ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

Over hugging thin air? Or a green pillow?

 

Of course, I don't think they are, but they look like they are.

Stop with all the silly talk.

You are doing the very same thing that you are criticising Jarren_Lee-Saber for doing.

Too much irony is bad for you.

 

I really can't believe the stuff I'm seeing the last few days.

Hopefully the story is great and TFA takes us on a good SW ride. In the end that's what most people will care about.

 

This whole thread is silly talk, my friend.

 

Also, the more you make acting a "challenge", the more likely you are to end up with the actor "doing acting" to overcome the challenge.
You don't want to notice the acting, really. You want as natural as possible. It's why, in the gif above, Ewan McGregor's "Hello, Dex!" is every bit as unconvincing as the CG robe: he was probably told "OK, so this guy is an old friend of yours, he'll be an alien, we haven't settled in the design yet, You haven't seen him for years and you give him a warm welcome"

Now, when you see the response Bobbajo has had from fans, and imagine that Ewan is on set, and he "meets" a different version of Dex that exists, that is expressive, and meets the people operating him, has a joke with them, and then gets ready to shoot. From the way the character looks - lets for arguments sake say it's as impressive and intricate as Bobbajo , he gets an idea for how Obi Wan relates to him, and Ewan's enthusiasm for the character in front of him comes across in the performance of what is a small scene.

 

You must admit, puppet creatures have advanced since Empire Strikes Back. The whole face is moving now. Nose, brows, lips, cheek muscles. Yoda's face hardly moved at all.

 

you said mentioning ruffle and spader was making the point for you, but if McKellan's experience was different. how was I making the point by talking about something you think is different?

It was a little more than "less than ideal" if McKellan was reduced to tears. Or maybe it was and he is just a sensitive fellow, but it wasn't the technology that got him down.

The fact that Abrams believes that actors need these "aids" doesn't mean they can't do the performance without them. They are actors. They use their imagination, dress and pretend things are real that aren't. It doesn't what is there, if they are good at their job. It is just the way Abrams wants to do it.

 

No, just the last few hours.

Or they are just off their trolley.

 

It's not a question of seeing your imagination come alive or not. Daisy and John were interacting with newly-invented aliens and classic spaceships, but many of these creatures and props being real and present was a boon for their performances, as they've said.

Good actors can perform with nothing present or everything real and actually on set. Hence why I cited McKellen. He's done both and he's damn good at it. But when it comes to film, it's a different animal to stage, and even a brilliant actor like McKellen plainly prefers the tangible to non-existent. This has nothing to do with CGI or an alleged bias against it, but with the work ethic on set and what works best for getting memorable results.

 

Here's a question - based on what we've seen portrayed in other films (not just Star Wars) imagine for a second that the first shot of Finn from the first teaser was not shot on location, and was not him in an actual stormtrooper uniform. He was in front of a green screen, and made up to look sweaty.

Could he have looked quite as convincingly out of sorts, in quite a comic way, as he did? Or would that scene have lost something from not being practical.
I think it would. I think it would have either been overplayed, or not convincing. As exhibit A, I'd cite Natalie Portman's scene in AOTC after falling from the jump ship when she seemed absolutely fine immediately afterwards.
While I obviously have my suspicions and bias, I'd be interested to see equivalents: and by that I mean people reacting to both their environment, and their circumstances, convincingly, when they were against green screen

 

I watched TESB & RotJ last week and I was very surprised by how good the Yoda puppet still looks. I never looked into how the TPM puppet ended up so bad. I must read up on that.

As to Bobbajoe, he is a fantastic creation and even beyond that praise if he really is controlled entirely remotely. He does look too puppet-y when his face isn't moving, but it is startling the difference it makes when it moves the it's nose and mouth.

Is this some kind of trick. How do I hold up my hand on the internet.

And what is a R.O.U.S. ? I googled it but got a blank page.

 

OK.

So, the "clearly different" was in reference solely to McKellen's acting on stage versus acting on greenscreen. I wasn't saying his greenscreen experience was different from theirs. Ruffalo, Spader and McKellen all found it more challenging to work in greenscreen than real sets, costumes, and performing with other actors. I hope this clears things up.

 

Bobbajo will look much better on film when his movements are choreographed, rather than its operators moving controls chaotically in a live, unrehearsed demonstration.

 

Wait. No. All f that is what I saying.

I said they found it difficult and got on with it all, no complaining afterwards just honest opinions on the experiences.

You don't know that!!! You are just being optimistic!!!

 

That's your opinion, and one that I'm very, very happy I don't share. I love both practical and CGI puppets, and think both if done well look real. People that like only one or the other are missing out. Tough to be you guys I guess. You can complain about TFA while I'm enjoying it.

 

I agree and the lighting will be different as well.

 

You do realize of course that he did the scene with an actor first?

Right?

Then they rehearsed it and then did shots for reference and they worked out how they wanted to do it and then did it.

I don't know what you mean by "noticing the acting" that to me just comes across as something that is totally subjective to any one person's reaction to a scene. You want to "notice the acting" as so you do.

I've read people who say what I find to be the most bizarre things about what is "natural" and swear that THIS scene is so "natural" and that one isn't.

They can only talk about their own reaction not anyone else's.

I wish these people who seem to concentrate so hard on things they don't like for whatever reason to actually spend that time concentrating on the whole series of movies rather than obsess over one line they don't like for whatever reason.

Apparently you are a mind reader and can tell the level of enthusiasm of an actor from watching an edited scene of a movie that is about controlling what it is that you see and hear.

I find the Obi-Wan and Dex scene one of the small moment highlight scenes in all of Star Wars. There are many but that one has always stood out to me from the first time I saw it. The warmth of Obi-Wan to Dex also mixed with his realization that Dex is a bit of a dark character as well is one I recall thinking how layered the scene was from the start.

That was my reaction to it.

I find it odd really that the actor's reaction at the time that you can't really possibly know is more important to you than your own?

Aha! You are forgetting about their self designed get out of CGI hate jail free card.

Since George isn't doing it then the "balance" that he didn't do will be there. That is the mental message that JJ, KK and the crew are handing out to those people.

It's all rubbish of course but as long as they give them the out to believe in it then it'll work for them.

I have to tell you even though personally I think Lucasfilm is lazy as hell for going down this road for me personally it's like Christmas come early to ripe on this practical effects nonsense.

This where the fun begins!

 

The cinematography of Dan Mindel will handle this.

 

But what if the tennis ball has really pretty eyes?

 

Does Star Wars really need to look that great? When it comes down to it, my issues with the prequels have much more to do with less-than-stellar storytelling and poorly written dialog. The CG is honestly the last of my qualms with the prequels. My favorite of the prequels was ROTS, and let's face, that was pretty much a big CG orgy, but it had the most compelling story, IMHO.

It would be dishonest to say that the OT is visually perfect. Some of the effects are laughably bad, but that doesn't really matter to me. What matters is the story, which is one my favorites in film history.

That being said, I much prefer the look of the old trilogy, and I'm glad that that's what they're going for. I know TFA is gonna look great, because JJ knows how to make a great looking film, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of unfiltered nostalgia. However, when it comes down to it, if the storytelling isn't solid, TFA won't have much staying power, despite its purportedly wonderful sets and practical effects. In fact, if we come out of the movie and all we're talking about is how great it looked and how well it captured the aesthetic of the originals, I would say they failed at capturing the heart of Star Wars.

Just look at Doctor Who. It has some of the most die hard fans of any sci fi franchise. Why? Because of great effects? I love Doctor Who, but the first few series of New Who have some of the most atrocious effects (both CG and practical) that I have ever witnessed, but the stories and characters are fantastic, and that's what makes it worth watching.

 

"You do realise of course he did the scene with an actor first"

He did the scene with a stand in for reference. Not the same thing. I can't try to convince you, because you're completely entrenched in your view. I envy it, I genuinely wish I could enjoy the visuals and the performances of the PT as much as you clearly do. Unfortunately I can't. To the extent that I can't begin to imagine how the poorly written Dex's diner scene could be anyone's small highlight - to me, it's embarrassing from start to finish, from "Jawa Juice", which sounds like a drink at a Star Wars theme park, to the visuals and the execution. I never understood why, for Obi Wan's investigation into the sleazy underbelly of Coruscant, they had a shiny fifties style diner instead of something that looked genuinely rough and ready, showing that Obi Wan was connected.

 

The CGI actually started to get distracting for me in Revenge. Several points in the film took me out of the movie. I wasn't even trying to look for flaws. I never had that problem in any of the other movies, except maybe the droid factory scene in AOTC.