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

"But George....what's my motivation?"

 

I did not miss the point, I made a different one. There wasn't very much on location shooting done in the prequels and it shows, you are always very aware that the characters are moving around in a limited space. It does not trick the eye. What I, and many others, are talking about is that there should be more on location shooting. The reliance on CGI in the prequels was too much. And it shows.

 

That's right. Still some of the best CG to date. Yes folks, most of the ship battles were CG, not miniatures(although they did shoot a real storm around the Cape and incorporate it into their CG footage, those crazy buggers). ILM did the end ship to ship battle and the opening battle more specifically. The rest was mostly Asylum fx with Digital Backlot doing the Galapgos island sequence and Weta Workshops huge scaled miniature incorporated sporadically into some of Asylum's composites.

 

Probably my favorite non-Star Wars movie. Plus I'm obsessed with the books, so that helps too.

 

You don't really want to argue locations, I hope.

 

I would say it's one of my fave films of the last 10 years. It's just a good, solid film with a terrific director. Never read the books but understand they combined a few of them into the script for the film and changed some of the nations involved. herd they are working on a possible sequel surrounding...........a courtroom case. Please don't. We already had Amistad.

 

Just say what you have to say, I'm a big boy

 

I would agree there should be more location shooting. JJ also loves to shoot his action set pieces with actual set pieces and even some in-camera stuff so there's that to look forward to. However, the prequels had alot of location shooting, even in the vfx work.

It's really the execution that I have a problem with, not the lack of actual location footage or vfx location plates.

That said, there is alot of really tremendous vfx work in the PT, CG, miniature, combo, whatever. I just don't want them doing any blanket "well it's all-CG for this" unless absolutely necessary. Whatever is the best way. And when you have your AOTC fx sup, Ben Snow, arguing to build at least one clone trooper practical suit for Geonosis, just one,LISTEN TO HIM. That's why you have him there:to get the best results.

 

Tatooine and Naboo were about it. They used some other location shots in composites, but the scenes on those two planets are about the only ones that were actual on location filming and not some combination of soundstage and composite

 

Yes but for TPM that was about half of the film.

I will point out another ingenious ILM fx sequence: JJ Abram's own Mission Impossible 3's opening sequence in Singapore. They shot it in Singapore and on-stage. They then combined that footage and it's flawless. You could conceivably do something similar for a Coruscant cityscape as the foundation and then enhance it with CG buildings here and there to make it look more futuristic and SW-ish.

 

Yes, half of one film out of three complete films. Add in Naboo in Attack of the Clones, maybe you have somewhere around three quarters of one film in a full three film set.

I just think going forward a more natural approach would be nice

I want to be clear on something here too, I'm not trying to PT bash here. But this thread is about what we want going forward. I think more balance in this area would be good

 

Well, I think it depends on the story. Some stuff will just have to be built as sets on stages.

But you can combine the two together. Location shooting and stages.

Did you see STID? There's an terrific shot of Uhura getting off the shuttle set and walking, in seemingly one camera move, no cuts, onto a ILM Kronos digital set. And it works because you cant see the seams(I only knew what it was because they didn't go out and shoot Kronos on location. )

That's the kind of hybrid approach Abrams has pushed a bit working with ILM and I hope he takes it to the next level on Ep 7.

 

I did, and I think Abrams does a fantastic job blending CGI and practical effects. I am very happy with him as the choice to helm the next film. I think you and I are on about the same page here

 

I hope they don't have critters and people looking directly into the camera. That stuff always takes me right out of the movie.

 

Unless its eddie murphy.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have not posted on these forums since before Star Wars Episode II was released in the theater. With a ten year hiatus from TheForce.net, I am back due to my excitement of the sequel trilogy. I am stoked regarding the fact that JJ Abrams is at the heart of making the sequel trilogy a reality; a reality in which Star Wars may become a mainstream phenomenon once again. I honestly feel that the films in the sequel trilogy could rival Return of the Jedi and A New Hope in terms of film quality. I have never been so excited to see a fresh take on the Star Wars saga, which I feel was ultimately damaged during the production of the Prequel Trilogy. I am not ashamed to be a Star Wars fan, and I do not mind to say that I do enjoy each of the films, but I also want to share my love of Star Wars with others. This task has become difficult since most of the non-Star Wars fans feel that the entire saga is similar to the Prequel Trilogy films. I am ready for Star Wars to become a mainstream collection of films that get people as excited as they were when waiting for the Lord of the Rings films, Harry Potter Films, Twilight Films, and Marvel superhero films. Many of you may want Star Wars to remain being loved only by die hard Star Wars films, but I want HIGH QUALITY films that can be made to attract anyone! I would love for Star Wars to become a beloved series of films much like the other films mentioned above.

I do, however, have one fear for the Sequel Trilogy. While I enjoy the look, feel, and atmosphere of the new Star Trek films, I am overly nervous regarding the excessive use of CGI that are used in the films. I am not sure of the issue with modern computer generated effects, but CGI tends to look more and more unrealistic for each successive year in the movie industry. JURASSIC PARK still remains as some of the best use of CGI I have ever witnessed in a film, but the latest special effects contained in MAN OF STEEL look incredibly absurd.

To be completely honest, I am not the largest fan of the CGI used in JJ Abrams' films. STAR TREK and SUPER 8 do include many scenes with excessive CGI with the exploding train from SUPER 8 being one of the most laughable scenes in special effects history.

The film is "Star Wars" and I realize that the use of models has become taboo in modern films, but I am hoping that the production team involved with the Sequel Trilogy take the route of trying to create action scenes in the same vein as the Danial Craig James Bond films such as CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL. JJ needs to understand, contrary to popular current Hollywood beliefs, that scenes such as the following are not necessary to make Star Wars Episode VII a success:
- Our heroes fighting a generic CGI creature
- Our heroes running through a CGI environment while being chased
- Long shots of our heroes fighting opposing forces in a clearly obvious CGI shot
- Obligatory swooping shots around landscapes in which everything in the shot is CGI

Am I not the only one worried about the possibility of the overuse of CGI or the insertion of unnecessary CGI scenes? Let us discuss!

 

If you are referring to the chase in the begin of Into Darkness that was partially filmed on a real set. Whenever you saw close-ups of the protagonists a real set was shown.

 

I thought Peter Jackson did an excellent job of combining CGI with real sets and actors in The Lord of the Rings. Here's hoping JJ takes a lesson from that. And if he tries to put a lens flare on a lightsabre, I will personally accept his apology.

 

Welcome back. I'm hoping it won't be excessive, but I've resigned myself to the fact it'll be modern techniques, and I'm down with that.

Here's much of what other people have been thinking about JJ, EPVII and CGI;

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-quality-of-cgi-for-vii.50010386/

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...ilms-to-be-made-cgi-or-practical-fx.50012187/

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/original-trilogy-aliens-vs-prequel-cgi-aliens.50008708/

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/abrams-and-cgi.50008931/

 

- Our heroes fighting a generic CGI creature Generic, no. An original, very cool CGI creature? Yes. They are capable of it. It has been done.
- Our heroes running through a CGI environment while being chased Yes, some CGI environments are cool, or partially CGI.
- Long shots of our heroes fighting opposing forces in a clearly obvious CGI shot Clearly and obvious? No. Make it CGI, make it good.
- Obligatory swooping shots around landscapes in which everything in the shot is CGI Obligatory?

Am I not the only one worried about the possibility of the overuse of CGI or the insertion of unnecessary CGI scenes? You are not the only one, but I think they will do a good job. They read the internet and media and watch movies also. I am sure they get the picture.

 

* Thread merge. *

 

Yeah, because Mustafar was obviously all CGI...oh...wait...


Ok then, Utapau was all CGI...oh...wait...again?


Ok... then it must've been Kashyyk.... uh...uhoh... not again...


Gotta love it when CGI is so good people can't tell the difference between a model and CGI.

 

Wh00ps, I had typed it that way, then corrected it... not sure how it ended up the wrong way again.