ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

Why should even a CGI in a fantasy film taking place in a totaly imaginary world look as realistic as CGI in a sci-fi movie set on Earth, that´s the question. The CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are much more real looking than rubber and stop-motion creatures in Eps. IV, V and VI as well, but I don´t see anybody complain about that.

 

They already have. It's already happened and happened more with the 3D versions as well as the DVD before:

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-four.html

I don't quite see how I am merely speaking for myself. I can give my opinion on things that have happened of course but other people make the decisions that made that happen. The movie industry itself doing the "speaking" as it were.

Actually I didn't start that at all. I pointed out the people that use that term. The full term was inherently charming IIRC. Presuming that the OT gets a 3D release then they will be "fixed" again. Why wouldn't they be?

I think by then the term "inherently charming" will apply to them as well. The current "inherently charming" will get a new term by then. Possibly "classic inherent charm" to distinguish them.

So how are you going to prepare him for the OT? Even with the current SE versions that will be a hard sell. It's kind of like trying to get the new Doctor Who fans to watch the original series. The color ones they can maybe handle but B&W? Very hard. Forget about VFX ANH is so slow to them and of course with them knowing the story from the prequels it can become more of a "I know that already get on with it!"

Again sorry I thought you read my posts.

You must have skimmed through them then.

I can only guess that to you critical means saying how lousy everything is here or there as opposed to story analysis.

Once again though I am a Star Wars fan of the movies in particular. The entire saga. Is that so hard to understand really?

Personally I am going to find it fascinating when the new movies start with TFA and the what the number will be of people who are going to despise it as well? I see plenty enough of it starting already.

No one I have talked to in person has been enthused in the least about it. Of JJ's previous films they only like his first Trek and think it pretty good not outstanding in any way and they don't even remembe he did MI:III until I bring it up then then get more depressed.

I think he's going to do just fine. I don't expect him to be George Lucas. Only George can make George films as they are him. So JJ can't make a George Lucas Star Wars film but he has to obviously try to make it as much like it as he can while still being a JJ movie. I think the incredible brand strength of the saga will overcome any minor problems that happen in this transition.

 

There is certainly intolerance for PT opinions in the broader OT-only crowd (RLM, etc). But there is also this odd backlash intolerance of legitimate criticisms of the PT from the PT-defender crowd. I have made criticisms of both visual effects in the OT and PT, for example (heavier on the latter, of course), and yet have had some of those opinions described as objectively "wrong." It's crazy, and head-scratching. Just don't understand this idea of being threatened by other people's opinions on an issue where the debate has no real practical consequences.

Because for a lot of people, their eyes reject CGI that looks overly digital in a live-action film. I think Star Wars should strive for realism in VFX. Otherwise, why not just animate the whole thing?

 

When the next trailer for TFA comes out we will get a better understanding of how the effects will look. There will probably be a lot more CG shots vs the first trailer. It might look great or it might not. The PT vs OT debate comes down to this IMO. If Lucas had CG during the OT the movies would probably look like the PT. If the PT was made first it would look like the OT. Effects are like a painting tools each artist uses them differently. JJ has been influence by Lucas so his inspiration comes from the OT. The look of the film will probably resemble the OT more than the PT but that is not because he hates the PT. Even as a PT fan sometimes it felt like the effects were there just saying hey look at how cool I am. Instead of blending practical and CG together. TPM example: podracer announcers/ they could have put a extra in make up and had them talk in a alien language with subtitles. What did they add to the story? AOTC example: CG aliens talk with Count Dooku. Same as before was it necessary to use CG there? I know the response will be some aliens need to be CG but did they have to do a close up? I'm not going to beat a dead horse, it comes down to how each film maker uses the tool they got at the time. No matter what, films will look dated eventually and some people will love effects that others don't.

 

I think the look and feel of TFA will be closer to the OT than the PT, but I don't really trust JJ to get the CG elements right. I know a lot of people liked the Falcon shot, but I didn't find it nearly as convincing as a lot of the spaceship effects shots in the OT SE. That said, they have almost a year to perfect that CGI, so it may look a lot better in December.

 

These old CGI vs Practical & OT vs PT arguments give me a headache. JJ just need to find a good balance between practical & CG elements. And I think JJ can pull it off.

 

Well. At least you are giving JJ Abrams a chance, by reading your last comments , even though no one you talked to are enthusiastic about him. Hey. ****, think, maybe some of them you talk to might even have been less enthusiastic because they lost a little interest in Star Wars after the PTs. Ever thought of that? I guess you have of course. "The movie industry itself is doing the speaking" you say. Its like you would buy anything then? Accept the Hollywood tyranny. Yeah. George Lucas hated the movie industry. He was a rebel. He was one of my childhood heroes. Because he was an outsider too. Why go with the crowd always? Watching movies is also about being critical about art. There is no point in art, in film art if you are not being critical and reviews the intention of the filmmaker etc. I might not need the reviews of Mr Plinkett though. That we might both agree on, i suspect him not being your cup of tea.

Now. Will you be able to discuss a controversial comment here....that can get us on track with what this thread is about? I believe - that TFA will blow the hell out of the PT and OT by its use of technology. I think we will watch one of the most impressive films ever, in terms of integrating new technology with old, practical sets, animatronics, CGI......it will set a new standard, and people will forget about Avatar, who was the last film that brought some kind of euphoric echoes though the film business.

 

Nope. The reply was in response to me stating that posting pics of GOT as a comparison is like posting a pic of Jurassic Park in comparison to ROTJ (or something similar). As I stated before, it's great that you have an opinion. Mine differs. Deal with it. Besides... I have absolutely no problem with people prefering the style of the OT. I prefer many aspects of it too. And like many people who dislike the PT to the extent you do, you forget that people who like the PT (and who are broadly positive about it) usually like the OT too... like me, they have no axe to grind... I actually prefer the OT (well 2 out of 3) to the PT... So the bias is really all yours...

 

Because for a lot of people, their eyes reject CGI that looks overly digital in a live-action film. I think Star Wars should strive for realism in VFX. Otherwise, why not just animate the whole thing?[/quote]

Just asking, which particular CGI in I, II and III did you find too digital?

 

I still bet the film will end up looking pretty much like its 2015 blockbuster contemporaries. Sure, there might be a few extra doses of puppet throwback love, but as someone who loves the look of the OT, I am not expecting something that puts me in mind of an OT style above all else.

 

Btw Qui:
This was a quote from you - i did not paste in correctly like a quote from you. So you were replying to your own comment, as it was from me.
In future when the time comes and they need to adjust the VFX of Star Wars then they should

And just before moving on: The changes made to the DVD/BD of the PT, are well known for me as well of course. They do that to most blockbusters these day,s, and have since they started digitizing, and the telecine process often allows for changes in color grading, etc. These are minor changes, adjustments. Expect the the Coruscant taxi, its mostly minor adjustments. I got your point though....hmm, i think.

 

I have no axe to grind either, and I have no problem with your opinion. So there's nothing really for me to deal with. When describing the art, tools and techniques of the ST, it simply makes sense to discuss my preferences in context of both the PT and the OT. They present the most relevant examples to draw from. But because of the artificial, unhealthy, and binary dynamics in Star Wars fandom, comments about the PT are often misconstrued as agenda-driven. That's unfortunate, as I have no agenda at all. But the poisonous atmosphere exists, which is why TFN has essentially disallowed the conversation. Probably a smart move, though it does limit expression. Will have to get creative and resourceful, I suppose. Like Lucas!

But of course I have a bias. Also known as an opinion. I prefer the OT style to the PT style. But in general, I simply prefer naturalistic and realistic looking VFX/ SFX. If that can be achieved with no sets, no location-shooting and all CGI, I'm all for it. But I don't think we're there yet.

 

You seem to assume that CG needs a "necessity" while puppets or suits don't. No, it wasn't necessary to use CG for an adjusted alien. It might be hard to find a healthy grown up man or woman (or even an old enough child) who fits into a Muun suit to realize the design concepts, though....and that exactly is the point where technological bias begins to limit creativity. George and his design and effect crew never fell into that trap. Let's hope JJ and his crew (and Disney executives) will be just as wise.....

 

I didn't dislike the podracer announcer because it was CGI. I disliked it because it was a terrible design, and had a horribly annoying voice. I often felt that some of the featured aliens in the PT (and sometimes, in the OT) were first-pass designs (and voices) that didn't go through too rigorous a process for approval (Dexter being the worst offender, IMO). Then some, like Jabba and Sebulba, were clearly the result of a lengthier creative process.

 

I don't believe it is a necessity but I could have been done better. Again I love the saga but I see faults in the OT effects too. I just think GL could have used a little restraint with the CG. Im not biased about CG either If you read my whole post I think that would be evident.

 

Dex is my favorite character from the prequels. It was such an amazing, unexpected little scene. It had philosophy, wry humor, and a cleverly implied back story (what? Did Kenobi used to wash dishes there or something?).

Plus, like TFA, it employed brilliant CG and actor interaction. One of the main reasons is McGregor acted alongside brilliant character actor Ron Falk.

IMO it is one of those few entirely perfect scenes; it's well written, very naturally acted, is humorous, and gets across otherwise boring plot development. It shows us another side of Obi-Wan. It shows us a regular Joe attitude and opinion of the Jedi.

Effects wise, he's just brilliant. About damn time a basilisk made it into Star Wars.

 

I didn't mind the character at all. Dex was one of the more colorful ones in the PT. I just thought the CGI, and his voice, was awful. And the 50s diner was too "on the nose." It could have been inspired by a 50s diner, without looking exactly like a 50s diner...To each his own!

 

American Graffiti, man.

 

Oh, I know. But it was too much. Needed at least one more later of GFFA on top of it.

 

Some people really need to remember FX are tools and no tool is better than the other. Can you say a screwdriver is superior to a saw? No you forcing can't.
Practical stuff is not better than cg stuff. Real stuff is better than fake stuff. If cgi looks like cgi it is a useless tool. Same if something looks too much like a man in a suit
In the case of puppets, this is Star Wars, a sequel to the OT so for only consistency sake the movie requires that kind of stuff. Cgi wouldn't be better than that stuff, you can't possibly argue with that.

 

Yeah but the x-wings looked incredible so I don't think he won't get CG right, I think it was a work in progress

 

Been watching the making of extras of Interstellar, interesting ways how Nolan used the vfx.






I wonder if JJ will use some of those techniques as well.

 

But we know (or suspect) that there's at least one major character that's digital/mo cap, so that path has already been taken.

Up to now, from what we've seen, I think TFA looks closer to TPM than any OT film... but that's entirely logical given that the PT is closer to the ST. However, I agree with you that (if Star Trek is anything to go by) Abrams will have/has a good handle on visual effects, which he'll use well and which is something I've never doubted. I fully expect TFA to have the 'best' visual effects of a SW film to date, even if they aren't used as boldly as I'd personally like.

 

I found the effects in TFA and STID to be underwhelming. I think that was because of JJ's camera style (some might be surprised to hear that I prefer Lucas' more stately shots), and that persistent "gloss" that blockbusters seem to have these days. Seems to be a visual filter of some kind. Hard to get a handle on describing it, but it's there.

Gravity and Interstellar both looked much better, though they used different approaches. Gravity was more heavily CGI than the latter, but Cuaron pulled it off beautifully. While Nolan used a great blend of practical and CG, and it also worked. Hope JJ took some tips from those films.