Discussion Abrams and CGI

See, I prefer CGI Jabba form the 97 SE of the OT but I hate the CGI Jabba from the 2004 DVD SE which I think now looks horribly fake and crappy (plus nothing like ROTJ Jabba).

Puppet Yoda > PT Yoda IMO

 

Hypothetically, he wouldn't have needed to make more than one suit of armor. He could have filmed one guy in armor and digitally cloned him into infinite shots.

But again, that decision wasn't about attaining the best effect, it was about pushing the boundaries.

And that has what to do with use of CGI?

 

Puppet Yoda's great as long as you keep your eyes about his neck.

 

It is possible I am being naive, but I think Disney is considering backlash that the prequels received. One of the main arguments against the prequels was overuse of CGI. I think Disney will closely monitor the production of Ep. VII to guard their investment. Disney has to be careful to present the ST in the greatest light possible in order to protect their future returns on this investment.

With that said I think these types of things are already being discussed at the highest levels and will continue to be discussed. I think we will see CGI that Disney will be proud of and won't later say "this is disappointing," a la Lucas with the clones.

 

Part of the problem was that the pt was too sleek and futuristic. that made ot look less realistic.

 

I recall the 'Star Tours' video at Disney having amazing CGI. So I suspect it will be along the lines of that

Here's a clip of that!

 

Wow, Star Tours is completely different now.

 

Ugh, this old hat again.

The Prequels utilized just as many scaled miniatures, mattes and set designs as did the Original Trilogy, if not more so. 90% of the CGI in the Prequels, in my opinion, still looks top-notch; the remaining 10% simply shows its limitations equal to a number of optically processed shots from the Original Trilogy, but nonetheless still functions just fine when telling the story comprehensively—par for the course. Speaking of which, at no point during the Prequels was I distracted or detoured from the story by alleged pointless CGI thrown up on the screen. Someone please give me an example of this.

 

It's so great! And, it is all random. I think there is like 20 random storylines.

I went on one with Darth Vader and Boba Fett hittin up our ship. It was so great!

 

Oh great it's the old "You support the PT to some extent, so I'll just leave a pic of Jar Jar here and nothing else because that apparently proves a point".

 

While that shot has maybe not aged particularly well, it’s also one that has been blown up and cropped. It works considerably better when properly framed and in motion during the actual completed scene. Here’s a still that I think looks plenty authentic:



Regardless, in no way is this CGI cock-blocking the story since, well, Jar Jar is a character who is part of the story, even accompanied with this own purpose and themes, no matter how silly or irreverent.

 

CGI usage is "tasteful"? What is it, a dinner buffet?

 

Abrams is no fool. He knows what made the OT special, and much of it was how practical and real so much of the films looked. He's going to utilize more practical effects in my opinion. Yes, there will be CG, plenty of it, but it will stay as background, ships, etc...

 

To me, the Clone Troopers looked fake and distracting, especially in AOTC. Even Lucas on the DVD commentary says he was disappointed.

 

EDIT: forget it, it's pointless.

 

I don't remember Lucas being dissatisfied with the clonetroopers in AOTC. I remember remarks on the ROTS DVD, particularly in a scene when Temeura Morrison's head was placed on the CGI body.

I rewatched Star Trek from 2009 and some of the locations just looked out of place. The locations used for the inside of the Enterprise (a beer brewery) looked too much like an actual building. Even an aircraft carrier or a cruise ship have elements where one realizes he is looking at a ship, and not so much a fort or a hotel. I'm hoping more attention is given to making the locations look otherworldly and unrecognizable from wherever they might be filmed, simply to separate the design from that of J.J. Abrams's Star Trek.

 

I think the PT days of actors standing in a green screen room with nothing around them are over. Abrams will use practical effects where he can, and CGI where he has to.

 

It's really the biggest contribution George Lucas made to filmmakers the last 20 years...he went to the ultimate extreme with reliance on the shiny toy that was CG in such a short period time, that it taught them all to reel/rein it in. Without the PT, we'd probably still have around a decade or two more of CG-overuse in films.

 

I agree with everybody. Really. I think all the factors you mentioned will guide Abrams' decisions.

1) If something cannot be done well with practical effects, especially on camera and on location, he will use CGI (like in his Star Trek). He won't use Yoda-esque puppets just for the hell of it. Puppets in themselves don't really hold up today IMO. Animatronics are different, the Neimoidians were brilliant in Episode III. In any case, according to the Star Trek Making of... Abrams loves to use old filming tricks.

2) Abrams likes his actors and values practical sets from their perspective. As much as I like the prequels, what else could the actors do in front of a green screen, but stand and talk?

3) General nostalgia for the look of the Original Trilogy.

4) The public backlash against the so called 'overuse' of CGI in the Prequel Trilogy.

5) CGI is a lot better now than in 2005! (The quality of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, or Watto in Episode I notwithstanding.)

 

That it wasn't needed to make a greatest series of sci-fi/fantasy/adventure movies ever made.

 

I got distracted by pointless thrown up CGI. Otherwise known as Jar Jar there.

 

JJ likes real world sets (Enterprise engine room was a beer brewery), camera shake, portable cameras, lense flair, and film grain. All things the PT was sorely missing.

Not like there isn't any CG in JJ's movies, but it's in the context of grit and in the background.

 

FAKE-A-ROONI!

 

I don't think JJ has the same epic scope in his movies as Lucas does. Scenes like the one above aren't likely with him. From what I've seen of his work, scenes involving important dialogue of this sort are usually tightly framed and not suspect to flashy backgrounds that distract from the dialogue. Maybe that's just me, but I have confidence in JJ that we won't see gaudy scenes like the above.