ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

You don't really mean that do you??? That could be used to describe at least 50% of the OT.

 

like what?

 

In the end, like, isn't all fighting... violence, like... pointless, maaan?

 

And a similar percentage of ANH and ESB.

 

which 85% of Return of the Jedi?

go 100% on that, all pointless.

 

Well assuming you are being serious in stating that the action was "pointless" then it begs the question what was the point of the trash compactor scene, the tie fighter attack on the Millennium Falcon, the asteroid chase, the sail barge fight, speeder bikes (to name but a few)?

 

I'm still disappointed at the LOTR examples you chose. AOTC is still gorgeous and well realized, with tons of real locations and miniatures. More than even the OT.

Heck, even digital beauties like Lama Su were textured with photographic elements, and composited onto real, photographed miniature sets.

The real problem, that's been pointed out already, is how they will preserve this beautiful masterwork. If it can never advance beyond 1080p, that is a loss for cinema.

 

Attack of the Clones was appealing? When?

When the horribly animated CGI stormtrooper army was marching? When the horribly and fake animated ships were flying?

Or was it during the dreadfully bad geonosis fight where it looked like a high schooler was given the keys to the new flashy technology?

 

"This bickering is pointless".

Guys, the endless back and forth and snarky comments in this thread need to be dialed back a bit... OK, a lot. Thanks.

 

I think it's funny that people are debating LOTR and SW in a "Who wore it better?" sort of comparison, when Lucas actually assisted Jackson in assembling WETA in the first place. They used the very same techniques, in very similar amounts, to very similar effect. There are inconsistencies in both the PT and the LOTR trilogies, just as they both used CGI to an extent of mind-blowing photorealism.

Sure, ten years on the clone troopers - yea - they look kinda bad. But I understood Lucas' intention for doing them digitally and at the time I can't say I even noticed, even knowing as I did (from my tenure here at TFN) that they were CGI creations. Yoda...same deal. Awesome job, for the most part. There were times (say, the scene of he, Kenobi, and Windu in the Council Chamber at the end of the movie) that he looked completely terrible. So what? There were times in ESB where he looked completely terrible...like someone's hand was inside him, or something.

It's all a foundation of illusion that we are meant to buy into. Sometimes we don't. Does it really matter so much whether we are buying into pixels or plastic? It's all make-believe, it's all magic, and it's all there to serve the immediate framework. Which is, to say, the story.

I love what Jackson did with his bigatures, costumes, puppets, and CG. I love what Lucas did with his bigatures, costumes, puppets and CG. I trust I'll love what JJ does as well. And I also trust that I will find some of the VFX inconsistent, just as in any film.

I always think of something my compositing professor said to the class. Someone came in one morning and said "I saw the trailer for Avatar, and those dragon things just don't look real." He simply turned to him and said, "Dragons aren't real."

 

This has to be the absolute worst response from a professor ever. Just because they aren't real doesn't mean they need to look like plastic dolls that some four year old wrangled together.

None of this "is real" - it should still be visually appealing though.

 

I think you missed the point.

 

Great post, Persch. Reminds me of my animation profs. It's interesting once you talk to some real professionals how half of these Internet criticisms turn hilarious.

 

Seriously. Its one thing to read film language and quite another to write it. It'll color your opinion far differently.

 

Nothing is not as good as them. They are at the bottom, the minimum of movie quality. Right alongside Transformers and dirt like that.

 

I'm not sure the term "visually appealing" is helpful to your argument given it's such an utterly subjective and lazy term... What films out there, of a similar nature and contemporary to the prequels, do you find to be "visually appealing"?

 

With all due respect to the wonderful Frank Oz, the CGI Yoda in the PT was leaps and bounds more believable than the puppet in the OT. In the PT, Yoda looked like a humanoid alien, with organic movements that had much more fluidity. He wasn't limited by using tricky camera angles.

The puppet, while very well done, has the image of a Disney animatronic. Even as a kid, I never felt that Yoda was really "there" when I watched ESB. His clunky facial expressions and synthetic-looking skin took away any "weight" attributed to physical presence.

I just hope JJ knows when to use make-up and puppets and when to use CGI for his aliens. I do remember a documentary on the Star Trek '09 DVD where JJ expressed a desire to make more exotic aliens with CGI in the film, but the budget really didn't allow it. So there is hope!

 

Those were all necessary parts of the movies. (Maybe not so much the trash compactor scene...)

Are movie to have NO exciting parts now?

 

While we're on the subject, I have to state that I am not a fan whatsoever of the alien and creature designs in JJ's films. It's really the only drawback for me, and something I worry about often. I watched ST09 and STID yesterday, and I really just loathe his creature designs. It's not that they're unimaginative...I can't really describe it. They're just not doing it for me. Look at the similarities between the creatures in Cloverfield, Super 8, and ST09 (on the snow planet). Bleargh. Compared to the awesome designs so far in SW. Very different.

 

As opposed to him being "there" in CGI? That puppet was a masterpiece in its day. Maybe audiences weren't so demanding back then and just enjoyed a movie for what it was.

 

Ah no, I was there and I remember Yoda being derided because he was a Muppet voiced by Grover from Sesame Street. As a huge Muppet fan at the time I had no problem with it! He's much better realized in the Prequels, but I now attribute his ESB limitations as, "ah well, the old master is nearing his end".

SuperPersch I wouldn't worry too much. Dougie Chiang and Ian McCaig are back and they're still brilliant. I get what you mean about Abramstrek though. But Trek's aliens are a bit odd by tradition as I see it.

 

I already stated why I thought the CGI Yoda was more believable.

And how was that demanding at all? I recognize and appreciate the puppetry in the OT. If Lucas ever releases another special edition putting a CGI Yoda over the puppet in the OT, I'll be just as pissed off as the hardcore OT purists. But I'm not going to try and convince myself that the Yoda in ESB looks better than the Yoda in RotS.

 

Tell that to the person who was originally slating "pointless action" not me...

Yoda, the character, was great... but he looked and acted like a muppet...