Discussion How do you want the new films to be made? CGI or Practical FX?

I think there should be at least one character that isn't CGI...

 

I agree that the big planet shots should be CG. It's the only way to achieve that real alien feel. But IMO some of the best bits in the PT are Anakin and Padme in the Lake Country on Naboo, which is all sets and on-location shooting with a bit of CG where it's needed. I'm all for CG when it gives us amazing stuff like Utapau and Boga, but I definitely think some CG can look weird. Maybe it's just testament to the technology, but I can never get over how fake the ocean on Kamino looks.

 

I'll be disappointed if this is the first Star Wars movie that doesn't push the outer limits of film technology.

It's a false dichotomy, however. They're all just storytelling tools. Let's also acknowledge, what so many seem unaware of, that I-III had more models, miniatures, sets, and real locations than any in the whole Saga.

 

I get what you're saying here, however...
The Wizard of Oz was done with no CGI at all. For the first part of the film we believe we are in Kansas. After the tornado sequence, and Dorothy steps out into Oz...we are taken into a whole new vibrant world. It's obviously an MGM set, but the transformation draws the viewer into believing in it without question, no matter what our mind thinks we are seeing. The OT accomplished this in some respects (the Cantina scene in ANH comes to mind), by convincing the viewer that we are part of something 'other' than our own experience, and making us a part of it. The PT presents outlandish and visually stunning landscapes and environs, but we still on some level sense that they are unreal and we are left emotionally detached from them. They look cool and all, but we know it's just a movie.
I don't know what that small secret is...
If I have any issues with the PT it's that I was just watching a Star Wars movie, not IN the GFFA like felt I was with the OT.

 

Although, there had never been a movie that had been 40 to 50% CGI special effects. I think Sith was, like, 60%. I think it really affected the actors, who were looking around, wondering, what the hell is this?

Some of my favorite CGI is in the Special Edition of Episode IV...i.e., the Falcon blasting off from Mos Eisley and the X-Wing Squadron approaching the Death Star. I definitely believe in the use of CGI, but there needs to be balance. I say use what will BEST SERVE THE TELLING OF THE STORY. If it doesn't do that, don't use it. That's the best anyone can do.

 

I don't agree with this, but I'll go along. Examples?

 

Only when I saw an interview with Liam Neeson who was saying he felt there was no reference on set, only green screen, and GL would say, 'Don't worry about that, we'll take care of it later'. And Liam said that there were guys huddled behind computers, off set, and he didn't want to know what they were doing. Just an unease it seemed in him. I can only imagine trying to act and trying to imagine what's around you and so forth.

 

Hundreds of actors have expressed initial 'period of adjustment' type worries upon encountering acting in front of green screen for years since it's initial use. For many, it's an entirely new experience / acting environment that takes some getting used to.
Your claim was that it was evident in the final film which is, as of yet...without merit.

 

You want to know what people who are "not so much CGI this time" are really saying? We get that CGI is a part of making films these days; we just don't want it to be so damned obvious and cartoonish in execution. We ask only that it not wave its arms wildly for our attention while we're trying to concentrate on the story. We need subtlety in such effects so as not to distract from the drama. That's really it. That's all I ask. It's a highly achieavable goal.

Consider Prometheus - not the film itself, mind you, but the way the film was made. There was care taken to limit the use of green-screen sets except as extensions in the far background, which is where they work best. There was care taken to use physical puppet creatures and to limit the use of digital creatures to where such techniques were needed, not just to have them all over the place for the hell of it. I'll be happy to grant the large number of issues people could have with the film itself, but one thing I can't really argue with is that the filmmakers correctly balanced the use of traditional and digital effects. Follow that pattern for the ST, and I'll consider myself quite satisfied in that department.

 

In the end it doesn't matter what we want....the film will be made the way Lucasfilm wants it made.

That being said, I'd love more practical sets...not for the actors- who should know that 'acting' is only pretending, and that goes along with being a seven year old in a cardboard box say it's a spaceship -but for some behind the scenes pics that aren't all green or blue.

 

Consider Fisher reacting to the death of all she knew and loved, her home planet of Alderaan destroyed.....was a guy with a stick and some tape, waving his hand in front of a blue screen.

Now let's find Christopher Lee's commentary on greenscreen acting. You'll find his reaction was much more....actorly. Sam Jackson also.

 

Its a fine line really between the two.....

With CGI, you can make anything happen on screen. That's the plus side.

The downside of CGI is that often there is still issue with things looking like they do not really occupy the space they are in. Also, things are still often identifiable as CGI and distracting to scenes.

The plus side of practical FX is that the objects look like they are really there, but the downside is often that they don't look or move as well as CGI.

That being said, there is a difference between something looking "good" and looking "real".

I would prefer practical FX for things like scenes similar to the Cantina or Jabba's palace, and CGI for the space battles. I think the masks and rubber costumes are what give the OT great personality. Do they look real? No. Do they look good? Yes indeedy!!!

I think it would only make sense that they use both, but to what degree remains to be seen. Hopefully they are mindful.

 

I think you realistically need to push the CGI abilities in the film to achieve what they want. However, I would also hope for some practical set rather thconstant green screen for the sale of the actors. I find acting tends to be a bit stiffer and artificial when it is constantly done in front of a green background. I fully want high quality special effects though. Not sure if that balance is achievable as I know nothing about filmmaking.

 

Where CGI falls flat for me is with living beings. Jar Jar, various monsters from the PT, etc. I can't quite put my finger on it, but moving objects (other than maybe spaceships) just aren't 100% convincing with CGI. I've seen my share of CGI creatures in a zillion movies and aside from very few (District 9 being one), most alive CGI beings look fake to me. Use CGI for static shots, buildings, ships, etc. But living things suffer from the preciseness and smoothness of CGI. Remember in the special edition of A New Hope where the Jawa falls off the Ronto after its scared by the landspeeder? Ever watch that closely. It's terrible. It's like the Jawa had no inertia or weight. There's no front-to-back depth in CGI beings either. They are pieces of paper with shadows drawn on them. There's been a few CGI creatures that have looked very convincing, but nothing I've seen in the PT would count. I hope the ST simply doesn't NEED a bunch of creatures.

 

Moffster, I don't understand how Star Wars would never need a bunch of creatures.

 

Wait a minute Mr. Merit...I wasn't attempting to make that argument, as evident in my second response. I didn't "claim it was evident in the final film." You may have read it like that. My initial post went on to describe what I liked about CGI or where I think it works best.

But, in case that isn't satisfying...

I wasn't attempting an immutable fact, only an opinion, which is why I started the sentence with 'I think...' However, the performances in general were widely panned and, in my opinion, 'lifeless' or 'stilted' in general (especially TPM), which may be attributed, in part, to the use of CGI, the amount of which had never been used before in feature film. The acting may have suffered from a lack of direction, a preoccupation with digital effects, or both. Whatever the case, it is simply an opinion with which you may or may not agree. It matters little here.

Sometimes I'm tired of defending myself over something so trivial. Some folks like to take part of your post and run with it and try to score points on 'merit'. I didn't know the 'merit' patrol was out this evening. I gave you the thoughts I had in your question (you're welcome) but instead you have an issue over merit? Hilarious.

 

More sets & more on-location shots

I'm perfectly fine with the use of CGI, as well, for complex shots, for certain creatures, and even for some trickery in lightsaber duels & in manipulating the force. As long as it's not overbearing like it was in the PT, I think we'll be fine. JJ's Star Trek is a good indication of what I think we'll be getting. Hopefully we can get some dirty tech, instead of pristine, cleanliness everywhere, though.

 

use real sets, costumes, and models as much as possible when possible, but with a nice blend of CGI when needed. Some things have to be CGI, but don't over do it just because you can.

 

Balance. If we're gonna see the balance of the force - let's see the balance of the effects

 

Some things definetly call for a full on CGI blast and that's fine. On the other hand, I always found the decision to make all the Clone Troopers CGI somewhat silly and frankly unnecessary. They really look cartoonish at times, they don't have that "weight" and presence that a real guy in a suit of armor would have. Sticking a real person's head on the cartoon body only made things more awkward for me.

A good mix of CGI and practical is the way to go.

As for pushing the boundaries, I'm guessing that at this stage of technological advancement they can basically improve on image quality (4k resolution or something even more badass) and improve on CGI quality to make it more convincing. I'm not gonna talk about 3D or 4D or 6D or whatever the hell the latest gimmick is, because I consider it to be only that - a gimmick.
They might probably get a custom camera built for their needs or put together a wickedly sick machine to render all their wickedly sick CGI or shoot it all at bajillion frames per second or whatnot - but I mostly think that the advancements they make will be something the general audience will not really find important. Mostly very behind the scenes stuff that would be interesting just to people who are in the similar business or have an interest in that kind of technology.

 

I hope practical effects are used whenever they can be made to work well. For the rest, CGI should be used.

Clunkyness in vehicles is actual advantage because with a model you have real physics at work. It moves and behaves like a real object.
With CGI you simulate physics but a simulation will never be as good as reality.
The brain notices something is off subconsciously. Therefore, using models for vehicles is a good thing imo, even if you can't do everything with them. But a director can always mix scenes with models and those with CGI.