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

Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by themetresgained, May 13, 2013.

  1. -Jedi Joe- Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2013
    star 1
    Yes, both Star Trek movies and Super 8 were shot on film, but I'm not too sure about M:I3. I know he prefers film. He's got the king of motion picture tech to answer to, though...
  2. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    Logan's Run, which came out a year before SW, had some really good VFX. I mean, it was a pretty awful movie in almost every regard possible, but the VFX still hold up for the most part.
  3. Pfluegermeister Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Ahhhhh... not entirely. Old-school fan that I am, I still have to say that the miniature work depicting the gigantic exterior domes of that futuristic city was rather hokey. The shots of that model city reminded me of some future-era interpretation of those shots of the miniature town you see at the beginning of every episode of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. And given the technology of the time, I'm not sure what would have worked better. Matte paintings might have helped it to look less like it was a toy city, but then the shots would have been static and there were a LOT of moving shots of that city model. Not that I would endorse a remake of that film, but if there was one, that's actually a case where I would prefer all-out digital effects - but that's not the same thing as saying that approach would work in Star Wars.
  4. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Most of what gives away miniature work is scaling issues, water and smoke being two obvious ones. So, miniatures can face many of the same instances of "fake" that CG can. It's all about doing it well and sometimes using both to the betterment of the shot than some decree of all-CG or all-practical.
  5. Jedirush2112 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2013
    star 3
    Agreed. I think they should use both! Just don't use flares! J.J. No effen Flares!
    [face_shame_on_you]
    Darth_Pevra and Pro Scoundrel like this.
  6. The Hellhammer 7SA Forum Interrogator

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2012
    star 5
  7. Bobatron Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 3
    CGI gets so misunderstood. The use of computer generated effects is more prevalent than a lot of people seem to notice. Whereas a lot of it is ignored in other vaunted movies ranging from everything like Lord of the Rings to Pirates of the Caribbean to The Avengers, it looks like viewers are just going to be hypersensitive about every little detail in a STAR WARS movie. Yes it is obvious the prequels were used as modern-day ILM effects testbeds that led to refinement in other productions, but that isn't to say the sole problem with them was the effects instead of the screenplay or plotting or other aspects. People say they want to see models for vehicles simply because they know those were used originally. You're not going to see the same kinds of shots you've gotten use to seeing in movies like this. The "yeah but in all those other movies it was used to support a story rather than be the focus" is a bunch of crap. Just about every one of these crowdpleasers is full of trailer fodder visual effects money shots, lengthy complex action scenes that go on forever, physically impossible stunts just because they could be done. Unlike even the 2009 Star Trek, STAR WARS can't even show a real Golden Gate bridge in its shots. Most big budget movies now don't even let a skyscape or a car chase go unaltered. What looks like a simple shot of a carriage going down a street in London in Sherlock Holmes is completely artificial. Mindblowing and cutting edge visual effects are the reason why STAR WARS exists. It's not going to stop being pioneering for fabricated nostalgia.
    Last edited by Bobatron, May 18, 2013
  8. Darth Valkyrus Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 12, 2013
    star 4
    If CGI is of a very high quality, in terms of model detailing, textures and rendering, and is well executed in terms of movement and motion of CG elements, it can be better than anything that could be achieved using non-CGI effects.

    But badly done CGI on the other hand, is downright awful. CGI in movies tends to be either excellent, and un-noticable, or really horrible and something that takes you out of the experience.
    Blip and Sith-Lord-Gunray like this.
  9. WatTamborWoo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 22, 2011
    star 3
    This. And it goes for models.
  10. Darth Valkyrus Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 12, 2013
    star 4
    Motion is important too, as I touched on above. I've seen some films, even big budget hollywood productions, that have had quite detailed CG models, but ruined it by having their ships / planes / vehicles etc. move in ways that don't ring true to physics. The motion just looks fake.
    Sith-Lord-Gunray likes this.
  11. Sith-Lord-Gunray Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 7
    ^ You guys are right. But for the most part people in this thread seem to know nothing about what CGI actually is and where it's used vs. where it isn't :(
  12. Avnar Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2007
    star 2
  13. The-Eternal-Hero Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    Finger puppets in front of crayola crayon backgrounds, man, 'cause I want Old School...all the way back to First Grade! ;)
  14. The-Eternal-Hero Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    Sometimes more is more :p
    Last edited by The-Eternal-Hero, May 26, 2013
  15. ezekiel22x Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    Dogme 95 all the way. I want real Ewoks on the set, not costumed actors.
    VMeran likes this.
  16. Blip Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 5, 2004
    star 1
    Ugh. No, it really isn't (unless you mean "more awful"?) Because that Geonosis scene is downright hideous - I've seen old video game cutscenes that look at least as realistic.
  17. Team Padme Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    I'd say a mixture of both CGI and practical effects.
  18. The-Eternal-Hero Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    This looks "realistic"?

    [IMG]

    I don't go to SW for "realism". The Geonosis battle looks amazing, even today, eleven years after release.

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    All sfx age but that sequence is still stunning & impressive.

    Anyway, that's not what I was walking about. I was talking about ambition & scope. I'd rather see a fantasy film reach and fall a little short than stay safe and fail to engage my imagination.
    VMeran, Darth Chiznuk and FRAGWAGON like this.
  19. Blip Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 5, 2004
    star 1
    In your opinion. Personally I found the CGI in that movie way too obvious, and that was the issue. Good CGI should be realistic - ie, such that you don't immediately recognise it as being a computer generated effect.

    As for the giant blue elephant thing in the room? Well let's try to bear in mind that he was essentially a background spacefiller. and that the added extras in the special edition were FAR worse to look at. ;)
  20. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Riot Deterrent

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 7
    The speeder bike chase is the worst greenscreen work in the saga, imo. It has aged horrifically. Those trees are not at all in the same space as the bikes or actors.
    Visivious Drakarn likes this.
  21. The-Eternal-Hero Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    I don't think they're so bad to look at:

    [IMG]

    I think, given the director, it's a given that there will be a "blend" -- just as there was a blend in the OT of many different kinds of sfx. Unlike some fans I don't have any qualms with the cgi effects in the PT since they aren't just sfx they are part of a much bigger & more complex schema that GL conceived; the technology and the ideas flow in and out of each other, you can't separate them, so I take it for what it is. Overall, those fx stand up amazingly well, I saw TPM in 2012 on a big screen and it had hardly aged at all, which is astonishing. More importantly, a special effect is more than just a placeholder for something that can't be filmed because it doesn't exist, an engine for generating suspension of disbelief: Lucas understood this more than any other director I can think of, and his fx are always an organic extension of every aspect of his films, both narrative & purely aesthetic, that's what makes them special and imo superior to most other film fx.
    VMeran and Darth Chiznuk like this.
  22. Original Oatmeal Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 22, 2013
    star 1
    What's the difference between CGI and FX?
  23. FRAGWAGON Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    The new films will be made as all of them are nowadays, combining special effects, visual effects, and CG seamlessly.

    BTW thank you for posting those Geonosis images....those battle scenes are gorgeous. I especially love the Hailfire Droids!!
  24. FRAGWAGON Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    I feel like starting a thread asking, "Should episode VII use Sound or Moving Pictures?"
    The-Eternal-Hero likes this.
  25. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Riot Deterrent

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 7
    Please don't. It would be redundant. This thread is pretty much the thread you are considering. [face_plain]
    FRAGWAGON likes this.