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

.

 

Yep, here's the article from Furious Fanboys

Spoiler

The Force Awakens Appears to be Filled with CGI:

As I said on Twitter, this practical propaganda is going to backfire.

 

Yes that's actually quite funny. My feelings were the same - the hype cuts both ways. It tries to fool once by pretending practical effects will be a novelty, and twice by assuming anyone thinks modern techniques - and in fact the huge advances I.L.M made with the prequels - won't play a significant part. Besides, as made plain in this thread - for most C.G.I wasn't the problem.

In fact if you are going to react to complaints on the internet then they would have to say "we are using better actors with a script you might like. No kids will be cast, poop jokes and slapstick along with teenage romance and talking robots are banned, and we are returning to ice planets and familiar ships with dirt on."

You just can't react to fans whims. Bands don't do it after a controversial change in direction. Shut up, make your stuff and put it out there. Trying to go with the weather-cock is the death of art.

 

My problem is they're not talking during all this about how the story and characters are better. I love vfx as much as the next person, but if that's all you're gonna promote then just let ILM sit up there and talk about it as they're the experts at it.

 

The most frustrating thing about all this is that TFA could have been a great excuse for Lucasfilm to try knit the fanbase together. Instead of distancing themselves from half the saga and implying its illegitimacy, like it was some bastard child barred from claiming the royal succession, they could have extolled the inclusivity of the new film by emphasizing continuity with all six previous films.

This marketing campaign might very well backfire, because it is creating expectations about this film that might not be realised, as others have pointed out. Already after the trailers, some die hard fans were annoyed because the Falcon was clearly CGI. I don't think it will backfire on the scale of the PT, but the Geek media complex might be hard to please in this instance. They are incredibly fickle, and could turn on LFL the moment they get a whiff of digital characters or some other feature they dislike.

 

Not better just "more in tone with the original trilogy". Gah
It either works or it doesn't. I think it will be more adventure fantasy (OT) rather than mystery intrigue (PT). I can just see a problem where the characters are not strong enough to hold the film let alone a trilogy but that is just of off what we know.

I really don't understand that strategy, I mean they need to keep some stuff for the film but why not be more upfront about stuff. The sides for example wasn't specifically mentioned and they could clear it up or just say it will be explained in x book or the film itself.

Wasn't a major part/issue with the prequel marketing that they were pushing new technology and cgi with 3d even considered at some point.

 

Sorry I know this is off-topic but I couldn't let this pass by. So much ST bashing here...

Amazing topic anyway !

 

No one is "ST bashing". Many SAGA fans are frustrated at the marketing campaign for this film - and justifiably so. Also, there is no indication that they are using models for ships in motion. Just as with the PT, they are building practical full scale 'sets' for ships (limited to starfighters and speeders obviously) at rest.

 

I said it would be simpler this way, not impossible in any other way. That would have worked, and I would have loved to know there were screen-used clone trooper suits out there.

Exactly. There's also the added hassle of having to call the actor back over and over and over again to reshoot scenes and to shoot new scenes in the way GL likes to do, since he can't stop tinkering. It was a lot simpler this way.

This, too. GL clearly took this as an opportunity to push ILM and special effects forcefully into the future. To me there's special effects before the prequels and after, and it's down to people like GL putting themselves out there and pushing the boundaries, even if they take the flack for being the disruptors at first. It payed off, I think: The prequels are gorgeous, unlike anything out there; many people couldn't even tell the clones were CGI; and filmmakers can do so much more today because of that effort and that daring.

 

Sorry for the double post. . . .

The first image looks like a concept model to me. They don't shoot those. The second looks like a full scale model they laid out in the desert and shot, not a miniature (still cool, of course ).

 

Some good information here:

http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW...-Stormy-Knight-Part-one-of-two-part-spec.aspx

Seventy-two physical sets were used for principal photography, as were miniatures of complex environments, from the Wookies’ giant trees, to Utapau’s complicated sinkholes, to Mustafar’s rivers of lava created in ILM’s model shop. But the sets were usually small pieces of large digital environments, and the miniatures often became elements in synthetic environments.

“Some shots require computer graphic [environments],” says John Knoll, who supervised 1700 of the 2151 visual effects shots. “For others, the smart thing is to build a model and shoot it. And then there is a big gray area where you could do it either way. Sometimes you make the choice on a gut feeling. Sometimes you choose CG for the control. Sometimes it’s price. For this film, George [Lucas] asked us to bias more of the shots in the gray area toward digital. That drove a few bits of technology forward.”

“The space battle lasts eight minutes,” says Willi Geiger, CG supervisor. “We have lasers, fire, explosions, digital pyro. We used everything, and the kitchen sink.” Literally, it turns out, the crew did add a kitchen sink, as digital shrapnel hurled into one battleship’s side.

Although many of the fireballs, the flaming debris, and the smoke trails during the battle used live-action elements, some were entirely digital.

Beneath the battle’s fire and smoke lies the dense city-world of Coruscant. The establishing shot for the planet-the wide-view, flying-in-for-a-landing shot-is an intricate 3D matte painting, one of many used in the film. Digital matte supervisor Jonathan Harb estimates that three-fourths of the 2151 visual effects shots incorporated matte paintings-or, in the case of establishing shots, were entirely matte paintings.

1600 matte paintings.

Astounding to say the least.

They really aren't that bothered by fans as they know they have them anyway.

They have in virtually every way except in terms of this portion of the early fan marketing campaign which is basically meant to keep the grease on those squeaky wheels who despised the prequels and who are deluded enough to think that all their fevered imaginings about them are true.

More than likely but that kind of "backfire" is irrelevant once the movie comes out. Those fans will hopefully just go away in despair never to be heard from again or more likely rant on for years more before fading away into the irrelevancy they came from. Of course they just as likely will delude themselves into thinking all they wanted to have happen has and say how great it all is now.

Who knows? They constantly change their story to fit the situation of the time.

 

To a certain extent, perhaps even the largest extent, GL is responsible for these misconceptions. He was promoting, not only his movies, but his ILM - in the same way he had been doing for 20+ years. That marketing always emphasized the cutting edge and downplayed the mundane or older methods.. And at the turn of this century, practical effects were not considered to be particularly cutting edge or sexy.. let alone fetishized as they are now. So I dont really fault him, even in hindsight.

If Disney/LFL is aware of this, they have just instead decided to do an inverse version of PT marketing. Push the old instead of the new. We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out with various fans and gen audiences.

 

Really? There's a close up of his hands missing as he sinks to his knees in front of Anakin and if you look closely enough you can see his head flying through the air and rolling across the floor just after Anakin's killed him.

I found this image doing a quick Google search.

Not sure if it's real or made up though as it all happens so fast in the movie (presumably to stop them being hit with a 15 rating?)

 

According to a recent article from the website makingstarwars.net The Force Awakens contains close to 30 shots which are entirely made of CGI, over 350 scenes. If we refer to the communication strategy of "old-school" from Lucasfilm, this is still too much CGI when compared to the theatrical version (or the OOT) of the original Star Wars from 1977 (A New Hope).

Here's the article (potential spoiler ahead!): http://makingstarwars.net/2015/07/how-many-shots-in-star-wars-the-force-awakens-are-cgi/

Spoiler

Y JASON WARD (EDITOR-IN-CHIEF) ​

​

JULY 28, 2015

HOW MANY SEQUENCES IN STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS ARE CGI?

THIS ARTICLE INVOLVES SPOILERS FOR STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS! DO NOT READ ON IF YOU DO NOT WANT SPOILERS!


I’m not a cheerleader or a detractor of CGI. I’m not a filmmaker, but in theory I prefer the best method for the shot. I’ve seen instances of successes and failures using both techniques in all six Star Wars films. Recently there has been a lot of annoyance at the way The Force Awakens is being sold to fans. These pitches stress the usage of the “real” and denounce the usage of computer based images to tell a story.
There’s about 28 shots in Star Wars: The Force Awakens that are completely CGI. (That is out of about 357 scenes.) I say “about” because some scenes were shot twice, once on location in Abu Dhabi and once at Pinewood Studios. We keep hearing that there are so many practical effects in this new film. So what is CGI in the film? I can’t say for certain how much CGI will be used to hide puppeteers and things like that. There’s some of that as we’ve seen in behind the scenes videos that tip us off there. Things could have changed and these numbers might have shifted somewhat. But as of last Summer these numbers were pretty firm and I have my doubts they changed much at all.
Ironically, the first shot in this “practical effects movie” is CGI. The lightsaber tumbling to the ground towards the savanna is entirely CGI. The second shot that is completely CGI is Kylo Ren’s ship heading for the Star Destroyer after failing to get the saber on Jakku. When the TIE fighters head for the Star Destroyers after the battle, that’s all CGI. In fact, most of the scenes in the film that are CGI are TIE fighters and Star Destroyers. (That’s when it isn’t the Falcon.) Spaceships and space shots.
When the Falcon goes through the crashed Star Destroyers to lose the TIEs in pursuit, that IMAX sequence is entirely CGI. Later when the Falcon escapes and is caught by the giant freighter, that is also CGI, as are the ships destroyed during the array attack. The Sledgehammer that steamrolls the Star Destroyers are computer effects-driven shots too. The Falcon flying to meet Luke is… you guessed it, CGI.
Get it? Most of the space shots are CGI sequences. The film does not really seem to have any CGI sequences involving the main heroes physically. Of course Maz and Snoke are CGI-based creatures and there is no delineation for that in the information I’ve been privy to. I believe this is because these characters might be somewhat practical on set and augmented with motion capture technology.
Locations mostly rely on plate shots to create the look of the environment. Maz’s castle, the Resistance Bay and the Starkiller base are mostly created by the establishing exterior shots. There are about 23 of this style of shots in the film. There is a plate shot to establish Luke Skywalker’s Jedi Monastery as well. I assume these plate shots can be enhanced by CG elements. So ultimately they probably add to the CG count considerably but not necessarily.


Just to reiterate, I’m not cheerleader of practical effects or CGI. I love Star Wars movies full of both techniques. I liked when Kathleen Kennedy was selling Star Wars: The Force Awakens as a film using all the “tricks in the bag.” That is what this movie utilizes. But overwhelmingly, the film is a film full of sets that are “practically” built, really there and do not exist only at ILM. At this point, we don’t know how “in your face” the CGI shots are. If they’re subtle the film might not seem like it has any CGI at all. But if they’re really awesome shots that are truly spectacular, such shots might be what audience remembers and therefore changing the way the film feels.

 

Yeah we were discussing this a few pages back.

 

Puppeteers controlling a little droid for the Prequels.

 

wasn't in the film though.

 

I thought that all the droids (except protocol droids like C3-P0 or astromech droids as R2-D2) were all CGI.

 

look at my post right above yours. this droid was cut and replaced.

 

True enough. But, given that they went to the effort of filming an actual puppet, it's clear that it was replaced because the filmmakers came to the conclusion that the CGI droid simply worked better for what they were trying to accomplish visually.

Apparently some people feel that, as a general rule, that option should be taken off the table.

 

No. Most of them were. However, the shots of the battle droids being cut by the lightsabers were CG/Practical ILM prop shot on stage combinations.

edit:
Just a little experiment.

Does anyone know what vfx shots in The Phantom Menace were all-CG?

Not scenes, but individual shots.

 

Just whipped this up... still a little rough, but I wanted to get it out for SWPAW Enjoy!

 

Off the top of my head, I'd imagine the only obvious ones would be the shots of ships approaching planets in space, and some of the shots showing the Coruscant cityscape.

I'm not sure there were all that many shots in any of the prequels that were entirely CGI, except for the kinds just mentioned. Even the space battles in the latter two films incorporated real explosions, right?

 

I like it.

Why did you turn off comments?

 

Opening Crawl.

This actually stumped me. I don't know much about the making of the films but initially I thought Otoh Gunga. Of course I changed my mind.
Do the Making of books cover how this stuff was done? I mean scene by scene so the swim to Otoh gunga.

The space scenes I think might be a matte painting for the planet with a physical model filmed and added over it. Cgi enhances the engines and stars or there are lights added to model for engines.