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.)
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.)