The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Star Wars > Star Wars: Episode VII

View Poll Results: Practical or CGI
All Practical (Matte Painting + Practical Characters) 3 3.66%
Matte Painting Background + CGI Character 1 1.22%
Both (Matte Paintings Rendered in a Composite + Practical Characters with CG Enhancements) 70 85.37%
Digital Composite Background + Practical Character 5 6.10%
All CGI (Digital Composite Background + CGI Characters) 3 3.66%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2013, 06:38 PM   #126
Parker Wayne
Classic Spider-Bat
 
Parker Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 23,691
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI


__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibidoLoca View Post
Parker Wayne will destroy us all as the Light beckons us to his unearthly call. Like a drop of cool condensation cascading down the side of a glass on a hot summer's day, we too will evaporate into The Void.
Parker Wayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 12:26 AM   #127
dark_b
Side-Kick
 
dark_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 44,062
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

when you film your actors in a scifi or fantasy movie. i think everything around 10-20 meters around the actors should be a real set or location. then you extend and replace the sky. if you find a real good location that fits in the movie you should film it there.
when your actor is walking on a blue or green floor you failed as a director. its important that the ground on set looks how it will look in the movie because of the light is bouncing. but thats to complex for SHH.

an example. you have your character walking on snow in antarctica.in US or Canada where you film you have 10-20 meters of fake snow around the actor.


Last edited by dark_b; 04-30-2013 at 12:31 AM.
dark_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:07 AM   #128
Asteroid-Man
Ham Sammiches
 
Asteroid-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 17,424
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
what i am happy is that we will get practical lightsabers on set with CGI glow on top . i was very mad that the lightsabers never emitted light on the characters. today we have materials that are strong yet can have LED lights inside.
Was this confirmed? I've been hoping for this for a while!

__________________
Basi ranj bordam dar in saale si,
Ajam zende kardam bedin Parsi;
Namiram az in pas keh man zende'am,
Ke tokhme sokhan ra parakandeam.
Posting Since 09/24/05 10:30 am
Asteroid-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 12:48 AM   #129
Gianakin_
SW Prequels Defender
 
Gianakin_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19,287
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

No, it hasn't been confirmed, or even reported.

Gianakin_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:04 AM   #130
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,530
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

I don't where he got that info from.

Octoberist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:25 AM   #131
Gianakin_
SW Prequels Defender
 
Gianakin_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19,287
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

From where he always gets it.

Gianakin_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 02:29 AM   #132
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,530
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

and is that from his imagination?

__________________
PAUL RUDD IS IMMORTAL!
Octoberist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 03:07 AM   #133
Gianakin_
SW Prequels Defender
 
Gianakin_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 19,287
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

I was thinking of a 3-letter word, but yeah, close enough.

Gianakin_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 03:24 AM   #134
psylockolussus
The X-Men 5 Advocator!
 
psylockolussus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: X-Mansion and the Baxter Building
Posts: 18,707
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

I voted for both.

__________________
X-MEN RI5E' MUTANT OF THE MONTH | THE CAMEO | PORTRAYED BY STAN LEE
"I'm Stan Lee" - FF2
"Can I have my shoe back?" - T2
"Superheroes in New York? Give me a break!" - A1
"'Nuff said" - SM3
FOLLOW MY ADVOCACY ON www.twitter.com/xmen5movie2018
psylockolussus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 02:43 PM   #135
dark_b
Side-Kick
 
dark_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 44,062
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

its a known fact that ILM for years have been looking for a solution to use stunt lightsabers that have lights inside to illuminate the actors. the LED technology can be today used for this. JJ likes to have as much practical props and sets as possible. i dont have time to use the word ''opinion'' in my posts. its sooooo 2005.

you dont agree?


Last edited by dark_b; 05-01-2013 at 02:47 PM.
dark_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 10:13 AM   #136
BenKenobi
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 362
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

I don't think practical lightsabers are well, practical. Back to even the original Star Wars they have had trouble with the props breaking even in Revenge of the Sith this problem still existed. Making them LED would most likely make them even more fragile. We need are practical sets and costumes. Even if you are going impose something over them, there needs to be more of a point of reference for the actors to work with. Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, and Samuel L Jackson are great actors else where but were all horrible in the prequels (especially the latter mentioned), and imo a lot of this had to do with the fact they had to rely to heavily on their imaginations and couldn't interact with the environment.

BenKenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 01:07 PM   #137
Solouk
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 89
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenKenobi View Post
I don't think practical lightsabers are well, practical. Back to even the original Star Wars they have had trouble with the props breaking even in Revenge of the Sith this problem still existed. Making them LED would most likely make them even more fragile. We need are practical sets and costumes. Even if you are going impose something over them, there needs to be more of a point of reference for the actors to work with. Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, and Samuel L Jackson are great actors else where but were all horrible in the prequels (especially the latter mentioned), and imo a lot of this had to do with the fact they had to rely to heavily on their imaginations and couldn't interact with the environment.
And a woeful script and piss poor direction. Remember Sin City? That was mainly all blue/green screen and it was a good film.

Solouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 01:51 PM   #138
Vid Electricz
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,845
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solouk View Post
The eye never lies. You will always be able to perceive what is real, and what is not. No matter how good CGI is. What matters is wether the story and characters make you care enough to draw you in and actually give a **** what's happening and why. It's like reading a book and then halfway through (or whatever) deciding, 'nah this is crap' and not bothering to finish it. It's a few years ago now, but the CGI on the coliseum and Rome in Gladiator were secondary to what was going on , but they were expertly done and complimented the story. But the story was first and foremost.

Correct. Unfortunately not many people understand this. I see more and more action/sci fi films,etc... that have nice state of the art CGI FX (though they often still look shockingly artificial) but the story and characters are all garbage. Like you said, they become secondary.

The recent Spider-Man movie is a perfect example of this. Wonderful, realistic effects, but the story, characters and direction was awful. This is why I still prefer the Sam Raimi Spidey films to the new one, even though the effects are a product of the time. The story and characters are well developed and the movie feels like a finished product that was made with thought and care put into it as opposed to the sloppy, hacked-out rush job that was TASM. It's almost like the studios hope that the GA will be distracted from the crappy scripts by the Shiny FX (this is nothing new, but it's getting worse and worse)

Vid Electricz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 02:37 PM   #139
Solouk
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 89
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vid Electricz View Post
Correct. Unfortunately not many people understand this. I see more and more action/sci fi films,etc... that have nice state of the art CGI FX (though they often still look shockingly artificial) but the story and characters are all garbage. Like you said, they become secondary.

The recent Spider-Man movie is a perfect example of this. Wonderful, realistic effects, but the story, characters and direction was awful. This is why I still prefer the Sam Raimi Spidey films to the new one, even though the effects are a product of the time. The story and characters are well developed and the movie feels like a finished product that was made with thought and care put into it as opposed to the sloppy, hacked-out rush job that was TASM. It's almost like the studios hope that the GA will be distracted from the crappy scripts by the Shiny FX (this is nothing new, but it's getting worse and worse)
Yeah I much prefer the Raimi spidey movies. They were well written, well acted, they were good. Though I didnt really like the Goblin outfit. Thought he looked like a Power Ranger! Lol.

Solouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 03:31 PM   #140
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,530
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Besides Spider-Man 3; besides the silliness, it felt like the plot had no idea where it was going and the effort was half-hearted. You can tell there was something going on behind the scenes.

Amazing-Spider-Man had the same problem: Too many cooks in one kitchen. I have a feeling that Amazing 2, however, will live up to the name..

__________________
PAUL RUDD IS IMMORTAL!
Octoberist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 03:46 PM   #141
Solouk
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 89
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octoberist View Post
Besides Spider-Man 3; besides the silliness, it felt like the plot had no idea where it was going and the effort was half-hearted. You can tell there was something going on behind the scenes.

Amazing-Spider-Man had the same problem: Too many cooks in one kitchen. I have a feeling that Amazing 2, however, will live up to the name..
I actually thought Kraven or the Vulture would've been a better villain for 3! (Mock me at your leisure)

Solouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 03:54 PM   #142
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,530
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

No, I think that would've been good.

I just want a good movie. Tell me story, a good story. I'm not a stickler of what's faithful or not, just keep the spirit and integrity of the property intact.

__________________
PAUL RUDD IS IMMORTAL!
Octoberist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 04:19 PM   #143
Vid Electricz
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,845
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octoberist View Post
Besides Spider-Man 3; besides the silliness, it felt like the plot had no idea where it was going and the effort was half-hearted. You can tell there was something going on behind the scenes.

Amazing-Spider-Man had the same problem: Too many cooks in one kitchen. I have a feeling that Amazing 2, however, will live up to the name..

Yes. Exactly. Something was indeed up behing the scenes with SM3. Thanks Avi.

And yes, TASM was a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. Studio tools an idiot producer, etc... Marc Webb as the "director for hire", who obviously didn't have the experience necessary or creative control to turn out a decent film. 500 Days of Summer's success is mostly based on a smart script- which TASM did NOT have. Good direction can sometimes make up for this, but Webb's direction seemed clumsy and completely predestrian. Not to mention the editing. good god, the editing...

I don't have huge hopes for TASM 2 because these movies need someone with a vision (Nolan, Raimi, Whedon). Webb is basically a music video "director for hire". People get distracted by effects and fancy new costumes like they're going to somehow improve the film. If the direction and editing is similar to TASM, then it's just going to be more of the same.

I think this new Star Wars trilogy has great promise. Get a good script, a director with fresh ideas and a vision and avoid the "made by committee" mess that these franchises usually become.

Vid Electricz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 04:36 PM   #144
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,530
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Well it seems like Webb has more control over the franchise now, it seems, and ASM 2 might be shock to the system. But only time can tell...and that's for another thread.

__________________
PAUL RUDD IS IMMORTAL!
Octoberist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 04:59 PM   #145
Parker Wayne
Classic Spider-Bat
 
Parker Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 23,691
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gianakin_ View Post
I was thinking of a 3-letter word, but yeah, close enough.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibidoLoca View Post
Parker Wayne will destroy us all as the Light beckons us to his unearthly call. Like a drop of cool condensation cascading down the side of a glass on a hot summer's day, we too will evaporate into The Void.
Parker Wayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 05:20 PM   #146
Waldini
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 49
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Star Wars should stay Star Wars.

The prequels went from sets to CGI. Episode 1 featured sets when it was needed. Episode 2 and 3 pretty much came from a computer. Which, IMO, is noticeable on the BluRay editions. Nearly every actor who had a role in the Prequels complained about the use of greenscreens everywhere.

However, with J.J Abrams on board, I have a feeling he's going for real sets.

Anybody else have a feeling we MIGHT get something on May 4th?

Waldini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 04:00 AM   #147
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,530
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

That, and Mark Hamill has been very vocal on his some of his wants, which includes a balance between practical and CGI. His Q and A explains it all at LA's Cape Fest, in which he was a surprise guest at the 'Return of the Jedi' screening.

Says Mark:

Quote:
“There's nothing wrong with CGI, but I think you have to have a balance because the camera perceives the width and the depth and the weight of a miniature or a model.” He just said he isn't a fan of the one guy surrounded by greenscreen look and told Kennedy that he'd hate for these new movies to “look like Roger Rabbit.”
The Q and A added:

Quote:
While he was the first to admit that any creative decisions involving the new Star Wars Trilogy won't have “Make Mark Hamill happy” as priority #1, he did say that Kennedy agreed with him and already discussed that with George Lucas, citing how Jurassic Park only had a handful of digital shots in the whole movie that are sold by blending the in with practical creatures and other cinema tricks.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62268

__________________
PAUL RUDD IS IMMORTAL!
Octoberist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 05:46 AM   #148
Alien Anal
Side-Kick
 
Alien Anal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Just my 2 cents.

The puppetry used in the OT to me is such a big part of their charm its like watching the muppets but on a whole other level. I am sure this has all been said before but to me the overuse of the cgi is like remaking the labyrinth but with cgi instead. Its not the same.

__________________
I like to paint
https://www.facebook.com/AlienAnal
http://www.bluethumb.com.au/alienanal

Check out my Deviant Art file
http://alienanal.deviantart.com/
Alien Anal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 06:47 AM   #149
Solouk
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 89
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Anal View Post
Just my 2 cents.

The puppetry used in the OT to me is such a big part of their charm its like watching the muppets but on a whole other level. I am sure this has all been said before but to me the overuse of the cgi is like remaking the labyrinth but with cgi instead. Its not the same.
I know precisely what you mean. Red Dwarf had the same problem with its effects. The old Starbug and the general 'feel' of the effects were all part of its charm in the earlier series (III-VII for me) it lost that certain 'something' when they were improved.

Solouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 07:56 PM   #150
Asteroid-Man
Ham Sammiches
 
Asteroid-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 17,424
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
its a known fact that ILM for years have been looking for a solution to use stunt lightsabers that have lights inside to illuminate the actors. the LED technology can be today used for this. JJ likes to have as much practical props and sets as possible. i dont have time to use the word ''opinion'' in my posts. its sooooo 2005.

you dont agree?
I definitely agree, the problem with your statement is that you said it so matter-of-factly, as if it was confirmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenKenobi View Post
I don't think practical lightsabers are well, practical. Back to even the original Star Wars they have had trouble with the props breaking even in Revenge of the Sith this problem still existed. Making them LED would most likely make them even more fragile. We need are practical sets and costumes. Even if you are going impose something over them, there needs to be more of a point of reference for the actors to work with. Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, and Samuel L Jackson are great actors else where but were all horrible in the prequels (especially the latter mentioned), and imo a lot of this had to do with the fact they had to rely to heavily on their imaginations and couldn't interact with the environment.
I posted some actual practical sabres on the page prior. Even metal swords break in staged-fights, but the new tech on these sabres are as firm and reliable as the ones they ones in the PT - if not, more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solouk View Post
And a woeful script and piss poor direction. Remember Sin City? That was mainly all blue/green screen and it was a good film.
And the film looked horribly fake. It worked with Sin City because it was stylised - in Star Wars it's supposed to look real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solouk View Post
Yeah I much prefer the Raimi spidey movies. They were well written, well acted, they were good. Though I didnt really like the Goblin outfit. Thought he looked like a Power Ranger! Lol.
I don't think we were watching the same films - Willem Dafoe aside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octoberist View Post
Besides Spider-Man 3; besides the silliness, it felt like the plot had no idea where it was going and the effort was half-hearted. You can tell there was something going on behind the scenes.

Amazing-Spider-Man had the same problem: Too many cooks in one kitchen. I have a feeling that Amazing 2, however, will live up to the name..
All of the Spidey films today have suffered from the too-many-cooks thing. I'm much more excited for ASM2 because of this - especially considering the SM4 script/story was used as the original basis for ASM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Anal View Post
Just my 2 cents.

The puppetry used in the OT to me is such a big part of their charm its like watching the muppets but on a whole other level. I am sure this has all been said before but to me the overuse of the cgi is like remaking the labyrinth but with cgi instead. Its not the same.
Puppetry is still the way to go IMO. Things like facial movements should be enhanced with the use of CGI, but it should be practical as much as realistically possible.

__________________
Basi ranj bordam dar in saale si,
Ajam zende kardam bedin Parsi;
Namiram az in pas keh man zende'am,
Ke tokhme sokhan ra parakandeam.
Posting Since 09/24/05 10:30 am
Asteroid-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.