The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[Mrs. Sawyer]

 

[dark_b]

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.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

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!

 

[Gianakin_]

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

 

[Octoberist]

I don't where he got that info from.

 

[Gianakin_]

From where he always gets it.

 

[Octoberist]

and is that from his imagination?

 

[Gianakin_]

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

 

[psylockolussus]

I voted for both.

 

[dark_b]

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?

 

[BenKenobi]

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.

 

[Solouk]

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.

 

[Vid Electricz]

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)

 

[Solouk]

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.

 

[Octoberist]

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..

 

[Solouk]

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)

 

[Octoberist]

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.

 

[Vid Electricz]

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.

 

[Octoberist]

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.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

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

 

[Waldini]

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?

 

[Octoberist]

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:

“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:

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

 

[Alien Anal]

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.

 

[Solouk]

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.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.