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

This is a whole new generation of Star Wars and it should get all the trimmings available. 3d, Extreme Digital Cinema, Imax, the whole nine yards. Star Wars was the movie that pushed the envelope concerning High tech, There's no reason to run the other way now.

 

This just in: the camera JJA will film E7 with!

 

Not really. I find the PT to be an awkward, stilted, masturbatory mess. There are a few moments here and there that are solid, but the trilogy, as a whole, leaves me cold. And, no, I don't feel that way because I'm a mindless sheep who merely parrots what the more vocal internet critics say. I felt that way from the get-go.

I'm honestly at a loss. To me, Geonosis is a jumbled mess of brown and incredibly unrealistic-looking hordes of Clone Troopers surrounded by even more unrealistic-looking droids and ships. None of it looks like it happens in reality, and the few instances we have of the real actors in that space just highlights how disconnected it all is for me.

Hoth was obviously stop-motion, but it feels more real to me because the walkers are real models, which displace snow, and have real bits come off when they explode. Luke tethering himself to that piece of metal above him helps bridge that reality gap.

Hoth may be small scale, but I think it still looks far more impressive than Geonosis. A bunch of stuff colliding with a bunch of explosions doesn't impress me, especially when all that stuff is CG cannon fodder. It's a spectacle, but it doesn't mean anything. Yeah, unnamed mooks die by the dozen at Hoth, too, but they're real mooks and the battle actually has significance and tension. The climactic battle in AotC doesn't matter. There's no risk, no tension, no excitement, mainly because the heroes are removed from it. It's plastic army men fighting other plastic army men. Woohoo.

 

The thing is, I'm not really sure the debate here should encompass whether the films should be in 3D, Extreme Digital Cinema, IMAX, or the whole nine yards. Those are all matters of presentation, not of visual effects. If I were to be perfectly honest with myself, regardless of how the visual effects were done in any of the previous films, I'm quite certain any or all of them would indeed look fine in IMAX, 3D or any other presentation format you care to cite - provided the effects themselves look good to begin with. That's why ANH (the least modern of the films) would probably look just as good in those formats as Episode VII (soon to be the most modern of them) can be anticipated to look. It's not a question of whether or not it should be in all the modern formats; it's a question of how the visual effects will be done before it ever gets to the stage where it can be converted to IMAX, to 3D or to anything else.

And as far as "running the other way from pushing the envelope" is concerned, that's not what we're asking for. We just want an end to the period of having effects just for the sake of having them. We ask only to remind the people at Disney/LFL of Lucas' own words, spoken in the decade prior to the PT, which are every bit as true today as the day he said them in 1987: "Special effects are only a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an end to themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." In other words, we want the effects to enhance the emotion in the drama, not make up for the absence of emotion in the drama, which is what happens all too often in movies these days (with some very noteworthy exceptions, such as Looper).

Simply put, I want mind-meat and heart-potatoes with my eye-candy. It's not too much to ask for.

 

I think there's a very effective sense of tension developed through the initial landing scenes on Geonosis up through the arena battles. This is lessened after the clones arrive (at least in terms of the large scale), but that's pretty much the point to me. The Jedi/Republic get something that allows them to hand out a pretty thorough drubbing, and thus the security they earn that day lulls them into the more ambiguous long-term military conflict that will ultimately be their demise.

And AOTC looks gorgeous. I don't have anything inherently against video game cut scenes, though. In fact I can name several video game directors whose work I find much more emotionally meaningful than that of Abrams.

 

LOL! Yep.

 

Same is true of someone who insists stop-motion is better. They've made up their minds; you can't talk to them either.

The stop-motion tauntaun we see Luke riding in the beginning of the holy ESB looks every bit as fake as the anti-CGI crowd claims CGI does. So does the stop-motion Luke on its back, for that matter.

 

Let me help you:









































Yeah that's a real tragically ugly movie GL had there!

Now, this was the dawn of digital cinema and it doesn't look as photo realistic as CG fx do now, 11 years later, but it's beautiful to look at. It might not be to your taste, but it's far from being "a mess".

 

I don't know anyone who would argue stop motion for photorealism in creatures or animals is better than CG animation. That argument has been settled.

edit: Qui Riv Brid that's right about PJ's The Hobbit. Originally, it was assumed it was due to scaling issues for the miniatures in 3D, but later PJ revealed it was more his choice to go all-digital.

 

Hero, you forgot some of those gorgeous dustcloud shots from the Geonosis battle.

I could watch 30 more minutes of the Battle of Geonosis. Great vehicles, the Retro looking clonetroopers with those cool helmets, all the dust and smoke and dirt flying everywhere. And the sounds! I LOVE the sound of the Larties.

 

It should be, but go to the OT forum. You'll see many people advocating stop motion over CGI.

 

People just don't know what they are asking. This "purist" mindset is misplaced in this subject. STAR WARS throughout history has been innovating and technologically cutting edge. There could be all kinds of visual effects being cooked up here, or enhanced. Surely body doubles, more WETA-like technology. For all we know, Luke, Han, and Leia are going to be made to look fifteen years younger with technology that will look very convincing by that time, but of course people will swear up and down (and left and right and B and A) that they won't look real simply because they'll have the knowledge that visual effects will be used.
I'm all for the OT staying as it is, or was, whatever, as well as other movies from the past and the past techniques don't hinder my enjoyment at all, BUT for the new movies, no matter what you think you want, you want modern visual effects if you want to see:
>Cityscapes and multiple elements integrated into them, such as people.
>this movie come out by 2015. Productions don't have time for that kind of trial and error. The opening crawl is not going to be made with a camera shooting a plate angled a certain way and repeated when the speed or light isn't quite right.
>Water and other elements rendered and scaled properly. Do you think sea scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean should have been filmed like Time Bandits? Yes, Master and Commander looks awesome, but it's not the same kind of action.
>Spaceships and other stuff realistically exploding rather than just turning into fireballs, and in shots that aren't just locked off.
>People interacting with creatures without limiting the shots and cutting between close-ups of actors with props and wider shots of stop-motion models.
>Luke, Han, and Leia doing anything physically exerting without looking like a stunt double was used. Digital doubles, faces put on stunt performers...that stuff was being done in 1999.
>CGI also hides cables, harnesses, reflections, camera rigs, shadows, mistakes, extras looking at the camera, allows for movements to be customized accordingly after pacing choices are changed post-production, the list goes ONNNNNNN...
This shouldn't even be a question.

 

I love how Luke looked like in most of his fights. Dirty, sweaty, with messed up hair, downright ugly at points. I feel it really added an authentic feel to most of his fights. If they can recreate this somehow (with makeup, cgi, good costumes, whatever), I would be a happy puppy.

 

Herp: Blahg! I hope theres no fruit for dinner!
Derp: Whadoyoumean! Fruit is amazing! I hope we just have fruit!
Herp: What?! Are you serious? Fruit is disgusting, I would rather have potatos.
Derp: Listen. Fruit is the best, and heres why. It's sweet, it's weirdly shaped, it has a crisp texture and a thin red skin.
Herp: You are bonkers! This is why Fruit sucks. It's sour, its round, it has a squishy texture and a thick orange skin!
Derp:You're and idiot! Fruit rocks.
Herp: Fruit is an idiot! You suck!

 

"Fruit is an idiot!"

Hahah, I'll have to end a few arguments by screaming that.

 

Even Master and Commander had some gorgeous waterworks courtesy of guess who? ILM

 

Thanks.

I also found this article:

HTML:

http://vfxrocket.com/2012/08/13/the-hobbit-special-effects-to-be-all-cgi-no-miniatures-allowed/

So there you go. So it's very likely that the ST will use less "practical" SFX than the PT did.

Again I want to stress that I love all the movies and think they are all great and think all the techniques used in all of them were tremendous for their times. All things age and date and again I say SO WHAT?

I can't truly wrap my head around why some people think that the PT which uses every trick in the book used on the OT and all the new ones thinks they look messy and terrible.

I can only think it's somehow that the "fake" of the OT is somehow more "real" as fake as it is while the PT "fake" is somehow faker and unreal fake as opposed to real fake.

As I've said when I tell people about all the models, sets etc used in the PT they scoff and say it was all CGI. It takes an effort to explain the difference between CGI and digital compositing with models, miniatures, matte painting etc with CGI additions.

It's like with people who don't like the story of the prequels want to blame the effects. It's not the effects. If you can't accept the story and style that GL wanted and planned then you can't.

Fine that's your choice. It's not the OT. It wasn't trying to be. It's a story about a civilized and elegant age with different relationships between people of a formalized old school nature. It's not the "family and friends" atmosphere of the OT. These people are colleagues and acquaintances more than "friends" and that informs how the characters interact. Things are supposed to be beautiful.

By the same token the ST will likely be about family in a very chaotic world with things in a precarious state and if they don't start out that way it soon will change.

I do have to wonder about all the people who apparently don't watch the extras on the DVD's of the PT. They would be amazed at all the sets that are totally or mostly built as well as all the extras used, models, miniatures etc etc.

Also striking is that for people who complain about the actors being "forced" to use their imagination the exact same thing was said by the OT actors. They also had nothing behind them or parts of sets and the like.

 

From what I can tell, a lot of people don't watch those extras on DVDs/Blu-Rays. I've known people really into movies and follow movies who just don't care about that, yet they tend to seek out "Special Editions" and stuff to buy.) I could understand if someone doesn't want to see the illusion explained but those people shouldn't then go on ranting with false ideas about how the movie was made.
I also don't get this assumption that actors have nothing to work with on "blue screen sets". Like Hayden Christensen said, "it's like theater in a way." But then, heck, a lot of people aren't familiar with live stage performances.

I remember a comment on the Black Hawk Down DVD where it was said Ridley Scott complained the audience would think the helicopters flying troops into the city street was all CGI.
Even stuff that is "all CGI" is impressive. It boggles me mind to think of the painstaking artistry, attention to detail, programming, and animating of all those elements on screen, just as much as it does to draft up a list of shots, imagine the flow of the action, and get the right cameras to end up with the final cut.

 

It may just be the presentation. The first time in the theater that whole sequence was awesome to see. The action and set pieces just kept going and going, with new vehicles, and the STAR WARS fan mindwarp of seeing what were basically stormtroopers fighting alongside Jedi. In repeat viewings, it gets a little slow during the battlefield part and cuts back to the war room and it just feels like I'm waiting until Padme falls out and the duels. It is still an impressive sight. ANYWAY, the Geonosis battle on The Clone Wars show felt more intense, so it's not really about the visual effects but the primary characters actually being involved in the action. In Attack of the Clones, Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme were just riding along watching it until they spotted Count Dooku.
Oops, I didn't realize I was double posting.

 

The whole Star Wars fans vs CGI is getting a bit stale. Oh nevermind, I guess Star Wars (PT) is the only films to ever use CGI....

 

Most of us aren't "Vs" CGI. We simply want a more balanced approach to it. I think we all see the benefits of CGI in general.

 

Tom, this. You guys seem to miss this point. Find out more about the making of Episodes I-III, you'll enjoy it!