The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[Asteroid-Man]

So practical effects can limit action, but seem tangible - the limited action renders them dated after a couple decades.

CGI is still not 100% lifelike in all cases (I've yet to see a 100% believable living character) and especially so in things that are alien to us, but they make action MUCH easier - the effects become dated pretty quickly.

The OT had some of the best PE for the time and the PT had the best CGI for it's time, both look dated now.

What should they do?


Personally, I'd like practical primarily, with CGI thrown in as an overlay. (So a practical alien suit, with facial features and motion fixes done with CG).

Even for background composites - I'd like them to do layers of matte paintings instead of one matte panting, or a composite of hundreds of digital renders.

Thoughts?

 

[the amazing fro]

It's a balancing act. Practical effects should be the ideal but if an effect can't be done pratically then of course CGI should be used. There are times in the Prequel Trilogy where I understand why Lucas used CGI (e.g Mustafar fight. Trying to do Lava pratically would, I imagine, look like ****) but there are many others where I just think "Just build a bloody set George!"

I think in terms of being dated there is little one can do. Film technology progresses constantly so all the effects team should aim for is trying to make the effects as good as they possibly can for the present and not worry about how it will match up 10 or 20 years down the line.

 

[Iceman]

Definitely both & on the plus side CGI has improved a lot in the last 10 years. Without Lucas hopefuly it won't look like absolutely everything is CGI with that weightless feel to it. Also we can avoid completely unnecessary CGI scenes of screaming robotic monkeys & the like.

 

[Solidus]

Ya no CGI Stormtroopers or anything. I think do as much as possible on location and set LOTR style. Then do what you have to with CGI.

 

[redhawk23]

So practical effects can limit action, but seem tangible - the limited action renders them dated after a couple decades.

CGI is still not 100% lifelike in all cases (I've yet to see a 100% believable living character) and especially so in things that are alien to us, but they make action MUCH easier - the effects become dated pretty quickly.

The OT had some of the best PE for the time and the PT had the best CGI for it's time, both look dated now.

What should they do?


Personally, I'd like practical primarily, with CGI thrown in as an overlay. (So a practical alien suit, with facial features and motion fixes done with CG).

Even for background composites - I'd like them to do layers of matte paintings instead of one matte panting, or a composite of hundreds of digital renders.

Thoughts?

The exact same is true of rubber masks, that includes age makeup.

 

[redhawk23]

It's a balancing act. Practical effects should be the ideal but if an effect can't be done pratically then of course CGI should be used. There are times in the Prequel Trilogy where I understand why Lucas used CGI (e.g Mustafar fight. Trying to do Lava pratically would, I imagine, look like ****) but there are many others where I just think "Just build a bloody set George!"

I think in terms of being dated there is little one can do. Film technology progresses constantly so all the effects team should aim for is trying to make the effects as good as they possibly can for the present and not worry about how it will match up 10 or 20 years down the line.

They actually did a lot of model work with lava volcanos, at least with the the wide shots. Also a lot of the backgrounds were composites of real volcano footage.

The prequels, and Phantom Menace in particular have a lot more practical effects than people give them credit for. Part of that is problems with the compositing of the different elements and the overall cleanness of everything.

Also Attack of the Clones was one of the first Hollywood films shot entirely on digital which is an aesthetic that directors are just now mastering and that audiences are just recently warming up to.

 

[The Question]

Film as much practical as humanly possible. Only use CGI for stuff impossible otherwise or in the instances where CGI actually does look better.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Practical where it's sufficient. If it can't be done with practical, CGI. The prequels overused it.

 

[OptimusPrime114]

Check this out!

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

More practical can't hurt. Properly combined it should be mostly seamless. Though I guess by now I have become used to conspicuous cg critters floating up the lens.

 

[redhawk23]

But yeah, there was never a reason to have CGI clone troopers, at least when they have helmets on.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Both.

 

[Sawyer]

Practical, when it can be done. The prequels overused CG.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Take a note from Nolan, he does 80% practical effects and CGI like a ninja.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Definitely both. Disney will probably use both.

 

[Iceman]

Take a note from Nolan, he does 80% practical effects and CGI like a ninja.

He wouldn't do Star Wars like that though. Batman is a rare property where great results can be achieved with nearly all practical effects while Star Wars has some fantastical being/location/prop on screen half the time.

 

[Solidus]

He wouldn't do Star Wars like that though. Batman is a rare property where great results can be achieved with nearly all practical effects while Star Wars has some fantastical being/location/prop on screen half the time.

Yes but Star Trek 09 showed you could do a lot of fantastical creatures with little or no CGI. Of course Star Wars needs it, but the OT did most of it practical. That's the point. Do as much as you can practical, then seamlessly add some CGI in there.


None of this kind of stuff:

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Disney over-using CG has never been a problem. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good example... they mainly kept it to the Kraken, and some of Davy Jones' crew. Even then it was pretty realistic.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Disney over-using CG has never been a problem. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good example... they mainly kept it to the Kraken, and some of Davy Jones' crew. Even then it was pretty realistic.

More like all of Davy Jones' crew. All they wore in reality were motion capture suits.

Not that it was bad work. That's some some of the best CG work I've ever seen in a movie. Now that ILM is in-house, I hope they give Star Wars that same amount of dedication and detail.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Yes but Star Trek 09 showed you could do a lot of fantastical creatures with little or no CGI. Of course Star Wars needs it, but the OT did most of it practical. That's the point. Do as much as you can practical, then seamlessly add some CGI in there.


None of this kind of stuff:

I totally agree.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I love how people assume that because it's Disney it'll be a certain way of tech. Disney is just going to let LucasFilm make the movie how they want, and step in for things like "make it more kid friend/make it less kid friendly."

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I love how people assume that because it's Disney it'll be a certain way of tech. Disney is just going to let LucasFilm make the movie how they want, and step in for things like "make it more kid friend/make it less kid friendly."

I'm not an expert, and maybe you're right, but I imagine Disney would plant their own creative team into LucasFilm. It's not something they'd observe from a distance.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I love how people assume that because it's Disney it'll be a certain way of tech. Disney is just going to let LucasFilm make the movie how they want, and step in for things like "make it more kid friend/make it less kid friendly."

Nah, Disney's going to be involved in this. Even then, I'm sure Lucasfilm has learned by now not to use fully CG settings.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I'm not an expert, and maybe you're right, but I imagine Disney would plant their own creative team into LucasFilm. It's not something they'd observe from a distance.

Disney already confirmed that they are leaving things in LucasFilm the way they are.

Nah, Disney's going to be involved in this. Even then, I'm sure Lucasfilm has learned by now not to use fully CG settings.

I hope so. Either Kennedy should back the decision or leave it up to whatever Director she picks.

 

[Lord]

I think most CGI should be used for most aliens, i don't think Star Trek did that good of a job convincing they were aliens and not people in costumes. But CGI should be used to enhance the film, not be the film, The Originals still hold up well today because it used practical effects smartly