I’ve never understood why people get so upset when he does this. I like it when someone points out the actual physics behind something that you see in films and what was done right and wrong.
Learning that something in a movie isn’t scientifically accurate doesn’t ruin the movie for me. I already figured it wouldn’t be entirely correct and it doesn’t have to be correct (unless it’s supposed to be educational).
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.
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.
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.
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.)
He’s comparing things like known sand on earth, to make-believe drum sand on make-believe planet called Arrakis. He thinks he’s being smart, but he’s really just being obtuse.
I’ve never understood why people get so upset when he does this. I like it when someone points out the actual physics behind something that you see in films and what was done right and wrong.
Learning that something in a movie isn’t scientifically accurate doesn’t ruin the movie for me. I already figured it wouldn’t be entirely correct and it doesn’t have to be correct (unless it’s supposed to be educational).
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.)
He’s comparing things like known sand on earth, to make-believe drum sand on make-believe planet called Arrakis. He thinks he’s being smart, but he’s really just being obtuse.
It is how he does it, not that he does it.