main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

PT How did Lucas and co. fail to make practical sets/miniatures/effects look practical? (image-heavy)

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Darth Eisner, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. Darth Eisner

    Darth Eisner Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2018
    A question I have always asked myself, knowing that a lot of the things from the Prequels that people think are CGI and are actually practical, was why Lucas and others working on the films failed to construct an outer environment that would make the practical sets look real? An example that all of us know would be the scene in Dex’s Diner. It looks very glossy and slick, and from a first, and maybe even a second glance, especially if you don’t know it was practical, it looks like the only non-CGI part of the scene was Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan. Why is this? Personally, I think it is because of poor usage of blue screens on the exterior, which would apply to some of the other examples, such as the Naboo miniature, which was surrounded by blue screens and thus felt out of place.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
  3. Strilo

    Strilo Manager Emeritus star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Yeah they did. I love the prequels to varying degrees, but there are bad shots all over the place. Shots that were comprised primarily of "practical" elements like models and real sets, yet they just look fake. Like I said in another thread, there's just a layer of sheen and weird CG optics to it that makes even the models look fake. It's not everything, nor does it ruin the films. But it is there and I do wish that George had been more demanding of everything looking more photorealistic. Cuz the prequels just don't.
     
    Darth Eisner likes this.
  4. -NaTaLie-

    -NaTaLie- Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Did you have the same impression when you first saw the movies? Or is it something you're seeing now, due to the aging effects?
     
  5. Darth Eisner

    Darth Eisner Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2018
    I’ve always seen it that way, personally. The glossy-looking CGI got slightly on my nerves at times.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  6. Strilo

    Strilo Manager Emeritus star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I had that same impression for a lot of it at the time when the films were each new. I see more now because of aging effects.
     
  7. -NaTaLie-

    -NaTaLie- Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Did you feel that way about all films or just AOTC and ROTS? I've seen a theory that those too look more sleek or fake due to the digital camera.
     
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  8. Strilo

    Strilo Manager Emeritus star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    All three of them.
     
  9. Jester J Binks

    Jester J Binks Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2016
    Because Lucas takes risks to push the technology of film. That means v1.0 is always going to be the most problematic.
     
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  10. Darth Eisner

    Darth Eisner Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2018
    Well, digital cameras require more color-correction, so it is likely that the choice of sleek colors was solely the choice of Lucas and/or the editors.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  11. firesaber

    firesaber Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2006
    I think they had hits and misses. The PT were early days of new technology where techniques were being refined in regards to putting the practical and CGI together. In some places its obvious in others not so much. Ageing I feel plays a role even if subconsciously. It's like a reverse uncanny valley.
     
  12. {Quantum/MIDI}

    {Quantum/MIDI} Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2015
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    It's going to happen at some point. Special effects done well still look "great" for their era but come on...This is pretty obvious stuff that will age with time, as does film-making overall.

    [​IMG]

    This right here clearly is a set and I was never truly fooled on the "reality" aspects of it.

    [​IMG]

    A mix of compositing, Digital enhancements and Model work. These days, CGI has gotten so advanced that it pushes this right out of the park.

    Can you show some examples? Are you merely speaking of the "flaws" or about how the effects are dated?
     
  13. Darth Nerdling

    Darth Nerdling Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 20, 2013
    I think there are a couple of things going on here.

    1st, just because a set is practical doesn't mean it necessarily looks real. There are tons of practical effects that look really fake in the OT and other films.

    2nd, the clean, crisp quality of digital photography doesn't look right for some people. The grainy images of 35 mm is what we have learned to accept as "real" when see films. Our real world doesn't look grainy. It looks clean and crisp, but it's not what we expect when we go to the films. So, it looks off. (I'm fine with digital images, but for me 50 fps or 60 fps -- like was used in "The Hobbit" films -- looks off (not everyone saw it on 50 fps).)

    3rd, conventions for film images change over time, and we become accustomed to seeing these conventions as real. Right now, everything is teal and orange, and most films use a lot of color desaturation (no bright colors). Color desaturation and grain also help hide CGI to some degree, and sometimes fake graininess and lens flares are added to images for this reason. 20 years from now, maybe these conventions will seem a little off.

    I also think it's a little bit like this dress:

    [​IMG]

    People see things differently. Some people see this as dark blue and black. Others see it as orange and white. I think there's a 3rd way of seeing it. Nobody's wrong. Their brains just interpret it differently.

    For me, I don't mind the crisp clean quality of digital photography. I think most of ROTS looks great -- the CGI, sets, and lighting. There are just a few problems for me (clone trooper head on CGI body, Obi-Wan on the veradactyl, etc.).

    I think the digital photography of the ATOC had problems with high contrast, low key lighting situations (bright lighting looks too blown out, like in factory scenes). The CGI was also a little worse.

    But even some of the CGI in TPM looks as good as what we see today. I think Watto and the underwater creatures in TPM look more realistic than the rathtars or Bor Gullet, but maybe that's just me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  14. -NaTaLie-

    -NaTaLie- Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 5, 2001
    @Darth Nerdling very good post, I think a lot of it depends on the perception. For example, my husband never watches the OT with me because the effects so outdated it kills immersion and the story is not as interesting to him to stand on its own. At the same time, when I was watching TPM recently he commented that the effects look really decent for a 1999 movie.
     
  15. ezekiel22x

    ezekiel22x Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Aesthetic preference, and one I happen to share. If I had to choose I'll take the PT visuals any day over other options exhibited in the series.
     
  16. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    The interior of Dex's diner doesn't look even remotely CGI. It's very obviously a real set. I'm afraid I can't answer your question.
     
  17. L110

    L110 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Dex´s diner is clearly and obviously a practical set even at the very first slight glance.
     
  18. Strilo

    Strilo Manager Emeritus star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Yeah I mean the inside looks real. The exterior long shot? Not so much...
     
  19. -NaTaLie-

    -NaTaLie- Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 5, 2001
    The OP was talking about the interior.
     
  20. firesaber

    firesaber Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Its chartruse and mauve, right? [face_thinking]
     
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  21. Darth Eisner

    Darth Eisner Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2018
    Now that I look at it again, my remark about Dex’s Diner may have been falsified. However, I still point out the bird’s eye view shots of Naboo, for example.
     
  22. Strilo

    Strilo Manager Emeritus star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Which is why I started with disagreeing with the OP, agreeing with the other posters who have said the interior looked fine.
     
  23. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    They are "real" in the Star Wars sense of the term. Obviously none of it from ANH all the way to TLJ isn't real "real" because it doesn't exist.

    Looks completely real to me and always did so I can't help you there.

    Again feels totally real to me in Star Wars terms.

    As I have stated before one of the the chief differences between the OT and PT (and this extends to the ST to some degree) is that in the PT every tool was used and placed together on the screen with no regard by Lucas as to cater to frame to be one thing or the other. He treated the characters the same so in one frame you might have an actor, actors in practical creature masks and then CGI characters all at the same time. The same for environments in which everything was mixed together. On top of that they were actually in the frame together not cheating to separate them.

    Maybe this mixing of elements throws some people off? For me the interactivity is very appealing with characters and environments.

    Look at the Battle of Hoth compared to Geonosis. Geonosis is far more real to me than Hoth. Back then they had to do all kinds of cheating to create the flow while at that point they could actually intergrate the elements and shots into a fully interactive environment.

    Personally I would NEVER, EVER use guys in suits for Stormtroopers. They look terrible compared to CGI. I wondered if advancements and CGI aid would make them look good in the new movies. The answers is while better they still look kind of rubbish compared to CGI. The Troopers in ROTS looked amazing and that was tech from 15 years ago now.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
  24. Strilo

    Strilo Manager Emeritus star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I think when people say real they mean photo-realistic. And wow I can't even fathom how you could think the CG clonetroopers look better than the real suits. The original 1977 stormtroopers look better and more photo-realistic (because they literally are real) than anything in AOTC or ROTS. The new suits in the ST look better than anything that has come before them.
     
    Darth Eisner likes this.
  25. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    In which case then the PT and the new movies have it pretty much all over the originals because as much as they did worked in their own context they don't stand up the same way now. This isn't to say they are "bad". Not at all. They simply aren't as good and can't be even after the digital upgrade of the SE's.

    I was reminded of what The Phantom Calamari said a couple of years back:

    " I'm not trying to convince anyone their opinions are "wrong." I'm trying to get them to see what they're actually asking for. Lucas didn't use CGI just to show off; he used it because it was the best way to get his vision on the screen. So what you're actually asking is for filmmakers to intentionally limit their imaginations, all because a subset of the fan population seems to be almost ideologically opposed to suspending their disbelief when it comes to CGI. When it comes to visible matte lines, stiff rubber puppets, or obviously fake background paintings--then they're more than willing to ignore the flaws and suspend their disbelief. But never for CGI, unless it looks totally, 100% real."


    So real that they look like they can't see much and can barely move. There is no way guys in suits can do what the Clones did. I want Troopers to look like they can actually do something. With today's technology there really is no reason for guys in suits anymore. It's simply limiting the story for no good reason.

    I mean if the odd suit is needed for standing around or a close-up I guess but it's like going back to people in suits for Planet of the Apes. The ability to tell story is way past that stage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018