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

So Dice went to LFL and copied the original models for the starships, walkers etc.
They should do the same for the Prequels if they do DLC! If they don't they are crazy..

 

Has anyone found a picture of the models used for the battle on the sky of Coruscant at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith ?

I had a hard time with someone explaining that the PT used more practical effects than CGI, and despite showing him all those pictures and articles posted on this thread, he kept believing that the battle of Coruscant was nothing else than 100% CGI (or a "video game" as he calls it) because I couldn't find a specific picture corresponding to that scene...

 

I think the Battle of Coruscant was mostly CGI. It was probably one of the most CGI heavy parts of the PT.

The main things that weren't were Anakin and Obi-Wan interceptors. Also that kitchen sink that ILM threw in there.

 

don't waste your time with that guy.

 

I know it is just someone else who heard that but Han Burgundy has mentioned at the very beginning of this thread that models were used for the battle of Coruscant:

In fact I'm also very curious about that because, no matter how many times I watch the first sequence of the battle of Coruscant, in which we see, immediately after the opening crawl, the star destroyer floating peacefully over the planet, that ship always seems real for me, especially when you pay attention to all its little details on it when the two interceptors are flying through it.

It always seemed for me that the republic destroyer was a model instead of CGI.

 

They definitely built models for the guns on top of the Republic Star Destroyer/ Jedi Cruiser.

 

I think most of the ships in the opening sequence of ROTS were physical models. They may have been animated and arranged by computer, but the models themselves were real.

 

I really don't believe that's true. It's just very good CGI.

 

The ROTS opening battle over Coruscant had mostly digital models. There were practical elements like pyro etc that was shot practically and then composited into the battle.

One of the practical pieces they did build was the hangar interior of the CIS vessel the heroes crash. The hangar bay was a model they built a prtion of and then extended digitally.

The other practical pieces were the full-size Jedi fighter cockpits for Obi-Wan and Anakin. ILM actually built full size wing sections for the fighters and the work can be seen in the film when the heroes have the buzz droids attacking.

Here is an example from the film: Wing section and astromech built and shot by ILM. CG buzzdroid and background.


This next pic is ILM veteran Charlie Bailey prepping Anakin's fighter for shooting on ILM's stages:



This one shows the full size piece in action in the film:



Kenobi's ship and astromech in action during shooting on the ILM stage:

 

I've just listened to a podcast on thecantinacast.net and they are talking about the CGI and practical effects used in the making of the prequels. It's very interesting, you should listen (starting at 17:50).:

http://www.thecantinacast.net/podcast/episode-84-prequel-cgi-vs-marvel-cgi/

 

^ That's a really great podcast.

 

I don't know if this really counts, but someone on reddit linked to these matte paintings from the PT (although they're digital paintings). Still, they're gorgeous, so I'm gonna post them:










Link to source: https://imgur.com/a/vPu0w

 

I think they're a mix of both.

 

I don't why they are still talking about "real sets", "practical effects" for The Force Awakens and talking about "keeping into the pre-digital world" on this video (potential spoiler on it), like if the prequels didn't have any of this:

 

Seriously, if I had a nickel every time they say "practical" my parents wouldn't be in so much debt right now.

 

The funniest thing is that they've now added "predigital world" to their vocabulary... in order to win back the audience... =/

 

For me, the funniest part is when they talk about filming in a "real desert." Okay, so did literally every other Star Wars movie with a Tatooine scene in it, prequels and originals.

 

The continual mention of "practical effects" annoys me because it's so disingenuous. The new movie will use a ton of CGI. Old fanboys who hate on CGI were quite accepting of all sorts of "practical" fakeness in the old movies.

Just on the last page, we had someone nitpicking how Obi-Wan didn't "react" to CGI Grievous igniting his lightsabers. This nitpick of course ignores the context of the scene: Obi-Wan deliberately and fearlessly walked out into the middle of the droid army. He challenged Grievous to a duel, so he wasn't exactly surprised when Grievous drew his weapon. He has the Force power of precognition, so he also has a sense of whether Grievous was striking to kill or just posing at the start of the duel. It makes perfect sense for him to calmly stand there at the moment, not that he failed to "react" at more appropriate times throughout the movies.

As pointed out before, reacting to something fake is not unheard of in acting. Ewan McGregor is a seasoned veteran of the industry and deserves more credit than that.

But it says something about the mindset of some people that they're willing to nitpick a literal moment in ROTS like that to bash on CGI and the prequels. Meanwhile, entire extended fight scenes in the older movies using "practical effects" get a total pass.

Go back and watch the gunfights in ANH. Notice how many times the walls are shot instead of the actual Stormtroopers? I doubt the real life stuntmen wanted to strap pyro and live explosives to themselves. While this made for some cool explosions and destruction of scenery, it also made for some extremely poor gunfighting throughout the movie.

Watch Han and Chewie fending off the Stormtroopers when they try to breach into the prison corridor. They don't actually aim at the Stormtroopers! Han shoots off multiple blasts which go wide and hit the walls around the hole that the Stormtroopers are coming in from. Chewie even leans back and shoots at the ceiling! Our supposedly crack shot heroes can't be relied upon to put shots into a static target several feet wide at close range.

Bashing on the lightsaber choreography of the prequels is another popular line of attack (there was even a viral video nitpicking the Darth Maul fight a while back) but where is the fair and objective analysis of Han's laughable gunnery skills?

Watch the Obi-Wan/Vader duel as well. Vader intentionally swings wide to avoid hitting Obi-Wan. Not exactly top of the line stuntwork by today's standards. At one point, Vader strikes a wall. Freeze the movie before his lightsaber makes contact and you can see that the wall is already pre-damaged. So much for the realism of "practical effects."

I didn't even have to shoot for easy targets like the rubber suit aliens or stop motion taun taun to write this up.

None of this was meant to bash on the Original Trilogy though, because none of this stuff bothered me when I was actually watching the movies for the first, second, or third times. If you're hate-watching a movie and singling out individual moments to point out mistakes, then you're trying too hard while failing to enjoy things like a more reasonable person.

 

The thing that really sort of drives me nuts about the constant emphasis on practical effects is, doesn't anyone realize that that's basically the exact same mindset that critics of the effects in the PT accuse Lucas of having had? The standard criticism is that he cared more about the effects than everything else - so it's kind of weird, to put it mildly, seeing marketing that's meant to appeal to that kind of critic doing exactly the same thing by talking so much about the practical effects and not so much about the story or that sort of thing.

 

You know if I didn't know any better and that this whole "practical" thing was a marketing strategy, I'd think JJ, KK, and Disney believed "the PT was all CGI" lies.

 

Critics won't be consistent in their reviews about the Force Awakens.

I'm sure that we'll read or hear things like: "The special effects in The Force Awakens are amazing!", "J.J. Abrams has made good special effects in this movie", "You can admire the practical special effects in this movie even if you don't like the story of Star Wars", while, a few years ago, critics like Mark Kermode on the video below and Mr. Plinkett said about the PT: "George Lucas is only relying on special effects to entertain the audience", "There's no story in the PT", "There's too much reliance on the special effects", "Lucas has run out of control with mad computer graphics!".

 

It's all marketing, meant to preemptively hold off the portion of the fanboy media that actually cares about it.

You' re right to point out that this marketing strategy ironically places a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the effects vs the actual story. When I look at the marketing campaigns for other recent genre blockbusters like The Dark Knight or Avengers, promises of plot and character development were at the forefront. So far, almost nothing has been revealed about Episode 7's story. It's just "practical effects" over and over again.

 

I've just found this on Facebook :

 

OMFG that is awesome, you gotta post that in the thread in the TFA forums!

 

The absolute silliest "practical effects" comment I've seen from someone officially affiliated with Star Wars came from one of the comic book artists, John Cassaday:

Yes, you read that right. He won't design any aliens for a comic book that couldn't be animated with eighties technology. I mean, even if you take as gospel the idea that CGI aliens look worse on a movie screen than practical ones, why would you constrain yourself to the limitations of a totally different medium? Animation and comics can do stuff that live-action movies and TV can't - that's part of what makes them great! But oh no, gotta be in touch with the filmmaking of the original trilogy...