ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

I was thinking more along the lines of these...

Spoiler

And you know it could go on. I never said that ALL of the sets were CG, but I do contend that he got very heavy-handed with the CG too often.

 

Indeed, I think we will see very good consistency between all the ST movies in terms of VFX, a more laid-back look of the visuals and more focus on the story and characters. This will definitely be the best written, directed and acting-wise SW movies. Yeah, I'm that confident.

 

@TheBPP he blatantly did. How anyone can argue there wasn't a fairly significant shift towards digital by the end of the PT (despite still using a huge amount of practical work) is beyond me. If it works for you, it doesn't have to be a bad thing at all.

 

Well the prequels were more practical than the OT so that jibes with the PT.

Well George gave them his advice in the early stages. Obviously they are going to rely on nostalgia to some large degree from what we've seen. The PT didn't put itself in the position to do the same kind of nostalgia thing as it was set before the OT.

It's not a defence it's a fact. It's also factual that they used other methods to extend sets or environments. Those others really don't get used much anymore in favour or screen compositing.

No. It's about what you think is balance as opposed to what actual movie professionals do. I never understand this dating idea. Of course everything dates. The OT has dated. The PT will date. The ST one day will date. As of right now the OT had obviously dated the most. The PT still are right there with modern films.

I don't see your point. Of course they used green and blue screen. Just as the OT did. Green and blue screen work IS practical. The actors in these elements then are placed into the sets which comprise among other things models, miniatures ,matte paintings and sets or live action backgrounds.

Once again some people get confused between analog practical and digital practical and think that digital means CG. It doesn't.

You seem to think that all the imagery is filled in only with CG. That is simply not the case. It's digitally composited.

Huh? There wasn't a shift it was right there from the start. That's what I've been saying all the time.

The PT is all digital. They are digital movies. It was digitally composited. There was no analog work.

Why is there any debate about that?

For the 100th time digital and CG are not one and the same. You could do a movie without CG. That would make it no less digital.

 

I am a movie professional so you can back up on that front, and I work with plenty of other movie professionals, amongst whom I am a prequel defender, so go figure. To suggest the PT was more practical than the OT is ridiculously and deliberately missing the point regarding balance and scale.

There were probably more FX shots in TPM than across the entirety of the OT full stop. With the far more epic scale of the PT the number of FX shots sky-rocketed and within that number, you also got a huge amount of practical stuff (which again - no one is denying). Where things swung too far was things that could have been achieved in camera i.e. CG trooper armour. In terms of scale, CG enabled two completely CG armies to have at it, which would have been the equivalent of two stop motion armies going at it in the OT, so we didn't get that kind of total lack of reality in the OT. Also factor in the early tech used in terms of cameras, the early tech in terms of CG characters in TPM and as Bobby has pointed out, the dodgier cinematography and lighting and you get a prevalent sense of the synthetic, or fakeness that you did not get with the OT because the limitations of the tech meant that they had to keep things more grounded on the whole.

Again, I ask you this, if we're all "mistaken" on this, why is it that the current crop of film-makers (who I would guess you could class as movie professionals) seem to also feel that a shift back towards a more tangible, practical feel for SW films is the way forwards after the more digital PT? Or are they wrong too? Clearly JJ feels this. You get a clear sense RJ does too and KK has also espoused this view.

Also, no - IMO the OT has aged better than AOTC and ROTS. Sorry, chief.

As for your point re digital and CG - fine - I'm using the terms fairly interchangeably here. You know what I mean though. I mean CG vs practical/ in-camera, as I suspect most people are - i.e. things created digitally using a computer as opposed to physical locations, objects, sets, etc. You are the only one using the term analogue - no one else is using it or intends it as a frame of reference.

Or we could all just bow down to the untouchable majesty of George Lucas and go home.

 

Yeah, the CGI in the PT did not age well at all. And it's only been 9 years since ROTS.

 

Defending what exactly?

It's reality. Unless of course you mean that costumes, props, models, miniatures, sets, puppets, masks, animatronics, green and blue screen etc etc etc ARE NOT practical?

Please explain to me exactly what practical is because if the above aren't then what was practical about the OT?

Yes they are. They do it constantly.

For Clones. Sorry they couldn't find real clones.

Not at all. They couldn't do it then. It was hard enough to do the battle of Hoth.

Of course you did. It was all fake. It is all fake.

I have bad news for you. All those space battles? Fake.

All those ships? Fake.

The Lightsabers? Fake.

Sorry but once again the fundamental mistake is that you are saying this fake is real while this other fake is fake Why? Because that first fake came first.

Once again watch the extras and commentaries on the prequels. Read the books. They answer all these questions.

Why is the fake fantasy lighting of the OT so sacrosanct while the fake fantasy lighting of the PT (which is more realistic in the way light behaves) is not?

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE 102 TIME!!!

Please read this. I know that you never actually read my posts but please at least once read this.

Film-making is now digital. Not analog. Practical is practical. The PT is extremely practical but done digitally. The OT is practical but done analog.

Look at JJ's Trek films. They are digital. He shoots on film which is then digitally scanned. He uses all the same tools that the PT uses but as he's not in the Star Wars universe he doesn't have to use them on the same scale.

I guess Avengers and the Iron Man and Thor and this and that movie for the last 15 years look aged and dated to you while the PT carries on looking fresh and fine?

No they look like movies made in the 70's and 80's even with the SE makeover.

Now imagine if the actual true original movies were put on the big screen again. I would love that to happen. The actual originals not the SE versions which recomped everything from the original elements but the actual true original.

Then you would see it's dating and age. I don't mean that to say it's terrible but simply that it would be what it is. A movie of it's time that visually has been surpassed by the PT just as the ST will.[/quote]

The problem here is that for you no CG is ever good even when it isn't CG at all. IIRC you think the Yoda puppet is actually not dated. It has.

 

Defending the prequels from the absolute kicking they get from colleagues who think the are pretty much garbage ( this is anecdotal - I'm not saying everyone feels that way, I'm sure there are plenty who like the PT but I have yet to meet any myself).

You're confusing numbers of FX shots vs the balance of practical to CG. Do you really not see the issue is one of balance and scale? The OT doesn't even begin to try and tale a scale on the same kind of canvas the PT does (for better or worse depending on your preference), hence the PT has far more FX shots in it (including a huge number of practical FX as well as a huge number of CG Fx) than the OT.

Also, the fact that there was no CG during the OT days should tip you off to the fact that it will have a larger ratio of practical FX than the PT does.

Please stop taking things so literally - news flash, we all know lightsabers aren't real. FFS.

And again - you're the only one using the terms digital vs analogue in this sense, so please stop.

And again - do you think JJ and RJ and KK are as mistaken as the rest of us who feel the PT used too much CG?

I'm just staggered every time with the zealotry.

 

Hyperbolic statements aren't needed. I wouldn't even be here If I hated all CGI.

 

It won't hurt you to concede that others may have a different POV to you on all this, Qui. I totally get that you love all the films and the FX (both CG and the plethora of practical FX) used in the PT. That's fantastic and more power to you. No one is trying to tell you you are incorrect to hold this view. Why can you not accept the reverse of this. Can you not see that maybe, just maybe, some of us hold a preference that while different to yours, might still be valid?

AOTC: 2200 vfx shots
ROTS: 2200 vfx shots
TPM: 1950 vfx shots

ROTJ: 900 vfx shots
ESB: 605 vfx shots
ANH: 360 vfx shots

The total number of VFX shots full-stop in the OT is 1865, which doesn't reach TPM's total.

The scale and scope of the story being told has altered radically (again, for good or ill depending on personal preference) between ANH and ROTS so a greater number of FX both practical and CG are required to tell the stories George wanted to tell. What I would suggest is that even within those parameters, George used CG fx in certain areas where other directors may have chosen to use an in-camera solution (i.e. JJ or RJ by the sounds of things).

Maybe RJ is spot on - maybe it's a generational thing. I'm knocking on 40 so perhaps it's a preference for people more used to a less CG feel. I don't know. And I certainly appreciate there are a great many people who have zero problem with the aesthetic (or anything else) about the PT. But it is a feeling shared by plenty of people and there are plenty of people hoping for a more tangible "feel" - remember, we know movies are all fake, we're not 5 - which luckily JJ and RJ seem to want to deliver as well.

 

What kind of impact could Episode VII and the other new Star Wars movies have on the cinematic landscape as far as filming technique and technologies are concerned?

 

I predict around 1200-1500 shots For EP VII.

 

To say that the PT was more practical than the OT is just none sense. Yes, they might have built more sets over all, but it's all about the ratio.

 

Each trilogy seems to impact the cinematic landscape in a huge way, so I would expect nothing less from the ST. Ep VII could very well bring about a big resurgence of in-camera practical effects over digital filmmaking, movies with puppetry, animatronics, etc. At least I certainly hope so.

 

I actually don't think we're going to break any sort of serious new ground with the filmmaking here, honestly. Abrams isn't known for that, and considering the focus seems to be on making this a sequel to Return of the Jedi not just story-wise, but aesthetically, I think you're going to see some very solid filmmaking, but nothing visually risky on a level that the rest of the film industry is going to be like "We have to adopt this." For better or worse, that's more James Cameron's job now. Peter Jackson tried with The Hobbit in 48fps and it didn't take.

Also, I think trying to reduce the visual vocabulary of Star Wars and its cinematic aesthetic to a numbers game where we're counting VFX shots and trying to count up physical sets vs digital mattes is the wrong way to go about it. You can't reduce that stuff to pure math. It's not like there's a formula. you can just plug into the movie-maker-o-tron-2014 that will spit out the perfect looking Star Wars movie

It's a matter of whether or not the director knows how to use the tools given to him, and can figure out how to blend those visual elements into a cohesive, aesthetically pleasing whole.

I feel Abrams did that very well in both of his Star Trek movies. Star Wars VII is likely going to be the prettiest of all the Star Wars movies. But I don't think that's the same thing as making a huge impact on the cinematic landscape.

 

And finally revive Dark Crystal 2.

 

I think VII is a rare oppurtunity, JJ seems to be taking advantage of, for 80s style effects to return in a big way. With puppets, animatronics, huge sets and the like. Quite frankly theyre arent many movies made today where it would even be appropriate to use these techniques.
If VII does have these elements and is the huge success we hope it is, that may start a resurgence in this area that more recently has been taken over by Mocap or CGI heavy sequences. That could be the new ground this movie will break.

 

Nah. he's not really doing anything he hasn't already done twice with Star Trek on that front. The reason people are paying attention now is because it's been 30 years since anyone made a Star Wars movie that way. That's the difference. So even if your scenario does happen, it's not "new ground" the movie would be breaking anyway. It's old ground, unearthed.

But I doubt you're gonna see a resurgence in "'80s styled" filmmaking, as it were, if Episode VII makes it big, (which of course it will) anymore than a similar resurgence happened when The Dark Knight made 600 million domestic.

 

No but with Star Trek his goal (or one of them) was to bring the effects up to date and at a level they had never been before. I think the goal with VII is quite the opposite, and like I said, with puppets and animatronics, there isn't many movies being made that does that on a big budget scale. Obviously Star Trek or the Dark Knight didnt do that.
So yeah not "new ground" but the modern return of old ground

 

yeah they did. there's quite a bit of complicated animatronics and real sets on both of those movies (more animatronics on the Star Trek movies than what Nolan was doing on TDK, of course). Again, Abrams isn't doing anything with Episode VII that he hasn't already done with Star Trek. He's not going to retrograde the visual effects. He's not going backwards. He's just applying the same level of care that he took when making the Star Trek movies (and Super 8, as well) to Star Wars. The reason this seems so radical is because the last three Star Wars movies we got didn't necessarily do that as well. But this sorta stuff hasn't been missing from the blockbuster scene as much as you seem to be suggesting. There's the Lord of the Rings movies, of course. Basically anything Guillermo Del Toro has done, too. Abrams, Nolan; there are a lot of directors out there who are very much trying to find and strike a solid balance between real sets, real creature work, and the freedom CGI affords them to realize shots they wouldn't otherwise get.

I think looking to Episode VII to be that sort of landmark film that inspires the entire industry to change direction is asking too much. I don't think that's the aim. Lucas was willing to do that because changing the direction of the industry was about as equally important to him as telling the story of the prequels. He wanted to get those movies out of his head, but he wanted to push the industry towards digital just as much.

JJ Abrams just wants to make a good Star Wars sequel, and that's it. So the aims are completely different in that regard. Abrams isn't trying to be Lucas, I don't think.

He's trying to be Kershner.

 

bobbyroberts I'm not saying he has a Lucas like aim to change the industry, Im saying the industry changes based on what's successful. I think his goal is to make a movie that looks and feels like a sequel to Return of the Jedi and that makes it a specifically different goal to the one he had making Star Trek. Which were movies that didn't present the unique oppurtunity to have a large number of creatures or alien sets.
Peter Jackson was the guy who revolutionised Mocap in the industry.
Del Toro is a guy who did exactly what Im talking about, but didn't have the audience of a Star Wars movie till Pacific Rim, which was a movie about large CGI robots rather than puppets

 

And that's all I need. Still Abrams wants to bring a more immersed experience with the use of IMAX cameras, (which I'll say again, seeing the IMAX version of Into Darkness just enhanced that movie experience for me, the picture quality of those scenes is just spectacular, can't wait to see the same in EPVII)