That Rolling Ball Droid From The Force Awakens Trailer Wasn't CGI

[Armadox]

Time has passed. If that is R2-D2's head on a rollerball, it's because post Empire he got his body shot off.

It doesn't look like Artoo's head. I imagine this is going to be something that's mostly there for the toy sales. In fact, we may have our new Jar Jar. Who is infinitely better than the old one because we can't understand what he's saying.

I... I don't actually think that the roller bot is R2-D2, that was sarcasm at the previous posters mention of C3po being a battle mech. Honestly I think that the new roller bot is fine. Maybe it's a toy that was built by one of the characters, and it just passes messages around. It's fluff.

Actually all of what we know is until they give out more information. The light saber with cross guard is fine too, in a universe that once held on to light nunchaku (Sith Asajj Ventres).

 

[RJ Dalton]

Nope. Still not getting my hopes up. Been kicked in the (a-ha!) balls one too many times.

I will admit, though, if that's not a CGI shot, it's a pretty good practical effect.

 

[webkilla]

magnetic wheel inside a metal sphere casing? Gah - I must know how that thing works

 

[TristanBelmont]

Pretty sure this isn't news....

Did we not already know that?

 

[thehorror2]

Either busted up and set aside for newer models, or shiny and new and in the thick of it even thought they are outdated heaps. Yah. When you really think about it R2 should be old tech, and C3po was always built out of scrap parts anyways. Both characters should be in a scene and then forgotten for the new technology that has happened since the end of the Empire.

You're forgetting that (now-irrelevant) expanded universe material aside, technology doesn't advance AT ALL between movies. 30 years go by between the end of RotS and the beginning of ANH; an amount of time that took real-world humanity from the SNES to the PS4, and if anything tech in the SW universe seems to go BACKWARDS. Even in the EU, look at KotOR. 3000 years in the past, and everything looks roughly the same as it did in the movies (partly for player nostalgia, but we're looking at in-universe explanations, not out-of-universe) C-3P0 and R2-D2 will likely still be relevant for a few more millennia.

 

[RicoADF]

Folks are quick to point out that the prequals were CGI heavy, but CGI was terrible then. On the other hand, how much of Guardians of the Galaxy was CGI? All of it? So I'm not sure there is much point to "toning down" the CGI in these new star wars movies.

The prequals relied on CGI even for the sets at times, this was way too much CGI as actors often have trouble acting when they cannot see what their looking at etc. History shows that movies are at their best when they use a mixture of CGI and practical effects/props. Guardian of the Galaxies used a lot of CGI yes, but only when required.

 

[ZodiacBraves]

magnetic wheel inside a metal sphere casing? Gah - I must know how that thing works

I imagined it as a strong upward magnet (in the body) a strong downward magnet (in the head) and wireless communication between the two. That's the only way I could imagine a spherical droid being able to move in all directions.

 

[Kameburger]

People thought that was CGI? Really? I though it was obvious that it wasn't. They already said that they will tone down CGI. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that this droid isn't CGI.

Yeah, I have to say I felt this way too. I thought the whole point of showing this thing at all was like "hey guys see no CG? here's a practical effect robot thing, see!! It's new but its not jarjar binks new. SEE?!?"

Aside from that I have never felt more indifferent to a thing than I have about this little soccer ball thing... Movie might be good though.

 

[webkilla]

magnetic wheel inside a metal sphere casing? Gah - I must know how that thing works

I imagined it as a strong upward magnet (in the body) a strong downward magnet (in the head) and wireless communication between the two. That's the only way I could imagine a spherical droid being able to move in all directions.

...and wheels in in or around the magnets - though the trick would be to allow for remote control of it, since powerful magnets fuck with radios and electronics in general.

 

[Olas]

Wasn't it already pretty obvious that that thing was real?

Sorry, it just annoys me how hipsterish some people have become when it comes to Star Wars.

It's not as much hipster-ness as very happy that we're seeing a return of practical effects. As you say, both are an artform, and practical effects is one that's been pushed into the margins in favour of CGI for the last decade and a half. And to the detriment of many films like the Star Wars prequels themselves. Attack Of The Clones was one big green screen fest, and boy did it show.

The problem with the prequel films isn't the amount of CGI, it's the poor quality and implementation of the CGI. I fully agree that you should stick to practical affects if your alternative is putting live actors next to creatures that look like cartoons in a bland disconnected environment.

But that doesn't mean CGI can't be used well, and can't look good. And it has in the past. But when it does look good people seem to ignore or forget that it's even being used. Then when it looks bad, people complain that CGI is ruining film.

I think the problem is that creators look to CGI as an easier replacement for practical effects. But GOOD CGI, CGI that can fool the eye and maintain suspension of disbelief, is, if anything, even more work to create than most practical effects. But I think since the larger viewing public doesn't really see CGI as occupying a wide range of quality, there's no demand for better CGI, and so studios don't really see any point in investing into better CGI, and thus the quality of CGI hasn't really improved much over the last decade and often looks shoddy. And the message people walk away with isn't that the CGI being used looked bad, but that CGI looks bad.

Anyway, I still see practical effects as having value, because regardless of whether it's possible or not to make CGI look photorealistic yet, it's probably not going to be worth trying if we can more easily just make a real model instead.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm all for practical effects where ever possible, but that droid still looks dumb as hell. Kudos to the people that actually built the thing, and a big "WTF, seriously?" to the people that came up with the concept.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Yeah, I won't buy that until I see a behind-the-scenes video confirming it.

 

[kael013]

It truly fascinates me how pissed off some people are over such inconsequential details as the claymore light-saber and the ball droid. And more over, it especially fascinates me that so many are arguing against the new saber and droid designs because of their 'impracticality'.

It's Star Wars people.

So? Practicality in movies is linked to the suspension of disbelief. What's OK for you may not be OK for others. Everyone's line is placed differently. And I fail to see how "It's Star Wars people" invalidates that; in fact, all it does is make you a bit of a jerk for trying to impose your view of OK onto others via the "it's not real guys, chill" argument.

[quote/]Since when did ANY of it's world, character, weapon, droid, and ship designs revolve around practicality and logic?[/quote]
Since the beginning actually. See below for a small break-down.

[quote/]I mean, we're talking about a story-verse that has swords made of light, doors that close in a fraction of a second, laser weapons that somehow impart impact force, bottomless pits everywhere with nary a guardrail in sight, and winged fighter-craft whose wings are useless both in space and in a planet's atmosphere.[/quote]
It doesn't make sense realistically, so why bother? Is that what you're saying?

[quote/]Impracticality is Star Wars' M.O.[/quote]

Not really. Let me go through your list.
World: Most were single-biome, so yeah, not very practical as habitable places, but then again Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. are essentially all single-biome planets, so [i/]scientifically speaking[/i] the single-biome planets of Star Wars are much more logical than every planet being an Earth clone.
Characters: I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The characters (on the good guy side) are a farm boy, a smuggler who works for the criminal element operating under a oppressive regime, and a princess. How are these character types "impractical"? Farmers are needed to supply consumables, smugglers are needed to get goods the oppressive regime restricts, and a princess isn't that far out: see Britain.
Weapons: Yeah, one to you. Rule of Cool is in effect here. Still, between a sword made of light with only one blade that, as long as you hold it like it's supposed to be held and are not being stupid, is pointed [i/]away[/i] from you compared to a sword made of light with a blade pointed away from you with two others that can alternate between also pointing away from you to pointing [i/]right at you[/i] depending on if the hilt is twisted in your grip, I think the first one is more practical.
Droid: C3-PO is programmed as a translator. Most species in Star Wars are humanoid (2 arms, 2 legs) and humans talk through speaking and body language. So it makes sense that he'd be made in the same image so he could do the same. R2-D2 is essentially a mechanic swiss-army knife; every tool needed to complete a quick tech repair job he's got and they're positioned in his dome and his front: the best places to get the most effective use out of them (thus, practical). Now look at the design of the soccer ball droid. What do you think it's function is and how is it supposed to accomplish it? All I've got is "it's a robot head on a ball."
Ships: Another to you. They would be justified (or at least hand-waved) if the anti-gravity tech was at least mentioned in a throwaway line of dialogue but instead it's just implied (Luke's speeder pretty clearly states that anti-grav tech is so common even a farmer has access to it just by existing), so the ship designs aren't really practical or logical. Or maybe that implication is good enough: it kinda depends on if you're working under realistic views of "practical and logical" or are working under the in-universe rules. If it's the first, then nothing in this series will meet your high standards. If it's the second, then the ship designs are justified by anti-grav tech.

In short, if you really think about the stuff, most of it makes a degree of sense, but you seem to operate under "realistic", so chill, it's a space opera series. That means it's a mish-mash of sci-fi and fantasy, so it's never gonna be perfectly practical, but that doesn't mean the elements that make it up shouldn't be designed practically in regards to the series' logic.

 

[Storm Dragon]

How does it work? Magnets seem a likely explanation, although I can think of a few others. I DEMAND SCHEMATICS!

 

[Vigormortis]

So? Practicality in movies is linked to the suspension of disbelief. What's OK for you may not be OK for others. Everyone's line is placed differently. And I fail to see how "It's Star Wars people" invalidates that; in fact, all it does is make you a bit of a jerk for trying to impose your view of OK onto others via the "it's not real guys, chill" argument.

I'm not imposing my view on others. I'm pointing out the flaw in their argument. If anything, I've been the target of jerks from the other side of the argument. I've had several self-proclaimed "avid Wars fans" tell me I'm "a dumb dude-bro who probably loves Michael Bay movies", just because I said the new saber looked kind of cool.

And just to be clear, I don't care if someone says they think the new movie looks dumb. I don't care if they say they really don't like the look of the new saber, the new droid, or anything else from the teaser. As far as I'm concerned, someone can tell me they think the teaser looked like the worse film preview they've ever seen. Hell, I might even agree with them on a few things.

I'm not arguing over whether they should or shouldn't like the new additions. I'm just pointing out a flawed argument.

snip

The planet thing aside (because just about anything we could argue would be based on almost pure speculation), the droid argument still doesn't quite hold up for me. I mean, sure, we know now that R2 is a walking Swiss-army knife, but if you'd seen him in a teaser in the same vein as we saw this new droid (as in for all of two seconds of rolling along), you might assume he was just a trashcan on wheels. A robot that would spend the entire film collecting cans.

As such, until we know more, I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that the droid doesn't make sense within the Star Wars universe. With how little we know of it, I'd even argue that it fits in perfectly.

Besides, for all we know it can transform into different configurations for different functions; not unlike the T.A.R.S. robot from Interstellar.

In short, if you really think about the stuff, most of it makes a degree of sense, but you seem to operate under "realistic", so chill, it's a space opera series. That means it's a mish-mash of sci-fi and fantasy, so it's never gonna be perfectly practical, but that doesn't mean the elements that make it up shouldn't be designed practically in regards to the series' logic.

That's what I've been saying from the start. And for a series that has space wizards wielding swords of light that can cut through anything, a 'soccer-ball droid' really doesn't seem that out of place.

That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I assuming there must be a seam/ mid cut section in the middle of the ball in order for the head to stay upward or are they using magnet or something (must be the first part)?

 

[Rattja]

Sooo ya'll seem much more interested in talking about how silly it looks and how non-practical it is on a sand planet.
Or about whether it looks like CGI or whatever. In any case it's just about the looks with you guys isn't it?

My first thought when reading this was "how the hell does it work then?"
Any thoughts about this?

If it is able to roll around like that I am thinking some kind of magnets and some rollers in the top half (sort of like the old ball mouse) and then a gyroscope inside the ball itself.
Just trying to figure out how it stays upright without falling over or sliding off considering it does not seem to be directly connected to the ball.

Now that I know it is a real thing that can move around, I'm much more interesting in how it is built than anything else.

 

[mtarzaim02]

I'm all for practical effects where ever possible, but that droid still looks dumb as hell. Kudos to the people that actually built the thing, and a big "WTF, seriously?" to the people that came up with the concept.

It's the future.

Another variation of the balldroid : http://aripictures.com/fiction.

Ball-shaped droid are efficient:
- No mechanical part to maintain, notably articulations
- can roll on most surfaces, fast and precisely, unlike foot/wheel-based robots
- resist to shocks and falls, due to their spherical nature, no ED-209 debacle in stairs
- you can shoot in it when you're pissed

It's better suited to interface/messenging/remote control, than handwork.
But still far more practical than R2-D2.

 

[kael013]

I'm not imposing my view on others. I'm pointing out the flaw in their argument. If anything, I've been the target of jerks from the other side of the argument. I've had several self-proclaimed "avid Wars fans" tell me I'm "a dumb dude-bro who probably loves Michael Bay movies", just because I said the new saber looked kind of cool.

And just to be clear, I don't care if someone says they think the new movie looks dumb. I don't care if they say they really don't like the look of the new saber, the new droid, or anything else from the teaser. As far as I'm concerned, someone can tell me they think the teaser looked like the worse film preview they've ever seen. Hell, I might even agree with them on a few things.

I'm not arguing over whether they should or shouldn't like the new additions. I'm just pointing out a flawed argument.

OK, sorry. It's just (as you know) internet fandom arguments normally have 3 sides all trying to "prove" the others wrong until their view is the only one left: one side for, one side against, and another telling them to all stop nerding out because it's not real. From your wording I thought you fell into the hardcore element of the third camp. My bad.

[quote/]The planet thing aside (because just about anything we could argue would be based on almost pure speculation), the droid argument still doesn't quite hold up for me. I mean, sure, we know now that R2 is a walking Swiss-army knife, but if you'd seen him in a teaser in the same vein as we saw this new droid (as in for all of two seconds of rolling along), you might assume he was just a trashcan on wheels. A robot that would spend the entire film collecting cans.

As such, until we know more, I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that the droid doesn't make sense within the Star Wars universe. With how little we know of it, I'd even argue that it fits in perfectly.

Besides, for all we know it can transform into different configurations for different functions; not unlike the T.A.R.S. robot from Interstellar.[/quote]
Yeah, as much as I hate the thing's design, you have a point. Trying to keep an open mind, but I grew up on Star Wars. It focused my imagination toward sci-fi and fantasy, genres which have defined my hobbies and thus me. Thus, I gobbled up the EU - warts and all - up until the Yuuzhan Vong, so to see all those years be rewarded with the abandonment of all that, to have it be replaced by this... it's kinda hard.

[quote/][quote/]In short, if you really think about the stuff, most of it makes a degree of sense, but you seem to operate under "realistic", so chill, it's a space opera series. That means it's a mish-mash of sci-fi and fantasy, so it's never gonna be perfectly practical, but that doesn't mean the elements that make it up shouldn't be designed practically in regards to the series' logic.[/quote]

That's what I've been saying from the start. And for a series that has space wizards wielding swords of light that can cut through anything, a 'soccer-ball droid' really doesn't seem that out of place.

That's all I'm sayin'.[/quote]

Point. Though I was trying to go the other way: a speeder may have anti-grav tech, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a little aerodynamic. A touch of realism to go with the absurd.

Personally, I don't hate the new stuff too much. I think they look too kiddy/too designed for Rule of Cool, but I haven't seen how they're handled in the film yet, so whatever. I'm trying to save my bitching until then.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Heheh. Remember when people identified CGI on account of it looking bad? Now we think things are CGI because they look too good. And the poor effects crew might have to make previous-generation physical props for people to think they look real (by dint of looking the right type of fake). Perceptions are weird.

People have been trained to expect weird things from films. To the point where reality seems 'fake' because it's not what people expect.

Nowhere is this more true than with sound effects... Doors opening are typically explosions, gunshots are way over-done, the coconut/horse hoof thing is so ingrained people practically expect it...

The list of fake things people are so used to they end up thinking it's the real world that's fake is quite impressive. Also shows just how bad people are at knowing what's real and what isn't.