The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[Solidus]

Then don't come in here.

 

[Octoberist]

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.

 

[vanson]

Then don't come in here.

 

[BatLobster]

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.

 

[Doc Ock]

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

Please elaborate.

 

[spiderman2]

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.

 

[GoldGoblin]

-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.

 

[Lord]

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-under-appreciated-practical-effects-of-the-prequels/

http://geektyrant.com/news/photos-of-the-practical-effects-used-in-star-wars-prequel-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.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

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

 

[Asteroid-Man]

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-under-appreciated-practical-effects-of-the-prequels/

http://geektyrant.com/news/photos-of-the-practical-effects-used-in-star-wars-prequel-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.

 

[Lord]

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.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

 

[DKDetective]

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.

 

[Solidus]

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.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

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.

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.

I'm sure they could figure something out. And it would upwards of a thousand dollars haha.

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.

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.

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.

Was this confirmed? I've been hoping for this for a while!

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

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 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!!