ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

That picture from Utapau looks like a photoshop composite from 2005. Which I guess it kinda is. The sheer overwhelming amount of stuff onscreen in the prequels (AotC in particular) really took me out of it. Watch the movie again now and try not to cringe at the bad CGI.

 

I don't cringe - I think it's brilliant. Sure, there are some dodgy bits - just like the OT... but from the chase through the skies of Coruscant to the battle of Geonosis, there's some remarkable imagination and realisation of that imagination.

 

That was bad wording on my part. It's more of the digital look that makes it look fake. I was watching Attack of the Clones recently, and the Kamino scene with Obi-Wan vs. Jango just didn't look right. The OT had grime and a lived-in feel, whereas AotC is smooth and shiny, and like a photoshop composite, things stick out and your brain knows something isn't right. It's like Lucas decided to cram as much CGI crap in the frame as he could in the hopes of making the world seem complicated and lived in, while the results are exactly the opposite. Don't get me wrong, most of the time the effects work seamlessly. I think the best looking CGI of the three prequels is in The Phantom Menace. It was also the only one of the three to be shot on film. Filming them on digital today wouldn't be as much of an issue, because the technology has caught up so quickly. But while I can overlook the dodgy effects in the OT for the most part, the occasional bad CGI in the prequels is really jarring.

 

The only CG in the prequels that's jarring to me is the difference between the AOTC Yoda and the one in TPM and ROTS.

 

I see very little difference in the look of AOTC/ROTS and ALL modern big effects films... be it The Avengers, Iron Man, Man of Steel, The Hobbit, Gravity, Pacific Rim, Harry Potter or Star Trek. The technology has improved over the course of 10 years, but most of these type of films use virtual environments and characters JUST AS the PT did... in fact I'd argue that the PT was far more original/imaginative/innovative in the way it did it.

Also, one has to contextulise when drawing comparison... comparing the effects in the PT to modern films would be like comparing the effects/the look of the OT to 2001:ASO, Silent Running and Planet of the Apes etc. i.e clearly the effects in those late 60's/early 70's movies are less sophisticated than those in the OT... but it doesn't/shouldn't stop them from still being appreciated. That's the difference between appreciation and just plain ole' consumption.

 

Kenobi vs Jango was amazing. Sorry that you can't enjoy it. I don't know why anyone would expect a wet Jedi on a deluged platform, fighting a guy in a metal suit to appear grimy.

The shiny Kaminoan meeting room was a model, btw. As always ILM's real magic is in the seamless compositing.

 

The scene itself is one of my favorite parts of the movie, but also one where the unfortunate effects of early digital cameras shows the most. It often looks like the characters aren't really in the scene, but pasted over a poorly rendered background. I can still watch it and appreciate it for what it is, but I have a feeling that if Lucas had used film cameras for AotC these things wouldn't stick out as much.

 

Not sure why you think that scene is evidence of poor digital work. They were on a constructed set the entire time. The Ocean was digitally added later, but it wasn't even visible for most of it. They didn't look pasted over a background at all!

 

I don't want this to sound like I'm having 'a go' but some of your comments seem just plain ignorant...

Re. the Obi-Wan/Jango fight. I don't really understand what you mean because the characters, the physical actors, are (for the most part) in that scene because the landing platform was a real physical set. If you mean where Obi-Wan is being shown around the cloning facility - then yes, that's a digital environment with the 'real' elements composited in... but it looks no different to The Hobbit, Pacific Rim or, for example, the opening sequences of The Man of Steel where many of them are digital composites. Also, I'm again not sure what you mean by "poorly rendered background"??? There's nothing 'poor' about it given it is/was the work of one of the worlds leading effects companies... Do you think the same when watching, for example, the battle of Hoth? The walkers are obviously stop motion models being moved around baking powder snow etc. etc.

 

"Watch your step. This place can be a little rough."

 

I haven't been communicating what I'm trying to say that well, and it probably just comes out as a jumble of angry comments about how I think the prequels suck visually.

The parts where physical sets were used are fine, and they hold up rather well. Juxtaposed with more completely digitally created sets, it becomes quite jarring. Obi-Wan vs Jango on the platform is great for the most part, but it's when they go over the edge that the fakeness really stands out, because most of what they are surrounded by is CGI, and it doesn't look quite right. I shouldn't say it's awful CGI, because it's really rather good. But it doesn't hold up nearly as well as the Battle of Hoth, because even though compositing techniques weren't as great then, everything feels tangible and real. Using CGI simply because they didn't want to composite in footage of a real ocean stands out when it's viewed now.

But that's just me. I don't expect the sequels to use models and real sets to the extent that the originals did, but I hope they use more nuance when utilizing CGI assets. The Star Trek reboot was an excellent example of this, and I trust JJ with the technical side of things at least. Shooting on film is a step in the right direction.

 

That's where you're a little off base, Benni, in that the prequels had more actual model and physical setpieces than the OT.

 

Well 2003-2004 (ROTS' production years) but yeah.

 

Star Trek has just as much CGI, relatively speaking, as the PT - the key difference being that effects have undoubtedly improved in the past 10/15years... and Trek can utilise downtown LA locations (because of its Earth based scenes). Budweiser plants and office buildings in LA just wont wash it with Star Wars fans who expect something a lot more fantastical and 'large scale'. If you're thinking that the ST is going to be just old school effects and physical stages, prepared to be dissapointed because you just can't get the required scale without digital sets/environments. That's modern filmmaking - and the expectation is a Star Wars movie has to be bigger than the rest.

For what it's worth... I think the battle of Geonosis, or battle of Coruscant, looks just as 'real' as the battle of Hoth - it's all about perception... just as I think CGI Yoda (particularly ROTS) is infinitely more realistic than the puppet version - that doesn't mean he's a better character or has better dialogue, but the 'virtual' version has infinitely more expression and movement... he emotes much more.

 

It's the same as the OT except it's digital mattes extending the set instead of glass ones.

Now let that magic word "digital" wash over you and convince you that a computer can paint Utapau all by itself without a brilliant artist from ILM.

It's tools, man.

 

That's precisely the difference. Star Trek has just as much CGI as the prequels, but it utilizes it better. It's the combination of real world and digital assets in the frame that lend it the believability. For Star Trek Into Darkness, they built a giant set outside and actually made a bunch of red alien vegetation to put into the scene. That was added onto with CGI of course, but because they had real red plants it looks infinitely better than, for example, Felucia from RotS. I had thought Phantom Menace used models, but I didn't know AotC and RotS used them extensively as well. That's where the difference between film and digital comes in - Episode I is the most grounded of the three prequels.

There is probably going to be just as much CGI in the new films. With the example of Utapau, it looks fake to me because every single thing in the frame looks rendered, except for maybe the clouds. Lucas used CGI where it wasn't necessary - instead of shooting at a location and then using CGI to supplement it, he skipped a step and made it more animated than real life. Like I said above, I don't expect Episode VII to be old school effects and physical sets. If it can be made by applying the same mindset that went into the Star Trek reboot then I think we'll have something that will hold up for a long time.

I think I'm getting a little off topic so I won't go any deeper into this.

 

Have you seen the model work for Utapau?

 

Required reading, that.

 

People still think Utapau was CGI?

 

In what way does Star Trek "utilize it better"? You know they actually shot in real locations too on the prequels right e.g. Tunisia, Lake Como etc. etc. And you are aware that much of Star Trek lazily takes place on Earth and the largest proportion of it doesn't involve much 'trekking' in outer space? For my money I don't believe Kronos looked anywhere near as 'real' as Tatooine and Naboo... And the planet with the red trees? I'd sooner have Coruscant, Mustaphar or Utapau - somewhere with a little bit more thought, that stirs the imagination. I find it quite sad when people would rather have a dressed Budweiser plant than something like the cloning factory on Kamino I think it's indicative of culture without imagination where people hold Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus in such high regard.

 

I suspect that a lot of the people who bash the prequels for the CGI are just doing so because it has become cool to do so.

But hey, that's just what I suspect.

 

Here is the Utapau set pieces...










Yeah... Utapau was SO completely CGI...

 

Man, I cannot wait until we start getting BTS stuff for Episode VII. I'm still in disbelief that we're getting another Star Wars trilogy. And I have a real good feeling about this one.