Jump to content

Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard 2018)


Jay

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

They did the same in Blade Runner 2049 and it's terrible as well. 

 

Haven't seen it but I'm assuming they did it to Harrison Ford there.

 

40 minutes ago, someonefun124 said:

 

I think this was a mistake, though.  The recreations were creepy and unrealistic, especially Cushing.

 

I don't think the technology is quite there yet but in the case of Cushing it was a story necessity that he be there, else you'd be left wondering how the heck he came to command the Death Star in ANH given Krennic was in charge of it in Rogue One. Carrie... yeah, that wasn't necessary - we know who's on board the Tantive IV. However, I must say I think it was better done than the Cushing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looked great it BR 2049! Nothing at all like the Cushing/Fisher crap.

 

 As for whether it really belonged there, that's another matter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gistech said:

I don't think the technology is quite there yet

 

The technology of creating convincing digital doubles is absolutely there, but in order to do it properly you need to scan the actor or actress on the motion capture stage: in and out of costume and make-up, in a blank face and through multiple facial expressions.

 

With Cushing and young Fisher, they obviously didn't have that privilege, and had to base their work off of existing footage, often shot on old film. That's never going to look that great, although both Rogue One and Blade-Runner 2049 feature noble, if gratuitous and at times eerie, attempts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

They did the same in Blade Runner 2049 and it's terrible as well. 

 

Disagree, I thought they did an excellent job of it in 2049.  Much better than what they did in Rogue One...I was aware I wasn't looking at Peter Cushing the whole time and it was very distracting. The Leia less so, but only because she's on the screen for much shorter a period (though it still doesn't work).

 

IN 2049, they did it the right away, and it was as reasonably close to seamless as you can get with today's technology.

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

The technology of creating convincing digital doubles is absolutely there, but in order to do it properly you need to scan the actor or actress on the motion capture stage: in and out of costume and make-up, in a blank face and through multiple facial expressions.

 

It's there, but it's not there yet, even with a full scan.  We're still a ways off from a completely realistic, transparent "performance" of a human CGI character.

 

If they're really not doing much interacting or speaking, I think it works fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BR 2049 was much more clever with how it used lighting and doubles to achieve results. And it does it very well. I was nearly fooled in the cinema. 

 

Maybe it doesn't translate to DVD (or whatever Alex watched it on) as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

It's there, but it's not there yet, even with a full scan.  We're still a ways off from a completely realistic, transparent "performance" of a human CGI character.

 

It depends. The quality of CG is hardly consistent, it depends on the workload. If there's just one money shot of a CG double, and the CG artists can divert enough attention and processing power into polishing it - you can make a very convincing double on close-up.

 

That, to me, is the true merit of practical effects: that they can take some of the load off of the virtual effects department, so they have less to do, and more to focus on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chen G. said:

 

It depends. The quality of CG is hardly consistent, it depends on the workload. If there's just one money shot of a CG double, and the CG artists can divert enough attention and processing power into polishing it - you can make a very convincing double on close-up.

 

That, to me, is the true merit of practical effects: that they can take some of the load off of the CG so they have less to do, and more to focus on.

 

For a few seconds, yes. A full performance? Not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Disagree, I thought they did an excellent job of it in 2049.  

 

We must have a different idea of what an excellent job is.

 

1 hour ago, KK said:

Maybe it doesn't translate to DVD (or whatever Alex watched it on) as well?

 

I did watch it on a Plasma screen. It might not be so obvious on a LCD or a theatre screen. It looked CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Richard said:

 

It isn't that bad, although, as Deckard says: "Her eyes were green".

 

I see. Don't you watch movies on a tiny laptop, Richard? Hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

We must have a different idea of what an excellent job is.

 

Well perhaps we define the word differently.

 

Hmmm.

 

How would you describe, in one word, Bill & Ted's first adventure?

If a Sith Lord said to you "I bring you good news, my Lord. The war has begun", how would you reply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

Does anyone remember the CG Scorpion King at the end of The Mummy Returns (using the likeness of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). CG Leia and Tarkin blew that out of the water. So in another twenty years, who knows what will be possible.

?

 

 

Agreed. Sooner or later, actors will just have their likeness scanned and that will be the basis for an entire performance. Eventually, they won't even need the scans and you'll see dead star's likeness being licensed by their estate for entirely new roles.

 

It's coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mstrox said:

^^^^^^^^^

 

All excellent special effects are built on the shoulders of previous, less excellent special effects.

 

 

Really, Mike, so...you think that the battle of Crait, is better than the battle of Hoth, or the battle of Endor is better than the battle of Yavin, or the asteroid chase in Ep. II is better than in Ep. V?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yes. I agree totally, but it seems that with every "advancement", the end result seems...lazy, uninspired. I mean, who, while watching the attack on the Starkiller base, didn't think "been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt"? Its the same with Crait; it's EMPIRE writ large, but not necessarily better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the battle scenes since TFA have been any good. The ending of TFA was slapped together as all hell and TLJ's finale played out like a video game cut scene. I mean, Johnson's were pretty atrocious. Say what you will about GL and the PT, but the action scenes were all good.

 

Rogue One didn't feel like a SW movie even during the action scenes, which were like sloppy unfocused scenes from a big budget fan film. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philippe Roaché said:

None of the battle scenes since TFA have been any good. The ending of TFA was slapped together as all hell and TLJ's finale played out like a video game cut scene. I mean, Johnson's were pretty atrocious. Say what you will about GL and the PT, but the action scenes were all good.

 

The battle scenes in the prequels (especially the battle of Geonsis in AOTC and the battle over Coruscant in ROTS) are much, much more video-gamey than any scene in TLJ.

 

And no, most of the action scenes in the prequels were pretty mediocre. Overly choreographed and waaay too much CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Philippe Roaché said:

Oh bugger off.

 

Why? Is it because deep down, you're embarrassed that you're actually defending a trilogy as bad as the prequels? Give me a break, you bugger off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recreating a person's physical likeness is one thing but recreating mannerisms is a different beast.  Imagine if they tried to do this with Charlie Chaplin or Lucille Ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally got a chance to watch the teaser trailer with sound on.  The music in the trailer is clearly ripped off / inspired by Zimmer's INCEPTION right?  The tick-tock sound and the BWAAAAAAAAAAMS....

 

Overall, still looks fun, but it definitely has a risk of being less good than the sum of its parts.  Like I'm sure several sequences will be fine to great (some of the stuff in space looks better than anything in TFA or TLJ for sure) but the overall movie really needs a solid story that isn't just a check-off of everything we know about Han to be an actual good movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jay said:

Finally got a chance to watch the teaser trailer with sound on.  The music in the trailer is clearly ripped off / inspired by Zimmer's INCEPTION right?  The tick-tock sound and the BWAAAAAAAAAAMS....

 

Doesn't this describe the trailer music for just about every big blockbuster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JTWfan77 said:

Does anyone remember the CG Scorpion King at the end of The Mummy Returns (using the likeness of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). CG Leia and Tarkin blew that out of the water. So in another twenty years, who knows what will be possible?

 

 

Well that was because that was rushed and done at the last minute, as well as bringing a whole new meaning to the term "it looks like a video game". Rather lazily too. Rogue One being better goes without saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.