ST Practical or CGI?

Agreed. And apologies for the boredom. I'm done on this.

 

I'll try one last time responding to this frighteningly verbose, stubborn and repetitive naivety. Part of the aim of a reboot rather than a sequel is to improve upon what was done before. Including fx. This is different to the aim of a movie in the same series of movies that is trying, while hopefully adding something new and different, to replicate what was done successfully before. Which was my point about consistency and audience expectations.

I dont know why the obsession about Apes, as if that were the universally agreed pinnacle of movie visuals, but theyre mocap because apparently a human/ape hybrid is apparently impossible to do convincingly with a monkeysuit. A suit is not impossible to do with a suit. CGI as anything but a last resort when in camera stuff is unfeasible will leave your movie looking faker than it needs to and that's where you'll get people complaining.

Which is why if directors successfully find a ratio of digital to real or go all the way one way or the other or just put out a really quality product regardless peple dont care about this stuff, everything is hunky dory and its just good movies man

 

I think that the PT was groundbreaking in many ways, however I think in some instances it showed that technology doesn't always give you the best results. That in itself must have been a masssive learning curve and I think it will end up being of benefit to the ST because they will be able to see what worked and what didn't on previous movies and hopefully find the middle ground between CGI and practical.

 

And I too will try one last time to respond to your asinine, blinkered postion by pitching it at a level that even you may comprehend.

The original Planet of the Apes is regarded as a great science fiction movie in its own right... it demonstrates that it IS entirely possible to replicate apes behaving like humans simply by putting ‘good’ actors in ‘good’ costumes and makeup. Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes further demonstrated that makeup and costume were now at a level of sophistication that they could pretty much disguise an actor as a wholly convincing ape. ‘Rise’ and ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ could have been made with actors in makeup/costumes (or at least Serkis for close ups etc)... it was far from impossible, but they chose not to go down that route because, I believe, they thought it more logistically viable/economic to do it digitally. Simples. That is exactly in keeping with Lucas’ view on the application of this technology (Peter Jackson’s too). It’s academic whether it’s apes, clonetroopers, werewolves in Twilight or orcs in The Hobbit. They are all achievable by practical effects, they have been achieved practically in the past, but they chose to go digital.

As for Lucas’ reasons. I personally thought that the original stormtroopers looked great guarding doors etc. but were pretty unconvincing in action (sans perhaps the intro of ANH). They looked like what they were, extras in uncomfortable costumes ,who could hardly see let alone perform. I understand, given the prominence of clonetroopers in the PT, why Lucas would want more control both over performance, and the ability to ‘scale up’... which resulted in digital clontroopers. I understand why Wyatt et al chose the digital option for ‘Apes’... because they wanted control both over performance, and the ability to ‘scale up’... which resulted in digital apes. It’s borne out of the exact same principles. There's nothing to support the notion that Wyatt had higher cause and purpose in using digital technology on his film.

 

In the original film and the 2001 they are highly evolved apes, or even humanoid Apes, not actual Apes as we know them as is the case in the latest films. There is a difference which is why Whalberg's chimp assistant Pericles is an actual chimp and looks very different to the Apes played by Roth and co, a point you seem to want to ignore. If they had used an actor in a suit to also play the progenitors of the evolved apes you might have a point.

I do get the mobility issues with the Stormtroopers vs the Clones. Personally I don't think the greater mobility of the digital clones is worth the disadvantages (and no doubt cost) but I can see why some do think that. But again, what fantastic mobility do they portray in AOTC? There is very little, other than the sweeping shots of the armies, that extras in armour couldn't have ported just as effectively, if not debatably more so. The less real elements you have in the shot, the more synthetic the whole becomes and the joins become more noticeable. It's why seeing Morrison's actual head awkwardly sat atop a CG body instantly looks and feels off to some. Had he just stuck Morrison in an actual suit of armour handing Kenobi his sabre (and indeed all the other times a helmet less clone is walking around) it would have looked far better and would have been far easier, cheaper and quicker for the production.

Now apply the same logic to the Apes films - would Wyatt and Reeves have been able to shoot the film as they did, with the dynamic shots they used and with apes that look and move like the apes we know today without the technology? No where near as effectively. And the CG is so effective in places you rarely asks the question "why are they CG" but more "How the Hell did they do that?".

Even in ROTS, there are few shots I can think of that demand CG troopers and usually when those shots are used, they tend to take place in predominantly CG sequences that further add to the synthetic feel. Did the troopers on Kashyyk need to be CG? Were they any more convincing, or fluid than the Biker Scouts? The only place I can think of is the spec ops style moves of the clones on Utapau and the scene where Yoda impales a Clone with his sabre and jumps on his chest. I'm not even saying they look bad, I'm suggesting that by making them all CG all the time, it adds to the overly synthetic feel that is very at odds with the OT and that some people don't warm to so much. It's not that the CG used is bad, or that CG is bad in and of itself. It's that the balance arguably shifted too far when it perhaps didn't need to.

And again, clearly the film-makers involved in the ST appreciate this and appear to be rectifying the imbalance (though for clarity - I fully expect them to use a blend of all the best techniques available to them). It's not just bitter haters on here who can see the issue.

Anyway, I swore I was done, why the Hell am I still arguing?

 

These are apes that speak, ride horses, shoot guns... etc. the kind of things that apes don't do particualry well, but human actors can do exceedingly well (we'd rather have Peter Mayhew as Chewie as opposed to CGI I assume?). Besides, this isn't about what I find works/doesn't work - I am perfectly fine with both CGI apes and clonetroopers... both have their pros and cons. I'm fine with both puppet Yoda and CGI Yoda... both have their pros and cons. Whatever works right? I just find it interesting that some who seem most vocal about practical effects, seem perfectly fine with CGI in films they like... My personal view is that this 'requirement for a sense of reality' and 'tacticity' is less fundamental to our enjoyment/appreciation than we like to think.

I also believe that we should just try and apply the same standard/critieria across the piece... in order to retain some objectivty... but as you say, and in a move for civility, I think this debate is done.

 

62 pages in, same #### different day, this debate was done months ago!

 

Are we still allowed to debate practical vs cg though, or shall we just lock this beast?

 

No, just curious.

 

For the record, here's a snippet of an interview from AICN with Rupert Wyatt's reasoning behind the choice to go mo-cap:

Capone: at any point during the preproduction was there any debate about whether you were going to do this motion-capture approach? Was there ever any sort of discussion about that?

Rupert Wyatt: Well, no, and the simple reason is is because the story is about real apes, real chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas and such. We wanted to tell the story in a very real world sense, so there’s no way actors could have played those…

Capone: Actors have played…

RW: Not a humanoid… Do you mean in terms of the other movies?

Capone: No, I just mean sometimes they will put a human in a gorilla suit or something, even in a realistic gorilla portrayal.

RW: Well gorillas yes, you're quite right with gorillas, but when you look at chimpanzees their anatomy is so different, they have these long torsos and then these four short legs, and so we just never could have pulled it off. I went straight into this project thinking I had two choices only and that was live apes or performance capture.

 

Are you talking about the whole PT vs. OT malarkey?

Is it okay to carry on with a real discussion here?

 

I thought that was quite obvious.

 

Apparently not.

 

Here is my personal list of acceptable uses of practical and CGI. Any deviation from this just takes me out of the film.

Real
1. Animals
2. Humans

Costumes/Armor
1. Humans
2. Humanoids

CGI
1. Creatures of different proportions from human
2. Flying creatures
3. Non-human agile, acrobatic movement
4. Alien animals
5. Earth animals in danger

Puppet/Animatronic
1. Close ups of creatures
2. Interaction between actors and creatures

This may not apply to you, just how I feel personally.

 

I hoping that Chewbacca gets a lot more to do in the ST than he did in the OT, was very underused and we never got to see him actually showing off why people fear Wookies.

It appears Mayhew isn't up to any stunts (can he run?) so it would require a stand-in.

Mayhew in a suit works perfectly - I can't imagine anything other than a very dangerous stunt that would require CGI.

 

Chewie's running and action scenes will probably be done by a stunt double.
His acting scenes are going to be done by Mayhew.

 

That's a self imposed constraint, just like it is when writing a character who is a 2 ft, green Jedi Master who can leap, jump and duel... or having a planet covered in buildings, volcanoes etc. That's why digital is great... it allows filmmakers to break the constraints of 10/20 years ago. I'm sure Lucas would state that reverting back to a puppet for Yoda in AOTC/ROTS, or men in clunky costumes was not an option. As it stands, the apes look like what they are I.e. digitally rendered characters... albeit well realised ones. Also worth noting that 'Rise' did get a certain amount of flack (before the films release mostly) from those that were averse to digital apes replacing actors in makeup... hence why Wyatt was a tad defensive in some interviews when it came to the use of CGI.

 

Of course, Mayhew will be doing the "acting scenes" - who said different?

 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (and Rise) is visually more in line with the original novel. The apes were never meant to look more humanoid. They were always supposed to be real apes. Obviously, the original films couldn’t achieve this. However, even in the original films I don’t think the apes are meant to look more humanoid. I think they’re still meant to be real apes. So for the new apes films, to bring them to life as faithful to the original novel as possible, CGI is a must.

 

Yeah, pretty much how I see it. I can see how the CG Clones circa 2002 stick out in a manner that indicates a digital creation, but for me personally that's not something that is automatically negative, especially in the realm of adventure SF. The classic trooper costumes, despite being real things people actually wore, still blatantly strike me as exactly that: costumes. I have to suspend my disbelief in both cases, albeit not as often in the PT given that this trilogy had more narrative room for featuring the troopers in a manner beyond cannon fodder for the heroes.

 

The PT vs. OT stuff is definitely done. The discussions about practical and CGI effects can continue, but even those have a tendency to just devolve into petty bickering. That said, this thread lends itself to that too easily, so I'm locking it at this point and directing future related conversations to the following thread instead. But please, no petty bickering there either.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/filming-techniques-and-technologies-for-the-st.50014589/page-43