ST CGI in The Force Awakens

One of the initial problems with the Snoke reception is that all the pre-release publicity told us he was motion capture, then some of the leaks were about how Andy Serkis was on a 25' platform to react with the actors and Snoke was HUGE. I had some rather confused expectations. I would think many did.

Then we see him and he is a holo-projection. Not initially clear as he would have been interacting live, not a lot of screen time. Mostly monochromatic due to the ambient lighting and the strong effect lighting, it is difficult to get color definition, detail and subtleties. When I finally saw Snoke on Blu-ray I thought he looked infinitely better (I had thought he was okay until then, but somewhat too ghost-like in hologram form). I do not believe I have yet "seen" Snoke. As Ricardo Funes says we need to save final conclusions when we actually see him. Personally after the Blu-ray, I am fine with his holo-projection and am anxious to see him interact live with people and creatures in a different lighting set.

 

But they didn't progress in the thirty years from TPM to ANH?

Anyways some things are just stylistic. In Star Wars holograms have a certain look to them.

 

The CRT TV scanning lines are gone. They are also gone from my TV. For a number of years.

 

Part of that was definitely an attempt at misdirection. Until he disappears, it's unclear he's not a giant on a throne. I'm ok with that, thought it was cool

 

I actually think Snoke looks better than the original ESB Emperor and the SE McDiarmid shots which have the weak prosthetics and slightly off look they gave him in ROTS. I agree though that we haven't really "seen" him yet and I expect once we do "in the flesh" that he'll look better again.

 

I personally thought the original ESB Emperor was ... well exceptionally weird, and not well done. I guess George did too (putting aside he looked nothing like the guy in the next film).

After a while I came to realize that the holo communications in the OT were made to look more like poor 1970's TV reception. I got that ... instant communication that defies Einsteinian physics probably is a touch difficult, even if you get out of the asteroid field for better reception. Also I imagine that they just hung on to the poor 70's TV reception with the scanning lines for the PT since that was state of the art. But cathode ray scanning has bitten the dust as projection of choice, so I would think that in the GFFA they probably got that figured out also, after three decades. But yes, it does make it initially hard to identify as a projection at first.

 

It's a lot bit better than the prequel trilogy CGI but that in my opinion still hold's up today. But the CGI in TFA was great

 

Check out the officers communicating with Vader in ESB. Vertical scanlines, and in colour, as opposed to purely monochrome holograms with horizontal scanlines as in the PT. The PT holograms are distinct from the OT holograms.

 

He was easy to identify as a CGI character mainly because he was projected as a huge hologram. If he was presented in a human scale (he is about 7 feet tall), in his real body color (not that bluish projection color), in a more well lit room, then we could do a proper analysis.

 

Snoke was digital. Snoke was obviously digital. Snoke wasn't a great digital character. We don't have to wait for the next film to determine that.

 

We haven't seen him in the flesh though have we? If we'd only seen Sidious as a hologram in the PT he wouldn't look particularly great either.

 

Sidious is a real man in dodgy prosthetics in the SE and he still looks terrible. Re holograms, no holo in SW gives an accurate feel of how that character looks "in the flesh".

I'd agree Snoke wasn't a GREAT digital character but I think he'll look great when we see him in scenes with others and when they've had more time with him. I actually like the design a lot, and I think he's intriguing. Keen to see more of him.

 

I agree that Snoke wasn't the best digital character, but I do like the design, and I do like Serkis' characterization. And finally, I loved the concept of the huge hologram. It was creepy, and gave an insight into Snoke's egomania. I look forward to seeing what they do with him in the future.

 

I can tolerate the obvious CGI for Snoke because he's obscured in shadow, I can rationalise it as a holographic projection, and he's not in many shots. I think Maz is done better, and it helps too that she's more interactive with everything else around here (and more interesting a character) - which is also the reason why Dobby and Gollum were much more convincing than Jar Jar and Yoda.

 

Character CGI is extremely complex, since there is a fine line between a believable character and a cartoon. The character's demeanor and general personality and specific actions themselves must also be compelling. CGI characters that look cartoonish and then act cartoonish, result in being cartoons interjected into live action. I did not get any Boss Nass feeling from either Maz or Snoke (or Gollum). Both of the TFA characters motion capture was very good, especially home viewing, and I could take them seriously.

 

Snoke and Maz can both be improved upon in my opinion. I give Snoke a little wiggle room because maybe the hologram effect and the lighting was why he looked off to me, but with Maz it seems like it was a last minute realization that the puppet they were working on wasn't going to work out. I think the mocap on Maz is fine (the way she moves and the facial expressions) but the rendering of her skin seemed incomplete and cartoony. I don't know if it was the orange color of her skin but even with all the details it just screamed CG character.

To this day it seems like CG artists can't figure out how to give a digital character weight. Maz was very floaty and it didn't feel like she was there on set. I though the rest of the CG in TFA was good to great. Really nice mix of old and new techniques.

Oddly enough the 2 CG characters I feel hold up the best in all of cinema (besides Gollum who still is the overall best) are the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and Watto. The T-Rex showed how you can properly combine animatronics for closeups and CG for movement and Watto was well rendered and since he was flying didn't have to struggle with that "floaty" look because he was supposed to be flying. The little touches like his stubble really sold the character to me.

One last rant about Snoke. I still don't understand why he couldn't have been a practical makeup effect. They made it sound like that once we saw him he would be so twisted and alien-like we would all go "Ohhhh! Woooow! I guess he DID need to be a digital creature!" when in reality he looked like a humanoid burn victim with some missing flesh. If an HBO show like Boardwalk Empire can handle a mangled face effect, surely they could:

 

I understand the appreciation for the OT-aesthetic, but I hope the CGI-phobia present in the Star Wars fandom dies out some. It's 2016, movies don't have to be made the way they were almost 40 years ago. Today, CGI special effects are more realistic than ever, and Disney has got the budget to do the franchise justice with spectacular special effects. I'm not saying it should be the primary focus of the film, and I do like using practical effects where appropriate, rather than using CGI just for the sake of using CGI. I prefer real storm troopers to a bunch of computer animated soldiers. But having said that, I still want to see them use CGI ambitiously in at least some of the future Star Wars films. Show us new worlds, ones that can only be brought to life with awesome CGI work. I want to see places like Kamino the ocean planet, Mustafar the volcanic, hot-lava engulfed mining planet, Corsuscant the city planet, Naboo the scenic planet with unique above ground and underwater cities. These types of environments can be brought to life with CGI better than they were when the PT films came out 12 to 17 years ago, and I want to see more unique and original settings like the ones Lucas treated us to in those movies.

 

I agree with the bold. I don't know when it started but CG artist tend to make things more floaty today.

 

Yeah it's very strange. Cloth simulations, real time lighting, etc. and they still have the issues with giving a character proper gravity. It's weird because a digitally enhance car chase or building collapse has the proper physics to fool me usually, but the human eye is too well trained when dealing with "living" characters to not notice nuances or lack thereof. Going back to my T-Rex example when they combined the far away digital shots of him with a closeup of a practical foot squishing into the mud it really sold the effect. I have no problems with CG, but until they can get that "weight" issue solved its hard to accomplish the full effect on its own.

 

Thats the strange thing I've been wondering for a long time!

Why is it that everything has become a much larger visual spectrum but things like Cloth, movement, and weight are a problem? The problem was dissipated and solved(from my view) back in 1999.

But now that I look back at old CGI even CGI like Shrek from 2001, it seems that they decided not to add those aspects or just still having problems, especially with weight.

 

I hope everything is stop motion in VIII.