Took my 11 and 13 year old today. They are so used to traditional happy endings that they were jarred by this one, but I believe they both really enjoyed it.
Maybe I was just exhausted from Christmas and that reclining chair was so comfy, but I dozed off in first hour. Felt like I missed very little and really enjoyed the last half of the movie. Looking forward to catching it again at home.
Forest Whitaker seemed underused. The CGI characters didn't bother me at all.
I just saw it. Tarkin was really unconvincing, Leia less so, but still not perfect. Other than that I thought it was pretty good. I liked it better than Force Awakens, which I found kinda dull. Rogue One had more interesting characters IMO and less awkward forced enthusiasm.
I found Tarkin jarring at first, but that quickly went away and I was fine with it for the rest of the movie. The Leia seen was so short it didn't bother me.
My 8 year-old thought the end was "too violent" and was also probably a bit shocked by all the heroes dying, not the way most movies he's seen end, but the next morning was asking when we could get the DVD at home so I guess wasn't too traumatized.
Saw it. Loved it. Pretty much everything. I agree its for the Star Wars fans that will paint figurines, or spend hours playing Battlefront.
I honestly wasn't expecting everyone to die until the first few started to go. I thought that was good. Gave a real vibe that people died to stop this thing, and did so knowingly and gladly. When we watch real war films, it affects us more because we know it happened. Very difficult to recreate that setting in a fantasy world IMO. Thought they nailed it. For me, might be my second favorite SW film if not for ANH being the first and therefore, best thing ever.
I didn't really mind the CGI Tarkin/Leia, but it left me wondering why not just recast them? Is it just because we CAN do this? I mean, they recast Solo and Lando, why not Leia and Tarkin? It was OK though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Forest Whitaker seemed underused. The CGI characters didn't bother me at all.
Agreed. His best lines from the trailer weren't even in the movie. I hate it when that happens.
SI didn't really mind the CGI Tarkin/Leia, but it left me wondering why not just recast them? Is it just because we CAN do this? I mean, they recast Solo and Lando, why not Leia and Tarkin? It was OK though.
Because then the internet would be up in arms over who they recast in these iconic roles and why didn't they use CGI like they did in Benjamin Button and Ant-Man etc.
There was no need to recast anyone and the effect worked very well. Those who are complaining about it are those who went in knowing Tarkin would be CGI and therefor looked for any hint that it wasn't 100% photo-realistic. Leia was a surprise to almost everyone and that's why she gets much more of a pass.
Right from the first trailer all the internet plebs who believe models are the only way to make movies (because Interstellar was boring and unimaginative in their use) were hyper-critical of teh CGI and singing the praises that the CGI models looked like real physical models and not like CGI, even though the CGI models in the previous 4 films look like real models and not video games as well.
And then no one complains that K-S20 is completely CGI. Like no one at all. Yet...
Never mind all the CGI you don't even know is CGI that happens in almost anything you watch. CGI is a bad buzz word to run to your keyboard and cry about but in reality it is just a better version of long standing film making tools and 99% of the time you have no idea how much CGI you are looking at. Want proof? Watch Gareth Edwards first films
Monsters and tell me where all the CGI is. And before you even start, yes the "monsters" are CGI, obviously. Good luck finding the rest without help though.
When effects are done poorly they stand out. Doesn't matter if it's CGI or models or matte paintings or rear projection are bad compositing or what ever. But I doubt you even realized all the shots in TFA where Kylo Ren's helmet was CGI over his face as was shot on set. But Snoke, OGM CGI IS SOOOOO BAD!!!!!!1!1!!!1!!1!
Brought the kids yesterday. They liked it but not as much as the other movies...likely because the heroes died.
I thought Tarkin was done well and if I didn't know going in likely wouldn't have noticed. But I did know so you can see the lifelessness. That said, to me it was Leia that looked worse...but they also didn't go to the lengths they did to recreate Tarkin from what I read.
once they were running the file from Vader I knew it would end up with Leia but wasn't prepared for the kick in the gut that was given the news earlier in the day.
Those who are complaining about it are those who went in knowing Tarkin would be CGI and therefor looked for any hint that it wasn't 100% photo-realistic. Leia was a surprise to almost everyone and that's why she gets much more of a pass.
Thanks for telling me what I think, not sure what I would have done without you. Whew!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache
And then no one complains that K-S20 is completely CGI. Like no one at all. Yet...
No one complains about K-2SO Because it's much easier to convincingly do materials and non-alive things in CGI than alive things. There isn't a whole section of your brain developed through generations of evolution dedicated to recognizing and predicting movements of robots.
As you say, CGI isn't bad in itself, it's bad when the result doesn't work, and Tarkin and Leia are bad IMO.
Why is it so offensive when someone doesn't like something?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
SI didn't really mind the CGI Tarkin/Leia, but it left me wondering why not just recast them? Is it just because we CAN do this? I mean, they recast Solo and Lando, why not Leia and Tarkin? It was OK though.
Because then the internet would be up in arms over who they recast in these iconic roles and why didn't they use CGI like they did in Benjamin Button and Ant-Man etc.
Fair enough. Although it also left me wondering why Leia didn't have a bigger role in the film. They could have easily written a bigger part for her, although I liked that they kind of just went and did it without the Alliance's consent. I thought that was a nice touch of "rogue".
Quote:
CGI stuff
The issue is it's not QUITE there. There's something about the way the light falls on real material that they just can't seem to nail with the CGI. However, I thought it was well done.
On that note though, was Vader CGI? I thought he was in his first scene with the Death Star builder (forget the name). And then when he showed up on the Star Destroyer he looked real. And then his final scene I thought he might have been CGI. Maybe it's just me.
Nothing ticked me off more in Ep. III when they used an animated Vader to stand up. Like, why? The dude's in a suit, you can't see his face. Plus you have the actor you want. Get some make up and new a suit for gods sake.
Fair enough. Although it also left me wondering why Leia didn't have a bigger role in the film. They could have easily written a bigger part for her, although I liked that they kind of just went and did it without the Alliance's consent. I thought that was a nice touch of "rogue".
The issue is it's not QUITE there. There's something about the way the light falls on real material that they just can't seem to nail with the CGI. However, I thought it was well.
On that note though, was Vader CGI? I thought he was in his first scene with the Death Star builder (forget the name). And then when he showed up on the Star Destroyer he looked real. And then his final scene I thought he might have been CGI. Maybe it's just me.
Nothing ticked me off more in Ep. III when they used an animated Vader to stand up. Like, why? The dude's in a suit, you can't see his face. Plus you have the actor you want. Get some make up and new a suit for gods sake.
The Vader in episode 3 wasn't CGI IIRC from one of the books that I read on the making of that movie. There was an actual suit and an actual Hayden inside of the suit even in the standup scene.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The Vader in episode 3 wasn't CGI IIRC from one of the books that I read on the making of that movie. There was an actual suit and an actual Hayden inside of the suit even in the standup scene.
Fair enough. Although it also left me wondering why Leia didn't have a bigger role in the film. They could have easily written a bigger part for her, although I liked that they kind of just went and did it without the Alliance's consent. I thought that was a nice touch of "rogue".
The issue is it's not QUITE there. There's something about the way the light falls on real material that they just can't seem to nail with the CGI. However, I thought it was well done.
On that note though, was Vader CGI? I thought he was in his first scene with the Death Star builder (forget the name). And then when he showed up on the Star Destroyer he looked real. And then his final scene I thought he might have been CGI. Maybe it's just me.
Nothing ticked me off more in Ep. III when they used an animated Vader to stand up. Like, why? The dude's in a suit, you can't see his face. Plus you have the actor you want. Get some make up and new a suit for gods sake.
Leia was a tiny cameo as a complete surprise to tie directly into A New Hope. She was used to perfection.
Continuing the narrative the CGI "just isn't there" is also extremely false. I challenged CGI nay-sayers already. There's so much computer generated imagery used in film and television today that you have no idea when you are seeing it. You just assume that big giant spaceships are now CGI so that means they aren't as good as poorly articulated models on rods with giant black matte lines around them.
You just proved my point. Today anything that you even think isn't real is immediately deemed CGI in your mind and therefor it's fake and looks terrible. Even you're poor guessing of Vader in Rogue One, which was an actor in a suit.
And the scene was shot fine. It was Frankenstien's monster taking his first steps. Hating on the Prequels is just pathetic at this point in time. People need to grow up and get over their irrational hatred.
Good grief dude. They did a crappy job on Tarkin and it was brutally obvious it was a CGI job from the second he turned around. Cut scenes in video games look better than that. Just because I said that looked bad (which it does) is not a blanket statement that all CGI ever is bad. Get a grip.
And the prequels are terrible films by any reasonable objective or subjective measure, which is why they get the level of hate thrown at them they do.
The Following User Says Thank You to OutOfTheCube For This Useful Post:
Leia was a tiny cameo as a complete surprise to tie directly into A New Hope. She was used to perfection.
Continuing the narrative the CGI "just isn't there" is also extremely false. I challenged CGI nay-sayers already. There's so much computer generated imagery used in film and television today that you have no idea when you are seeing it. You just assume that big giant spaceships are now CGI so that means they aren't as good as poorly articulated models on rods with giant black matte lines around them.
You just proved my point. Today anything that you even think isn't real is immediately deemed CGI in your mind and therefor it's fake and looks terrible. Even you're poor guessing of Vader in Rogue One, which was an actor in a suit.
And the scene was shot fine. It was Frankenstien's monster taking his first steps. Hating on the Prequels is just pathetic at this point in time. People need to grow up and get over their irrational hatred.
I wasn't arguing with you man. I thought they looked fine. The CGI everwhere you're talking about isn't noticable because it's not meant to be what people are actually looking at. As soon as you start to make spoken human characters (particularly of people we know) CGI and attempt to make them look real, there will be something left to be desired. How ever minimal. As I said, there's something the way the light fals on real material, particularly something as organic as skin.
Making a CGI Vader is basically making a CGI robot. Much easier than a human character.
I bet you think Fury Road was the best movie of the year to. Which would be very typical of people like you.
"people like you"
Take it down a few notches, you're arguing against something no one is saying. No one is saying CGI is universally bad. And you're arguing against something that is subjective as if there was no room for variation in how people see it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Take it down a few notches, you're arguing against something no one is saying. No one is saying CGI is universally bad. And you're arguing against something that is subjective as if there was no room for variation in how people see it.
My comment is very apt. The rally for "practical effects" after Fury Road was hilarious because almost every single moment of that film had some sort of computer manipulation.
There's a difference between being subjective and being a hater. Out of the Cube showed very quickly to simply be a hater. So I called it out. If you'd like to prove otherwise please go ahead. But what you post is a reflection of who you are and subjective reasoning is not something that was posted. At all.
I deal with people like that all the time,. I say it looks fine and I get a 5 minute rant rammed down my throat with conjecture nonsense to prove their opinion is correct and mine is just being a naive fanboy. You don't have a conversation with subjectivity with statements like "they did a crappy job". It's hate for the sake of swinging their imaginary big dick around.
Photon, you make fun of Drumpf constantly but then stick up for the exact same sort of actions. Perhaps you need to take your rose glasses off as well?
Last edited by Lanny's Moustache; 12-28-2016 at 07:40 PM.
Making a CGI Vader is basically making a CGI robot. Much easier than a human character.
Accept it was shown to you the Vader was not CGI. So I don't even know what your point it. As for the rest, you made a blanket statement of "light hitting material" and didn't specify you meant light interacting with skin. That was also a response to me speaking to CGI being used instead of hand built models, not to the performance of Tarkin in Rogue One.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny's Moustache For This Useful Post:
