PT Did the PT use too much CGI?

Hey guys another question i have is many fans have a problem with cgi and they say it takes them out of the movie magic of something like that. For me this is the 21st century and to use cgi is good to compete with other films visual effects and it don't make the prequels outdated for e.g. look at star wars revenge of the sith opening scene the battle of corcusant space battle was amazing and very detailed cause of cgi. Some fans say its better to use more practical effects more then cgi, i like both practical and cgi effects but just don't understand whats wrong with too much cgi.

 

Here's an article resuming thoughts on this matter from makingstarwars.net : http://makingstarwars.net/2013/08/star-wars-episode-vii-cgi-versus-practical-effects/

 

Well, compared to the movies coming out at the time of the prequels, the definitely had some of the most CGI in a movie. However, when you compare it to films today, it's really not that big of a deal. George was actually too ahead of his time and got mocked for it. If the prequels came out today, no one would bat an eye. At least he tried to tell a good story, which is WAY more than I can say for Avatar which got tons of praise.

 

I think the question was worded a bit weird: "What's wrong with using too much CGI in the prequels?" should've been rephrased into "What's wrong with using a lot of CGI in the prequels?" because they didn't really use too much.

I thought the added CGI (even though there was much less than everyone makes it seem) made the films look amazing but that's just me.

 

As I have said repeatedly it's not what kind or how much that really matters it's how it *reads*. Some like me, see CGI has false and hollow and jarring. Others love it. Both is fine and neither is wrong.

 

That happens to those who seemed to be ahead of their time in the film business. Especially today, when tastes in movies tend to be more conservative.

But isn't all forms of movie special effects false and hollow?

 

Practical vfx have real limitations. You are encumbered by real world physics. Digital vfx allow you to go back and rework a scene and run through iteration after iteration to improve a scene.
With optical compositing, you were usually stuck with what you got or had to go back and start over from the beginning if you wanted to improve something. \

CG should be used to do things only CG is capable of doing. Practical on-set special fx and/or CG vfx should be used if it achieves a better result,as the bedrock or foundation of shots of the rest, that is then composited and enhanced with CG if necessary(which it usually is in some form).

That's usually the way the best vfx people do it anyway.

 

those picture's are a good illustrations of matte painting being used in the OT. CGI just opened up more possibilities.

 

I think the balance of effects is just about right in the prequels -- though things get a little CG-heavy at times. That said, I've become relatively acclimated to it on repeat viewings, and it's only really poorly-done effects shots (subjectively speaking) that stand out to me as bad or objectionable (like the platform going over Obi-Wan in the Dooku duel in ROTS; or Obi-Wan jumping atop the reek in AOTC). Other times, the effects are so beautifully executed (the rain on Kamino, say, or the ensuing asteroid chase), that you still can't believe these films were made at all. How??? Everyone has a different take on this, however.

I agree with you. CGI brought Star Wars into the 21st Century. The original trilogy is great for what it is, but I'm glad Star Wars didn't stay that way.

And Battle of Coruscant has an impressive sense of scale and density to it, tending to abstraction.

Visual effects artist Lorne Peterson actually cites it to make an analogy that expresses the growth in Lucas' visual powers between the OT and the PT:

"It's like looking at the simplest of Pablo Picasso's paintings on one side (ANH) and the most close-up of Seurat painting (ROTS), y'know, and it's just dots and it's things, and stuff is happening all the time in Sith."



To gain a better sense of what he means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Seurat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromoluminarism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism

 

The Coruscant space battle is good use of CGI, but too many of the sets were CGI. You ever notice how many scenes there are where the characters are just walking slowly while talking to each other, then they stop, face each other, and keep talking? They never interact with their environment in these scenes because when the scenes were shot, there was no environment with which to interact.

 

Yes, it's noticeable but that's not why they don't interact with the environment. They don't interact because the script didn't call for it. It only called for them to walk…stop…turn…face each other…and talk some more. If the script would've called for them to interact with a set, they would've built a set. Each prequel film had around the same number of set builds as TESB.

 

This is the chicken and the egg argument. You say they don't interact with their environment because the script didn't call for it. Well, the reason why the script didn't call for it because the script-writer knew it would be an all-CGI greenscreen set.

That's actually pretty pathetic when you consider the relative budgets for the prequels versus E5.

 

No because they built plenty of practical sets where there was interaction with the characters in the environment. Lucas wrote the script and gave it to Rick to begin building sets based on that script.
You'll have to be more specific about which all-greenscreen sets you think caused the characters to act stiffly against.
They act the way they act based on the director and his script.

 

Since when does the budget of a movie revolves around the amount of pratical sets built for it?

 

Concerning film budgets...

The prequels had bigger budgets, but they weren't ginormous.

In fact, compared to other big-budget films of the period, they were made with stunning efficiency.

Only LOTR can really in any way compare. "Batman Begins" was a more expensive film. "Avatar" was a fantastically more expensive film.

And the budget of J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" movies -- of which there are only two -- adds up to $340 million.

You know how much the prequels add up to? The same amount (give or take a few million).

That's pretty astounding, to me.

 

Oh, I don't know about that, I can think of some examples on the top of my head here:

In AOTC, Anakin cutting the pipe during his duel with Dooku. Later, Dooku throws several objects from the hanger at Yoda.

In ROTS, Anakin's cloak blowing in the wind as he watches Master Windu leave.

Also in TPM, didn't Maul throw something at Obi-Wan?

ETA: Would the budgets be around same if not for inflation?

 

Cryogenic, yes 120-125 million per prequel film. And Lucas basically did not budge against that number even though ROTS came seven years after TPM.

mes520, what exactly are you suggesting with your lightsaber duels examples? Those were sets.
The earlier post was suggesting examples where characters were talking and turning real professional and composed.
That wasn't because Lucas was afraid they'd step off the real set and into a sea of green, costing the production $10,000 for a new digital composite. It was because that was the way those characters acted always, in front of green screens or on a practical set. Lucas just wanted the jedi, politicians, and other characters to have this formality about them.

 

Box Office Mojo lists TPM and AOTC at $115 million each, and ROTS slightly lower, at $113 million.

Not sure how they derive their figures, but it's roughly in-line with what Rick McCallum says in "The Making" of book for ROTS (p. 161):

"The idea for Episode II was to make it for ten percent less than Episode I," McCallum says. "And we did. The next challenge was to shoot Episode III for exactly what we shot Episode I for, and we did--even though, between Episode I and Episode III, there was virtually twenty-four percent inflation. So we're happy with our achievement in Sydney. Everybody worked hard and nobody got greedy. Ultimately, it cost $59 million to shoot, and it will cost $55 to $60 million for the effects, so around $115 million total."

 

Yeah, I believe he said in the SW Insider's Main release Interviews that the first two films were around 120-125 figures, and they then planned to shoot ROTS for less. That was always their intent apparently.
I suppose they can always round up or down a few million. Wouldn't be unheard of.

 

The thing that bothers me so much about the "too much CGI" complaint is that 99% of the time, people don't know what they're talking about.

I've seen people complain about how Kamino -- Kamino! -- looks when it's a miniature. And yet those same people, when I ask them their opinions about the clonetroopers don't realize that they were all CGI.

Or when they say the acting suffered due to CGI. You mean like the most common complaint -- the Attack of the Clones Anakin/Padmé romance? Which happened to be shot on location for a HUGE portion of the time. In Spain. In Italy. In Tunisia.

Then there's people who say CGI ruins the film because it looks fake which, granted, is a subjective opinion. But how in the world do these people watch older films or TV series. Like the original Star Trek, for instance?

 

Well I remember people complaining about the senate scenes post-space battle in ROTS with the big red columns and how they looked fake when at least a portion of that was a set.

 

considering TESB ended up over $30 million in 1979, and TPM was $115 million 18 years later, factoring in inflation i don't think there was much difference.

 

Using an inflation calculator and selecting the years 1980 and 1999, TPM emerges as quite a bit more extensive -- about twice the cost of TESB.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
http://fxtop.com/en/inflation-calculator.php

TPM's actual production budget, however, adjusted for inflation, is similar to the total budget of TESB.

A lot of money went into all those visual effects. They certainly didn't come cheap back then.

And that's going by your figure of $30 million. IMDb and Box Office Mojo both list a budget of $18 million for TESB. That would, of course, make TPM even more expensive, in comparison.

Overall, TPM cost two to three times as much to make, as TESB. AOTC and ROTS, having pretty much the same budget as TPM, but made a few years later, were that little bit cheaper.

 

I felt that whenever the ILM guys took charge of the movie and allowed their imaginations run wild, then the prequels were rather fun.
When I see troubles with those movies, the special effects are not the serious issues.

 

I'm wondering if it isn't too much CGI, but just the way the CGI looks kind of 'plastic' next to the real worldish matte paintings? The matte stuff, even if it was 'fake,' doesn't have that slight uncanny valley feel that something digital does, where CGI comes off as a little bit too shiny, a little bit too transparent/ not transparent enough, and if it's a character, parts of him or her move just in such a subtle way that it feels slightly 'off,' but you can't put your finger on why.

It's not so bad if just about everything is CGIed, but it's slightly jarring if it's shown for long periods of time (and not just 'enhancements' here and there, and mixed with stuff from the real world like people or other things. That's when you can see the very slight contrast, because not always do they get it right...