ST CGI in The Force Awakens

But isn't that a point in its favour anyway? Effects of any kind are more effective when the context doesn't reveal the artifice.

 

And part of a filmmaker's job is to light CGI in such a way as to make it believable. Good CGI isn't just about rendering. It's about the whole process of blending digital elements with physical elements in such a way that they don't stick out like a sore thumb. And in that context, the CGI in Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers was much better handled than the CGI in AOTC and ROTS.

And yes, the troll in Fellowship of the Ring was better CGI than Grievous. Better-rendered, better-lit, better-integrated into the frame.

Exactly. If you've over-lit CGI, and it looks bad, try hiding it through a creative use of lighting. Like a magician, half the battle of film-making is hiding the artifice. If you haven't hidden it, you've failed to meet the expectations of most viewers.

Now, if you appreciate a digital, non-realistic look to CGI in live action films, that's your prerogative. But most people simply see that as a design flaw.

 

Again that is just your opinion... I do not see why Grievous is a bad CGI compare to the Troll... both were fine enough to fit the movie. Neither of them really take you out of the movie and think "That is just lazy CGI...". I think you are not really knowing the reason people didn't like Grievous, it was not because Grievous was a CGI character but rather people did not like the sudden introduction of a new villain.

The real character that gets you that feeling is Snoke... the size, the design and the idea... everything was a joke about him...

 

Are people really trying to compare the effects in films circa 10 years apart? TFA has effects that are the general standard of 2015. Visual effects, specifically digital, have moved on... they have improved. That is both evident in Abrams Star Trek films and TFA. The main difference between how the visual effects are used between ROTS and TFA is that Lucas used them to expand his galaxy, visually, whereas in TFA they are are kind of used more generically IMO. So whilst I think TFA has the most photorealistic digital effects, and does give us a good blend between the practical and digital effects, the effects on display are largely unimaginative and reflect more the ubiquity of effects in generic action films.

On the TFOTR troll versus Grievous. It's a no brainer. The troll is substantially inferior in terms of design, animation and overall realisation. It's really like comparing Boss Nass to Maz and arguing the former is a 'better' effect.

 

I must admit, I'm struggling to see the issue with General Grievous; to my eyes he looks a lot less dated than some of LOTR CG, including the troll above.

However, I'm firmly in the camp where I think the story and the shelf life of Star Wars is so important that it doesn't need to be pushing boundaries in effects all the time; boundary pushing should be a side effect if something requires it. Generally, most films look better when they work within limits

 

I think "pushing the boundaries of effects" is more bourn out of a principle of visual storytelling than it is a result of pushing special effects for special effects sake. When Lucas was thinking where he could take Star Wars, primarily I believe he was thinking where he could take it visually/creatively... be that a city in the clouds or a volcanic planet.... the "how?" came second.

 

Note; by "troll above", I'm not referring to Darth PJ

 

I thought the CG in the force awakens looked pretty good for the most part. Was a groundbreaking? No. Then again, I don't think it necessarily needed to be. It served the story and didn't take me out of it. The only thing I felt was lacking in quality from the CG standpoint was Maz Kanata. I felt she could've been made to look much better. Other than that, I thought everything looked great.

I totally agree with the argument that people seem to constantly Rip on CG being used, even if it's great CG – just because they are biased against it. It's such an ignorant point of view. I also think it was kind of funny how the people making the movie constantly shoved in our faces all during the production the idea of "practical effects, practical effects, practical effects!" To the point that many a purist seemed to think the whole movie would be nothing but puppets and models - And then the movie comes out and there's a ton of CG-Just like any other effects heavy movie!

 

I don't care if it's practical or digital. Maybe it's just growing up with CGI, but I have no problem with it. Same if practical effects are used. And general audiences obviously prefer CGI, or don't mind it anyway. It's just the online elite who proclaim CGI is an abomination and everything must be practical. Why can't film advance? Should we constantly be stuck in the 70s/80s of filmmaking and not explore new techniques? Which is why some SW fans irk me, thinking SW has to stick to the 70s/80s feel and look and can't progress visually. It should expand with the next generation.

And discussing dated CGI, I think the PT CGi is amazing, especially today. To be honest, I think Jar Jar looks more realistic/better rendered than Gollum (LOTR anyway, he looked amazing in Hobbit). Especially watching in HD, Jar Jar's skin just looks better and less rubbery/blurry. Gollum, especially in Two Towers, just looks muddy and fake, and when he interacts with a human character/object the CGI just looks ugh. And Jackson relies too heavily on CGI stunt doubles, and it's painfully obvious when you see them, like the Fellowship running over the bridge in FotR. Lucas uses them (from what I've been able to decipher) sparingly, and if he uses them tends not to close up on the face. Anakin jumping out of the speeder in AotC is obviously a CGI Hayden falling, but it looks great and realistic because we don't see it too up close to immediately think it.

 

I think you both misunderstood what I was saying. I do not think that the CGI in ROTS is worse than the CGI in any of the LotR movies. What I am saying is that some people may perceive it that way because of the lighting. It isn't that there was poor lighting in ROTS, but it simply wasn't as dark so some people might not notice the CGI as much.

What is really telling is that people often use images of models from the PT and claim it as CGI. Such as the droid control ship a few posts back. If you cannot tell the difference between what is CGI and what is a model is your issue really with the CGI or is it with the art style? I think that is really what most people have an issue with. The artistic style of the PT was very clean. Which to some can make things look a lot more artificial.

 

I think Abrams knows how to blend CGI and Practical so well we are hard pressed to tell what is practical and what is CGI in all of his films and may be that is why you are not impressed with the effects of the TFA. if only other film makers did it like Abrams then every Hollywood big budget film would be perfect!

I would say in a world where CGI Is king and every big budget film over uses CGI that It was ground breaking that TFA had way less CGI and used way more practical effects!!!!! that is the groundbreaking part of it all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It was quite obvious to me where the CGI was. What he purposely did, IMO, is use Earth type environments so the digital was less conspicuous. So whilst the digital shots on the desert, forest and and snow planet help blur the lines between effect and practical (which is positive), for me, the negative side of that is I find many of the locations visually bland and insipid.

 

This. I totally agree with all of that. Especially your paragraph about those who seem to expect filmmaking not to ever progress, and go backwards instead – and always be sticking stubbornly to 70s/80s forms of special effects. I've been saying that for years! I refuse to accept that puppets and matte boxes/paintings look better than CG characters- especially motion capture – and CG rendered environments. Because you know what?

It's ALL fake anyway.

With just a few exceptions, I also felt the CG in the prequels was not bad. In fact I felt the CG in revenge of the Sith is fantastic. CG Yoda in the PT looks just as good as Maz Kanata did IMO.

The point of all this is, Star Wars has always pushed the envelope in innovative moviemaking technology. puppets and matte boxes were innovative at the time of th OT. CG and DigitalFilming was innovative at the time of the PT. TFA didn't really do too much in the way of technological innovation, but it was a respectable blend of both – which I enjoyed.

 

In terms of ROTS Yoda, I do think Maz is more photorealistic... it's next generation so no surprises there. Unfortunately, IMO, Maz is just a totally vanilla character and woefully unimaginative (in terms of design). I hope she gets ditched for the next films. I'd rather have more Chewie and BB8.

 

RotS Yoda looks amazing, and personally feels more real than puppet Yoda. When he's walking alongside Obi and Bail, his movements and overall look are just spot on, and he looks and feels like a real creature. Puppets are too restrictive. For their time, they got the job done, but movement was limited. With a CGI character you can get more range and expression. Try getting a puppet to express the trauma of feeling Order 66 through the Force. Like the luggabeast on Jakku, it was cool and was done well, but the leg movement was too stiff and you could tell it was just a puppet. See, it goes both ways for practical and digital. Sure, it may actually be there in front of the actor to interact with, but that's not all there is to it. CGI Yoda is there just the same as puppet Yoda, in the end.

Like one thing I hate reading about leaks and behind the scenes is "practical creatures were spotted on set!", like it has to be mentioned ALL the time. Why can't they just use what will feel right in the end, and not have to feel restricted to practical just to appease the outspoken 70s kids?

 

I also think Maz isn't the best alien design. Wish they had gone with this earlier concept:

 

I don't know why they couldn't have just had the actor in costume. She's pretty good as she is.

 

I really like her design in the film, far more so than the earlier concepts. She's human enough in appearance (whilst still looking alien) to allow for Lupita's performance with both vocals and expression to shine through. The goggles, and their application in the film are a really great touch (discussed this in more detail in other threads already) and when her goggles are in resting position, the shape of the "hollows" surrounding her eyes intentionally recall that of an owl, which again fits perfectly with the character for obvious reasons.

This "owl" like appearance is probably most noticeable when she's talking to Rey in profile after the force vision, and I like the fact that she actually removes her goggles for this heart to heart - she's already got the measure of Rey, and it's time to get down to brass tax. "Dear child. I see your eyes."

I don't see what the earlier "long neck" concepts add to the character in light of the above, and they seem to be missing the "kindly school teacher" aspect of Maz's character that we get with her final design too.

 

I think Maz looks like Mr Yunisoshi. The CGI is great, but the design is awful, IMO, no doubt handicapped by the need to design a creature that harkened back to Yoda.

 

Disagree - and an absolutely bizarre comparison.

 

I don't prefer the long neck. Just the face of this earlier animatronic concept. There's something more ancient and wise about it. Hard to describe why. I just like it a lot better.

 

Fair enough! To me that face lacks the sense of humanity that we get with Maz in TFA, (and the same with some of the other discarded Maz concepts) but I suppose we'll never know exactly how it would have played out in motion/on screen.

 

@jabbathehumanbeing Are you joking? That lord of the rings look FAKE and ROTS loosk PERFECT! If you want to insult it, don't call it early 2000 video game graphics, it's like when hellogreedo calls it ps2 graphics, if you look at REAL ps2/early 2000 game graphics, it's VASTLY inferior to this image of a ACTUAL PS2/EARLY 2000 VIDEO GAME CUTSCENE!

I don't get the hate of ROTS or TFA. I'm not even sure if some of the pictures were CGI and not live action shots. As for ROTS,it's obviously CGI because it's of something that can only be in a alien world, so you know it's not real, but it looks real.

You keep saying "look at these bad images" but all you show are terrific beautiful CGI. It makes me think you're trolling the forum. It's hard to believe you mean what you say.

If you say that Grievous Picture looks like the two below it you really need your eyes checked. Nothing's wrong with TFA or RTOS CGI. Both look just like real life. I swear if people didn't know it was CGI nobody would complain. It's like with the Rey's bread situation, when people thought it was CGi the people said it looked "fake" and was unnessesary ...but when they found out it wasn't CGI they all said it looked beautiful and had fangasms. -_- People need to stop acting like Hellogreedo does. No star wars film is perfect, but don't twist around the good things to hate it for the sake of hating, point out Jar Jar being a representative as pointless, don't go and say his 6 and a half minutes of comedy, be it good or bad to you was a "franchise killer".....

Sorry for mini rant but when people bash PT stuff, I wish it was the ACTUAL bad stuff, not the good stuff like the beautiful CGI.

 

I like a lot of what the PT had to offer (there's also a lot i'm not so keen on), but to my eyes a lot of the visuals in ROTS did not look real. The fight in Mustafar being a solid example of this. I know it was filmed using a combination of CGI & models, but something about it just doesn't look right at all. This also extends heavily to the AOTC visuals. For me personally.

 

Part of me suspects that the lighting used in ROTS was chosen in part to be more forgiving to the digital cameras, just as with AOTC. Both films have a very "video" look (AOTC more so) and that tends to help break the illusion with composited shots featuring actors.