PT Practical Effects in the Prequels- Sets, Pictures, Models, etc.

The CGI on the clones looks amazing still. I can tell it's CGI based on movement but in that still pic, can't even tell. ROTS really is impressive when it comes to CGI imo.

 

I think General grievous also looks really good today!!

 

Agree. I'd say most of it holds up really well. Hell, i'd say it's still the prettiest SW film imo. It has its own unique style thanks to Lucas. TFA also looks good but JJ's style is more in line with generic action sci fi films imo.

 

imo , Grievous and the all of the battledroids have aged incredibly well, they look great.

 

I agree that some of the helmetless clone shots are kind of wonky, but that one is actually really good, I think. If I didn't already know, I don't think I'd be able to tell that wasn't a physical costume.

 

Not sure if this interview has been posted before, but here´s an interview Ewan McGregor did with the Hollywood reporter:

https://www.businessinsider.nl/ewan-mcgregor-star-wars-george-lucas-2016-10/?international=true&r=US

In this interview he recalls his embarrasing first meeting with George Lucas, and the changing environments from TPM to ROTS.

 

Literally, this same thing he said was posted almost a year ago. About the same thing....In this very thread...Again..

"Green Screen, Blue Screen etc complaints etc" I know, I've heard him multiple times say it. Not to be rude, but does this have a real reason being in the thread?....For a thread all about practical effects, from time to time, it starts to get post like this for some reason.

Also, the interview was already made a thread just a little while ago(I think...Could be wrong...Probably was just a regular post...)

 

Well, it discusses the different approaches towards practical effects going from TPM to ROTS. So, in that respect it's relevant to a discussion about practical effects in the prequels. Also, a number of posts preceed it discussing how great the CGI looks on the clone troopers, and how well the CGI holds up. It's a bit odd, that you didn't comment on the relevancy of that discussion, as that certainly wasn't related to any practical effects. Or does it have more to do with not liking Ewan's comments about green screen?

 

Uh huh....And I've seen you on multiple threads argue on a subject thats not relevant to the discussion either. But I'm sure we've all had derails in threads not about the topic (why, I just did it a while ago). So you tryin to sway the point on me ain't gonna work.


It was that low key "Green screen" talk that was to be brought up with that post. I know, because I've seen post like this link something that is somewhat relevant to the discussion only to realize that it's a small pin on the PT. Trying to be really stealthy bout it.. The interview wasn't my issue in the slightest. It wasn't the comment, it was the actual post being used in a certain context.

You only made my point more but are right about it's relevancy.

Come on now, you tellin me your posting that link here NOT to have an ulterior motive? You're whole "changing environments" in context is more about Ewans disdain towards green screen and what not. Which is what this thread argued about not too long ago.

"Hey everyone, here's a link to Ewan talking about his continued disconnect to the PT CGI"

Which is what I really got from that. While Ewan was on about his embarrassment, the heart of it all was mostly on his blue screen/green screen talk. Because lets be honest, someone would have quoted you about his comment on that, then it would have turned out another argument on sets vs CGI. I'm not totally fly on that.

 

You can take from the interview what you want. I certainly prefer the visuals of TPM to those of AOTC, mostly because IMO AOTC overused digital technology that hadn't matured enough by that point .I think ROTS fared much better, because by then they were far better at blending the digital environments with it's surroundings. Although I'll admit I never understood why GL decided to replace R2-D2 with a pretty obvious CGI model.

To summarize, I think TPM probably has the best blend of CGI and practical sets of the PT, and IMO has some of the best visuals of the entire saga thusfar.

 

Well, if we want to be fair, practical effects has its own weaknesses as CGI. For example, the visual effects in ROTJ haven't aged as well as TESB. Just as the CGI in AOTC hasn't aged as well as in ROTS...

 

I have always felt that the only reason the wide shot of the clone army at the end of AOTC didn't look more "realistic" was cos it was sunset. IMO if it were broad daylight-or even better, night, it would look much better-perhaps even just as real as the same shot of the FO in TFA.

I agree, SW Saga Fan, that both practical effects AND CG looks dated years later. And that was always the thing that got to me, when people argue one over the other; they ALL look fake eventually! IMO comparing CG Yoda to puppet Yoda is like comparing apples to apples. IMO one is not more or less realistic than the other-they're each better (and worse) for different things. I mean when all is said and done, they're BOTH fake!

I have always had a hard time hearing arguments that models are better than CG rendered ships, or matte paintings are better than a CG rendered environment. I mean, how does the background on Geonosis or Mustafar look any more fake than the background while they're sailing to the Sarlacc pit in the early part of ROTJ? How is Bespin or Hoth more realistic-looking than a background shot of the Coruscant cityscape? My point is I think there are limitations (and strengths) to both types of technology. And each method was innovative-for its time. Now we have the ST, where it's a very nice blend of BOTH-which IMO is fantastic!

 

The PT was far more a blend of both than the ST is. The ST is overwhelmingly more CGI than the prequels were.

 

If that's true, The_Phantom_Calamari,

Then I'm quite glad to be mistaken here!

 

Well, it depends on how you want to define it. But TFA had more CGI shots than TPM did, in addition to not using any practical models or miniatures (as all three PT movies did), so I think it's pretty fair to say.

 

It does depend to some degree but the fact is that if we take the OT as a basis for a practical definition which means a combination of models, miniatures, motion control shooting, matte paintings plus various full size or part built props of ships as well as stage sets, other set or costume props, dressing of sets, costumes, masks and other creature shop creations then in those measures the PT is far more 'practical' than the OT overall by far and in such a way that the new movies can't ever possibly get near.

This definition of course now doesn't suit some people to use anymore since it means that TFA, R1 and the like can't ever possibly be as practical as any of the PT movies. After TPM the number of models in terms of ship/vehicles done as models went way down. How much exactly we don't know but it seems they were almost totally replaced by AOTC save for some shots here or there.

Of course they both still did plenty of reference models that in some cases were scanned and the basis for the CGI models. On top of that all sorts of sculpts for characters were used. Exactly how much of this was done I don't know. It really depended on as John Knoll talked about what was the best to get the job done. Obviously environments still had to be done mostly in what would be referred to now as the old fashioned way though even that was constantly added to with digital extensions which could be something like taking photos of the miniatures then building them out. By ROTS they were adding totally digital environments like the Jedi hangar but unless you knew that who really was going to guess? Not the people who thought everything was already digital. Those people were already completely fooled in the first place.

In terms of raw numbers TFA had about 2100 VFX shots to 2200 each for AOTC and ROTS and TPM's 1950.

The amount of CGI in any shot is another matter. Obviously the PT had tons of fully digital characters with the clone and droid armies among others that the ST won't have while the ST et all will be full of CGI just not in the same way with individual characters.

That's due to one fake being real to them because they accepted that texture long ago and the other fake is fake to them because it doesn't have the same texture, lighting etc etc. For whatever reason their knowledge of them being "actually there"
influences them. Now how some of those same people then accept the TFA effects that aren't really therel is a whole other thing while they won't accept the PT effects which are far more "actually" there overall than TFA or any of the new movies.

This is of course being very general as different shots in the movies use different methods. The point is that TFA for instance has a lot less of the overall there actually there. TFA of course does use more location work than probably any of the other movies for it's major environments (which is why they did the "real desert" angle in promotion) Jakku, D'Qar, Takodona, Starkiller Base and Ahch-To all had some location work. TPM probably has the next most location work. ROTS has none with the principle cast while TESB only had some Hoth exteriors.

The PT already did blend both but as above most especially in TPM while AOTC and ROTS apparently went too practical for some cutting down on actual locations like TESB did.

 

http://www.starwars.com/news/the-am...y-found-in-star-wars-and-the-power-of-costume

Thought I'd post here!

 

I like that they use the B1 mock-up as a "costume."

 

I've just found this, very well documented!

 

Awesome!

LOL @ one of the animators having a sign over their workstation that said "RIGHT TURD ONLY"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's bcs it's a still-frame. The glaring problem is when they move. These are motion pictures after all.

 

Some history about special effects.

 

What a great video...Especially this piece;

"There are cynics today that believe modern film is too reliant on CGI and that we should return to a simpler form of real filmmaking. But as I you learned, that era never existed."

"Filmmakers from the very beginning have sought to push the medium with special effects. The undeniable truth about filmmaking is the only thing that matters is what's on that screen. From Edwin S. Porter's matted train station window to the modern action spectacle, it's all about creating a window onto another world. A world where each of us can find our own dreams, our fears. and ourselves. All these effects we have are just tools to help us get there...And we have some fantastic tools, so use them, and make something great."-John Hess.


Seems that I'm doing some quoting lately instead of posting my own words, but what can I say? This man brilliantly described everything many PT fans, and Lucas have been saying.

Lucas, IS the man John is talking about when he said how filmmakers sought to push the technology with special effects and film. And that Lucas achieved...All 6 of his films broke the boundaries on what people could do with special effects. All the complaints about; "They have nothing to act, therefore its bad that they have to do such a thing" is shunned out. Because that's how acting is, and always was. Marry Poppins? The scene where they entered into the painting?(Or was it chalk?) didn't have anything really there. As Portman put it when she was on the prequels; "It's the purest form of acting"

 

I've been trying to tell people that for years. When Robert Armstrong shot at the charging stegosaurus in King Kong, he was acting to nothing. In 1933. CG is basically a more up-to-date version of stop motion animation and matte paintings. That's it.

 

I've always been surprised how good it looks, too. The only thing that bothers me is in ROTS is when the stormtrooper's gait in the Jedi temple doesn't match the sound.

I guess that shows how many times I've watched it....