The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Star Wars > Star Wars: The Force Awakens

View Poll Results: Practical or CGI
All Practical (Matte Painting + Practical Characters) 4 4.21%
Matte Painting Background + CGI Character 1 1.05%
Both (Matte Paintings Rendered in a Composite + Practical Characters with CG Enhancements) 80 84.21%
Digital Composite Background + Practical Character 7 7.37%
All CGI (Digital Composite Background + CGI Characters) 3 3.16%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2014, 09:23 AM   #176
Solidus
Knights of Ren
 
Solidus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: First Order
Posts: 21,806
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Then don't come in here.

__________________
"If Skywalker returns...the new Jedi will rise."-Supreme Leader Snoke

"If you don’t care about the characters, nothing matters. No space ship, no explosion, no anything is important if you don’t feel something for the people involved."J.J. Abrams (2/5/13)
Solidus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2014, 11:08 AM   #177
Octoberist
point blank
 
Octoberist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 46,418
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by batfreakforever View Post
Practical vs cgi argument has to be the most dumbest argument ever when discussing film.
You're the one who bumped this. It hasn't been touched in months.

__________________
"Benicio Del Toro is up-and-coming...and this (movie) could be his breakthrough role."

-- Anonymous, 2016
Octoberist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2014, 03:35 PM   #178
vanson
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,261
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidus View Post
Then don't come in here.

vanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2014, 11:19 AM   #179
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 11,096
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by DKDetective View Post
As good as the CGI looks in the reboot Trek films, and even I will admit that, I personally think it doesn't come close to the best model work in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. I find it astonishing that 30+ years later, some of those effects are unparalleled. (And I say some, because I will admit that not all of the shots have aged perfectly. For some, the compositing looks funny and so on.) If ILM is actually going to bring back some model work for this film, I will jump with joy.
I have to agree with this. Those effects hold up amazingly for the most part, are still unparalleled to this day and would only turn out even better today with 100% seamless compositing.

Obivously there will be a lot of CGI in this film and that's fine, but I'm still holding out hope for some model work, especially after Interstellar.

BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2014, 11:59 AM   #180
Doc Ock
The Spider-Totem Awakens
 
Doc Ock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oklahoma, US
Posts: 8,823
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by batfreakforever View Post
Practical vs cgi argument has to be the most dumbest argument ever when discussing film.
Please elaborate.

__________________
Keep Hope Alive: Fox's days are numbered.
Doc Ock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2014, 01:08 AM   #181
spiderman2
Side-Kick
 
spiderman2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 7,180
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

You need practical and CGI because most CGI looks good or even amazing now days. Most CGI other then low budget movies or tv show you can hardly tell that it is CGI. How ever has time goes on and tech improves CGI will look worse and worse has you see better. Kind of like with video games. Back with say ps2 people didn't say man this looks like crap but then later on with ps3 people started to think that ps2 graphics don't look good. Where practical is more timeless and can be cheaper at the same time there are some things you cant do with out CGI. You should try to do what ever you can with practical and not realie on CGI but use CGI on any thing that is not possible with practical.

__________________
Top CBM off all time
1.Dark knight rises 2.Spider man 2 3.Batman begins 4.Dark knight 5.Cap Civil war 6.Logan 7.Spider-Man homecoming 8.Cap winter soilder 9.Amazing Spider-Man 2 10.Doctor strange 11.Xmen DOFP.12.Xmen FC. 13.Spiderman 14.WW 15. Avengers AOU 16. Avengers 17.Amazing Spider-Man 18.Iron man 3 19.Man of steel 20.Spider-Man 3

Need to rewatch about 5 to have a final list.
spiderman2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 04:00 PM   #182
GoldGoblin
Side-Kick
 
GoldGoblin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: California(The Golden State)
Posts: 14,821
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

-Use models
-Use animatronics

-Have stunt men in green screen suits moving the animatronic creatures arms and legs when the creature fights,then go to the editing room to remove the green screen suit guys,and speed up the footage.

^
Then 20 years go by and the creature will still look real.

__________________
Marvel's SM1:Kraven/Venom
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=219

Cast Joe Manganiello for Kraven the Hunter!
GoldGoblin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2015, 05:33 PM   #183
Lord
All Mighty
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,400
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

The Prequel Trilogy did have plenty of sets, models, animatronics, etc. It's jsut that the cinematography and Direction made it all look bad.

http://unrealitymag.com/movies/the-u...-the-prequels/

http://geektyrant.com/news/photos-of...requel-trilogy

A lot of hard work from the ILM crew, i wonder how much better the films could have looked with a better Director at the time.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
~*SHH SIX*~
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2015, 05:47 PM   #184
Tacit Ronin
Side-Kick
 
Tacit Ronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 17,923
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Why must they be contenders? The elite have proven they can merge them into an astonishing whole.

__________________
The GOP is a radical insurgency; it's not a political party -- Noam Chomsky.
Tacit Ronin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2015, 11:03 PM   #185
Asteroid-Man
Ham Sammiches
 
Asteroid-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 18,389
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
The Prequel Trilogy did have plenty of sets, models, animatronics, etc. It's jsut that the cinematography and Direction made it all look bad.

http://unrealitymag.com/movies/the-u...-the-prequels/

http://geektyrant.com/news/photos-of...requel-trilogy

A lot of hard work from the ILM crew, i wonder how much better the films could have looked with a better Director at the time.
ILM used the prequels as an opportunity to push their limits tech-wise. Obviously a better director could've provided a better image, but I firmly believe that would have been because a better Director would have veered away from shooting native digital-1080p and relying soooo much on CG.

Even the sets that were practical it would be the ground and props (if that). The walls and skies were CGI. SOME times they built the full set, but when you compare it to the originals, it's no contest. To me, the prequels have not aged nearly as well as the originals because of this. Our eyes are used to seeing better CGI now, but you can't get better than a tangible effect.

__________________
This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet.
It's liberty or it's death.
It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.
America today finds herself in a unique situation... to become involved in a bloodless revolution
Posting Since 09/24/05 10:30 am
Asteroid-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2015, 02:23 PM   #186
Lord
All Mighty
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,400
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Apparently the Prequels built more sets than the Originals, been researching about that for a while, there's a lot to find around the internet. I think the camera work payed a part in making the films look cheap. The Lord of the Rings films for example had a smaller budget but very impressive cinematography that made every line of dialogue seem to have more weight, while the Prequels were kinda flat and the overuse of scenes with simplistic sets inside the royal houses and temples made them look cheaper than they probably were.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
~*SHH SIX*~
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2015, 10:34 PM   #187
DarthSkywalker
May the Force Be With You
 
DarthSkywalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 77,454
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

I can believe they made more sets. The problem would be a lack of location shooting. Tatooine and Naboo got quite a bit, but not much outside of that. The rest of the locations are heavily green screen.

__________________
"It's true. All of it. The Dark Side. The Jedi. They're real."
DarthSkywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2015, 11:14 AM   #188
DKDetective
Wizened Hermit
 
DKDetective's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,299
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

While the prequels did use a lot of sets, miniatures, and practical effects, there was a lot of issues with those films that contributed to the films looking very artificial. First off, Lucas had a bad habit of rewriting the films in the editing room. For instance, for Episode II, I believe Lucas came up with the factory set piece at the very last minute, which resulted in being a 100% green screen set. As Lord and others have mentioned, the cinematography contributed a lot to the issue. Shooting on digital back then gave a very flat, artificial image. As well, the films seemed to commit the same sin as the Hobbit films of blending the live action components into the CGI rather than the other way around. Last, as skilled as the people at ILM are, the Prequels were just a mess of poor design choices. Everything just looked fake. Lucas went too far in trying to make the universe look clean and decadent. Artistically, I personally think the Prequels should have had a similar used and lived in aesthetic as the Original Trilogy. The films were supposed to portray a corrupt, stagnant and dying Galactic Republic, which should have visible in the aesthetic.

DKDetective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2015, 05:22 PM   #189
Solidus
Knights of Ren
 
Solidus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: First Order
Posts: 21,806
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

The "there is more models and sets in the PT then the OT so therefore somehow many are wrong about the CGI in the PT".

The problem with that is "sets" defined in AOTC and ROTS literally could be just floor, with nothing but bluescreen around it. Or a pillar/table there and the rest blue screen.

The problem with so many of the sets in the PT, is I understand the idea of the "more sophisticated time" before the Empire. I think artistically they had the right idea. The problem was is everything was "empty". It never felt like it was actually lived in. You could have a beautiful design of a set but give it functionality or the appearance of functionality. So many of the sets, like Naboo, Geonosis, Kamino, Corruscant, and even Mustafar had too much "empty" space everywhere. It's like they were going for the epic scale, but in doing so everything felt empty, and deserted. Even though they tried to balance that with having backgrounds of CGI filled with a million things going on in the back.

Real sets have so many things that can be interacted with, tables, appliances on the tables. Everything in Naboo was just empty. It lacked the texture of functionality. I think they could have done that mixed with the Renaissance style he was going for to show a more "noble" time in history. They had tons of "sets" but for the most part they were holding up the blue screen in the background.

Sadly the mixture of models and CGI just never worked very well a lot of the time. Like all of the stuff on Upatau. It still all looked sterile and fake. I do think lighting did play a massive part of it, but also as many have said just the execution.

Sets should have been much more elaborate with so much more in them for actors to interact with and for audiences to feast their eyes on. But it was always empty space in the front, and the background is just filled with way too much going on.

__________________
"If Skywalker returns...the new Jedi will rise."-Supreme Leader Snoke

"If you don’t care about the characters, nothing matters. No space ship, no explosion, no anything is important if you don’t feel something for the people involved."J.J. Abrams (2/5/13)
Solidus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2016, 10:50 PM   #190
Asteroid-Man
Ham Sammiches
 
Asteroid-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 18,389
Default Re: Practical Effects VS CGI

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asteroid-Man View Post
They should totally get Bradley Lewis to build the lightsabers:
http://www.slothfurnace.com/index.html

It's insane. They won't need to roto the blades in post, and the light will interact with the actors' faces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidus View Post
That looks stunning, I wish he would sell those things because I would buy it. However, in this case CGI is still needed for one reason, the material he is using still would shatter and splinter. The reason they use CGI for the sabers is mainly so they can actually fight and clack swords. Otherwise things like that just shatter or splinter too easily.

But man oh man....that guy should mass produce those because I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asteroid-Man View Post
I'm sure they could figure something out. And it would upwards of a thousand dollars haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidus View Post
I'm pretty sure they've tried. Somethings are better as CGI. Allowing them to use just metal rods and fight allows for more feasibility. Mainly though those looks sooooooo gooood (I truly want him to start selling those cuz I'd buy one) In motion they would not look as good. There is that motion that the lightsabers make with swiped that practically would not work. Even small movements there is the light trails in the films, so CGI is what they will use, I will bet that hands down.

But seriously that guy should start mass producing those because he could make a lot of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asteroid-Man View Post
There's also one made by Saber Forge which can take a beating. They could go with something like this and then adjust the trails in post - it would make tracking a hell of a lot simpler. It's sort of like how in Tron Legacy they had the option to make all the lights in post or invent a suit that could support it. The lights interact with their environments in a way CG cannot duplicate.

I just feel like it should be a mixture of CG and Practical.
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.

about the whole thread. JJ will direct this movie like ST. locations plus sets plus greenscreen. like for example the red forest in ST trailers. the red trees are real around the actors. then ILM extended it to be big. this is what we will get.

and the world will be more rusty. hollywood likes rust. fans like rusty plus rusty and dirty looks more real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asteroid-Man View Post
Was this confirmed? I've been hoping for this for a while!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gianakin_ View Post
No, it hasn't been confirmed, or even reported.
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?
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.
Guys, guys, guys! Look!!


__________________
This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet.
It's liberty or it's death.
It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.
America today finds herself in a unique situation... to become involved in a bloodless revolution
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 10:38 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.