ground got from point A to point B in a matter of seconds.
>>67972787
Well, everyone already made the joke about how for a movie called "Star Wars" there wasn't all that much actual space combat, so yeah.
R1 looks like it's gonna have some classic designs and hopefully more space scenes. The writing seems a bit cringy, though. "I rebel".
>>67972844
That line might not bother me given context, and since we don't have any I'm just judging it visually...and it looks okay.
The trashcan droid is back (17 seconds on the left) and the old X-Wing is back so I'm happy with that stuff.
>>67969124
> cgi
That's 100% a miniature
>>67972974
Yeah, it's nice to see actual old designs instead of "old designs, but not really" of TFA. I also did like how the Rebel base looked pretty gritty and dirty and whatnot. Might be a pretty good visual experience, if anything.
>>67969190
What? One of the only cool ideas in TFA was the crashed star destroyer on Jakku. It was actually possible to tell how big they are compared to the millennium falcon and surrounding desert. You can't see scale when they're in space
>>67973151
It's funny you mention that, because my dad told me the first thing that drew him in when he saw the ANH trailer in front of Money Python and the Holy Grail was how dirty a "space movie" looked. He just loved the 'lived in' feel of it and decided to go see it.
35 years later and now here I am, the resident family Star Wars nerd.
>>67973420
Yeah but it's an old Star Destroyer, not the new one Kylo is on. I guess you could say that the escape of Finn and Poe gave a BIT of scale when they were blowing up AA guns and stuff, but it's not much.
>>67973486
Well, that was a thing with the art direction of SW, stuff does look gritty and lived in, well, not all stuff, you have shiny white stormtroopers for contrast, Imperial military stuff is mostly shiny (unless you visit the local trash compactor), but you also have Mos Eisley and the Falcon, Rebel bases etc. That's one thing you can't take away from those movies, they're really creative visually.
I'm pretty sure they've been using physical models assisted by CGI for these films, actually. It certainly looks like it from your screencap.
>>67969190
Considering how good a job Edwards did with size/scale in Godzilla, I'm optimistic
Right one looks like something from Macross with all the lights. Looks more lived in than the left.
>>67971146
>not knowing the difference between an Imperial-I and Imperial-II class Star Destroyer
>current year
>>67974177
I deleted that movie from my brain when they killed off Cranston.
>>67969190
>I like how the new one is more lit-up
Interestingly this is one of the things the creators of the original Star Destroyer models had to go to painstaking lengths to create. The Star Destroyer models used in ESB each had hundreds of fibre optic cables inside of them, with each cable attached to an opening in the model so, when shot from a distance, it looked like the windows of the ship were lit up.
The effect might not be perfect but it is commendable - at least the 80s Star Destroyer has some windows.
Source: Making of featurettes on the SW complete saga blu-ray
>>67971303
People who edit Wookiepedia
>>67974688
Wookieepedia*
>>67971303
You can look up "ANH star destroyer" on google images and compare it you autist.
