main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

ST Who else wants to see even less CGI?

Discussion in 'Sequel Trilogy' started by 357hermon, Jan 13, 2016.

  1. Pro Scoundrel

    Pro Scoundrel New Films Expert At Modding Casual star 6 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    This thread would get along a lot better if everyone would stop treating subjective opinion as fact, treating posters with different opinions as wrong, posting videos ad nauseam to support your biases, and speculating on the motives behind the opinions of complete strangers.
     
    Darth Djent and DavidSword79 like this.
  2. JediMatteus

    JediMatteus Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2008
    true, Pro Scoundrel , but the entire existence of this thread, is predicated on using our own flawed understandings in the first place. Because of this maybe it should be closed.
     
  3. JediChipKelly

    JediChipKelly Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Jan 3, 2016
    You're calling me out to admit my personal bias against CGI, when your sig is CGI > Practical Effects. ;) Not sure if you saw the irony there? [face_laugh]


    I guess they didn't have a problem with TFA's less use of CGI since its the #1 Grossing Domestic Movie of All-Time! :)


    I respectfully disagree as TPM has aged alot better then AOTC/ROTS, and that is because Lucas used more CGI worlds in those 2 movies. So it really has nothing to do with PT hatin, as I just gave props to Episode 1's look.

    You didn't answer my original question, How would TFA be any better with more CGI? Again, we may goto the movies for different reasons as I care about the story and character first, as that is what makes a great movie years later. Then you have a monster blockbuster hit like Independence Day in 1996 that wowed people when they blew up the White House, and now the movie is just some cheesy sci-fi movie that is probably a guilty pleasure to those same fans today.

    You can worry about the CGI in Episode 8 & 9, I'm focused on the story and the battle between Rey and Kylo Ren.

    :)
     
  4. JabbatheHumanBeing

    JabbatheHumanBeing Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Yup. TPM looks infinitely better than AOTC and ROTS. Though I would argue that this has to do with a better blend of practical and digital, shooting on film, AND a much better and less busy design palette created by Doug Chiang. The second and third movies were heavily influenced by Ryan Church's designs and aesthetic, and I think he really botched the look of the universe.
     
  5. Prisic Duskleap

    Prisic Duskleap Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 24, 2014
    JediChipKelly

    Lol I meant that irony on purpose. We are all bias when you think about it its human nature to be bias. There is no denying I prefer CGI over practical in my opinion it just looks better :).

    Well its the first SW film in a decade it was going to do good no matter what. I doubt the success had anything to do with the lack of CGI. Heck I have seen a lot of complaints about the bland look of the film and of course you hear the complaints of the ANH rehashes. Too be fair the CGI that TFA had did look amazing I just wish it used more of it.

    And this is where our personal basis factors in again :) I would prefer TFA to have used more CGI to create otherworldly planets that don't look like Earth. Realism can work for certain films but SW doesn't need that like I have said a thousand times lol. Star Wars is a space saga why should it look like it takes place in rainforests, a california desert and other earth like environments? I want something that looks unreal. CGI helps filmmakers achieve the impossible that's why I have a lot of respect for it and prefer it to be used over Practical.

    So to answer to your question I wanted more CGI in TFA because it would of made the film so much better.
     
    Thomas Jay likes this.
  6. AmySolo

    AmySolo Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Sorry, it's "would have" :)
     
  7. Ed_Fett_77

    Ed_Fett_77 Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2015
    ROTS is the best looking SW PT Movie, it wipes the floor with TPM. It also has the best looking and interesting SW Planets of all seven Movies. I'm fine with most Planets are based on on real Locations but one Planet per Movie should be more wired Alien and creatively made.
     
  8. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Again I would point out that TFA has at least just as much and likely far more CGI than ROTS.

    Either way ROTS in terms of creating environments like The Invisible Hand, Coruscant, Kashyyyk, Utapau, Mustafar, Polis Massa etc used tons of practical effects in hundreds of shots that TFA didn't and couldn't for all sorts of reason including that things just aren't done that way and they really had no time to even bother to try since very few do.

    Trying to do things like the PT did with models and miniatures is useless now as CGI gives you results that are far better in terms of time, cost and versatility of approach.

    There is no absolute one to one connection between CGI and otherworldly planets that don't look like Earth. CGI of course is hugely important in populating such places and filling them out.

    So the only real question in terms of VIII and IX is are they go to keep on with the "barren" planet approach of the OT and TFA or are they actually going to go places with civilizations even if they are somewhat sparser ones that would require some layers?
     
  9. Yodahasgreenfeet

    Yodahasgreenfeet Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 2012

    [​IMG]
     
  10. kip73

    kip73 Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 30, 2003
    I don't care as long as the movie is good, and the CGI isn't a distraction.
     
    Avnar likes this.
  11. Metal Lord

    Metal Lord Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Absolutely. There are some outstanding examples that show the different strengths:
    -Practical effects: That amazing space battle/dogfight in ROTJ is just awesome. In contrast, I felt a little sorry that the Millennium Falcon in TFA was instantly recognizable als a CGI. When it comes to spacecrafts, I love the look of really good models.
    -Practical effects, part II: Jabba the Hutt only looks great when it's the big puppet. Looked real and not as obviously fake as the special edition CGI Jabba.
    -CGI: Say about Jar Jar what you want, I think he still looks great, very convincing.
    -CGI, part II: Part of the appeal of the PT are the huge worlds that we get to see, Coruscant for example. CGI is needed for this vision and I'm glad Lucas did things his way.
    -Best of both: TPM and the battle on Mustafar show how awesome these two methods work together. Miniatures and CGI really can get you in that galaxy far, far away.

    So, whatever works best, they should go for it. I fear that they won't give us miniature/model ships again because it's probably easier and faster done with CGI, but maybe I will write them and hope that they give it a thought. ;)
     
    thejeditraitor likes this.
  12. Ed_Fett_77

    Ed_Fett_77 Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2015
    Well said.
     
    Thomas Jay and thejeditraitor like this.
  13. Yodahasgreenfeet

    Yodahasgreenfeet Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Taken from Yahoo news

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/force-awakens-did-cg-well-011501145.html

    The Force Awakens did CG so well, not even the FX artists can spot it all



    Every year, five films are nominated for an Academy Award in the “Visual Effects” category. This year, each and every nominee offers its own unique inside look at the amazing tricks filmmakers and their effects teams must use to pull off the visual spectacles that make for a big-screen blockbuster. In recognition of these five films — and one of our favorite Oscar categories — we’re putting the spotlight on one “Visual Effects” nominee each day leading up to Sunday’s broadcast, and taking a closer look at what made them stand out.

    Previously, we looked at the artificially intelligent android of Ex Machina, the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Mad Max: Fury Road, the alien world of The Martian, and the brutal bear attack in The Revenant. For the final installment of the series, we go behind the scenes with Star Wars: The Force Awakens to explore how visual effects turned this sci-fi sequel into a bona fide blockbuster.
    Much has been made of the use of practical effects in Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens in the lead-up to the film’s record-breaking premiere, but that doesn’t mean director J.J. Abrams’ long-awaited sequel avoided digital effects altogether — quite the contrary, in fact.
    The most successful movie of all time in the U.S. and the fast-rising challenger to a host of worldwide records, The Force Awakens relies on a blend of practical effects and computer-generated elements to immerse audiences in the sci-fi saga’s colorful universe. More than 2,100 visual-effects shots were created for the film, with the majority of them produced by Industrial Light & Magic, the studio created by George Lucas for the 1977 movie that launched the franchise.
    The primary task presented to the VFX team was one that would prove to be a recurring theme in The Force Awakens, reaching far beyond the visual effects: How to balance the old with the new in the Star Wars universe.

    “People clearly wanted some kind of return to the DNA of those first three movies,” explained ILM’s Roger Guyett, the overall visual-effects supervisor on The Force Awakens, in a recent interview with FX Guide. “If you think about the environment those films were shot in, they were clearly shot at a time where it was harder to do visual effects. So invariably they would do things like build sets.”
    “We really set out to build as much as we could in-camera and to go to as many locations as we could – and photograph as much in-camera,” he continued. “But you’re still obviously doing a Star Wars movie. It would have been foolish to ignore the contemporary technology that’s available to a modern filmmaker.”
    Abrams and the film’s VFX team found the happy medium between CG and practical elements by going above and beyond in their treatment of the digital effects as extensions of the real, physical sets the actors were performing within during production. Life-size versions of spaceships, desert speeders, and outposts filled with all manner of non-human inhabitants became the foundation of many scenes, with the VFX team then building out those environments with massive, crashed starships in the distance and alien moons on the horizon.
    The end result was a world in which it was difficult to tell where the CG effects began and the physical set ended.
    Possibly the best example of this aesthetic can be found in BB-8, the spherical droid that — much like its predecessor in the original Star Wars trilogy, R2-D2 — became a regular fixture in the protagonists’ galaxy-spanning adventure.

    After appearing in the first trailer for The Force Awakens, BB-8 captured the attention of fans with the unique visual the droid presented: a rolling ball with a head that somehow moves independently of its tumbling, spinning body. Widely believed to be an entirely digital character (and prompting some skeptics to fear the droid would become this film’s Jar-Jar Binks), BB-8 famously dismissed critics and restored fans’ hopes last year when it rolled onto stage during the film’s live, streaming panel at Disney’s Star Wars Celebration event.
    With just a few laps around the stage and some beeping, whirring conversation with Abrams and the cast of the film on stage, BB-8 quickly became emblematic of Abrams’ practical-first approach toward the effects in The Force Awakens.
    BB-8’s on-screen performance was made possible by both ILM and Oscar-winning creature-effects supervisor Neal Scanlan, whose team created several puppet versions of the droid that could perform alongside the actors. One of the puppets could be moved using a remote control, while the others could be manually moved around or remain static while parts of the robot’s body were moved remotely.
    “By having a puppeteer operate the droid meant that he had a personality,” explained Guyett of the importance of retaining a practical element with BB-8. “So by building it and giving it a personality and a character and allowing the actors to react to it in-camera means that they understand what it is you’re talking about and understand BB-8’s performance.”
    While the majority of BB-8’s performance in the film is the product of Scanlan’s puppet, Guyett estimates that at least a third of the shots featuring BB-8 were digitally created using photos and scans of the practical puppet. Exactly which ones were created with CG is a question Guyett says even he has trouble answering, thanks to the level of detail — and collaboration — between Scanlan’s team and ILM.
    That approach to BB-8 resonated throughout much of the film’s production — even in scenes that defied the use of practical effects. When it came time to create some of the movie’s wild, mid-air spaceship scenes, the need to ground those fully computer-generated sequences in reality even affected the way the Millennium Falcon zoomed across the surface of the desert planet, Jakku, while evading TIE fighters.
    “A big thing about believability [in computer-generated scenes] is, do you feel like everything in this movie could’ve been shot?” explained ILM visual effects supervisor Patrick Tubach in an interview with Variety. “Even when you’re in full CG sequences, are you feeling like that camera is something that you could’ve mounted on a helicopter? For instance, in the Falcon chase sequence, when the Falcon whips by the camera at the end and then dives into that big engine, we did that scene multiple times, and we figured out we were moving the camera way too fast. So we took it down to a speed that it is actually achievable. You needed to be able to do it.”
    The team even went so far as to base their intricately detailed digital models of ships on the physical models used in the first trilogy decades ago. Fortunately, the Lucasfilm archives proved to be a rich resource for ILM, both for referencing the spaceships and other vehicles at play in The Force Awakens, and for gaining some in-depth perspective on one of the franchise’s most famous ships.

    In order to bring back the Millennium Falcon, which plays a major role in The Force Awakens, the team painstakingly built a digital version of Han Solo’s iconic ship based on the model used in 1977’s Star Wars.
    “This model is one of the most beautiful things you’ve ever seen,” recalled asset build supervisor Dave Fogler. “We scanned it. We photographed it. Our needs were … not only did we need it to look like that, but we get really close to it in the film. We also acknowledged that in a virtual-reality experience, someone might walk up to and look at a bolt on a door. So there was a lot of talk about how far we detailed it. We went pretty far. It’s a remarkably detailed model, our Falcon.”
    Sadly, the team’s digital model of the Millenium Falcon isn’t the sort of thing one can put on a shelf, but with Star Wars: The Force Awakens viewed as one of the favorites to take home an Academy Award this year, there’s reason to believe ILM might be adding another Oscar to its collection anyways — as long as The Force is with it.
     
    AmySolo likes this.
  14. ThisHurricane

    ThisHurricane Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2015
    I'd like more CGI in episode 8, rather expand more in the film. The independence day 2 trailer looks so nice.
     
  15. Darth Basin

    Darth Basin Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Obvious CGI or CGI enhanced shots. Space, planets/moons in space, all ships flying, Jakku wreckage, SKB, many shots on SKB, certain BB-8 action shots, blaster fire, lightsaber glow, hyperspace, a shot of Kylo wearing his mask, Droid walking out of Maz's castle, Hosnian Prime, & Honsian Prime destroyed. Now the real bad, Maz, Snoke & Plutt's mouth.

    Do I want 2 c less CGI? I want 2 c more good CGI. Well also I want 2 c less bad practical effects.
     
    Thomas Jay and Qui-Riv-Brid like this.
  16. 357hermon

    357hermon Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2016
    It seems some got offended by this topic. Didn't expect this to go this far. To reiterate, I simply was curious what boundaries could be pushed using less CGI. It can be done, and I wanted to know who was out there that agreed. Take it down a notch please.
     
  17. Darth Basin

    Darth Basin Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Flying ships in CGI look better then models IMHO.
     
  18. Thrawn082

    Thrawn082 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 11, 2014
    I didn't find most of those to be "obvious" at all. In fact, I was surprised that a lot of them turned out to be CGI, they were that good and well-integrated imo.
     
    AmySolo likes this.
  19. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    I guess it depends what you are looking for and what you think CGI is.

    For instance going in it was known that the so called "practical effects" worked was very much limited in scope. Far more than any of the previous movies. They only talked about a very narrow range of "practical" work which in itself was no different than any Star Wars production except that they were doing far less overall.They simply didn't talk about all the practical things they weren't going to do. If they were doing them then they would have talked about them. Hence no models or miniatures and no motion control camera work.

    That they talked this up and gave the impression of some "return" to things that were used before is simple marketing because the prequels didn't really talk up all the standard things that had been done for decades. TFA was excited to talk about 'real sets and locations' and going to deserts and make it out to be some achievement.

    Basically when talking about actual "old school" practical effects used on the OT (which was the baseline idea they were throwing out) then anything in TFA that certainly couldn't be done then is "CGI". TFA was packed to the brim with "CGI" ie all the actual CGI and digital manipulations that separate what it looks like from the OT.

    Even in the above article they talk about finding this supposed "medium" between CG and practical. Well OK then. If that is the story they want to continue to promote they will. I guess it makes them feel better about it but it doesn't change the fact that they used likely at least just as much and just as likely far more CGI then any of the prequels. I very much doubt they are ever going to want to talk about that anymore than they did about BB-8 being CGI a third of time. They even shy away from saying they have trouble knowing which shots of BB-8 are CGI. The answer is relatively easy. It's very hard for a prop to give out emotion. Anytime it's actually giving out a true performance it's very unlikely that it's simply the prop.
     
  20. CEB

    CEB Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 3, 2014
    A better question for the thread would be "who wants to notice less CGI?"

    For me, TFA didn't do anything groundbreaking with visual effects, and that's fine. It did stuff well, and the effects are unlikely to age badly.
     
  21. Dagobah Dragonsnake

    Dagobah Dragonsnake Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Models can work in space battles. They are not so effective when there is a complex background such as shots down toward the surface, or atmosphere battles with a surface environment background. I felt those in TFA did very well. In general the use of CGI in TFA did not seem to be spectaculars in CGI technology that were designed to look like CGI spectaculars. Personally I would like to see more diverse surroundings, and I believe we will considering the places they are filming, and I hope they continue to use CGI or even amp it up a bit, but also continue to not have the CGI technology itself become the focus of the scene.
     
  22. thejeditraitor

    thejeditraitor Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 19, 2003
    i don't think you know what bad cgi is. just because you know it's cgi doesn't mean it's bad.

    good cg

    [​IMG]

    bad cg

    [​IMG]
     
    Yodahasgreenfeet likes this.
  23. Galaxik

    Galaxik Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Feb 26, 2016
    It's not the CGI that's necessarily the problem, rather I'd like a story that doesn't have too much need for CGI at all, i.e: less big, flashy "action movie" shots.
     
  24. AmySolo

    AmySolo Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 12, 2016
    But it's literally called Star Wars, action is expected.
     
  25. Yodahasgreenfeet

    Yodahasgreenfeet Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 2012
    There's a different between this...


    And this...


    And this...


    Action scenes don't have to be over the top stupid... I actually walked out of the theaters for Pirates of the Caribbean 3 because of that. I liked the first, the second two were trying to be epic, and over the top... and I actually couldn't sit through them...

    I actually liked the 4th, unlike most people because it was toned down more like the first.



    This scene is so powerful it actually makes me cry. I love this movie. But the CGI at the end with the guitar and steering wheel I think we could of done without.