The CGI overuse discussion

I am really surprised how often this is being made a reason to bash TPM (and AOTC). I hope there isn´t another thread about this issue around. Here are a couple of reasons why I think this is nonsense:

1)It´s STAR WARS. These movies are special effects movies. CGI is a great tool to defy the look of the picture. SW is based around our heros who meet alien creatures, travel around in space from planet to planet,
each scenery more fantastic with lots of weird element
placed everywhere on the screen.

2) It´s still the events that are the important. The CGI is only there to make them work. I know lots of arguments will come in on that one.

3) This isn´t 1977. If George Lucas would have used a smaller number of CGI it would not be up to par. It would not amaze that much. Generally, it would be compareable to a normal Sci-Fi TV series. The competition is much stronger. You have to make it stand out. With CGI you get the more stunning image to please the fans. Not everyone (meaning the general movie goer) notices a good cinematography. Sadly.

4) Not everything you see in the movies is all computer generated. In fact lots of models were used for the movie. From the Droid Control Ship, over the Boontha Eve, to the city of Theed, or the core of Naboo. Lots of model landscapes mixed in with a portion of computer additions.

5) Other movies get praised for their "overuse" of CGI
(*cough* LOTR *cough*) but I don´t want to make this another comparing LOTR to SW thread.

6) The CGI that was used for TPM opened up whole new possibilities for future films. Jar Jar and Watto, the podrace and the final battle between the droids and the Gungans for example.

Criticise and discuss. Agree and disagree.

 

Those who argue about "too much CGI" may as well argue that the original trilogy uses too many models and matte paintings.

 

True.
Sadly there are quite a number of people who complain about this factor in Ep 1. They even get supported by critics in every media.

 

I cannot think of any argument against your post Durwood. I should of thought about it more.

 

I have no problems with the CGI. I don't really understand why so many people dislike it. The buildings especially look so real. Naboo looks so great! I really enjoy the CGI.

 

Isn't this thread redundant?

 

In what way?

 

There's no such thing as "overuse" of CGI. CGI is a tool which is necessary to tell the story. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

This topic is not redunt as there have been lots of critism about the prequels having a overuse of CGI.
I too think that there is no overuse of CGI but lots of fans seem to think the opposite. That´s why I posted this topic to find out what reasons there are to bash it.

Any bashers around?

 

In what way?

There's already a thread titled: "plot and characters should come before special effects."

There's also already a Basher's Sanctuary.

 

Hmmm. Then pleaselock or eventually merge it if it´s REALLY the only way.

 

This thread is not discussing the plot and characters. It is discussing the use or overuse of CGI in TPM along with misconceptions of the way effects were done and comparing TPM's effects use with other effects laden films that seem to be acceptable to people. Also the author is not bashing TPM he is defending it.

Please leave the moderating to the moderators.

 

Begging your pardons, strilo and Billy_Dee_Binks.

I am sorry; I jumped to conclusions when I saw the title of this thread.

 

And remember, just because a thread invites discerning opinion about TPM doesn't make it a basher-trollfest that should be driven from the boards. Discussion topics are a legimate part of the forum and this fits perfectly.

Now, to topic: I don't have a problem with the amount of CGI in the PT. Some of the styles bother me (a couple of examples: JJB made to look like a cartoon character during the final battle and the flat 2D look of much of the final battle in AOTC). Also, I do wonder if the overuse of blue screen scenes hurt the performance of the actors. I guess will never know for sure.

 

You're right, Stryphe.

*puts on mask of shame*

I don't have a problem with CGI unless it looks bad. And with rare exceptions, the CGI in the prequels is top notch. I truly cannot tell what is CGI and what is a practical effect in many cases.

I'm sure it must be hard acting with bluescreen, but IMO an actor should rise to the challenge.

 

You're right, Stryphe.

*puts on mask of shame*

*Pats Shelley on back*

It's OK.

You're right, the PT CGI is mostly top notch. However, CGi has a degree of an "unreal" look to it, and as such, I think that when sets and life-like masks can be used, they should. Compair many of the interior Naboo palace shots which were real (and very cool) to, say, the arena in AOTC. Nothing beats reality. One day that will change. A good deal of progress has been made in the last ten years of CGI.

 

*Pats Shelley on back*

It's OK.



Compair many of the interior Naboo palace shots which were real (and very cool) to, say, the arena in AOTC

The arena in AOTC was a miniature, Stryphe.

People complained about the fake-looking CGI used to realize Geonosis, but that too was a miniature.

Anyway, I agree, CGI is still really in its infancy. Already it's pretty eye-popping; I can only imagine what it'll be like in the future.

 

Come on, if this stuff really existed, this is what it would look like. Who cares what they did to create it?

I think a lot of the people who would say Lucas is "CG happy" would be surpirsed to find out just how much of TPM was done with miniatures, including the red "ambassador" ship at the beginning, Otah Gunga, the city of Theed, the underwater "planet core" areas where the heros are attacked by fish, the stadium structure from the pod race, the interior of the Pod Race Hangar, the overhead shots of Mos Espa, the Naboo Starfighters, the Droid Control Ship, the Droid starfighters. The list goes on.

The funny thing is most of the people who say Lucas is abusing CG bring some of these things up as examples, while rarely if ever have I heard people criticize the Pod Race, which was almost in it's entirety CG generated.

 

I kow it´s a bit off topic but there are actually people who dislike the Clone Troopers being CG. MY GOD! I would of never noticed but I got wondered why there aren´t any behind the scene footage with the amor shown anywhere.
They look so real.

Also, I just rewatched TPM yesterday and I have to say this movie still hold up great to the CGI standarts of today. The effects won´t be outdated any soon. Jar Jar and Watto looks as real as Gollum does and he is pretty new.

 

I think it's very important to distinguish the difference between over-use and mis-use.

The thing about the PT that many, including myself, don't like is the fact that the SFX jumps out at you. It's very noticeable - almost as if it's a showcase for CGI. The result is it pulls you out of the world and it's believability.

The more real elements that are being filmed the better the shot would look. As such, an actor will always look better than a CGI one, and a real exterior environment will always look better than one created in a computer. Tatooine in Episode 1 for instance looks far more real than Genosis.

AOTC comes under fire because of the clonetroopers. For wide shots, CGI should be used on account of the sheer scale but when you only have one on the screen why use CGI? The clonetrooper with Padme or Yoda isn't doing anything athletic, he's just talking! It's those kind of things that lead people to conclude that the film mis-uses CGI.

The point at the end of the day is that CGI takes as well as gives. It allows the film-makers to realise whole worlds and creatures previously very difficult to realise but it has also led to a diminishment of the on-set inventiveness that created the timeless classics. There was ingenuity in SFX before CGI because it was "how do we make what we've got look good?" Can you imagine how different a film like ALIEN would be with CGI?

It leads to shots like the awful one of Mace Windu appearing in the tunnel leading to the balcony.

Very few directors have been able to handle CGI effectively as a tool without getting carried away. (yes, even Peter Jackson) George Lucas certainly isn't one of them. Film-makers need limits.

 

---

[b]redxavier:[/b] The thing about the PT that many, including myself, don't like is the fact that the SFX jumps out at you. It's very noticeable - almost as if it's a showcase for CGI. The result is it pulls you out of the world and it's believability.[hr][/blockquote]Can you elaborate? Which scenes do this?[blockquote][hr][b]redxavier:[/b] The more real elements that are being filmed the better the shot would look. As such, an actor will always look better than a CGI one, and a real exterior environment will always look better than one created in a computer. Tatooine in Episode 1 for instance looks far more real than Genosis.[hr][/blockquote]Which like Tatooine, was created using models and miniatures, not CG. In fact, the surface shots of Geonosis are really made up of photos of the South Western United States, mixed together with miniature Geonosian spires. The whole arena was one huge model.

Let's face it, if you have it in your mind that CG characters will ALWAYS look less real than a real one, then there is no chance you would believe it was real. With the classic trilogy some of the aliens were puppets that looked even less real than these newer CG aliens. But we rolled along with it and suspended our disbelief. We didn't throw our arms into the air and act like it took us out of the moment. If you go in thinking that CG can never be real enough for you, it never will be.[blockquote][hr][b]redxavier:[/b] AOTC comes under fire because of the clonetroopers. For wide shots, CGI should be used on account of the sheer scale but when you only have one on the screen why use CGI? The clonetrooper with Padme or Yoda isn't doing anything athletic, he's just talking! It's those kind of things that lead people to conclude that the film mis-uses CGI.[hr][/blockquote]If he had used actors in suits for the close ups, he would have then had to match everything to that. By using only CGI, the troopers will always look the same, without any extensive tweaking. They went through the same idea with Jar-Jar, where they were going to use Ahmed Best's body (in the rubber suit) with a CG Jar-Jar head attatched to it. It was so difficult to match the CG to the live action that it ended up being more cost effective to do all of Jar-Jar in CG.[blockquote][hr][b]redxavier:[/b] The point at the end of the day is that CGI takes as well as gives. It allows the film-makers to realise whole worlds and creatures previously very difficult to realise but it has also led to a diminishment of the on-set inventiveness that created the timeless classics. There was ingenuity in SFX before CGI because it was "how do we make what we've got look good?" Can you imagine how different a film like ALIEN would be with CGI?[hr][/blockquote]There still is ingenuity in SFX. Did you know the waterfalls of Naboo were created by filming falling salt pouring out of a container, which was then superimposed over the Theed minature? Did you know that in the model for the Boonta Eve stadium seating they had hundreds of painted Q-Tips to simulate the motion of the crowd for the longer shots?[blockquote][hr][b]redxavier:[/b] It leads to shots like the awful one of Mace Windu appearing in the tunnel leading to the balcony.[hr][/blockquote]Why is that awful? It looked utterly convincing to me.[blockquote][hr][b]redxavier:[/b] Very few directors have been able to handle CGI effectively as a tool without getting carried away. (yes, even Peter Jackson) George Lucas certainly isn't one of them. Film-makers need limits.[hr][/blockquote]It would seem that very few SW fans can tell the difference between the CG, minitures and models in the prequels. I think people know Lucas is sort of pioneering CG technology, so they assume it is all he is using. What sucks is most SW fans used to be able to suspend their disbeleif for far worse effects, so it seems a little hypocritical to act like the very knowledge that something is CG will ruin the prequel experience. What sucks even more is when some SW fans are so sensitive to the idea of using CG, that they will see it in

 

Few critics realize that Attack of the Clones is one of the biggest model shows in history. While ILM does use computer generated imagery, much of what they do is good ol' fashioned compositing with computer software taking the place of the optical printer.

It's ironic that Lucas' critics pay so much attention to the visual effects just so they can accuse Lucas of paying too much attention to visual effects. You know, if you folks would stop focusing on the effects you might realize there's actually a great movie on the screen!

 

Few critics realize that Attack of the Clones is one of the biggest model shows in history. While ILM does use computer generated imagery, much of what they do is good ol' fashioned compositing with computer software taking the place of the optical printer.

Fact is, AOTC uses more bluescreens than any other Star Wars movie (and possibly movie period). What you fill into those bluescreens are either:

1) CG
2) models/miniatures

But the fact is that there is still a lot of bluescreen.

It's ironic that Lucas' critics pay so much attention to the visual effects just so they can accuse Lucas of paying too much attention to visual effects. You know, if you folks would stop focusing on the effects you might realize there's actually a great movie on the screen!

No, the argument is that the movie is subpar and unengaging because there are so many effects. Your kind of accusation doesn't make sense. I might as well say your disappointment with "The Matrix Reloaded" stems from your obsession with the effects work of that film. Didn't you know that if you paid less attention to that aspect there was really a great film on the screen!?

 

The counter argument being that people who say the movie is subpar and unengaging because there are so many effects are only saying that because of their own conscious decision to focus on the effects.

The same can be said of people who think the Matrix or LOTR is going overboard on the CG.

The one difference with the Matrix is that the effects are showcased and centered a lot of the time, while the efects in SW and LOTR are merely augmentations to the general focus of the narrative.

But even then, the Matrix's storyline is about computers simulating reality, so it's effects are just as relevant to the story as the prequel or lotr's effects.

So what if there is a lot of bluescreen? That's how you make movies like this, and the prequels aren't the only ones who do. The reason there is more in the prequels is because there is a lot more that can't be realized with actual sets.

The only difference is a lot of SW fans have become supersensitive about it to the point where they are less likely to suspend your disbelief. Not everyone can handle knowing how an effect was acheived while still being able to suspend their disbelief for it.

It's something you have meet Lucas half way on. You can't just sit in the theater with your arms folded crying out "That's not real" all the time. You have to want to suspend your disbelief.

 

The arena in AOTC was a miniature, Stryphe.

Right, but not all the stuff flying around inside of it was CGI. Compared to Naboo palace interior shots with real sets and very few CGI characters wandering around. There may have been a lot of model use in Genosis, but the scene was layered over with CGI. And I guess a lot of it needed to be, but the way it was lit, the color scheme and style of animation I thought looked too clean and too flat. If you'll flip through the Art of AOTC, they have several paintings of Genosis in which they employ a richer color scheme, and it looks infinitely better. Why they changed that by the time it reached post-production, I do not know.