What did you think of the exclusive use of CGI for the clonetroopers?

Molduchy, I don't really care to read those mags all of the time, but they have nice pictures and an occasional article worthy of my attention.

I don't really need to know the lingo or anything like that, as I can see with my own eyes that the movement was off. know what i mean? i can look at it and come up with that conclusion. I agree with you on many points, and I am sure you get my drift as well.

 

But how do you expect a person with a heavy and rigid armor to move while walking on a slope of sand?

And to make it even more complicated, wasn't that slope of sand all visual effects as well? I was told that the only real thing in that scene was Natalie. That all around her was blue-screen and even the floor was blue-screen (no sand).

 

And to make it even more complicated, wasn't that slope of sand all visual effects as well? I was told that the only real thing in that scene was Natalie. That all around her was blue-screen and even the floor was blue-screen (no sand).


Good question. I did read in the AOTC issue of Cinefex that the sand that Natalie's stunt double rolls on is real (duh).

 

Yep. The movements were truly fake.
Whenh that one CG clone turned his head slightly and nodded 'yessir' to Mace looked totally fake to how a real person in a suit would have turned his head slightly and nodded 'yessir' to Mace.
And don't get me started and how they stood in place and fired! Any real person could have looked a thousand times more real standing in place!
And nobody thought the clone with Padme loked real!
Why George WHHHHHYYYYYYY!!

In all seriousness, I still stand by my kid with a scraped knee simile.
The only time I thought they looked fake was during the clone lab tours when you see a bunch of them in the background kicking (the adults). The moves were too synchronized. But then, that was actually Body Tailor so. . .

 

In Import_Jedi's post the Clonetrooper looks extremely real.

 

LUH-3417, yes I catch your drift. As I said that shot you mentioned seemed a bit tad off, I wasn't arguing with you. I just say, don't worry about it ;-).

 

Extras in suits for the close-ups would only have called attention to the differences between their movements and the CG clonetroopers.

Mm-Hmm. Just like in Jurassic Park. You could so tell when they switched from CG to Animatronic dinos.

 

Lucas could easily have spent a few extra mil. He can afford it.

Well, if what I remember from A&E's Biography on GL is correct, he's a rather sparing man when it comes to spending money; it's something he picked up/learned from his father and how his father ran his business.

Criminy...just how much more dough would it take to use extras instead of CG abominations I wonder?

What would it take to make a movie like Spartacas today, with all the extras...or Braveheart even? I want to see some real numbers. If someone can prove that it would cost $50 mil then mayble I'll retract but until then...

Of course, even with an extra $50 mil he could've done alright if only the movie had been much better

yeahhhh...I don't think it's about money. I think Lucas uses CG because he thinks it's neat neat neat.

The dude is a certifiable technogeek.

...and as for the folks who so enamored with the CG clonetroopers I pose these simple questions:

"Do they look more real than guys in suits or not?"

"Do you want continuity with the original trilogy because it had real stormtroopers or not?"

Or to use an analogy, "On those special occasions where floral arrangements are requisite (weddings, funerals, mom's birthday, etc) would you use real flowers or would you just settle for the polyethylene variety?"

Let's see if I can anticipate the possible responses:

1) They're good enough.
2) They look pretty cool.
3) I can't tell the difference.
4) George didn't have the resources (money) to use guys in suits.
5) What do weddings have to do with Star Wars?
6) I don't care if you don't like the CG because I only care about what I like even though I'm aware of the fact that we both would've liked guys in suits.

*Let's see how many folks admit to that last one

So, falling back on the special occasion analogy is Star Wars good enough to be considered a special occasion, with all the accutraments that special occasions entail, or is it just another movie?

 

Really, why does it matter if they look exactly the same? It sounds like you have a problem with CG on principle, not because you think it was any worse or any better. Same with the people who complain that shots done with models look "too CG". I don't know, maybe they're technophobes. Maybe they have a problem with new things. Maybe they'll just complain whenever they have the chance to.

CG abominations

Why "abominations"? What is so bad about incredibly realistic CG clonetroopers? Is it a problem with the clonetroopers themselves, or is it just that you have some problem with CG?

EDIT: Oh yeah, the questions.

"Do they look more real than guys in suits or not?"

No, they look exactly the same. Since nothing can look more "real" than reality, that means they are as real as they can get.

"Do you want continuity with the original trilogy because it had real stormtroopers or not?"

What does that even mean? When I look at the screen, I see real clonetroopers. If they look real, and stormtroopers look real, there's continuity. Does it matter how they were done, as long as they look exactly the same?

Or to use an analogy, "On those special occasions where floral arrangements are requisite (weddings, funerals, mom's birthday, etc) would you use real flowers or would you just settle for the polyethylene variety?"

If these flowers looked, felt, smelled, tasted, and sounded the same, as well as grew in the exact same way - in other words, if they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing, then there would be absolutely no problem with it.

 

I had no problem with the CG clone troopers, infact I was impressed by how well they looked. Now to the question, would I rather have people in suits. All I can say it doesn't matter to me, because both get the job done. But I guess having CG Clone Troopers would be cheaper. Instead of making a bunch of costumes that will only be used for a year or two of filming.

 

Yes, for the most part....I could tell they were cgi, but did that make me dislike the way they looked? No....they looked fine to me.

Could they have pulled it off using more humans? Yeah, probably.

Did I care that they didn't use humans? No...not really.

 

Really, why does it matter if they look exactly the same? It sounds like you have a problem with CG on principle, not because you think it was any worse or any better. Same with the people who complain that shots done with models look "too CG". I don't know, maybe they're technophobes. Maybe they have a problem with new things. Maybe they'll just complain whenever they have the chance to.

1) The point is they don't look exactly the same otherwise I wouldn't be complaining about it.
2) I don't have a problem with CG on principle I have a problem with GL's glutonous use of it.
3) I'm not a technofobe at all. Relatively speaking I like whatever comes across as most real, which; of course, explains my obvious preference for guys in suits over CG characters. In addition I liked %90 or more of what technology was in the OT. Either I'm a technofobe or %90 of what was in the OT just came across better. I'm sure you can guess what my take on it would be.
4) I don't have a problem with new things if they "look" real...<<<see above>>>
5) I don't complain about things whenever I have the chance...whatever that means There are things I like about the prequels. Can I dislike the prequels overall and still appreciate what they did right? YES!!!

Why "abominations"? What is so bad about incredibly realistic CG clonetroopers? Is it a problem with the clonetroopers themselves, or is it just that you have some problem with CG?

I dislike anything that I think doesn't look real enough or as real as it could be. Of course there is a subjective debate there. How can it be determined if CG Imperial walkers would've looked better in "Empire" than the original models? My opinion is that for slow moving objects models often look better for a variety of reasons (I'll have to debate that in a different post) If we were talking about battle droids, however, I would be in perfect agreement that there is no better way than the CG way...unless we wanted battle droids to remind us of Robocop. The point is that with AT-AT Walkers and battle droids "absolute" real isn't an option, with clonetroopers it is. It's not really a point of CG clonetroopers looking incredibly real or not. For myself, and many others' they simply aren't the best option. The best that I can say ist that they are damn good for CG. But in my opinion damn good CG isn't always good enough

I'd also like to ad that I do respect all the work that has gone into the CG and the people who work on them, however; I think their hard work is being misallocated by recreating things that don't need to be recreated. Their efforts would be much better served by creating things that can't be rendered by a real human being or a real set or a real location.

"Do they look more real than guys in suits or not?"

No, they look exactly the same. Since nothing can look more "real" than reality, that means they are as real as they can get

Exactly the same, huh? Well, I say they "don't" look the same. The differences are subtle but they "do" exist. Sometimes they're so subtle that one can only really on his/her subconcious to make a determination. I don't know what to say exactly about folks such as yourself who can't see the differences. I just chalk it up to differences in perceptibility between different people. Of course you neglected to tackle my last hypothetical response in my list of possible gusher responses. Here it is again for your convenience :

6) I don't care if you don't like the CG because I only care about what I like even though I'm aware of the fact that we both would've liked guys in suits.

Now I suppose you're going to tell me that you would'nt have liked guys in suits

hmmm....maybe real clonetroopers wouldn't have looked as real as fake clonetroopers trying to look real

Or to use an analogy, "On those special occasions where floral arrangements are requisite (weddings, funerals, mom's birthday, etc) would you use real flowers

 

The point is they don't look exactly the same otherwise I wouldn't be complaining about it.

To you, maybe. But you say that as if it's a fact.

And now that I think about, I was doing the same thing too. Let's call that one even.

However, i do disagree with this:

the point is that CG clonetroopers may be real-looking enough for you but they simply aren't real-looking enough for a substantial number of people.

"Substantial number of people"? No. Check around. I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of people thought they were real. In fact, I think a lot of people here, if they didn't know that they were CG, wouldn't be complaining that they looked "fake".

If the fake flowers did everything the same as the real ones they could no longer be classified as fake. So are you saying that CG clonetroopers are the equivalent of human beings on every level?

You're forgetting the essential difference between your analogy and the situation - one is reality, the other is a movie. Since a movie is entirely a visual and auditory experience, there is nothing (IMO) that makes the CG clonetroopers different from real guys in suits. The SW universe exists entirely within the realm of those pixels on the screen. Therefore, in the movie, yes, CG clonetroopers are the equivalent of human beings on every level.

Now I suppose you're going to tell me that you would'nt have liked guys in suits

No, I'm not going to say that. I would have liked guys in suits. I like CG guys also. I don't like one better than the other, they're both fine. If Lucas had done real guys, I wouldn't have a problem with it (as long as they were composited in appropriately, of course). He didn't do that. He did CG guys. Once again, since I find no problems in their incorporation, I don't have a problem with it.

 

Kryatt-Dragon, you sound like my friend who saw The Empire Strikes Back years ago and bitched about the opening shot because he could tell it was a model. I still laugh about how much more "advanced" special effects critics have become. In the olden days, the rallying cry was "It's a model!" Now we hear "It's CGI!"

The point is, learn how to exercise your suspension of disbelief and stop trying to break the movie for yourself.

But whether the clones were CGI creations or actors in costume, they served the exact same purpose in the movie: they showed the clones in action.

 

Honestly I would prefer CGI clone troopers over real ones.

 

The point is they don't look exactly the same otherwise I wouldn't be complaining about it.

Lord_Hydronium:

To you, maybe. But you say that as if it's a fact.

And now that I think about, I was doing the same thing too. Let's call that one even.

lol...ok. Actually it's a fact to "you" that the CG clonetroopers look real. To me the opposite is a fact. But think about it this way: If something looks real to you but doesn't look real to me can we both be right at the same time? If we're talking about perception we can. If we're talking about reality we can't. In other words if there really is something different about CG characters that can be detected by a certain subset of people can you still maintain that there's nothing different about CG characters? If I say that CG characters don't appear to be reflecting light like real objects; they move too fluidy, unlike real creatures which are more herky jerky; or that they don't mesh onscreen with real human actors the same way other human actors would you still say that it's my problem for being able to detect these differences? I understand that CG clone troops aren't a problem for you - that much is understood - but at what point do you find enough empathy with a fellow star wars fan to concede that guys in suits might be a better ingredient for making us all one big happy family?

...the point is that CG clonetroopers may be real-looking enough for you but they simply aren't real-looking enough for a substantial number of people.

"Substantial number of people"? No. Check around. I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of people thought they were real. In fact, I think a lot of people here, if they didn't know that they were CG, wouldn't be complaining that they looked "fake".

PPOR man You may very well be in a majority but a slim majority is nothing to boast about. It's my experience that a lot of people "don't" like the fact that George made em' CG. And don't bother with a poll taken on this website because it's my opinion that people like me are underrepresented here. I could be wrong though. Just show me the numbers is all I'm saying.

If the fake flowers did everything the same as the real ones they could no longer be classified as fake. So are you saying that CG clonetroopers are the equivalent of human beings on every level?

You're forgetting the essential difference between your analogy and the situation - one is reality, the other is a movie. Since a movie is entirely a visual and auditory experience, there is nothing (IMO) that makes the CG clonetroopers different from real guys in suits. The SW universe exists entirely within the realm of those pixels on the screen. Therefore, in the movie, yes, CG clonetroopers are the equivalent of human beings on every level.

There is no difference as long as you interpret both of them as experiences as it relates to perception. It's my perception that guys in suits "look" better and therefore provide me with a better experience. The fact that Star Wars is a movie and a wedding is a real event makes absolutely no difference under these terms. You're trying to highlight a disparity that doesn't exist in an effort to debunk my logic. And CG characters are equivalent to "real" human beings on every level only in your world, Hydro, not mine There's also a question of authenticity. There are those of us who think it's better to use real flowers because it's a question of authenticity and, therefore, of taste. It's also because of this, along with a plethora of other issues, that people such as myself are seriously questioning George Lucas' values. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

Now I suppose you're going to tell me that you would'nt have liked guys in suits

No, I'm not going to say that. I would have liked guys in suits. I like CG guys also. I don't like one better than the other, they're both fine. If Lucas had done real guys, I wouldn't have a problem with it (as long

 

I wondered why Lucas didn't use CGI for them.

Then after the forth viewing, I discover they were.

Yay, ignorance.

 

I happen to believe that those complaining about CGI actually have a mental block making them incapable of believing something CGI to be real. When I look at the OT now, I can tell so many things are models, but it doesn't bother me. It's called "suspension of disbelief." If you have the inability to suspend your disbelief, then sci-fi/fantasy movies may not be your genre.

 

Ok, I just have to say that I stubled on to this thread and was amazed that all of the clones were CG (even the close ups)

That aside...
Criminy...just how much more dough would it take to use extras instead of CG abominations I wonder?

Ok, I don't know where you live, but I live LA. Most people have either been an extra or know someone who has been an extra in a film. Extras have to costumed, fed, and paid. That costs some serious dough if you're talking about a significant number of extras over a period of time. At least it would seem that way from my experience.

Personally, I couldn't tell they were CG because everything in that movie was CG--it looked natural within the context of the movie. Any nuances would have stuck out more if a few were "real" and the majority weren't.

 

So actor-clonetroopers are going to look better in an all CG environment (most of the scenes they were in were almost all blue-screen work if not an entire CG scene) than CG-clonetroopers and these actor-clonetroopers are going to interact better with other CG characters?

To use Obi-Wan's words, "I don't think so."

 

I didn't read the clonetroopers mentioned in that recent poll about the best CGI charachters of all time. Funny that AOTC´s Yoda ended up winning it.

 

I wouldn't consider EW the best judge, for best of list, especially for CG characters ;-).

Gollum might be incredible in TTT, but why rate him if you don't know and was barely seen on the first film. They are just going for hype. Worst CG character Draco because they didn't like the movie and voice, what kind of criteria are these guys using!!!

 

Considering the fact that I didn't realize the Clonetroopers were CG until after I saw the movie, I find that ILM did a good job.

 

i agree. It was awesome. I was totally fooled. And when you are fooled, yuo know the effects can't be any better.

I assume the credited clone trooper did the motion capture.

 

Yeah, that'll be the day: Use a CGI clonetrooper for movement capture

btw: no actor could have done it better sooo it's fine with me