ST Filming Techniques and Technologies for the ST

What's most often overlooked as the importance of practical effects is the fact that they naturally ensure that the CG looks much better than it would in completely CG shots.

 

Agreed. Everyone knows that CGI should absolutely be used when it is the best option for the most realistic looking shot.

The problem is when CGI is used when a practical option is best to achieve the look needed.

CGI has become a crutch in many cases to avoid the work involved with doing something practical. Use the method that produces the best results for the shot needed.

 

It was quite an old school approach. I thought KOTKS was very clever in the way it mimicked the lighting and lenses of 1950's movies. It obviously used a lot of practical stuff too. But one can't expect filmmakers to make a modern action movie exactly the way it was made 30 years ago. It woud be disasterous.

 

It comes down to personal taste and in my opinion it was disastrous. If you won't make a film look old school then please don't fool your loyal audience by saying you will. That's what pis$es me off the most.

 

But I think it did look very 'old school' when compared to Transformers, Spiderman etc. etc. it's relative. As I say, many of the shots look like they were lifted straight from a 1950's film. It was quite bright and vibrantly lit, unlike modern blockbusters. And if you compare Indy in the Peruvian catacombs and skull temple, the lightimg is pretty much consistant with the originals. In fact, I'd say better. Also - KOTCS had some of the best practical sets I've seen in a modern film... but what is it's reward for using those practical sets? Lambasting for a few seconds of monkeys and fridges (which I agree were silly... but then again so was the mine cart chase and jumping from the plane in TOD).

I'm interested to know what your expectation was? Was it that it woud have no digital effects at all?

 

No. I don't think you can expect that from a modern movie. But the film looks very different from the 'OT. It has some very obvious CG work in it. Overall I dont dshare share your opinion about the look. That being said there is some strangeness given to the film because it features different looks and styles. For instance I really liked the way the opening sequence with the cars. It seems to me Lucas and Spielberg were not on the same page throughout the process. BUT I could have lived with a different look which not fits my taste had I liked the rest of the film. I hated it though. Can't rewatch it no matter how hard I push myself. I quit after some minutes into the film.

 

That's very non specific though... not being funny, just genuinely interested. Are you familiar with technicolor movies of the 50's and the often used soft focus lenses? Also, why do you think the interior temple/catacomb shots look different to the originals?

 

Well I know that there were no CG prairy dogs ! But I might be wrong.

 

Here's the basic problem though. If you ask the average audience member and show them clips of Mustafar, Kashyyyk, Utapau, Coruscant, Kamino, Geonosis etc from the prequels how many would say the environments was all or mostly CGI? Specifically the actual land and structures not adding in the beings who live there.

Of course they would be totally wrong as they were all done mostly practical with CGI enhancing the structures which were created mostly by models and miniatures, matte paintings, sets, props and the like.

Mustafar is the best example because there is a whole documentary about how it was done. MASSIVE miniature they shot on for months but because it is so fantastic it's hard for people who don't know how the digital practical effects processes work to understand.

So it's really not about CGI but the perception of CGI. If something is that unearthly and beyond anything you could possibly on location it MUST be created by CGI.

In reality the main things that CGI replaces in the movies is animation, puppetry and spaceships and other vehicles in motion. Wonder how many people thought that all the aleins in make-up, latex and fur and animatronic masks are also CGI?

 

Idk if anyone commented on this but it seemed obvious to me that they used models for the X-wing scene in the teaser trailer. Makes sense as they looked really good with all the effects surrounding them.

 

I truly believe that casual audiences have become fatigued with the spectacle of excessive CGI.

GGI very much culturally developed from the period of about 1993 to 2003; we're far into the "Post-Saturation-Period."

Almost everyone (even one-eyed Uncle Jimmy) knows when a set piece or creature design is executed with CG - this isn't 2001.

Following the frustrating logic of human nature, the law of diminishing returns takes hold; not unlike the rumored plot of Jurassic World, the studios are compelled to engineer "bigger and badder" monsters to combat audience malaise.

This is why it's not at all uncommon to see CGI effects replace cheaper and more practical physical effects like blood.

I don't think anyone can argue for the need for a splattering of blood to be generated with digital pixels when the real thing could be produced more convincingly for pennies.

But that's where we are these days with Hollywood studios and producers.

If you hate it as much as I do, I'd suggest that you put you money where your gripes are and stop supporting most big budget genre films (with special exceptions like Episode VII of course).

I thought CGI was used wonderfully (and quite organically) in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - we need more of that.

CGI needs to mature into a tool rather than a toy or a gimmick (this is a tick against film studios and not the artistry behind the medium); I think we'll get there someday.

When you remove the context of Hollywood from the medium, CGI can be absolutely wonderful; I hold no grudges against the people that produce this stuff.

I'm not in the film business, but I will always push for mixed-effects, and I think it will always be the most effective and immersive way to make a big movie.

 

Again I ask do they know CGI when they see it? I think many of them simply do not. The comments you read over and over again from regular people swat heavily towards them not knowing what is CGI and what isn't.

So then the CGI becomes a red herring argument because it's not about that but about spectacle.

So let's go to the box office which is the casual audiences vote on what they want to see.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2014&p=.htm

As you can see the total domination of "CGI" movies which are superhero, fantasy, sci-fi and the like which take every place in the top 10. Worldwide is the same story with the Transformers towering over everything.

I agree that fatigue may have set in but not so much because of excessive "CGI" in any one movie but simply because there are just so many of them.

In 2005 when ROTS came out at least a couple of none "CGI" movies made the top 10 like The Wedding Crashers, in 2002 when AOTC came out there were 5 by my count but more than 2 and in 1999 when TPM came out you also had 5 or so non super spectacle movies in the top 10.

I think some kind of downturn at some point is inevitable but it may take a very long time before the box office dictates anything else. I think the 3D and IMAX effect is going first. Like anything there is a point of saturation.

How is that any different when you knew it was puppetry or animation or whatever? If it looks really good and moves really well it'd hardly going to be anything else. The WOW factor of the CGI characters is not there like it used to be for sure. The impact of the story is always the most important thing. Doesn't matter that the Gollum of The Hobbit is way better than the Gollum of LOTR.

The prequels did that already.

Like I said the prequels are the greatest mixture of practical and CGI in the history of films.

Not in the least. They used tons of real costumes in the PT and therefore the same tools that TFA is using. What you are really annoyed by for whatever reasons is their choices of tools for one particular thing ie Clonetroopers being done in CGI so that they can literally be Clones and have total freedom of movement and allow total creativity in using what is supposed to be a one man army that look are exactly alike.

Your basic argument seems to center around the idea that if they had built just one suit with one person in it and then digitally multiplied that along with the rest of the CGI troopers then you would be fine with it.

TFA doesn't have clones but separate recruits so any massive battles they have with CGI troops will be due to the storytelling.

 

"I think some kind of downturn at some point is inevitable but it may take a very long time before the box office dictates anything else. I think the 3D and IMAX effect is going first. Like anything there is a point of saturation."


"How is that any different when you knew it was puppetry or animation or whatever? If it looks really good and moves really well it'd hardly going to be anything else. The WOW factor of the CGI characters is not there like it used to be for sure. The impact of the story is always the most important thing. Doesn't matter that the Gollum of The Hobbit is way better than the Gollum of LOTR."



"Like I said the prequels are the greatest mixture of practical and CGI in the history of films."



I think you and I fundamentally disagree about the execution of special effects in films.

I infer that you are somewhat annoyed and impatient with the reverence people like me have for practical effects in films of the past - particularly tuning into the 70's through the 90's.

...I know what you're thinking: This "reverence" for traditional effects is totally dominated by an obstinate nostalgia.

And your partly right.

I won't pretend to be less than totally biased towards tactile effects. I absolutely adore models, miniatures, prothstetics, puppets, live explosions, and smart camera angles, down to the bone.

But I'm not totally living in the ashes of the late 20th century, and I've always resented the absolute digitalization of traditional mediums simply because of the ease and novelty of digital technology.

I welcome smart and innovative CGI that complements the whole filmmaking process (actor-prop-effect interaction is a huge problem with the medium).


I get the impression that you think this is a largely philosophical debate, and you're right in that there is an aesthetic and artistic clash at play here (I think big movies generally work more creatively under tighter practical constraints) but to me, this is a technical issue.


The Prequel trilogy will never be celebrated as a massive exercise in practical effects because it represented a failure in the excess of unnecessary spectacle - end of story.


You're right, there was a lot of amazing model, prop, and wardrobe work in those films, but it didn't alter the crushing blow of an almost total reversal in filmmaking methodology on George Lucas' part.


The same can be said for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy (no matter how many additional whirs were put into Gollum), the director totally sidestepped his mixed-effects approach he brilliantly used in The Lord of The Rings.


I don't mean to sound like a pretentious stick in the mud; I actually agree with a few of your points, but I'm holding out for a more balanced approach in big movies.

 

Technical point. Special Effects are now classified differently from the current term Visual Effects.

The only annoyance I have is that for whatever reason is when people don't recognize the reality of the massive amount of practical effects that the prequels used.

Hadn't thought about it that hard but it does seem to be about how things were done on the OT as golden and perfect because everything those films did was "golden and perfect."

All things that the prequels did.

I never understand why people think it's so easy. It really isn't. It's bloody difficult. One of the things that digital composition does is make what was next to or totally impossible with analog optical composition in the OT era possible with lots of hard work that takes years.

All things that the prequels did.

Lucas put all kinds of practical constraints. These constraints come from a bottom line on the budget. The prequels were independent films so he couldn't spend 200M on each film. The average was about 115m.

It was completely necessary to tell the story. If you personally find it excessive or unnecessary that is up to the individual. Why not rejoice in the massive practical effects display they put on? This is the thing you want practical effects but only a certain kind done in a certain way.

Not at all. It was the exact same methodology. Do what others say can't be done. Push forward further and further. Lucas was frustrated with the limitations of film when making the OT. He couldn't do exactly what he wanted to do so he had to settle for what he thought could be done with the tools that he had and that were developed by his own company.

He didn't leave the old tried and true behind but added to it. The tried and true doesn't become that until it's tried and proves to be true. What he did in the PT is now the new tried and true.

Because they couldn't tell the story they wanted. You are saying that both GL and PJ's attitude should have been. "You know what? Even though I can do everything I want to by continuing to push forward like I've always done I shouldn't because that will upset some few people."

If you showed most people this shot nowadays and asked them if it's "All-CGI" I think they would say yes.



Of course they would be wrong.



Even the ship is a model.



Transition from practical model and miniature shot to final film shot.



How is much of this shot created simply with the miniature?



Like this by blending all the different shots with old fashioned motion control.















Then you add in other elements.

 

I disagree with you, but I respect the way you’ve positioned your argument. The only other thing I’d state is that to think Lucas underwent “an almost total reversal in filmmaking methodology” is (IMHO) not only to misunderstand Lucas as a filmmaker, but to misunderstand Star Wars too. I think Lucas, for better and worse, has been entirely consistent with his methodologies as an auteur filmmaker. Star Wars (or ANH) represented a shift change in popular cinema and the way visual effects were used in films. Same applies for TPM. It doesn’t mean one has to like it... in fact one may see it as largely negative... but I don’t see how/where Lucas has so dramatically changed his filmmaking MO.

 

There's no doubt that those are impressive models (somewhat reminiscent of the "Bigatures" Peter Jackson so lovingly used in The Lord of The Rings) but they are poorly augmented by dated CGI.


Let me be very clear about this: These set pieces could not be effectively implemented without CG, but the practical-to-digital ratio is mismatched and rather undefined.



The ship is definitely the most effective model of these set pieces.


Take a look at the first top picture - the depth of field is totally flat and there's something almost unconsciously symmetrical about the layout of the landscape. It's technically proficient (I'm sure the animators worked like dogs to make the splatterings of lava individualized) but the feeling of this landscape is oddly insubstantial and inorganic. The lighting is off, which is a huge problem with digital animation in general.



That's the feeling that audiences have become complacent and bored with. This could have been done better ten years ago, and I think a significant slice of "Casual Audiences" knows this.



The problem is that these large-scale genre film are almost always smash financial hits, so there is no monetary incentive for studios to change their approach an iota (The Force Awakens is a special exception, probably in an effort to establish goodwill between Disney and Star Wars fans; J.J. Abrams' filmmaking approach certainly helps).


HBO's Game of Thrones gets the mixed-effects approach largely right (though they are gently easing to the side of CG); their special effects approach is certainly the closest to Lord of The Rings we've seen in over a decade.



I suspect this is due to the relative financial constraints the show is held to.



Which leads directly to my point: YES I think genre films and television series need some varying amount of financial constraint in order to be technically sharp and creative - particularly when these movies and shows are helmed by visionary directors like George Lucas and Peter Jackson (tight editing and a symbolic execution of the "Yes-Men" never hurt either).



In most cases in film, creativity and innovation thrive under practical and logistical constraints.



And you can make the case that the Prequel series brought about some amount of technical innovation, and you wouldn't be wrong, but I think (how's this for an oxymoron) it's a kind of stagnant-innovation, bolstered by studio enthusiasm and stylistic excess.



Special effects have never dictated so much of film narratives, logistics, and economics as they have in the last 10+ years, and so consequently, they've never been as important.



When you have a theoretical power to realize any medium-specific creation , you can't expect anything less heavy than the classic "Just-Because-We-Can-Should-We?" conundrum; don't expect that to change anytime soon.



Inevitably the answer to this question is always "YES" when there is money to be made.


Back to Game of Thrones - check out these digital mattes by Angela Barson and Damien Mace. They suffer from some of the same flaws as the ROTS stills (albeit more mildly), but this is exactly the more naturalistic, blended look that CGI is capable of, under the right conditions.

 

I've come of the opinion that it's not the CGI itself that people object to, but what is done with it. Now, people will take the easy way out of the argument and boil it down to "too much CGI", but it's really an argument in semantics.

What bothers people is when you start to defy physics with the special effects. A digital backdrop where people are just riding along on horses isn't going to bother many people. Surfing on lava, however, and people start to raise an eyebrow. There's an infinite spectrum along which various suspensions of disbelief lies. Plenty of people don't mind it, plenty of people do. But it's really about spectacle. The greater the spectacle, the more unbelievable it becomes, and more and more obvious it was only pulled off with computers...."CGI" becomes an easy scapegoat, even if it isn't semantically accurate in all cases.

People like Avengers, yes, but in that movie the characters are superheroes. Capable of anything, so when they smash into a wall, it's not as jarring. Jedi are not as capable. So, while I can believe a Jedi is more capable of surfing lava than I am, I understand this may bother some people.

If a stuntman can't do it, people start to become less interested...again, though, with various degrees of tolerance depending on the person. In matrix 1, much of the stunts were done with real people and clever camera tricks. In 2 and 3, they were all-digital, rubbery models punching other rubbery models.

What i'm really trying to say is that what bothers people is both CGI and not CGI. They SAY it's "CGI", but I believe it's mostly how the CGI is used. If a scene is 99% physical, but a CG human is doing dumb stuff on screen, people don't care that 99% of it is a physical thing (i'm not claiming the prequels do this, I'm just giving an exaggerated example).

 

That doesn't work. The Jedi and Sith are more or less, super human. They do things that normal people can't do. To say that they aren't is to discredit everything about them.

No, it was a mixture of both in the sequels. There was CGI Neo and the Smith army during the Burly Brawl, but there was also stuntmen during that scene.



CGI Neo.



Reeves and Weaving fighting.

So it was both and some of the rubber Smiths were stuntmen in make up designed to look like Smith.

But that is also a false assertion. The Hulk and Iron Man are both CGI for much of the Battle of New York, and yet, people claimed it was the best thing they saw.

 

So basically you want everything to look like Earth with just a bit of fantasy and even the above is too much for you?


So this is fine:



and this isn't?



This:


but not this?


This is the limitations you want:


Because this is too much to comprehend?



This is comfortable:



This is not?



and so on:

Lucas is the one who with his creativity did what everyone said couldn't be done. If he had just accepted the "practical and logistical constraints" as others define them then the OT wouldn't exist. He REDEFINED what those practical and logistical constraints were once and the amazing thing is that when those were accepted as the limits he went past them all AGAIN.

Don't you think that is just an absolutely stunning achievement the likes of which are rarely seen? Imagine if he just threw his hands up and said, "Oh well guess I'll wait until other people say it's OK to do it now."

 

The very reason that Lucas (and his creative team, who are never endowed with enough credit) created something innovate is because they were forced to.

Those kind of circumstances (I know you'll think this a positive reaction, but I'm clearly not appealing to your tastes) simply don't exist anymore, and that's a terrible shame for the film industry.

I hate to say it, but Star Wars would likely have been a technically average film if it were conceived as a standard 2015 Blockbuster (let's not kind ourselves, a modern movie studio would never take that kind of monetary risk on a stand-alone concept).

This isn't purely the debate of one method over another (at worst, I have deep but unequal respect for both mediums); this is a debate about the virtues of technical restrictions on filmmaking.

Now a technical restriction is not by definition a creative one, and therein lies the opportunity for innovation and the occasional wonders of "happy accidents."

I would love to see a CG platform that can somehow authenticate the randomness of nature and account for these accidents. You can fine-tune every blade of grass (here's looking at you James Cameron) without selling a visually-sensory believable landscape.

But that's the kind of cerebral fluff I'm looking to avoid.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want the merits of every medium to compliment and augment each other.

After all, why wouldn't you want a film world (specifically a genre-heavy film) to be as immersive and realistic as possible, and more importantly, why wouldn't you want to keep your audience out of the guesswork of special effects as much as possible?

Imagine what a puppetry film in the vein of The Dark Crystal could accomplish with modern CGI augmentation. Landscape mattes, eye blinks, enhanced leg movement - that's exactly the kind of mixed-approach that would honor the strengths and artistic merits of both mediums.

Neither practical or digital effects are going anywhere, and we need to get it out of our heads (and into the wallets of Hollywood studios) that they aren't each other's competition - not totally.

Yes, this is the "New Normal", we've just yet to strike a balance.

And yes, you're right about those Star Wars stills, but make no mistake: every single one of those Prequel set pieces could have been produced better suited to the actors, more immersive, and much cheaper.

I don't need to say which set of pictures remains more iconic and mythical.

 

You revel in the chance to laud the PT's technical achievement over a set of films made literally 30 years before. Way to go you hardliner you. But the PT's SFX haven't dated well. The CGI environments looked fake back then, even more so now. They're cartoonish. And yet despite all this, no creature in the PT looks as real as Jabba from ROTJ does. And exudes such convincing menace. Or conveys the real charm and humour as puppet Yoda from TESB. The human eye cannot be fooled. If such a puppet exudes character and charm? the audience will suspend their disbelief in it not being real. That's the filmakers aim. It's not about being old school. It's what works. For instance, look at the puppet that got nicknamed Bob. His face, his demeanour, portrayed real character. And as with the others mentioned, your mind knows he's really there. He's not a set of pixels (or whatever) designed to try and trick you. But whatever..

 

Subjective.

And its VFX, not SFX...

 

I find the CGI in the prequels to be more realistic than Jabba and the puppets in ROTJ. It's a matter of personal opinion, not fact. I don't think that the OT has dated well, more than the prequels.

 

Again, they are superheros. It's a matter of scale. A super hero can do those things. A Jedi can do some of those things. A human can do none of those things. That a jedi is not as capable as Superman is not debatable, imo.

And yes, I know matrix sequels used both (I rather enjoy the scene where Neo is fighting those dudes in the ballroom with weapons). I'm pointing out what people had a problem with, and that was rubbery digital doubles fighting each other. But digital models have certainly improved since then. Hulk could be describe as a rubbery model, but animation, resolution, and texturing have improved since the days of CG Neo. Also, Hulk is not actually a human, he's a huge mutant, so the degree to which he is capable stretches a little farther.

I expect any digital models used in TFA to look pretty dang good, as has been demonstrated with Gollum. Animation is more important at this point. Digital models should move with a degree of believability....again, a matter of scale. I expect a Jedi to be able to do things I personally can't do. I expect a super human alien to be able to do more than that, and so on. It's expectations based on our experiences of the laws of physics. They can be stretched a bit, but not indefinitely.

I'm not even making any statements of the Prequels...i'm just talking about digital effects in general at this point.