ST CGI in The Force Awakens

Fair enough mate. I remember the first time I saw TFA in the IMAX, I was raving about that scene to a friend before he eventually saw it himself. Will need to see it again to see if I can pick up on what you're saying.

 

The CGI in TFA was exactly how it should be I.e. for the most part photorealistic. There were a few dodgy shots (including shots straight out of Battlefront), and I'm still not convinced about Snoke, but other than that it was aok. The bigger issue for me was the concepts/design the CGI was based on. For example, whilst I thought Maz was pretty much photorealistic, it was probably the most bland and generic creature (relative to its screen time/dialogue) I've ever seen in a Star Wars film (same goes for Snoke).

 

Speaking in general, I have no opinion on TFA CGI. The movie is very earth-like, ST like, there are no SW-like environments Lucas made in the PT on which I can evaluate the quality of CGI. There are, however, a couple things that bothered me. First, the Falcon chase on Jakku. Those crashed stardestroyers mostly looked fake, like it's a videogame. Compared to the OT Falcon, this one didn't feel tangible. Then...

That's right. Mostly fighters destroy their targets and then exit the frame. Poe just circles in it and destroys enemy ships while Finn watches like a child. Didn't feel natural, realistic at all. But that's also J. J.'s fault. I didn't really like Snoke, I'd say the concept is bad: oversized hologram, him just sitting, (for me) underdeveloped physical characteristics...

Didn't think about that until now, but yes, Maz iz quite well done. It's a shame they didn't use her character more, hopefully her role will expand in Ep 8.

 

@dagobahdragonsnake that's my point, the CGI one looks much better. It really doesn't matter about the years. 1999 CGi looks better then any practical effect I've seen out of TFA in all of 2015, heck anything from 2006-2014 as well!

 

But it's not 1999 CGI when it comes to TPM Yoda. That's the ROTS Yoda model, so you're looking at 2005 CGI at the least.

And it's all a matter of taste. I'd take ROTJ Jabba over Boss Nass any day of the week.

 

Exactly. Also, I will take puppet Jabba over plugged in retconned ANH Jabba hands down.

 

It is the lighting. Dagobah was a poorly lit world, while Coruscant is a well lite world. It is the same reason CG often doesn't work. Lighting is everything in making something that is fake to look real.


I thought the CG overall was good in TFA, except for Maz. She looked terrible to me.

 

Jabba in ROTJ was a great practical effect... and still looks great today IMO. A perfect combination of concept, design and application. Apart from BB8, I thought both the practical and digital creatures in TFA were quite uninspired and poor to be honest, though more from a design point of view rather than technical application.

 

Can't say the CGI stood out to me one way or another. Which is what Disney wanted I assume given the practical effects marketing campaign, but the practical elements didn't stand out to me too much either. Interesting visuals/designs were not a strong point of TFA for me.

 

That's a good point. For all the talk of practical, there was little sense of grand and epic sets or creature effects. It was all fairly perfunctory and almost low key.

 

I think the CGI looked better in ROTS. All CGI these days just look so... CGI-y. And now, that includes TFA.

 

Compared to TFA, the CGI in ROTS looks like animation from a Saturday morning cartoon.

I also never understood how the CGI in The Phantom Menace (and, to be fair, the Coruscant chase scene in AOTC) could look so much better than what came after.

 

Seriously? What looks bad in ROTS?

 

Mustafar

 

I could go on for ages. For me, everything that doesn't happen on Tatooine. It's the most video game-like of the PT, and miles behind TPM (and even AOTC) in terms of believable CGI (and generally, good design). Some highlights of awfulness for me:













Compare that to the simple beauty of much of TPM:



And the urban beauty of AOTC's Coruscant scenes:



No contest, IMO. ROTS is visually the worst of the prequels.

 

Well, fair enough, but that's still not *bad* bad. The Coruscant opening battle still looks better than the Battle of Starkiller base, imo.

 

Starkiller Base wasn't the most dramatically compelling scene of the film, but in terms of CGI, it's far more believable than the ROTS opener:






Is greater than:







One looks like live action, and the other looks like...well...an early 2000s video game.

 

I'd disagree 100%. To me, the ROTS opening, despite looking pretty good to me at the time, has a very synthetic quality that the Starkiller sequence lacks. Of course, ROTS is 10 years older, but to me it looks its age.

 

Agreed. Also, I often see the "it's 10 years old" defense. But there were plenty of films during that time which looked a lot better, and whose CGI was far less synthetic-looking. LOTR being one of those, though there were some missteps with ROTK.

Personally, I think the sheer volume of CGI in ROTS (and in AOTC) led to far less attention to detail. It may have been a capacity problem. But it was also almost certainly a conceptual design problem, as Church was a purveyor of clutter.

 

You can't really compare 2005 CGI and 2015 CGI... that is really unfair to 2005... of course the CGI in 2015 would be much more better unless they really messed up big time...

If you compare the Coruscant opening battle and StarKiller Base... I firmly believe that the former is much more believable... The ROTS battle really feels like a future space battle while the StarKiller Base sequence... I mean you are going in to destroy this huge planet size space station and you only send in like 30 X-wings??? What?????

The battle in Maz castle was interesting but the battle in StarKiller Base was just a huge homage to ANH... and done really poorly.... it doesn't really even build up tension....

 

Er...we're talking about visuals, not plot believability or dramatic tension.

And if you don't think it's fair to compare 2005 CGI to 2015 CGI, how about comparing ROTS's 2005 CGI to Fellowship of the Ring's 2001 CGI?






Even for its time, a lot of ROTS included junk CGI. The "it was 10 years ago!" defense doesn't stick and never will. And that's partially because it was essentially being mass produced by Lucasfilm. The CGI team simply did not have the time or money to focus on getting it all right, because there was far too much of it on the screen.

 

Just because 2001 CGI did better than 2005 CGI, 2005 CGI must do better than 2015 CGI is not a valid argument. Besides is the troll better CGI than General Grievous is debatable.

And if you are talking about just visuals TFA has one of the worst CGI character in the Star Wars history 'Snoke'....
Snoke was in no sense believable and was worse than any CGI in the prequels...
Maz... well not that bad,,, but still not good enough for making TFA a great CGI developed movie.

 

I think the CGI In LOTR was pretty bad but yes that was almost 20 years ago and ROTS was 11 years ago so I do think that Is an excuse worthy of excuses. I do feel CGI got a lot better and Jurassic World and TFA had fantastic CGI as do most Abrams films !!!!!

 

What LOTR had going for it was an aesthetic rooted in that which is physically present with the actors. It's a similar approach to TFA. So there's gobs of CGI but the nuts and bolts of the world are things that were being filmed in-camera. TPM starts off similarly until you reach Otoh Gunga, where suddenly it's a case of actors being composited amidst CGI and miniatures.

 

I thought then, and still think today, that the CGI in LotR and the PT were pretty much on par. If it doesn't seem so to you that is most likely because of the type of lighting the CGI was in. In LotR it was mostly dark lighting which hides a lot of the details that might make CGI look bad.