The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[the dmg]

I'm pretty much in the boat that CGI should compliment practical.

 

[BlackFox]

Both, its the best way to go.

 

[Fives]

I think it should be a bit of both. They should build, film, and do as much as they can practically, and then use cgi to enhance the practical parts that need it.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

^^^
This. Many times over...

 

[Loki882]

CGI isn't bad in an of itself, its BAD GGI that's really noticeable. JJ usually mixes practical effects with CGI rather well, so I'm confident that Episode VII will looked good at least, unlike the PT.

 

[titansupes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard that the Abram's Trek movies were the first to use all CG for the Enterprise and other ships, no models.

Ironic, considering the model talk coming from ILM.

 

[Loki882]

I'm not sure, I'd have to check. But Abrams does tend to mix both techniques. And if the Enterprise was all CGI, then it was REALLY GOOD CGI.

 

[jonathancrane]

A mixture of both techniques would be fine, along with some location shooting. I do not want to see another completely CGI world. After having to sit through three different vomit-fests of it, I am done with CGI worlds.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Nice to see a practical alien in that set video!!

 

[Lord]

[YT]XfNiC9iKM0Q[/YT]

 

[The Endless]

Ha! That's a great video.

I think CGI should compliment practical. For example i'm a huge fan of real, practical sets. No matter how outlandish. But if CGI can be used in a way to help immerse us in the world of the movie? Why not.

I hate when it's used lazily. There is nothing worse than a "set" that is clearly 100% CGI. There is simply no depth, it's isn't visceral, it isn't tangible.

I'm looking at the Star Wars prequels and Green Lantern.

I'm also a fan of "in camera" tricks. They can still be used really effectively today. CGI is sometimes used as a crutch for lazy and unimaginative film makers.

 

[vanson]

to be honest I cant tell if that creature is real or not or maybe a hybrid...

and to overanalyse that bit ( as one would who lurks around here) , JJ is turning pretty far to his left, as if he would more look to a mark then the actual thing.. but I dunno.. either way its good that its not clearly cgi

 

[Marvolo]

[YT]XfNiC9iKM0Q[/YT]

That's awesome! I love that alien. Thts the kind of makeup and animatronic work that I like to see in sci-fi.

 

[Octoberist]

to be honest I cant tell if that creature is real or not or maybe a hybrid...

and to overanalyse that bit ( as one would who lurks around here) , JJ is turning pretty far to his left, as if he would more look to a mark then the actual thing.. but I dunno.. either way its good that its not clearly cgi

I mean, they probably shot that video in mere minutes, they're not gonna CG a promo video for charity. It's all practical!!

 

[Whiskey Tango]

You use what is needed for each individual situation. How is this even a question?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

You use what is needed for each individual situation. How is this even a question?

Because the Prequels used almost no practical effects whatsoever. Your answer seems logical, but this is also an ILM movie.

 

[Octoberist]

That's entirely true because they did use background models for some of the sets, though, everything ended up looking stoic and digital anyway that it didn't stick out.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Because the Prequels used almost no practical effects whatsoever. Your answer seems logical, but this is also an ILM movie.

Yeah but VII isn't being helmed by Neckbeard McFlannel, who is the entire reason the prequels are largely ass-sandwiches in the first place.

 

[Octoberist]

To be fair, Lucas looked badass and handsome when he was young, with the beard, flannel, and the no smiling policy.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Yeah but VII isn't being helmed by Neckbeard McFlannel, who is the entire reason the prequels are largely ass-sandwiches in the first place.

You're pegging this conversation as absolutist is quite ironic. We made this thread before Abrams came on to helm. All we knew back then was that Disney was leaving it up to Lucasfilm and Kennedy was producing again (care to take a wager at the last one's she produced?).

Now it's more a place to talk about a variety of specific occurances - ei, should we have cgi sabres that might make for better action sequences (lighter) or practical, with lights that interact with their surroundings (a la Tron Legacy), traditional matte paintings? CGI backgrounds on green screen? Projection system (a la Oblivion)?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Eh I didn't notice the start date. Whatever.

 

[Octoberist]

It does help that we have two great production designers, one from Avatar and Jurassic Park, and the other one who did Oblivion and Tron Legacy (as mentioned)

 

[DKDetective]

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.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

It does help that we have two great production designers, one from Avatar and Jurassic Park, and the other one who did Oblivion and Tron Legacy (as mentioned)

Wait what!? SERIOUSLY!? YES!!!!!!!! I hope we get the projection backdrops a la Oblivion vs green screen and practical lightsabers now (similar to a lot of the props from Tron)!

 

[batfreakforever]

Practical vs cgi argument has to be the most dumbest argument ever when discussing film.