ST Practical or CGI?

You say 'irrelevant' but you were just wrong on both counts weren't you? Point being, people have been aping apes on stage and in cinema for decades, and rather successfully. The requirement for them to not use actors in costumes for 'Dawn' was borne from the same sensibility as what put digital Clonetroopers on screen i.e the filmmakers believed they would enhance the performance/look and that it was more economic.

 

I thought Poggle was pretty cool too. There is lots of excellent CG and practical work in the PT. Let's hope the ST looks amazing whatever.

PJ - come on. This comparing the Apes to the troopers is a ridiculous point to try and make.

 

Yep, taste is taste. I understand where you're coming from even if I have a much higher appreciation for CGI than you do. It's not like any of us want to be taken out of the moment. Personally I lament that I can no longer appreciate something like the Executor plunge in ROTJ as I once did. As a kid that scene always blew me away, but as an adult the effects stick out in a manner that I find way too toyish.

 

Yes. The Executor shot is duff. I think maybe, because the tech back in the day limited the vision to an extent to what they actually could achieve it meant there aren't quite so many moments where they are exposed, if that makes sense? Simply by dint of having so many more FX shots in the PT there is more likelihood the odd duffer will slip past (just as it did with the Ot).

 

So after all that you still think that it's completely legitimate to have every single ape be digital, but SW is wrong to present Clonetroopers in the same way???

 

Yes. How the Hell can you not see the gulf in difference?

 

Lol, I forgot you're the one that have the right answers here... Answering your question: hmm, no.

 

I like both and want to see both used to perfection in the ST.

 

10 years after ROTS, this is going to be the best looking Star Wars movie to date.

 

With the added IMAX shots, it would look fantastic.

 

And we know at least Skellig Michael looks like a stunning location for SW.

 

I wonder if they'll show the island as it is or with added effects on-screen.

 

Always struck me as appropriately meta that the clones were CGI. But mostly I just appreciated that they felt a lot more like actual dangerous soldiers than in the OT. I suppose I could've went for some practical dudes as long as they retained that quality, but ultimately it's definitely not a criticism that registers with me.

 

Satipo - Because I try and apply the same logic to my judgments regardless. 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' chose to replace, what were previously actors in costume, with digital versions. The prequels chose to replace, what were previously actors in costume, with digital versions. It's borne out of the exact same drivers... the notion of improved visuals/performance and logistics. That you separate the two and imbue one with a negative connotation and one with a positive, sums up what I posted before about your *passive/aggressive* bias to the prequels. It's fine that you're biased - just learn to accept and acknowledge it a bit more.

 

So now, everyone that doesn't agree with you is unintelligent and fools just by going to watch any PT film more than once. Well said, you're showing your true colors there. I might not be discerning but I know this, your opinions are as tripe as your attitude!

 

PJ, there is a vast difference between the two situations and if you cannot see that it is not my bias. I have yet to see you make a more ridiculous statement.

 

Agree that the comparison is not a fair one. In the original apes films, the costumes were very good. But we basically got humans with ape faces. The body proportions for all of the ape species were, because of the constraints of human anatomy, identical for all ape species and, of course, human-like. CG allowed for the creation of entire ape bodies that matched the morphology of real apes.

As for the troopers, well, they're human, so it would make sense to use costumes instead of CG. There was no need to use CG to create a more compelling rendering of the character.

 

There was little need to make every trooper CG - especially going to the lengths to CG armor over Temeura Morrison's body in several shots (I can see a possible desire to want the clones to move more freely but personally I don't like the overly slick look) And there are plenty of people that don't like it because it's distracting and looks fake compared to real suits on real extras - clearly something the new team feels as well, hence their decision to return to the better technique in this case.

I can't find anyone complaining about the Mo-cap and CG used on the Apes, for all the reasons people have already outlined, but rather than concede you want to turn this into people being biased against the PT, which is exactly how I predicted this would all shake down.

If you were making the first Apes prequel and new you would need to follow actual chimps, gorillas and orangutans ( not the super evolved apes that exist thousands of years in the timeline if the original films) that become super intelligent and need to give detailed, nuanced and subtle performances what would your choices be and what would you do?

Use trained Apes and then use mo-cap for close-ups? Would you really want the hassle of training and working with those Apes when your whole film is reliant on their performances.

Use prosthetics and masks like they did in the originals? These are supposed to be real apes, not the highly evolved apes that Heston and Whalberg meet.

It's the same physical difference between the chimp that works with Whalberg and the Apes played by Bonham Carter and Roth for example. And there is no way anyone would argue they should have used an actor in a suit to play the chimp, because it wouldn't have looked convincing.

Once they used the Mo-cap work to universal praise on the first film, why on earth would they not use the same tech again(and let's not forget the many Shots in both films that follow the Apes up and through the trees in ways it would be impossible to do practically. Especially when the tech has again improved and they put in the extra work to make sure the mo-cap rigs could work on location to provide that tactile feel of real locations for a perfect balance of digital and practical in-camera work.

Armoured soldiers in no way present the same difficulties or choices to the production. CG should have been used LOTR style to bolster the armies and units for wide shots, not every single trooper.

Even the FX teams wanted practical suits for "hero clones" but George over-ruled to mixed reception. Sure, some love the digital clones but to others it was a distracting Mis-step and adds to the overly synthetic feel of the PT as opposed to the OT.

 

Re. This immediate discussion - There is not one reason that you have given, that doesn't come across as an illogical, inconsistent approach as to what constitutes good and bad effects in SW. There is nothing that legitimises Planet of the Apes replacing actors in costumes with CGI that can't be applied to any other film (including the the prequels). Planet of the Apes chose to go the way of digital apes... it wasn't something they were forced to do because it was otherwise impossible or actors in ape makeup had never been done. That you pick and chose, based on what film you prefer, is what underlines the inconsistancy of that logic. As I say, I have no problem with you having a preference for one movie over an other, but at least be consistent.... the apes were CGI... every damned stinking one of them.

 

I dislike you being stubborn being used to say there is no logic to the arguments being put forward here. If you don't like the word impossible, I would say there is a vast difference in the difficulty and complexity of using men in suits in battle scenes and using apes or actors in make-up for the complex roles they needed to convey. There is no inconsistency there at all, just someone bending over backwards to accuse someone else of bias, which frustratingly is where I predicted this would all head - no matter what point is put forward, it boils down to the impossible to argue with "you're wrong because you have an axe to grind with the PT". If I was attacking the CG used on characters like Jar-Jar and Watto, or letting slide the use of CG Orcs and Goblins in the Hobbit vs LOTR, you might have a point, but I'm not.

 

In amongst this is a question I don't know the answer to, why did they feel the need to use cgi clone troopers throughout, whats the benefit of that over using actors in suits? I can understand why when there were shots of hundreds or thousands of them, although those scenes sometimes look like a fake copy and paste of the same motions, like the scenes in AOTC when they are collecting their armour on Kamino or boarding the ships at the end. But I don't get it when they have close up one on one scenes with other actors in the films.

 

I suspect it was a desire for (ironically) uniformity and possibly greater range of motion (although that greater range of motion wasn't really seen in AOTC). I can understand both those concerns to a degree, although I don't think either should have been outweighed by the overall look and feel, which IMO is superior with practical troops. I also suspect George was using it to push tech boundaries, which is admirable in a wider sense, even if I don't like how it looks onscreen. The good thing is JJ and the new team clearly agree on this issue so we will be getting real troopers in armour onscreen again, which to me at least is very exciting.

 

I also think that when using cgi characters that they don't always illicit the same response or actions from the 'human' actor who is interacting with them and they in turn (the actor) can end up looking a bit wooden sometimes.

 

I agree that it must be easier for actors the more practical the experience. I imagine most actors prefer working on sets and locations (weather dependent) with costumed actors to working in front of blue screens with actors dressed in blue lycra with tennis balls on their heads. Obviously both those will be needed often in most films, and of course should be used where needed. But would replacing the troopers in the OT look better by replacing them with CG troopers that moved more fluidly ( apart from the odd shot - I'm looking at you tall, clumsy trooper on the Death Star) I don't think that they would. In fact the CG troopers they did use in the SE stick out negatively (although I'll put that down to the tech at the time) and even George used costumed extras (presumably replicated) for the re-done Han chases the stormtroopers.