He wouldn't have said this if it was half-CGI. Especially when he is so amazed with the tech behind it. A remote controlled rolling ball is not impressive, at all. Mark Hamill's description makes no sense if the head is CGI.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Wars The Force Awakens Trailer
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
He wouldn't have said this if it was half-CGI. Especially when he is so amazed with the tech behind it. A remote controlled rolling ball is not impressive, at all. Mark Hamill's description makes no sense if the head is CGI.
I'm also not expecting Hamill to be super tech savvy. If one thing is practical I would assume he would be "Yeah, we are practical."
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Yep, sometimes people don't even realize how much of some movies is CG these days.
http://vimeo.com/68451324
But he called the way it works on set amazing. A little remote rolling ball isn't amazing. It's the stationary head that causes people to get intrigued by it. They had remote control R2 units in the original films, he wouldn't suddenly be amazed by something far less advanced.
There is nothing he says to indicate any of it, especially half of it is CGI.
Not to weigh into the head debate, but a ball that is user controlled would be amazing to plenty of people, I think. Same as mono cycles are.
chicko1983
Member
I'd say the ball is real, the head is cg.
The head could be real, like that ms-paint sketch shown in this thread, if it only moved about the same axis of the ball. However, the ball and the head move in two axes to each other, thus I would be very interested to see how it could be done without having the head as cg.
Looks good though, I like it already has character to it.
The head could be real, like that ms-paint sketch shown in this thread, if it only moved about the same axis of the ball. However, the ball and the head move in two axes to each other, thus I would be very interested to see how it could be done without having the head as cg.
Looks good though, I like it already has character to it.
chicko1983
Member
A remote controlled rolling ball would be pretty amazing. You can't just go out and buy one. If you can, I'd like to buy one.
Edit: you can buy them apparently, looks pretty cool:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2JMRbev1nvw
Still, the remote ball is the easier part. How would they do the head?
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
If part of it was CG then Mark's quote makes no sense:
"And when they were demonstrating how they did this thing, live on set because its not CGI, thats a live prop I was just amazed."
There would be nothing amazing about a ball and he probably wouldn't have gone out of his way to say it was real if it was only half real.
FriendlyGoat
Member
It wouldn't be that difficult for them to build a practical puppet with both ball and head, they have all sorts of old school techniques at their disposal that aren't simply CGI. It's not like they built a functioning droid that works exactly as you see. One possibility is the sketch you mention, with a combination of two slightly separated hemispheres with a weighted rod to hold up the head, then puppet strings or stabilization lines to stabilize and control rotation of the head when the ball rolls. You are right that it would restrict motion of the ball though, so to solve that they could instead build a gyroscopic chassis for the ball--not unlike a dyson rollerball vaccum--that holds up the head and houses whatever movement controls that are necessary, while the ball is able to freely roll within. Just some minor digital removal to hide all traces combined with a design that would hide most of it depending on the angle of the camera and there you go.
For my money, I would guess it is controlled by a puppeteer, not via a remote, and pushed around like a childs push toy with a minimal chassis like I described. Like with a rod and handles, stabilized head with controls, and a chassis that allows the ball to roll freely. That would give it a more human/natural range of motion with the freedom to improvise without laborious setup and also explain how Hamill was able to dick around with it. It would be cheaper and more practical.
This design won't work, but something like it might for a remote control:
A large, heavy ball is held in place like an old fashioned mouse ball and acts as a drive wheel, kinda like a rat runnning in a treadmill. Around the ball is a chassis which rests on the outer sphere by wheels or some shit and also has the little motors that drive the ball. On top of the chassis is a set of magnets that keeps the relatively light head on top of the ball, which isn't attached at all. You can rotate the magnet to get the head of the droid to rotate.
Saying that, it's more likely a puppet, but I can see something like the above working.
A large, heavy ball is held in place like an old fashioned mouse ball and acts as a drive wheel, kinda like a rat runnning in a treadmill. Around the ball is a chassis which rests on the outer sphere by wheels or some shit and also has the little motors that drive the ball. On top of the chassis is a set of magnets that keeps the relatively light head on top of the ball, which isn't attached at all. You can rotate the magnet to get the head of the droid to rotate.
Saying that, it's more likely a puppet, but I can see something like the above working.
It's strange. They are basically calling Mark Hamill a liar as far as I can tell since if half of it was CGI it would directly contradict Hamills statement. Not to mention a remote ball wouldn't blow his mind. They had remote R2s 35 years ago he worked with. They sell toy balls that do that
Coreda
Member
This design won't work, but something like it might for a remote control:
The making of featurette will be fascinating.
Yeah it's pretty incredible how people can convince themselves of something entirely false up tot he point where they won't even listen to people who directly interacted with it.
Hey remember how people said the ball droid (now known as BB-8) was terrible or obvious CGI?
Mark Hamill, in an interview:
Thanks for that.
Nice interview.
jwillenn
Member
I guess it's going to take people seeing the scene in the movie where a lightsaber doesn't cut through the hilt...
demosthenes
Member
Hey remember how people said the ball droid (now known as BB-8) was terrible or obvious CGI?
Mark Hamill, in an interview:
Awesome.
Spieler Eins
Member
Hey remember how people said the ball droid (now known as BB-8) was terrible or obvious CGI?
Mark Hamill, in an interview:
I didn't have a problem with this thing from the beginning, because it clearly isn't some CGI made sidekick.
Hey remember how people said the ball droid (now known as BB-8) was terrible or obvious CGI?
Mark Hamill, in an interview:
The reaction mashup video he talks about in the interview is pretty awesome aswell;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JcmEnmmkCA
I have no idea but I'm going to guess and say there's a magnet inside the ball facing up (and a counter weight at the bottom to keep the magnet at the top) and that keeps the head at the top but still allows the ball to roll around almost independently
MakingStarWars posted how they believe the droid works 3 days before the trailer came out.
http://makingstarwars.net/2014/11/visual-new-droid-sidekick-works-star-wars-force-awakens/
http://makingstarwars.net/2014/11/visual-new-droid-sidekick-works-star-wars-force-awakens/
RadioactiveLobster
Member
the head and the way it moves just doesn't look like there wasn't some kind of "help".
maybe it wasn't cgi.
but they did something to make it look like it does in the trailer.
"I love when people can't tell what part of this is CG, what part is real, and then they guess wrong....it's my favorite thing"
- Ron Ames, VFX Producer for JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness
- Ron Ames, VFX Producer for JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness
The science behind the droid is real and has been shown before in previous posts. Mark Hamill says it isn't cgi, that the droid is practical. I am willing to trust Hamill over you, sorry.
There must be dozens of do-it-yourself droid builders out there right now working on their own working versions. And I can't wait to see them.
It must be very encouraging for people with that drive and skillset to know that Disney hires fans to work on SW, so yeah, get to work guys! Let's see those BB-8s
It must be very encouraging for people with that drive and skillset to know that Disney hires fans to work on SW, so yeah, get to work guys! Let's see those BB-8s
The science behind the droid is real and has been shown before in previous posts. Mark Hamill says it isn't cgi, that the droid is practical. I am willing to trust Hamill over you, sorry.
I haven't seen a link with the head working like that in purely practical ways, must have missed it, do you have it?
FriendlyGoat
Member
Practical doesn't mean they built a robot that works exactly as you see it. It is not difficult for them to build a puppet with digital removal of rods, motors, wires, or whatever else they use. The way it bobs looks like it is light weight and suspended, which would be difficult to portray digitally.
CosmicSmash
Banned
Okay, does anyone else feel extremely embarrassed when watching this?
I did.
R2-D2 and C-3PO are basically the Star Wars equivalent to Mickey and Donald.
Star Wars is owned by Disney now.
So what do you think?
well it bugs me that this bb8 Thing apparently has a bigger part to Play.
i dont like how he Looks..
also, bb8 is a stupid Name.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
And R2-D2 and C-3PO are perfectly normal names?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I like your honesty.
well as long as bb8 isnt the new goto droid and r2/c3 do have equal Screen time i guess i can deal with it.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I assume they will keep to tradition and put R2 and 3P0 in every one of the "core" numbered Star Wars films.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Some one on IGN suggested BB-8's name be changed to R0-T8
you want to protect the world, but you don't want it to change. You're all puppets tangled in strings.
That's what they said of Jar Jar Binks.
Jar Jar Binks wasn't clever. Gungan City itself was really cool though, conceptually, I mean giant bubble domes under water? How fucking cool is that?
Edit: Though you'd think a race that built cities near the fucking center of a planet would have some ballin' shield technology, which they obviously don't considering they were nothing but cannon fodder
I like the name, but I admit I'm biased since it follows the chassis code series of a car I like.
Their charm is certainly losing it's effect after they were shoehorned throughout the prequel trilogy.
I loved the droid companions in Kotor, so I'm excited to see how other quirks and personalities might the new droids bring.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked