313
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
313 points (87.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12543 readers
661 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought it was funny when he argued that the BB-8 droid from Star Wars broke the laws of physics because a rolling mechanical ball can't roll uphill on sand.
He didn't know that the BB-8 shown in the movie rolling up dunes was a physical robot, not CGI.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure the BB-8 you see on film is mostly CGI. A working BB-8 prop does exist but it's more of a reference that gets covered in CGI. It's a common film technique that gets used these days and often those articles praising "no CGI" are often PR bullshit that stretches the truth because "practical effects" has become a buzzword.
I can prove a few shots of BB8 are CGI.
Shot1
Shot2
Shot3 - CGI + possible practical (the lighting on the body of BB8 changes in CGI pass but idk if that confirms they CGIed the body too)
Shot4 - Notes in bottom left confirm
I obviously can't prove it but I would assume every BB8 shot is either entirely CGI or uses the practical robot as a reference pass. Relying on a practical robot would introduce a point of failure that could delay shots and force more takes, adding cost and time to the production. The only reason the filmmakers have to use a practical effect is to give the actors a reference, all other shots it's faster and cheaper to use CGI.
TL;DR: BB8 is mostly if not entirely CG and film companies are almost always lying when emphasizing the practical effects used in their film.
Yes much of bb-8 is cgi, but there was a video of a physical bb-8 prop rolling in sand.
When Degrasse tweeted that it was impossible, Star Wars prop artist responded with a video of the physical robot rolling on sand. I'm not going post a link to Twitter on Lemmy but you can Google it.
Yeah fair enough, I just wanted to rant about CGI. hehe
It could have been the stick puppet version, though, for which the sticks were digitally removed after filming. I don't know more about that, but it sounds like you do.
Yes many were stick puppets. Some were trikes.
So did the mechanical ball roll itself uphill?
I was wrong. Despite the official StarWars Twitter claim they had the robot bb-8 on the dunes for filming, a documentary says the full robot version wasn't done until the red carpet. However I have found videos of a large bb-8 rolling on sand. The small toy ones cannot roll on sand. (Which isn't surprising because most toy cars can't run on sand despite full size being able to.)