ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

Thats a key statement there. Raiders set the bench mark and the danger seemed real. Don't get me wrong there are some fantastic effects out there and as SW is a science fiction film you have to have them and I accept some effects can't be pulled off practically, but seeing actors up close seemingly in real peril and reacting to real things happening around them can't be understated IMO.

 

Exactly, because it sells the illusion and draws you even further into the story. Every hint of wonky physics or the uncanny valley has the exact opposite effect.

 

Exactly, So much of the effects work of the last 15 years or so has lacked a certain visceral quality. That's what I think the "cartoon" complaints are really getting at. I mean, the coyote just never feels like he's in any true peril in a Road Runner cartoon either.

 

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure Abrams (or any prospective filmmaker) needs to use CGI in a daring way per se. For me it's about, and has always been about, not allowing the imagination to be constrained by one technique or another (both on a story telling level and a technical application of technology level). I don't really care how they do it... whether imagination is liberated by digital, puppets or stop motion lego bricks to be honest (although there's no denying that digital has allowed filmmakers to open up their fictional worlds like never before). If one filmmaker wants to do it entirely digital, or another wants to do it entirely on location... with no visual effects whatsoever, I’m good with that... as long as they have a true vision worth sharing. In truth, the genre (and Star Wars in particular) should be big enough that bold creative choices can be made... it’s a prime franchise for that. Lucas was, I believe, true to that sensibility. Let’s see if the next generation are.

 

Probably because of that very reason. The more emotional attachment one has to something, the more concern is experienced by those who don't like some of the things being shown (or speculated upon). If we were talking about the next POTC movie, I wouldn't give a ****. In the main, people share concerns because they care, not because they don't.

To be honest the BB8 shot reminded me of Jar Jar Binks looking around the door aboard the Queen's ship... but BB8 is of course in the Falcon. In terms of the SD shot. Yes, I think they've deliberately designed the shot off the back of the similar OT sequences (I should say TESB and ROTJ specifically). Part of that is the effect of pin hole light that comes from the SD's windows etc. with a darker contrast with the ship itself.

 

C´mon. Clearly the BB8 shot reminds me of the picture down under And a good reference it is. Abrams and Spielberg influence? You got it. But Lucas did also play with it: Chewbacca saying goodbye to Yoda scene in ROTS. Its nice, and respectful. Too much of 80s nostalgia would be a turn off maybe, but this is tasty enough i think...

 

I think we're now at a point where CGI allows for any possible vision to be realised. Anything logically possible can be put on screen, and I think that's why geek culture has blossomed in the film world since around 2001. Studios suddenly had the tools to produce amazing spectacle on screen using CGI, and things like comic books and fantasy novels were ready made source material for such.

But when you can put anything on screen, and indeed, most things imaginable have been put on screen, does the spectacle itself now cease to have value? It's like that episode of The Young Ones...

Audiences have become numb to sheer spectacle. The move back towards practical effects is perhaps because it's no longer surprising to see giant robots battling while dinosaurs fight talking apes. But to see a real stunt or a real explosion or a practical creature effect... these days, that's a bit of novelty. And it's back to the old "Gee whiz, how did they do that?!"

The creative imagination was liberated several years ago. Now it's time to wow people again by bringing things back to the realm of of the tangible.

Yes, that was one of the thoughts I had--the pinhole-style lights similar to the OT models, as well as the angle/framing.

 

You automatically get a 'like' for referencing The Young Ones...

To a large degree it's relative... filmmakers have for many years been able to take us to alien planets and the bottom of the sea etc. etc. What the advent of technology has done is to allow a slew of big action films, which by default, usually contain big effects scenes (which have got bigger and bigger). So yes, I think there’s too many big action/effects movies in the market place (primarily because they are deemed ‘popular’)... so perhaps studios and filmmakers should move away from big effects/actions movies all together, and give audiences something with a bit more thought/craft? I'd certainly welcome that, as I find there's way too many X-Men and Iron Man kind of films stealing funding off the smaller films... Still, I believe creative filmmakers will always find new ways to take us ‘off world’... it’s just that there’s more **** to sift through as a viewer. A good example would be Ex Machina... which I thought was a really well crafted sci-fi film... but obviously digital effects were still key in realising the story. Or the new Mad Max film which mixes up the form a bit (but still feels like a Mad Max movie).

 

No, I don't think the movie is necessarily bad because of all the elements JJ is going to use in TFA. I don't deny that JJ's new ST movies are well executed movies, but I do not necessarily believe they are particularly good either.

Why do you not look at why I oppose some of the criticism of the PT in the first place. I do admit that there were flaws in the PT, but many of the complaints fans had about the PT seems to be aiming at the wrong things to target. I think by deliberating making TFA as different from the PT as possible, it limits what TFA could be about. I'm not saying that we must see elements of the PT in TFA, but I am saying people should not be making decisions to avoid elements seen in the PT just because it's from the PT.

Those sort of decisions are not ideal either. I'm not saying Coruscant must be in TFA, I am saying that the writers should not avoid Coruscant just because it is "tainted" by the PT. We should not try and avoid using more CGI, and try and improve CGI just because the prequels were trying to push the technical boundaries of CGI. I think you are not really understanding what I've been really arguing. I'm saying there are people, prominent people that seems to be making bad judgement in their dislike of the PT. If someone makes comments like all Star Wars movies must be set on the frontier and backwater because those were the reasons why the OT was better than the PT, then those overly simplistic comments should be challenged.

More importantly, I am not saying the new films must be like the PT as opposed to the OT. I'm saying that there should be less effort to return to an OT-style because that would open up more creative freedom for the Star Wars franchise.

And I disagree. If this is the case, then no one would praise movies like Gravity or Avatar, or Benjamin Button for the use of CGI. Using more practical effects does not necessarily improve the visual quality of the film. Knowing to use the right tool for the right job is the key.

We should not automatically assume using more practical means the film would look better.

 

Oh I agree with you on the fact that whatever tools should be used if they are right for the job. Although what I am mainly addressing is a good director of a vfx heavy movie must also realised the limitation of existing technologies, be it practical or CGI. We still have some problems creating realistic movement of living creatures, be it monsters or humans. Understanding those limitations, and trying to seek new ways to eliminate them is one thing a good director must push his vfx team to do.

Look at the OT, especially ANH. Would the film work as well if Lucas did not try and push ILM into developing new technologies in vfx back in 77?

Cuaron, Cameron and Jones are some of the modern directors that understood this concept very well. They know that a movie cannot merely rely on the story and characters alone, and there exist a need to find new ways to develop new tools to tell their story visually.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head...at least for me. I haven't seen Mad Max, so I can't say anything about it. But I've seen both Avengers, Man of Steel, Transformers, Iron Man's...a lot of the big action blockbusters in the last 10 years. And every single one of them feature huge battle sequences in populated cities with things just smashing into buildings. Or people being thrown into walls, or glass, and things just smashing and exploding, smashing and exploding over and over again. I'm really kind of tired of it all.

I'd much rather watch a movie like John Wick (which isn't necessarily better or worse of a movie) where there is well choreographed shooting and fight scenes. Much smaller scale, but watching stuntmen pull off exciting moves and well choreographed and timed action is still impressive. It's not a dozen animators spending a 100 hours animating whatever they can imagine. I don't mean to take away from the talent of animators or miniature builders, as that takes a lot of skill, but it has a different affect on me, visually, when I watch it.

Star Wars is the exception for me, because it's a different type of huge action. Things aren't smashing into buildings all the time, but instead it's spaceships flying, it's acrobatics, it's big army scenes. But I also like the small moments, like Luke vs Vader. Watching stuntmen do their thing. The background may have been a matte painting or digital background, but the spectacle was less. It was more personal. Likewise, I love the Dooku vs Anakin/Obiwan in ROTS for that same reason.

 

This is one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of the comic book movies, because they seem to end in the same way with a big special effects **** off with exactly the same action you describe above, each trying to top the last with things on screen and whilst some of the effects are fantastic, some of them take me out of the film too. Yet the opposite of those for me was the Nolan Batman movies, those films I really enjoyed.

I think Jedi was a pioneer for this kind of film format with multiple battles going on at the end. But whilst theres a great effects space battle happening, there was also the more human aspects with the lightsabre fight and the army battles on the ground. SW seemed to have the balance right back then with effects and the practical. TPM copied the Jedi format at the end but was less successful IMO because of the Naboo ground battle effects and the lightsabre fight lacked the emotional depth too.

 

To a far, far greater extent than any Star Wars movie ever in TPM then lesser in AOTC and ROTS. Like Lucas said TPM was going at 70 then AOTC was 80.

It all works together. In Star Wars movies in particular it all works together as one. The visuals and sound tells the story of the characters. That's why the various sequences from the movies especially the endings of all of the movies are so special.

Plus the movies are made to appeal to the imagination of children.

Of course but there is a major technical aspect to all art but you can have the greatest technician of artistic methods that doesn't mean that they can create great art. They can follow a pattern and copy other things.

Copying from other things and using that as a starting point is the path to originality but actually finding it is the hardest part.

Lucas wanted to do Flash Gordon. That was the starting point. Then as he went along he looked for a story by drawing upon all sorts of other pop culture and mythic references from books, comics, artworks, movies, TV, history, mythology etc and got to The Star Wars and then went from there finally to what we know and then kept growing and developing there both from a technical artistry point that lead to even more creative places in the story and character artistry that was not able to be done before.

The complete changeover from optical to digital (as Lorne Peterson called it like going from frescoes to oil painting) allows the artist' imagination to be the limitation not the technology.

In Lucas' case he wasn't waiting around for others to improve technology to where he could use it for what he wanted. He was the one to use it in ways not done before and improve it to match his imagination and he kept doing that for decades so that he could finally do what he saw in his head with no real restrictions but his own imagination. That way he could tell his story and present his characters as he fully intended them to be.

I appreciate you feel that way. I feel the multi-strand battle of TPM is one of the best series of sequences in film history and this is a movie that already had the podrace. The emotional depth of the Lightsaber duel is truly incredible.

The comparison I make is this: The actual duel itself with all it's shades is told in silence through the visual and music storytelling in a way that outdoes everything else in Star Wars BUT of course Vader vs Luke twice and Obi-Wan vs Vader (Anakin) on Mustafar is not ONLY visual and music but there is the personal connection of those characters so the dialogue support is key as well as the overall character arcs and story.

There really is no connection of that kind between the Jedi and Maul. They are simply enemies.

 

I know it's a different kind of enemy and don't get me wrong the score and choreography in TPM dual is amazing. It takes the fights to the next level in many ways. But Jedi shades it for me with the emotional aspect of it and the ending when Luke is seemingly on the verge of the dark side. I think we had a similar conversation on another thread until someone hijacked it.

Relating that dual to what was discussed earlier about superhero movies and the cgi aspect of them, what's great about TPM dual is its real people (apart from backgrounds). Whilst some of those backgrounds don't always look convincing for me I think the dual has a good mix of all aspects of fx.

 

Just saw the leaked footage.

Real explosions and stunt men? That easily could have been CGI.

 

I'm pretty sure ALL Star Wars films have had "real explosions and stunt men"... It certainly ain't anything new.

 

The Transformers are more complex that a beach ball with Artoo's head attached. Regardless of the quality of the films, the Transformers are done well since they move in the same manner as in the cartoons. Both the 2D ones like "Generation 1", "Armada" and "Robots In Disguise" and CGI like "Beast Wars", "Beast Machines" and "Prime". They're advanced machines that are almost human, so their movements would be akin to an organic being. They're not meant to be like Godzilla or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. And definitely not like "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers".

Most of the physical interactions between the Transformers and the humans in the films is limited to begin with. Physical models were used for certain segments of the films.



BB-8 isn't going to fly, from what we know so far and seems to be able to travel on sand far more efficiently than Artoo could.

Which is consistent with "Star Wars" in general and fandom all around.

 

I like how you read it as "Only Episode 7 has real explosions and stunt men."

I'm talking about with today's technology, they could make it all CGI and spare some injuries. I'm glad to see that hasn't changed.

 

I hope to see a new Star Wars movie filmed digitally, with all the improvements that digital cameras have gone through. I also hope to at least see Coruscant in a new Star Wars movie (or any other planet from the prequels for that matter), and see what they'd look like with the special effects of today.

 

Looks absolutely digital to me. Not quite there yet, ILM...

 

Not to mention that the physical BB-8 robot IS a new technology. That kind of robotics didn't exist until pretty recently. Question, in that case: Why is it that some only see the use of advanced digital technologies as pioneering and envelope-pushing, while advances in physical technologies like robotics is deemed outdated?

Digital technologies are simply one tool in the filmmaker's toolbox for showing us what he or she wants to show us. Sometimes it's the best tool, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes (most of the time) it needs to be used in concert with all sorts of other tools.

 

And if Uber is Plagueis, perhaps we can call it Muun in Tights?

 

[The bold text] That still doesn't explain what it is, though. You given an example but I don't understand why it matters that the locations weren't real.

That might come across as me being contrary but it isn't my intent - I honestly don't get what you mean.

EDIT: And with this below, I'm even more confused.

L110, post: 52396129


But it still used a fair share of both digital and practical effects. Also TESB for example was shot only on one location. The rest was shot on sets, so in terms of shooting on sets or location, it was quite inbalanced..

Have people complained about this over the years?

 

A real set is very different from actors being composited into either a totally digital set or a miniature. Sure, in many cases some kind of matte extension is probably necessary depending on the level of world-building you want to achieve, but there is always something to be said (IMO) for having as much in camera stuff there as possible. Look at Echo base in Empire. Sure it's not a set, and there are mattes used to extend, but they built the hangar, and that comes across on film and helps sell the world of the story. See also Dagobah. OK, it's a set and some mattes often, but for the most part, Mark is there by a fetid pool of water, and it draws you in. A well designed and built set will always be better than a digital set or a miniature IMO. I've walked onto huge sets in the past and when they've actually built the thing, you can't help but feel as if you're there. As an actor it must help enormously (sure - I get it's not essential - but it has to be better - you can't tell me the Sky Captain methodology makes for better performances).