How exactly is he supposed to create a city that covers an entire planet without CG. It's not as if he can fly around the universe til he finds one and film it.

How can he create other worlds without CG? I think it is better to see the world as he imagines it that to see every planet be a different sand dune in the sahara desert.

The problem isn't with movies, its with imagination. None of you people can use your imagination anymore and suspend disbelief enough to enjoy these effects. Try reading a few books every once in awhile, it will help you learn.

I thought the original trilogy did a good job. :)

I agree! I love how the city-planet looks in the original trilogy!

What are you doing posting in the movie forum? I was under the impression that wasn't allowed here.

I think the problem with CGI compared to using models is how fast everything moves.

If you look at the CG X-wings which were added to the Star Wars Special Edition, they look fantastic because you actually have time to look at the image properly. They aren't whizzing past the camera.

Now everything has to move at a million miles per hour. Not sure if this is supposed to make it more realistic but it looks crap.

Mission to mars, total recall, starship troopers, LOTRD trilogy, & even the original Star Wars was able to create it... you can allot of location in around the world can could resemble his vision & he could CG it more to make it even closer to his vision. it a simple trick that happens for ages in F/X (like adding few wierd looking mountain & yad yada yada).... maybe he's trying to keep the secret of filming star wars by staying in one location possible, or try to save money or what have you...

i'm sure Lucas got his own agenda on why he chosed that way rather than going with other technique.... but as long it works, then fine. but the problem is i personally, can tell that it's a CG.

wow, calling others with no imagination? that's pretty arrogant to say, huh? you certainly intitled to your own opinion & i can respect that... but to others watching F/X movies is like watching magic show... if the performer can surpirse you with his/her tricks, then you got your money worth...
yes, maybe i got my standard set way high when it comes to CG effects. but it's part of the challange of movie making & they (the makers) knows that. if the 20-30 years old way of F/X can somehow makes me goes "wow!", then todays effect should easily beat that techniques to create the "wow" factor....

i'm not saying that Star Wars movies were bad... they do entertain me. you can't just say that "just enjoy the movie".... it's like saying that when you watch heavy-drama-character-sudy/driven movie with lousy actors in it... how can you fully enjoy that? the technical aspect of F/X in F/X heavy/galore movies are as important as acting & the story.... if the film makers can't corporate that into the final result, then it becames a flaw rather then the "bonus point" of enjoiying the entertainment

just my opinion

That's falls back onto the director and how they want stuff to animate. That has nothing to do with CG. You don't just push the make x-wing fly button and you had a shot. It doesn't work like that. Keyframes lay out the path and speed an object is animated.

Danol? Is that you?

I don't know what you're talking about. There is no blue screen used in Vertigo. Hitch didn't use blue screen untill The Birds.

As usual for a CG thread, each side is using a slightly different definition of the term "realistic" to make their point.

Pro-CG: Realistic is defined by looking like the real thing. Since the creations are completely imaginary, you cannot know what the real thing looks like.

Anti-CG: Realistic means looking like it is an actual, physical object (or living breathing creature) in the same world as the actors, REGARDLESS of whether there is a real-world inspiration for it. In other words, the light hits the skin properly, physics seem to act on its movements, etc. I guess a less confusing term to use here would be "believable." Or maybe not.

But you do see what I'm getting at? Responding to a CG complaint with "how do you know what a Gungan looks like?" is missing the point. You can intuitively when something looks believable or not. The faces of the alien warrior race in The Fifth Element are obviously more convincing than the Yoda puppet in episode I, but no one has ever met them before.

Having said that, I cannot believe any movie buff would be unable to appreciate the GIGANTIC amount of skill displayed in every frame of the CG Hulk. That thing is awesome. Not entirely believable, but still awesome and there's no other way they could have done it.

Two words: Lou Ferigno

See that and raise you two more: Would have looked ridiculous. :)

Unfortunately that seems an impossibility to many people.