The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[Octoberist]

There is a shot of YODA in AOTC when he's on the gunship, shortly after they rescue the Jedi & Padme that is amazing, in full on lighting, he looks fantastic...This debate is pointless...It will be 90% CG...Avengers had tons of CG, it was a huge success...Disney doesnt care about a miniscule amount of people who complain...The truth is, very few have issues with CG in blockbusters who put the time & effort into it...

It's not so much with USING CGI, which is obvious going to happen, it's the balancing act of using pratical sets or even locations verses overly used greenscreen. Heck all of the Clone Troopers were CGI for no reason. ALL OF THEM. Even the close-up ones and that's why they all looked weird. That's a waste of resources.

And you have to consider that JJ at heart is very old school and favors pratical (when it's possible). Heck, up-close shots of Kirk and company parachutting in Star Trek was just done at the Paramont parking lot with some fans, a camera at a low angle, and a bright sunny day.

 

[BenKenobi]

There is a shot of YODA in AOTC when he's on the gunship, shortly after they rescue the Jedi & Padme that is amazing, in full on lighting, he looks fantastic...This debate is pointless...It will be 90% CG...Avengers had tons of CG, it was a huge success...Disney doesnt care about a miniscule amount of people who complain...The truth is, very few have issues with CG in blockbusters who put the time & effort into it...

Have you ever seen the raw footage from revenge of the sith? It's just the core actors running around in a green room. They have no idea whats going on, where they are and they might all be picturing slightly different things. thats why things happen with the cgi characters that bring out an odd reaction from the real actors, because they don't know what they're reacting to. The reason the Phantom Menace looked the best of the 3 films, was because it was shot largely on real sets. Lucas was obviously aware his original films were highly praised for their mindblowing special effects and it seems like he was just trying as hard as he could do recreate that in the 21st century.

 

[Jedi-Spirit]

Jar Jar does not hold up well, and a few other things in TPM...so I disagree

 

[Jedi-Spirit]

When I say 90%, I mean 90% of the shots will have CGI in them...not that 90% of whats in the frame is CGI...huge difference...

 

[Marvolo]

When obi-wan is walking down the corridor on Kamino talking to Lama su about the clones it was nothing but blue screen, a guy with a stick with a ball attached to the top, and Ewan talking to said ball. You can see it in the special feautres.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Nolan did model work for the Batman movies and Inception. Did that limit his abilities? And even the CGI he did in the films, particularly Rises, relied a lot on on-set practical effects in the camera to make the CGI as realistic as possible. The Bat stuff is remarkably real, especially in the finale.

I think the problem with director's using CGI these days comes from a quote from Lucas himself: "Why not?"

Okay, George. The question really is "why?"

If there's something better to go to, that is in camera, and achieves the same effect, then that is what you go for. Go practical when you can. And I assure you, shooting model ships for a few days might save you hundreds of hours you would have paid CGI animators.

 

[thorstone]

Zero CGI characters. That is exactly where Phantom Menace went off the rails into cartoon hell.

I can handle CGI used for space battles, rendering planets in orbit, and explosions in space, but I want actors on sets under a blasted real sky.

I want stop motion animation monsters and aliens enhanced with CGI motion blur and modern blue screen technology.

 

[titansupes]

Nolan did model work for the Batman movies and Inception. Did that limit his abilities? And even the CGI he did in the films, particularly Rises, relied a lot on on-set practical effects in the camera to make the CGI as realistic as possible. The Bat stuff is remarkably real, especially in the finale.

I think the problem with director's using CGI these days comes from a quote from Lucas himself: "Why not?"

Okay, George. The question really is "why?"

If there's something better to go to, that is in camera, and achieves the same effect, then that is what you go for. Go practical when you can. And I assure you, shooting model ships for a few days might save you hundreds of hours you would have paid CGI animators.

^ Bravo.

I have hopes that these new ones won't fall into the same traps as the prequels in this regard. Disney and Kennedy know to get back to the feel of the OT, Abrams likes using practical when he can, and Hamill said they'd better use more real stuff and less 'cartoons' to make him really happy.

I'm very hopeful.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Prometheus had no practical effects. All the ships were CG.
Here's the MPC visual effects breakdown of shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdJYlKfyjg8

Prometheus had plenty of practical effects.

The snake creature wrapped around the scientist's arm and breaking it - practical effect done all in camera.

The Engineer was all prosthetics (upon first seeing him, I thought he was CGI)

The proto-alien at the end was a puppet.

The med pod: Shaw's stomach being cut open, the baby alien being pulled out and it exploding out of its "placenta" - all practical effects shot on stage.

The severed Engineer head was an animatronic head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA

David's head be ripped from his body, again, practical effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_tJUD47SWI

All the sets were actually built, not created with CGI.

There's plenty more. Check out the blurray features.

 

[Octoberist]

It's all about using CGI wisely and make them consistent and tangible.

 

[Sentinel X]

I think backgrounds should be digitally rendered, to me it just looks better. I know some of the digital renders in the prequel trilogy looked horrible given that Lucas was being a little cheap with the budget but this is Disney so I'm expecting them to throw in a lot of money for this series.

If you look at films that relied heavily on digitally rendered backgrounds: King Kong, Life of Pi, Lord of the Rings, Avatar etc you realize that matte paintings are serviceable for many things but can never be as practical as digital.

For actual characters, I hope they use practical effects and makeup whenever possible (sadly, it is becoming a dying art in the film world) however some digital characters make compelling arguments for using digital on screen (Davy Jones, Jake & Neytiri, King Kong).

 

[Solouk]

The only digital character I can make a claim for is Gollum. But that relied HEAVILY on Andy Serkis. He acted out the character and they just mapped over his facial expressions with the CGI. It was exceptionally well done. But Serkis was the key to it 'working'. CGI has to be used sparingly and intelligently. All depends what sort of film you want to make.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I think backgrounds should be digitally rendered, to me it just looks better. I know some of the digital renders in the prequel trilogy looked horrible given that Lucas was being a little cheap with the budget but this is Disney so I'm expecting them to throw in a lot of money for this series.

If you look at films that relied heavily on digitally rendered backgrounds: King Kong, Life of Pi, Lord of the Rings, Avatar etc you realize that matte paintings are serviceable for many things but can never be as practical as digital.

For actual characters, I hope they use practical effects and makeup whenever possible (sadly, it is becoming a dying art in the film world) however some digital characters make compelling arguments for using digital on screen (Davy Jones, Jake & Neytiri, King Kong).

After seing Oblivion, I'd love them to do something like this:
[YT]i9m6KzRMWnA?t=4m50s[/YT]
http://youtu.be/i9m6KzRMWnA?t=4m50s

 

[dark_b]

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.

 

[dark_b]

The truth is CGI is becoming too expensive and many companies are starting to go back to practical aspects because in a lot of ways not only does it look better but it's cheaper too. Scott said this many times with Prometheus.

this is not true Solidus.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Scott has said that.

It's a case by case basis.

 

[dark_b]

his answer was very specific. not only about sets but for the prometheus sets.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

And this keeps this from being true how....?

 

[Solidus]

And this keeps this from being true how....?

It doesn't. Also that's why Disney is having ILM teaming up with China (announced a week ago) because it's just getting too expensive here as well.

Having a Clonetrooper as a guy in a costume is cheaper then what Lucas did by making them CGI. That and Scott was not being specific, he was being very general. And of course I agree with you there is a case by case basis with some of them.

 

[Octoberist]

It's getting hard and expensive due to what's going on with the CG industry today. Like the irony that Rythme & Hues can't stay alive despite their recent Oscar win for "Life of Pi".

Either things get outsourced or when they're local, there isn't enough time or man power to polish the effects. Studio heads need to figure something out and work with CG companies to solve this.

 

[dark_b]

It doesn't. Also that's why Disney is having ILM teaming up with China (announced a week ago) because it's just getting too expensive here as well.

Having a Clonetrooper as a guy in a costume is cheaper then what Lucas did by making them CGI. That and Scott was not being specific, he was being very general. And of course I agree with you there is a case by case basis with some of them.

ok it is cheaper having a guy in a clonetropper suit. but everything in Avengers,IM3,MOS,.... would be more expensive if they didnt use CGI. everything would be more expensive with practical effects.
Scott meant sets and real location IMO. because everything else was CGI. the albino guy was a suit? no s.... he is white and looks like a bodybuilder.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

ok it is cheaper having a guy in a clonetropper suit. but everything in Avengers,IM3,MOS,.... would be more expensive if they didnt use CGI. everything would be more expensive with practical effects.
Scott meant sets and real location IMO. because everything else was CGI. the albino guy was a suit? no s.... he is white and looks like a bodybuilder.

Once again:

And this keeps this from being true how....?

You admitted that sets and locations are cheaper than using CGI. We're all saying the same thing.

Solidus is right. There's a huge difference between how CGI is being used in the early to mid 00's (the Star Wars prequels being a huge example) and today, with more of a mix of practicality and CGI because it is getting more expensive, but sometimes it actually is a cheaper (and less time consuming) option to go CGI.

 

[Solouk]

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.

 

[Solidus]

Once again:



You admitted that sets and locations are cheaper than using CGI. We're all saying the same thing.

Solidus is right. There's a huge difference between how CGI is being used in the early to mid 00's (the Star Wars prequels being a huge example) and today, with more of a mix of practicality and CGI because it is getting more expensive, but sometimes it actually is a cheaper (and less time consuming) option to go CGI.

100% correct. You are the man Parker!

 

[Octoberist]

I agree too!