4 ms·

> Rogue One: A Star Wars Story… would be impossible to do without CGI. It's a prequel to a movie that had exactly one computer generated element in it, which w

> Rogue One: A Star Wars Story… would be impossible to do without CGI. It's a prequel to a movie that had exactly one computer generated element in it, which was a wireframe model that took so long to render that they couldn't re-render it when the final design changed. They _chose_ not to make it without CGI. It wouldn't have been impossible. edit: I'll just leave this right here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034928/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034928/

dragonwriter 10y ago
> It's a prequel to a movie that had exactly one computer generated element in it Well, no, it's a prequel to the 1997 version, not the 1977 version you describe.
- jonhohle 10y ago
  In what way? It didn't contradict the 1977 version in any way (that I'm aware of). It's been nearly 20 years since I've seen the 1997 version (we watch the 1993 version at home). Had you never seen the special editions, rogue one would not appear out of place.
  - alanh 10y ago
    He's saying that the original move we've all seen had its special effects upgraded over the years :)
    - jonhohle 10y ago
      I understood his point; mine was that _I_ don't watch the 1997 (or later) version of Star Wars (though I've seen it). My children have only seen the 1993 release of Star Wars. If my son was old enough, he'd watch Rogue One and have no issues having never seen the "upgraded" releases.
flukus 10y ago
The original still had big budget special effects, only the technology changed. So I think that's being a bit pedantic.
- jonhohle 10y ago
  My point was that they would not have been impossible without CGI. All four of those movies could have been made prior to the mid-80s, with different technology. I chose Rogue One and Jungle Book because one comes from a family of movies that excelled in practical effects, optical compositing, and modeling and the other has a version which was made in the 1940s. Decades ago, Finding Dory would have been hand animated (though, even that had moved begun moving to computers in the late 80s). I haven't seen Captain America, but I would guess similar types of movies existed before hand (the 80s and early 90s are full of over the top action movies and practical effects; some of which still hold up today). Visual story telling doesn't require CGI. It might be the most pragmatic way to do things now (due to time, cost, complexity, etc.), but it's not the _only_ way.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It's a prequel to a movie that had exactly one computer generated element in it Well, no, it's a prequel to the 1997 version, not the 1977 version you describe.

jonhohle 10y ago
In what way? It didn't contradict the 1977 version in any way (that I'm aware of). It's been nearly 20 years since I've seen the 1997 version (we watch the 1993 version at home). Had you never seen the special editions, rogue one would not appear out of place.
- alanh 10y ago
  He's saying that the original move we've all seen had its special effects upgraded over the years :)
  - jonhohle 10y ago
    I understood his point; mine was that _I_ don't watch the 1997 (or later) version of Star Wars (though I've seen it). My children have only seen the 1993 release of Star Wars. If my son was old enough, he'd watch Rogue One and have no issues having never seen the "upgraded" releases.

flukus 10y ago

The original still had big budget special effects, only the technology changed. So I think that's being a bit pedantic.

jonhohle 10y ago
My point was that they would not have been impossible without CGI. All four of those movies could have been made prior to the mid-80s, with different technology. I chose Rogue One and Jungle Book because one comes from a family of movies that excelled in practical effects, optical compositing, and modeling and the other has a version which was made in the 1940s. Decades ago, Finding Dory would have been hand animated (though, even that had moved begun moving to computers in the late 80s). I haven't seen Captain America, but I would guess similar types of movies existed before hand (the 80s and early 90s are full of over the top action movies and practical effects; some of which still hold up today). Visual story telling doesn't require CGI. It might be the most pragmatic way to do things now (due to time, cost, complexity, etc.), but it's not the _only_ way.