Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

CGI should NEVER be used for major characters, Gollum being the only exception that I can actually think of. But that was one in a million.

I disagree - Rocket Raccoon and Groot were both fine. Sully and Mike. All the way back to Woody and Buzz - there is no problem with major characters being CGI.

Jar-Jar would have been just as eye-stabbingly annoying played without CGI by the guy who did the voice and motion capture.

And of course, the prequels had bigger problems than too much CGI. Rubbish story, bad actors, good actors acting badly, humiliatingly bad dialogue delivered by people who could not believe they were saying it, and a director more interested in packing an all-time record for tiny moving dots out the window behind the characters.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disagree - Rocket Raccoon and Groot were both fine. Sully and Mike. All the way back to Woody and Buzz - there is no problem with major characters being CGI.

Jar-Jar would have been just as eye-stabbingly annoying played without CGI by the guy who did the voice and motion capture.

And of course, the prequels had bigger problems than too much CGI. Rubbish story, bad actors, good actors acting badly, humiliatingly bad dialogue delivered by people who could not believe they were saying it, and a director more interested in packing an all-time record for tiny moving dots out the window behind the characters.

I think his point was that CGI characters alongside live action elements is something that more often than not fails. Jar Jar Binks failed, not because he was a CGI creation but rather because of how poorly written he was. He was a character written to be a bumbling fool and aimed at 12 year old boys which is all well and good but anyone above that will be bored by him. The major problem with the episodes 1-3 is that Lucas never seemed to know what he wanted to do, on one hand he tried to make a film for a new generation of 12 year old boys but then opted to tell a story about commerce, something that few adults would be interested in let alone young boys.

Tony EH

Yep, that's my point.

I'm not talking about animated characters in animated films, such as 'Toy Story', or 'Monsters Inc'. Something like that isn't a "real world" environment and thus is exempt from having to act as such.

I also haven't seen 'Guardians of the Galaxy' (and probably won't), so I can't comment on that.

But, in general, CGI isn't at the point where an entirely CGI character can seamlessly meld with live action characters yet, and IMO, won't be for a good while yet. The zenith, for me, was Gollum, but even he had some noticeable flaws and lapses in environmental cohesion.

The viewer will always notice that something is "off" and if you're noticing, then it's, quite often, a failure.

But, yeh, Jar Jar Binks was an awful creation from the get-go and even if ILM had turned in a WETA style CGI coup in terms of the attention to detail that Gollum got, it still would have been awful. But, his awkward and unrealistic movements and almost complete detachment from world that surrounds him simply compounded the poor attempt at character creation that overstepped its extremely limited boundaries as soon as he appeared on the screen.

Chris_Heilong

I think we are there now, CGI has some weight and belivablity at last, more believable than animatronic characters anyway and the nuances of performance is captured more accurately than ever before.

Tony EH

Mmmm...I don't know. An expertly produced animatronic sequence can still trump CGI.

Again, with Star Wars, I find the puppet Yoda, from 'The Empire Strikes Back' infinitely more believable than the terrible CGI effort from the prequels.

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

But, in general, CGI isn't at the point where an entirely CGI character can seamlessly meld with live action characters yet, and IMO, won't be for a good while yet. The zenith, for me, was Gollum, but even he had some noticeable flaws and lapses in environmental cohesion.

The viewer will always notice that something is "off" and if you're noticing, then it's, quite often, a failure.

But, yeh, Jar Jar Binks was an awful creation from the get-go and even if ILM had turned in a WETA style CGI coup in terms of the attention to detail that Gollum got, it still would have been awful. But, his awkward and unrealistic movements and almost complete detachment from world that surrounds him simply compounded the poor attempt at character creation that overstepped its extremely limited boundaries as soon as he appeared on the screen.

Have you seen Ironman?:

The problem with JarJar is not really the CG, bar the texture and lighting effects his CGI wasn't that bad, it's just everything else about the character is terrible. A guy in a suit would have been just as bad.

Again, with Star Wars, I find the puppet Yoda, from 'The Empire Strikes Back' infinitely more believable than the terrible CGI effort from the prequels.

Ironically, the problem with Yoda was the CGI, but not because it was bad (same relatively primitive texture and lighting effects notwithstanding), but because it allowed them to have him fight in such a ridiculous manner. Having him CG allowed the makers to have him bounce around like crazy which just didn't fit with his character (or even how he moved about outside of fighting).

Adamantium

There was more practical effects and sets used on each prequel film than in the entire original trilogy combined. Jaw dropping stuff and it's all catalouged in this thread link

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

Lots of the work done in the PT can probably be done totally in the virtual world now.
On an overall scale the ST is likely to be far less practical than the PT which was far more practical than the OT.

I can't imagine how the actors could work on minimalist sets like these!
















and that's only the sets, not including the many more umpteen minatures



Recently, I thought it would be cool if a respected Star Wars blog or site would just try to sell an old and rareTPM or AOTC set picture as a "leaked" Ep. VII set pic. I'd really be anxious to see how many "quality sites" would walk into the trap and bash the Prequels based on a prequel picture

I'm far more concerned that Abrams has actually wrote a story of decent mythological value like Lucas could churn out on his worst day now these films are being made because they have too, rather "we passionately want too".

Can Abrams and co come up with something as beautiful as this scene?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMUKGTkiWik

No amount of reactionary practical effects building and Abrams force for change videos is going to make for a film as thought provoking as Revenge of the Sith, and honestly it has only recently dawned on me that the prequels were more like slightly cerebal art house films (even if they're not particularly good ones) designed for a less than mainstream audience, that sort of stuff has always been Lucas's real value to cinema. He always talked about how the SW are silent films and if you removed the dialogue they'd work, but not the music as that's 70% of the magic. Lucas was the studio in every respect, an independent filmmaker making big budget hits, the rarest of things, unheard of and not its gone to Disney, I only wish they he had made more independent, edgy material when he was in control. He's a loss only for what he didn't do but could have

Because CGI was new and sexy Lucasfilm decided (rightfully) that they would push it front and centre in their making of documentaries, they didn't expect the internet and at large to take for granted the advances they were acheiving on the old tried and tested fronts.

Tony EH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you seen Ironman?:

Ironman is hardware. It's not organic. CGI hardware can work. It's the flesh and bone situations coupled with real flesh and bone that misses the mark.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem with JarJar is not really the CG, bar the texture and lighting effects his CGI wasn't that bad, it's just everything else about the character is terrible. A guy in a suit would have been just as bad.

It certainly compounds the problem. But even if Jar Jar looked less silly, didn't act like a gobshite and spoke in a completely alien language, the fact that he was rendered in CGI still takes the viewer out of the experience.

He simply doesn't fit into the same world that the real characters do.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ironically, the problem with Yoda was the CGI, but not because it was bad (same relatively primitive texture and lighting effects notwithstanding), but because it allowed them to have him fight in such a ridiculous manner. Having him CG allowed the makers to have him bounce around like crazy which just didn't fit with his character (or even how he moved about outside of fighting).

That's partly my point.

Because of the lack of real world physical restraints that are not imposed on items generated in a machine, it allows filmmakers to go OTT regarding what a character can do and often it ends up looking ridiculous.

That Yoda light saber duel was just awful. I still remember the laughter in the cinema when Yoda started leaping around the place. But equally stupid is Anakin jumping out of a speeding vehicle and flying through the air when he chases the bounty hunter at the beginning of 'Attack of the Clones'.

It doesn't look real, because it's not real.

Adamantium

Adamantium wrote: »

Somebody photoshopped an Kerry/Irish cliff coastline backdrop in there, works really well


Although is more like akin to what it will probably be like

Tony EH

Adamantium wrote: »

There was more practical effects and sets used on each prequel film than in the entire original trilogy combined.

That's no doubt true, given the amount of location switch that goes on in the prequel trilogy. However, the practical effects are usually only parts, combined with a healthy (unhealthy) dose of CGI filling in, which is why a lot of people came away with the impression of fakeness from the whole thing.

I can still remember that feeling of "fake" when watching 'Attack of the Clones' in the cinema.

In the original trilogy, the actors performed on entire sets, completely made in a real world environment. Tangible and tactile over every inch.

Except, of course, when a matte painting was employed.

krudler

Tony EH wrote: »

Ironman is hardware. It's not organic. CGI hardware can work. It's the flesh and bone situations coupled with real flesh and bone that misses the mark.

What about Davy Jones in the Pirates movies? he looked brilliant

Tony EH

Very happy to say that I've never seen a single 'Pirates of the Caribbean' film.

But I'll take your word for it.

Why does Davy Jones look like Cthulhu though?

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

Ironman is hardware. It's not organic. CGI hardware can work. It's the flesh and bone situations coupled with real flesh and bone that misses the mark.

The Hulk then. Or the Apes in Rise/Dawn of Planet of the Apes.

Tony EH wrote: »

It certainly compounds the problem. But even if Jar Jar looked less silly, didn't act like a gobshite and spoke in a completely alien language, the fact that he was rendered in CGI still takes the viewer out of the experience.

He simply doesn't fit into the same world that the real characters do.

Given that there was an actor on set acting out all of Jar Jar's actions:

I don't think that a puppet, suit or animatronics would have made much of a difference at all, in terms of fitting into the same world.
People don't have the same issue with the dragon from Dragonheart, even though its CG is a few years older that Jar Jars. It's just a better character.

Tony EH wrote: »

That's partly my point.

Because of the lack of real world physical restraints that are not imposed on items generated in a machine, it allows filmmakers to go OTT regarding what a character can do and often it ends up looking ridiculous.

That Yoda light saber duel was just awful. I still remember the laughter in the cinema when Yoda started leaping around the place. But equally stupid is Anakin jumping out of a speeding vehicle and flying through the air when he chases the bounty hunter at the beginning of 'Attack of the Clones'.

It doesn't look real, because it's not real.

It doesn't look real because it doesn't fit with what you expect the character could or would do. The computers didn't lack real world physics (well, maybe it wasn't great in 1999), the makers just ignored that function so they could have the characters do whatever stupid thing the terrible script called for. Anakin does something to show he is impulsive (even though it just shows he is an idiot) and Yoda does something to show he is a badass (as definited by George Lucas and his team of Yes men).

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

Why does Davy Jones look like Cthulhu though?

It be a skin condition: carrrrgghhbuncles.

Tony EH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The Hulk then. Or the Apes in Rise/Dawn of Planet of the Apes.

Which Hulk? I thought Ang Lee's Hulk looked like a cartoon.

I've only seen 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' and yes, in the main, Caesar does look good, but there are definitely parts of that film where it's so obviously CGI, because it's not seamless yet.

Strangely enough, I still prefer the monkeys in the original?? Even though I know it's Roddy McDowell, Kim Hunter and Claude Akins.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given that there was an actor on set acting out all of Jar Jar's actions:

I don't think that a puppet, suit or animatronics would have made much of a difference at all, in terms of fitting into the same world.
People don't have the same issue with the dragon from Dragonheart, even though its CG is a few years older that Jar Jars. It's just a better character.

I'm not saying a puppet would have done better for Jar Jar. The only thing that would have saved Jar Jar was if Obi Wan had sliced him in two the second he saw him.

krudler

Tony EH wrote: »

Very happy to say that I've never seen a single 'Pirates of the Caribbean' film.

But I'll take your word for it.

Why does Davy Jones look like Cthulhu though?

The first one is genuinely good, was a total surprise when it came out as to how good a film based off a theme park ride could be. The sequels are bogged down in too many characters and exposition though. Jones is one of the better characters in it.

I'd take practical over CGI any day of the week, hell 2001's effects still stand up and that film is decades old. The effects in John Carpenter's The Thing are way better than their CGI equivalents in the recent remake/prequel, even if they aren't perfect themselves, but they have a more realistic feel to them than floaty cgi.

roanoke

I used to be very anti-CG, especially in how it was applied in the Star Wars, but my attitude has softened somewhat over the years to the point that I don't really mind anymore.

Scenes like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLQekc4vvKc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09n0qd_n4c0

from Ep3 had their fair share of CG and, heaven forbid, may even look 'fake'. However they're now some of my favorite in all 6 movies. I think it's simply because they're well constructed, aesthetically pleasing, convey emotion and simply 'feel' cinematic. By comparison I can't think of any comparable scenes to them in Episode 1+2. Perhaps one 'blink and you'll miss it' shot in Ep2 of some (ironically) CG troopers blindly shooting into a sandstorm, but that's about it.

If Ep7 is full of CG-heavy scenes like that then I probably won't have too many any complaints.

Adamantium

roanoke wrote: »

I used to be very anti-CG, especially in how it was applied in the Star Wars, but my attitude has softened somewhat over the years to the point that I don't really mind anymore.

Scenes like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLQekc4vvKc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09n0qd_n4c0

from Ep3 had their fair share of CG and, heaven forbid, may even look 'fake'. However they're now some of my favorite in all 6 movies. I think it's simply because they're well constructed, aesthetically pleasing, convey emotion and simply 'feel' cinematic. By comparison I can't think of any comparable scenes to them in Episode 1+2. Perhaps one 'blink and you'll miss it' shot in Ep2 of some (ironically) CG troopers blindly shooting into a sandstorm, but that's about it.

If Ep7 is full of CG-heavy scenes like that then I probably won't have too many any complaints.

Hayden's body language and acting is great here, he nailed the brooding intensity of a highly dysfunctional man, next to no dialogue in either of these scenes and their some of the best in the saga, as I said they'd work as silent movies, telling a story with music. I'm interested to see what Williams does (in many ways he is the reason the saga itself was a cultural icon in the 1st place), I don't see Giachano or other contemporaries being able to replicate or surpass what Williams will do/has done. Williams is rare in that he takes cues from themes and not themes from cues themselves. Heavily melodic.

Tony EH

roanoke wrote: »

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09n0qd_n4c0

Sorry, I just think that second video looks awful. It's like something from 'Mass Effect'.

pixelburp

roanoke wrote: »

from Ep3 had their fair share of CG and, heaven forbid, may even look 'fake'. However they're now some of my favorite in all 6 movies. I think it's simply because they're well constructed, aesthetically pleasing, convey emotion and simply 'feel' cinematic. By comparison I can't think of any comparable scenes to them in Episode 1+2. Perhaps one 'blink and you'll miss it' shot in Ep2 of some (ironically) CG troopers blindly shooting into a sandstorm, but that's about it.

If Ep7 is full of CG-heavy scenes like that then I probably won't have too many any complaints.

See, here I disagree, particularly given the second example you provide. Oh sure, the music swells with heightened tragedy and there's lots of colour and vibrancy in the scene, but it's almost completely hollow and devoid of earned emotion. The scene tells me I should feel sad for this terrible event, but who are these people? Oh they're Jedi, the good guys? Well so what, I've seen next to nothing of these characters, witnessed no evidence of their worth or virtue - they're certainly not innocent peacemakers in this scene - hell I don't even know their names, yet I'm supposed to care that they're being gunned down (oh, and was that take of the green alien really the best they managed with her?) And even with the overall context of the trilogy, the Jedi were so poorly written, that scene just felt an unintentionally hilarious punctuation to their idiocy.

Goodshape

Seems relevant to the discussion (and/or interesting regardless), Steven Soderbergh has recut Raiders of the Lost Arc into a silent black and white film to show-off the importance of staging in filmmaking – and Spielberg’s mastery of it.

The premise being that even without the [original] soundtrack, dialogue, and colour, the film stands up. It's possible to follow the story, become invested in the characters, feel the intended emotion. Very little is superfluous flair or "effects" for the sake of it. Sets exist for a reason. Camera moves for a reason. The stage is set for a reason.

http://extension765.com/sdr/18-raiders

I think CGI vs practical is missing the point a little bit. CGI is fine if you use it right; Lucas just has no restraint – and being forced to use practical effects might have added some artificial restraint at least! It's not quite Michael Bay / Transformers territory but so much of it (the PT) really is just a busy mess of flash and zoom and swooping, jumping, flying nonsense because they can – not because they should.

CGI is an amazing tool that great film makers can use to enhance a film. Take a look at the huge amount if CGI in something like the Coen's True Grit, it's used subtlety and really enhances the film. It also saved them millions of dollars. When you have a filmmaker such as Lucas he simply doesn't have any restraint. He uses CGI simply because he can and often it's quite jarring to look at.

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

Which Hulk? I thought Ang Lee's Hulk looked like a cartoon.

I've only seen 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' and yes, in the main, Caesar does look good, but there are definitely parts of that film where it's so obviously CGI, because it's not seamless yet.

Strangely enough, I still prefer the monkeys in the original?? Even though I know it's Roddy McDowell, Kim Hunter and Claude Akins.

I prefer the new Apes films because they actually look like Apes, as opposed to humans in bad costumes (or makeup and prosthetics).
Ang Lee's Hulk looked like a figurine, he was too shiny and rubbery looking. The texture and lighting effects improved over the two Hulk films and the Avengers, the latest iteration is very good IMO:

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not saying a puppet would have done better for Jar Jar. The only thing that would have saved Jar Jar was if Obi Wan had sliced him in two the second he saw him.

Because he is a terrible character, not because of the CG.

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

See, here I disagree, particularly given the second example you provide. Oh sure, the music swells with heightened tragedy and there's lots of colour and vibrancy in the scene, but it's almost completely hollow and devoid of earned emotion. The scene tells me I should feel sad for this terrible event, but who are these people? Oh they're Jedi, the good guys? Well so what, I've seen next to nothing of these characters, witnessed no evidence of their worth or virtue - they're certainly not innocent peacemakers in this scene - hell I don't even know their names, yet I'm supposed to care that they're being gunned down (oh, and was that take of the green alien really the best they managed with her?) And even with the overall context of the trilogy, the Jedi were so poorly written, that scene just felt an unintentionally hilarious punctuation to their idiocy.

Totally agree, the Jedi are useless for the most part in the prequels. "Hey everyone...Sam Mutha****in' Jackson is a Jedi!..and he's got a purple lightsaber!..cos he's Sam Mutha****in' Jackson!" that's about the extent of any character development for Mace Windu.

I do like the immolation scene in ROTS though, it felt like one of the few genuinely emotional moments in the prequels. Pity it was preceded by that nonsensical lightsaber duel, swinging around on cables and fighting on flying platforms like ****ing Mega Man 2 or something.

Roar

Tony EH wrote: »

Sorry, I just think that second video looks awful. It's like something from 'Mass Effect'.

Yup. It's like watching a cut scene. And even if there are real elements being used (models, sets etc) you can't tell because of all the CG lobbed on top. It's like someone shouting in your face repeatedly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvc9_GDoWI4

Tony EH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

the latest iteration is very good IMO:

Agreed, the last attempt is obviously the best, but it still looks like it belongs in a video game.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because he is a terrible character, not because of the CG.

The CGI only makes it worse though. His lines and actions may go a long way to ruining a scene, but the fact that he never occupies the same space as the human beings completely takes the viewer out of the scene and ultimately the picture.

In short, what he says and does sounds crap, but he also looks crap too.

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

In short, what he says and does sounds crap, but he also looks crap too.

Agreed, but the question is not "Is Jar-Jar crap?", it's "Is CGI good enough for a major character?". Gollum is an example where there are flaws in the CGI, but because the acting and writing are good, he works.

So, can it be done badly? Sure, Jar jar is proof. Can it be done well? Sure, Gollum is proof. Which is more common? So far, I'd say CGI characters have been between these two extremes.

But getting better. In GotG, Groot was very cartoonish, and did some impossible stuff just because hey, he's CGI and can do anything. Rocket Raccoon, on the other hand, I quickly accepted as a character played by an actor who happens to be a talking raccoon.

Tony EH

Yes, but Gollum is an exception to the rule, AFAIC, and I'm currently re-watching the trilogy. It still stands up and was way ahead of its time. In terms of execution, WETA had the trump on ILM completely.

In fact, I'm very surprised at 'The Lord of the Rings'. Considering that there is a substantial amount of CGI in all three films, it rarely looks that way.

I dunno, maybe, it's the darker colour palette Jackson used. Perhaps, it's the (seemingly) subtle mix of real world and CGI world. Maybe he just knew better than the producers of the Star Wars prequels and many other films. Either way, it certainly looks a million times better than they did.

However, there are definitely CGI areas that are terrible too. Legolas' lepping about looks awful and it never flows with the rest of the action.

CGI is certainly getting better, no doubt, but it's still a long way off from being easily convincing and it takes a lot of people to get it right. It still looks cartoonish, far too readily though. As somebody mentioned earlier, the recent film, 'The Thing' is a good example of practical vs CGI and how it can often be bettered by the older technology.

thegreengoblin

roanoke wrote: »

I used to be very anti-CG, especially in how it was applied in the Star Wars, but my attitude has softened somewhat over the years to the point that I don't really mind anymore.

Scenes like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLQekc4vvKc

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09n0qd_n4c0

from Ep3 had their fair share of CG and, heaven forbid, may even look 'fake'. However they're now some of my favorite in all 6 movies. I think it's simply because they're well constructed, aesthetically pleasing, convey emotion and simply 'feel' cinematic. By comparison I can't think of any comparable scenes to them in Episode 1+2. Perhaps one 'blink and you'll miss it' shot in Ep2 of some (ironically) CG troopers blindly shooting into a sandstorm, but that's about it.

If Ep7 is full of CG-heavy scenes like that then I probably won't have too many any complaints.

You always go with your first instincts and watching the Jedi purge scenes in the cinema I remember thinking these worlds just didn't look real. And they look worse every time I see them.

I also have a huge issue with the padawan massacre scene. Not because they were killed but because they were killed by a character who, minutes earlier, was utterly consumed with guilt for basically murdering Mace Windu. Now we're led to believe that he's capable of butchering a load of innocent kids? Come off it. It feels wrong to this day.

One thing I will say is that there was more heartfelt expression on Ki Adi Mundi's face when he realised he was about to die than there was from Anakin in all of his scenes combined.

FlashR2D2

Deleted User wrote: »

When you have a filmmaker such as Lucas he simply doesn't have any restraint. He uses CGI simply because he can and often it's quite jarring to look at.

Personally I think it was a business decision. Lucas was the owner of Industrial Light & Magic, it seems to be an opinion that he used the SW prequels as an industry show reel to promote his company's upcoming CGI capabilities. The result of the prequels was that ILM began to take on numerous contracts across the industry making it the most successful CGI / special effects company in the business at the time.

.......from what I remember Lucas really wanted the 'Lord of the Rings' contract. Jackson however seized the opportunity to set up a rival company 'Weta Digital' to do the CGI work. ILM and Weta today stand as the two biggest CGI companies.

I thought it was interesting to check out what films both companies have worked on to see if there is a particular style in the work. Here's a rundown of recent work take off Wiki.

ILM
-Noah
-Captain America: The Winter Soldier
-Transformers: Age of Extinction
-Lucy
-Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
-Guardians of The Galaxy

WETA
-Man of Steel
-Iron Man 3
-The Wolverine
-The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
-The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
-Godzilla
-Dawn of the Planet of the Apes