OT Models Vs. PT CGG

I was born in 1977, so I was not around for the original release of Star Wars, but I certainly grew up loving Star Wars. I do see ALOT of bashing of the PT on these boards, and much of it pertains to the prominant use of CGG.

Of course, reading this continous bashing of the new movies got me to thinking. Was there alot of "It looked bad, you can tell it's just a toy hanging from a string." when the original Star Wars was released? I mean, the OT did marvelous things for special effects and was truly revolutionary at the time but lets face it, there are certainly times when it's obvious that some things are puppets or just a model on a string.

The entire point to this is me looking at CGG as the up and coming technology in movies. Lucas was a pioneer for special effects back in 1977 (And effects improved from there), and I believe that he is a sort of Pioneer for effects now in the "Computer Age". I realize he isn't the only one using CG, but he did alot with it and perhaps the things he did now will allow other directors and the viewing audiences a chance to enjoy better effects again somewhere down the road.

Carnage

 

I think it all matters on timing. For instance, back in '77 no one had ever seen a movie quite like Star Wars ... or it's special effects. Since it was all new to them, of course it looked real (even though we look back on it now and go "Oh yeah right", ). Today it's the same thing. Computer Graphics are the models of the future. Since we've never really seen a movie packed with CG like Star Wars is/was, it looks great to us. But now that people have the ability to look back on it, some may say that it looked crappy and unreal in parts.

Anyway, there will always be people who don't like a movie for one reason or another.

 

basically if it looks real its a model if it looks cg its cg

 

CG makes good inanimate object. For instance, I thought the battle droids and General Grievous looked very good. Organic objects? Not so much. I prefer rubber masks, especially in the cases of Yoda and Jabba.

 

If I see a postt from you, I know It's a bash and does not give any further back up words to explain your opinion.

I think both look great. Sure some puppets look fake, but so does some CGI.

 

BOTH!

Basically, you use the technology that is available to you at the time.

That said, there are quite a number of "actual" sets, models and miniatures used in the Prequel Trilogy.

 

The complaints about the SW movies have never changed that much over the years. It's always been about stuff like the acting, the dialogue, and the amount of special effects.

ANH may look relatively light on the SFX these days, but back in '77 there was just nothing else that had so much effects work in it. And some people didn't like all of that, complaining that they wantes real actors rather than 'fake rubber masks'.

 

Lucas is a pioneer in special effects, he just goes a bit overboard sometimes.
There are a few moments in the PT when I think - hold back on the CG a bit and give us a close-up action shot for a change. Particularly in the Obi-Wan/Vader duel.

Having said that, it is a bit pointless to complain about CG in a movie that involves lightsabres.

Who liked the puppet version of Yoda better? I don't know why, but the puppet feels more real, even in The Phantom Menace.

 

...And there's the attitude that explains why a lot of people complain about cg- because they don't know what they're talking about, and frequently assume that any effects that don't look right simply don't look right because they're cg. Meanwhile, it's assumed that all the good effects work is being done with models. (Even though there's way more to CG than replacing models- what about the latex masks, matte painted backgrounds, special effects and so on.)

Also, bear in mind that "CG" is a broad phrase which means different things to different people. I mean, if one model is filmed with a computer controlled camera, and then another model is filmed with the same camera (computer controlled so that it moves in exactly the same way), then the two shots are composited together with bluescreen, would you call that CG? Because that's a technique that was pioneered in the making of the original Star Wars. What if computers are used to make an effect as though lights from one of the models light up areas of the other- something that would be virtually impossible using "traditional" compositing methods- is that CG?

The issue I personally have with the CG use in the prequels isn't anything to do with the quality compared to models/minatures/sets etc, but the techniques used. George Lucas's direction isn't exactly "hands on" when it comes to working with actors, so when the sets they work with consist of a big blue room, they are acting with a ball on a stick and talking to someone who is sitting off the side of the set, they aren't going to naturally feel as involved as, for example, an actor surrounded by dozens of fully costumed characters in a full scale set that's been built with far more detail than the camera could possibly capture. For some actors, that's just another challenge- possibly one helped by having a background of working in theater, where more is left to the imagination than filmed mediums. For other actors, that's a problem which shows in their performances.

Personally, I think the only times that the CG in Star Wars ever really stands out as being obviously CG are in the Special Editions, and occasionally in the OT where live action actors interact with CG creatures (eg. Anakin riding the walking potato on Naboo- although shots of Obi Wan riding the lizard thing in ROTS look far better.)

 

^^ Great Post.

I would also be interested to see what are the age groups of people who don't like CG. I'm willing to bet that most of them are "older" then the generation of CG and strictly want to see models since that's what their used to.

 

I think it is hard for people who weren't around in '77 to appreciate how "special" the special effects were back then--they were unlike anything we had seen, we were still used to at best 2001: A Space Odyssey, realistic, but not exciting, or Star Trek (the original with Kirk & Spock), where they were really cheesy. The models in Star Wars and Empire were amazing and unlike anything that came previously, so it was easy to suspend disbelief, even if you could see a matt-line, etc. The problem with CG is not that it isn't reasonably realistic, but rather that it is relatively mundane and not very "special"--it is very familiar to us now from everyday life: video games, the internet, etc. and no longer is "exciting"--therefor we say "this pod-race scene looks like a video game", this hurst our suspension of disbelief, and to some degree our movie going experience. Case in point: the Tomb Raider movies actually came from a video game, not the other way around!

 

the only reason the cg bothers me in the pt espescially with the clone troopers is that they don't really match up with the ot stormtroopers. i think models wouldve been nice for the ships espescially the prototype star destroyers in ep 2 and 3 but whaddya gonna do? didn't they use more models for the spaceships in ep 1?

 

Yes, they did.

I didn't have a problem with the Clone Trooper's CG. I thought it looked real and I had to be told later on that they were all CG. Couldn't believe it.

 

Actually, the one shot that REALLY bugged me in ROTS was when Count Dooku dropped the railing onto an unconcious Obi-Wan. It is quite obvious that it's a puppet. With all the CG in the movie, it's actually the part with a puppet that makes me cringe.

Anyway, thanks for the responses. There just seems to be so much PT bashing (On this board and among people I know), it irritates me. To me, the entire Saga is great, and I am quite glad they were all made. Some of the 6 movies are better than others but in my mind "There are heroes on both sides."

Of course, many of the CG bashers LOVE Knights of the Old Republic. Thank god they used puppets for that game or they probably wouldn't have liked it.

Carnage

 

Hey, I'm only 14, and I really like the OT effects and stuff better than the Pt and CGI.

 

Has anyone even researched what was a physical model and what was not in the PT? I know lots of detailed ones were built, one prequel has more models the the Entire OT combined.

 

well, which prequel was it smart-guy?

 

I remember the OT on the big screen as a child. I remember the breathtaking effects, and how the OT pushed the envelope on technology for all future films. I do remember even as a 12 year old watching ROTJ thinking how fake Jabba and Sarlacc looked, the "scratchy" appearance of the fire from Boba Fett's jet pack looked. (Things like ESB Tauntauns, some of Yoda are other examples...)Other things like the speeder bike scene in Jedi, the ESB and ROTJ lightsaber duels, were perfect. The Death Star end battle in ANH was magical seeing it as a 6 year old, but the SE CG additions (imho)made it that much better and realistic.
I do think the CG in the prequels were amazing. The planets and their landscapes (Naboo and Alderran stand out). In ROTS, part of the volcano action on Mustafar, the Utapau sinkholes were models. While the space battles were amazing, I think OT models actually looked more realistic. The tradeoff (I'm guessing) was how real the ship's movements were. The PT looks sterile in all the shots with live actors standing around "just acting". Live sets apparently are a big difference. But creating the Jedi Temple, the Senate floor, etc. was impossible to pull off. But in the same thread, scenes in AOTC like Padme's apartment, Dexter's diner, would have been better with real sets.
Could the PT's have looked better with more real models? I go back to the SE OT...I think it's the right amount of real and CG. Most the CG that was added to the OT special editions enhanced the appearance of live sets during acting dialogue scences, and additions to the action sequences were mostly enhancements to scenes shot with models. They were laser blast changes, or 10 second scenes leading into shots with models. Again, the theme is enhancement, not using it to tell the whole story. I think the dilema Lucas had is that the PT story was so "big". I mean a full scale war with thousands of ships, jedi, clones and droids...many of the scenes were distanced shots that had so many things (or so many people) in it that it could only be done CG.

The bottom line is I do love all 6 films, with two prequels being in my "top 3" list. Anyone bashing PT due to the acting might have a valid point since they were at least 95% CG.


I hope everyone can get what I'm trying to say from this rambling!

 

The post before this one reeks of someone who has not watched the prequel documentaries or read any of the making of books. 95 percent CG?, It's not that much.

 

. But in the same thread, scenes in AOTC like Padme's apartment, Dexter's diner, would have been better with real sets.

Funny thing is, those WERE real sets. Does a set or lack thereof automatically make the acting good or bad? I say B.S. People complained about the acting in scenes that took place or fully built sets, like the AOTC fireplace scene and on location in Italy on the Veranda where Padme and Anakin first kiss.
Padme's Coruscant Apt was a fully built set, only the windows had a background place digitally, what else were they supposed to do? Does the fact that Coruscant was not really out the windows & the actors only saw greenscreen, not the city, automatically make the acting bad?

 

That said, there are quite a number of "actual" sets, models and miniatures used in the Prequel Trilogy

Thank you! Model bashing and CG praising often obscures this. Unlike, say, Plan 9 From Outer Space, the models used in the originals were not just hanging on strings. Early test footage was like this, but Lucas scrapped it (creating budget problems), and so the resulting footage we have now is models held stable by rods or pylons. Look at the detail on them. While optical compositing isn't what digital compositing is, the models themselves are very detailed, realistic, and believable.

One needs only look at behind the scenes footage of TPM, or the miniature featurettes for Episodes II and III, to see the extensive use of models in the prequels. Though TPM was the last footage to use models for exterior space scenes, the prequels arguably use models to a greater extent than the originals did, for both interior and terrestrial environments.

TPM:
Republic transport: model
Trade Federation ship: model
Trade Federation hangars: models
Gungan City: Model
Theed: model
Mos Espa Pod Racing Stadium: Model

AOTC:
Exterior of Padme's apartment: Model
Coruscant skyline: models
Tipoca city interiors: models
Geonosian Execution arena: model

ROTS:
Utapau sinkhole: models
Mustafar: models with a single CG building
Kashyyyk: location plates supplemented by models.

 

Jedi Library and hallways in AOTC were miniature/models.

 

I look at it this way. When GL made the OT, he had two artists that I'm aware of (Ralph McQuarrie, and Joe Johnston) and a whole army of model builders since the model building is so time consuming. When GL made the PT, he didn't need an army of model builder since most of what would have been models would be CGI. Instead, GL had an army of artists and conceptual designers. This gave him more options when it came time to select designs for the films. I think this benefited the PT greatly as it is much more visually striking than the OT. Imagine if GL had a similar design team on the OT and there was more than one or two competeing designs for the ships, vehicles, and locations. Don't get me wrong, RMQ and JJ did world class work for the OT (some JJ designs were even used in ROTS), but visually the OT can't hold a candle to the PT. Does anyone really think the PT would be better if there were still matte lines around the ships because they were models shot in front of bluescreen instead of being seamlessly inserted into the film using computer animation techniques, and all the ships blew up the same exact way because ILM blew the models with squib charges and only had time to film one per ship design?

 

Original, photorealistic CGI models take at least as much time and effort to put together as models.

 

Without turning this into a bashing thread, I will agree. I can't get over that little part either.

The whole Models v. CG is really an argument with technology. Lucas is just going where technology is at. He wants to put us in this fantasy world with things that people have never dreamed of ... CG allows him to add things into backgrounds, foregrounds ... everywhere.