Discussion Less CGI in EP7: and how it may change the look of Sci-Fi movies for the rest of the decade.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/29/star-wars-episode-vii-cgi

It looks like there will be actual efforts put into filming EP7 the way it was done 30 years ago.

I have re-watched Super 8 last week-end and I am still atonished how this movie is fantastic as an exercise in style of every Spielberg movie ever.

I Am myself from the same generation as JJ, and pretty sure he will go full "Exercise in Style" on EP7 on how Sci-Fi flicks were done late 70s early 80s.

I am pretty enthousiastic about it since the best sci-fi movie I have seen in recent years was done the same way (District 9).

My point is:

Episode II : Attack of the Clones has set the table how Sci-Fi movies would be filmed in the last decade (Avatar being the Apex).

I think Episode VII have the commercial power to start a trend of "old school" Sci-Fi, with real sets and locations, craftmanship, models and masks.

In my very humble opinion, and that is why Avengers and Man of Steel didn't work for me: I think people got desensitized by CGI.

 

I don't really read into her comments as less CG, but rather not using it as a crutch (such as not making Clone Trooper suits - is people at Comic-Con can YOU can!). Sounds like they will shoot more "on location" but still use all the tools at their disposal. I like to think it will be just a better blend of real sets with CG elements instead of entire CG backgrounds. For example say what you want about the Naboo and Tatooine scenes in Phantom Menace, but they felt the closest to how a new Star Wars should look at the time. Using a real palace and buildings in the desert was much better than some of the all CG creations in th prequels. Though I do think the crowning achievement of a complete CG lanscape was Coruscant.

 

I am not into the anti-CGI dogma that many on this site are (they have come a long way with CGI since 2005 anyway, and it can be great if done right), but agree they should mix it up, which is exactly what they are doing from what she is saying.

 

Same here, and I am one of the older fans that grew up with the originals. I consider a digital matte painter just as much of an artist as a traditional glass and paint one. Its how that art is used to advance or help the story that matters. And occassionally if you just want something to look cool, that is fine too but in moderation. The combination of all the effects disciplines always seems to work best. Jurassic Park is still the example I point to with the mix of the animatronic T-Rex and CG model, it made a convincing on-screen dinosaur that still holds up.

 

Not to mention Jurassic Park was the movie to use CGI for actual living creatures. Up until then it had been stop-motion and Stan Winston.

 

There are big problems with that so called going old school, but really pleasing the old OT fans.
Shooting on location is expensive. So this'll be a movie worth at least 200 million dollars. Is it wise to go so high?
Shooting on location rather on the set limits creativity. Let's say Lucas wrote a scene that happens in some highly advanced city... Coruscant, for example. And someone very smart says: Hey, Coruscant should be fake, CGI. Let's film it in a forest behind the studio! It'll look more real.
I'm being sarcastic because Kathleen Kennedy said stupid things. Of course that CGI worths nothing if the story isn't right. But that has nothing to do with CGI serving the story nor that real locations, real droids, real everything would help the story more than being cosmetics, background in a tapestry of events. And as of now, i'm getting the impression that she's more into that than making the Lucas' story right.
No, Ep 7 won't change the direction of the SF future. CGI is the future.

 

Same old yadda yadda. Heaven forbid any of these pop culture writers (or gasp! Fans!) actually watch the making-of docs for the prequels.

 

What Kennedy is saying is that they will use all the tools from the previous films. The media obviously changes everything in order to find an excuse to bash the prequels. Remind everyone the success of Avatar?

 

I distinctly recall "real locations with special effects" in the PT as well.

 

I can't wait until SW is entirely produced by artificial intelligences and is 100% computer generated.

Get it? Get it?? Ha ha ha ha!!!! Ha ... ha ... oh well.

 

Pretty much all movies prior to the 1980s were filmed on location and they didn't cost half as much to make as bluescreen CG-heavy movies like Avatar.
Coruscant can be built as a small-scale model and filmed, as was done at times in the PT with the actors then put in digitally.
The OT has aged far better than the PT, because it has real soild tactile things in it and the PT has mostly fake stuff that looks crappy given how far CGI has come in the last decade.

There shouldn't be no CGI, some things are easier such as making highly complex aliens and terrains. But you don't need to make droids & ships and soldiers with CGI, that can all be done with physical things as it was in the OT.

 

I agree nothing beats "real" analog sets & props and how physical light reflects from real objects. If they could make an army of digitally controlled camera tracked model ships like they did with ROTJ that would be preferable than the CGI vomit flyby of the "here's where the fun begins" seconds in Episode III. The efx people on the original SW were obsessive about making everything look like it could work , old stuff looked like it had been used etc. From the Sandcrawler closeup shots, the droids to Luke running his hand under the life-size Xwing prop. When OT fans saw the movie as a kid, we all thought "wow, that Sandcrawler looks real grungy like a real rusty garbage truck, ohno! Artoo just got sucked up into it ,whoosh!". Sure, there is a lot of room to mix CGI and sets or vistas like was done with Jackson's LOTR "bigatures" mixing it digitally with New Zealand landscapes. Some of the CGI mixed in well in Star Trek 2009 with the shuttlecraft leaving San Francisco and the Enterprise being built in Iowa. Just as long as it doesn't look like every shot is set with actors standing around in complete green-screen and the rest of the frame filled up to the gills with kiddy floating CGI bots to prop up the "Star Wars is just for kids" bs not owning up to the mistakes of TPM for years.

 

I completely disagree. If anything the film that has aged the absolute worst is A New Hope.

 

I would have no problem with all CGI.

 

Maybe A New Hope hasn't aged well, but Star Wars is timeless!

 

I'm not sure there would be enough time to do a lot of "on location" filming, as production isn't set to start until early 2014, which probably leaves about 12-14 months to put the film together.

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness this summer, and I don't recall seeing a lot of non-CGI footage. I guess what matters is that CGI can look exceptionally realistic, if the time and effort is put into it. The CGI in Revenge Of The Sith looked marvelous, and that was eight years ago. So I'm not one of those people who feel that going back to "on location" filming is necessary in this era of film-making.

 

M

True. It has aged well, but in comparison to the other 6 films, it looks to 70ish.

 

Are you trying to say that all 6 movies have aged well and that if you were forced to pick one that has aged badly it would be ANH?

 

So long as it looks good I don't care whether a movie uses CGI, traditional methods or both.

 

The worst fx scene in the OT was the forest speeder chase in ROTJ...and that was pretty good.

In the PT, the entire Geonoshan sequence looks horrible.

That wasn't progress, at least not to the degree I would have hoped out of SW. ROTS looked great tho.

So I am a fan of this move.

 

Well, ANH has aged the least well of the 6. It's still a great Star Wars film.

 

Is this the same article that bashes the PT for a crippling reliance on CG disregarding The Phantom Menace alone had more model projects alone than the entire OT combined?

Yeah....toilet paper.

I hope they go back to some really traditional techniques for the ST, I really do. I love those.

But don't try and frame it as a "PT vfx VS ST vfx" when the PT used a ton of models and miniatures throughout.

 

Okay I read it. True, it doesn't bash the prequels. But, it does push the false narrative by comparison that the prequels overly relied on CG while the sequels will use models and real locations.

Well, that's a faulty argument because the prequel used every trick in the book too.....models, puppetry, on-set special effects, etc. Media outlets push false narratives all the time at the expense of facts.

I will be the first one to criticize some of the ropey CG in the PT. But, media can't legitimately cast it as "The PT with all these CG fx while the ST will go back to old school fx" when the PT used those extensively too.

That's a faulty argument.

 

There is no "move". See ShaneP's observation above. As far as Geonosis goes....it's the main reason I love AOTC.