TV Discussion Official Live Action Series Discussion Thread

Indeed. They all cost around $120 millions to make, while most summer blockbusters since 2006 cost between $200.000.000 - $300.000.000. The studios go less and less for "medium budget" films between $50.000.000 - $100.000.000. The number of movies made in Hollywood by them has decreased by a 1/3 to 1/2. A lot of movies that were financed 10-15 years ago probably wouldn't be made today. Quite sad what turns the industry has taken in the past decade.

But Lucas predicted back in 2005 that this system would eventually collapse and the studios would go back to making big movies on smaller budgets. Maybe this will prove to be the truth within this decade. The technological advancement in digital filmmaking in the past decade alone was a HUGE leap in opportunity for independent filmmakers.

 

Woah woah woah, are you telling me, that the Galactic Empire is being filmed in the Czech Republic ?

Oh the jokes will never stop!

 

LFL clearly needs to Czech their accuracy.

 

What people don't realize is that CGI is way cheaper. You can see The Walking Dead effects reel here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvKlcJuW4Tg

You can see $20,000 shots that turn into $1 million dollar shots for a few thousand dollars more. But they get the luxury of relying on existing architecture as a launching point for these complex shots. Star Wars, for the most part, doesn't have that luxury without staying focused on Tatooine but even then, when people find out it's a Star Wars production, prices tend to jump up exponentially.

On top of that, I think the purpose of this is to try and make TV rival film in every way using the digital revolution.

 

Meh, can't be bothered to Czech that video out.

 

It's easier to film a series set in a real place like a city or an already-existing facility/building. But Star Wars is almost entirely set in space or on planets and places that have to be created digitally.

The show will most likely have - various worlds, a bunch of aliens, starships, space battles, ground battles and goodness knows what else. Almost all of that stuff will be done with computer effects and if it is done to the same standard as the movies that will obviously be very expensive.
The story is important of course, but as TCW shows you can have decent story and character development but also have big battles and grand locations. The LAS will be a lot more expensive to make than an animated series.

TNG was $1million an episode (so I've heard it said anyway), but those effects are dated now and would not look good in a current sci-fi show. Top quality visual effects will be pricey unless cost can be lowered, which seems to be the aim before attempting to start production.

 

Tatooine, Hoth, Endor, Yavin IV, Dagobah, Bespin, the Death Stars and the Millennium Falcon were all created digitally?

I learn something new every day.

They could very easily make a Star Wars television series using little to no digital effects and never leave Hollywood.

 

Implying various worlds, a bunch of aliens, starships, space battles, ground battles and goodness knows what else will be in the Live Series.
They want it to be about crime world on Coruscant, not about the Rebellion.

 

Tatooine, Hoth, Endor, Yavin IV, Dagobah why would any of these worlds appear in live-action besides they are earthlike and rather boring to see all the time...

 

That would cost even more money. The reason why people don't use animatronics anymore is because it's too expensive. CGI is much easier and getting less expensive. Furthermore, non CGI is harder to pull off and it looks bad as well. Only problem is that CGI are getting more complexed and you need to find the right talent.

 

I know I'm in the minority with this, but I think CGI looks bad. It gets worse every year. I can't remember the last time I saw good looking CGI.

Imo, the best way to use CGI (when combined with live action) is a minimalist approach combined with other technologies and "movie magic".

Given the choice, I always prefer real sets, real props, real characters, etc.

CGI is never realistic because it doesn't exist in our universe, it only exists on a computer.

CGI cannot be touched, heard, smelled or tasted. I can't visit Pandora, but I can visit Tatooine.

 

Inception has really amazing CGI combined with real sets.

 

I think the problems arise when the set is over 50% CGI. Any less and it complements the real stuff, but over and it really does look awkward. I still think back to ROTS with the successive close-ups of Grievous and Obi Wan and how awkwardly obvious the CGI was.

 

People are under looking the ramifications of imperialism. It is unlikely the Rebel Alliance just walked into a space store and started buying X-Wing fighters and Ion Canons. More than likely the black market, or crime families, were the ones that created those markets. This premise spiderwebs out.

 

http://www.denofgeek.com/television/941379/exclusive_writer_for_star_wars_tv_show_revealed.html

 

Most interesting... thanks for the find, JasonW!

 

Get worse every year? please you know that's not true at all- it gets better all the time certainly- is it 'good enough' depends on our opinion and possibly even structure of our eyes and brain since it seems obvious some people have problems with CGI and some don't- it really can be physical difference in eyesight as well.....

well At-At:s exists in our universe as teeny weeny models and they look like models shot in stopmotion- not like real big walkers..... unless you are able to turn "wow how cool this is"-mode on and imagine them as real things - and i'm glad i have that mode- with it i can buy most models and most CGI without hiccups and enjoy both techniques similarly- but i have also "I'm watching 'just the movie' and many things i see are fake" -mode when i can see how models or CGI both suck and are fakes- they look both unreal and are made up things with nothing real in them just tricks...... but i won't use that mode all the time it would make all movies impossible to watch and enjoy....

Wow i thought movies cannot be touched, smelled or tasted anyway .... i have enough imagination to visit places that doesn't exist and while they may be created with CGI for the movie in my imagination they are not CGI at all..... maybe i'm lucky then too bad if you are unable to do the same since it makes movies fun no matter what techniques are used.....

 

Matthew Graham has been involved in writing some fantatsic television shows. If he is a calibre of writers they hired for the live action series, then it should certainly be well written if nothing else.

 

That has nothing to do with realism. CGI is as realistic as a prop. Both have their limitations.

I advise you to watch the documentary: "ILM: Creating the Impossible".

 

It really seems certain people have special problems with CGI but because of some of the audience having probs - they hardly choose to do it the hard way- CGI is way cheaper and more comfortable for actors than shooting in the tunisian desert or norwegian glaciers- have you heard how much fun they had filming OT- yeah lots of fun but also lot's of infernal conditions and compared to that many actors prefer bluescreen- what can be done without CGI is done without CGI because it is usually easier but filming locations being around the world is not easy and not cheap...... it really is bad if all cannot enjoy CGI but i don't really have a problem....
still too much CGI is not good either hopefully show is well balanced so even some episodes could be "good" even for CGI-haters.....

has anyone actually said about the use of CGI in this show or is anyone just thinking so because GL usually likes it.... if shows costs very much could be that they have lots of props and sets actually and less CGI.... i imagine twi'leks for example would be women in bodypaint not CGI and hutts for example can look good or at least ok in CGI- ILM did great job with Davy Jones in Pirates of Caribbean i think and it is one of the best CGI-characters ever made- they managed to fool me since i didn't think he is CGI when i first saw POTC2

Of course if you watch character knowing it's CG you may have more problems than just watching the movie.....

 

I think Lucasfilm could do TV visual effects better than most others because of two key assets:

1. Industrial Light & Magic - their very own in-house department with more experience in this field than a number of other companies combined

2. Lucasfilm Animation - the company which has perfected aesthetically-pleasing CGI, done to a budget and to a deadline, for a successful animated show over the course of at least four seasons

Naturally, they could negate their own advantage if they're too ambitious with the visual effects. They could also shoot themselves in the foot if they alienate too many viewers with the actual content.

 

New Title - Star Wars: Detours

http://theforce.net/latestnews/story/Lucas_Reveals_Star_Wars_Detours_138904.asp

 

that's not live-action or is it?

 

Huh, looks like I read the article wrong.

 

And the links the article offers as sources don't appear to be what they claim...