EP VII Millennium Falcon

[BlobVanDam]

I know... they were touting how all the sets were huge and all the practical effects, and then you realize that all the ships were all CGI and I'm like really??? Then I see the sets and see all the blue screen everywhere and a, like REALLLYYY??? What happened to all the practical effects??

You mean like the full scale Millennium Falcon (and another partial for on location), X-wings, the numerous practical creatures and sets on Jakku and in the bar, the real crashed TIE fighter on fire, the hundreds of real Stormtroopers in costume, the entire forest set made for the lightsabre fight, BB-8, the practical explosions and smoke throughout? Yeah, I don't know what happened to them.
Every shot had enough practical set to cover the actor's interactions with the scene (unlike the PT where actors are often literally acting against nothing but green boxes), and most of the digital matte extensions are completely seamless. I think they had the good sense to know where the practical effects would enhance the scene and sell the reality of it, and to use CGI in the situations where it excels. I think it was impressive given how relatively rushed the production schedule was. The only CGI that stuck out to me was Maz, Snoke, and the guy on Jakku handing out food rations who tried to buy BB-8. I'm not sure if it was because they were in scenes with so many practical characters, or whether I'm just used to the OT aesthetic, or whether they just could have been better, but there was no shortage of the practical.

Now that they have a lot of that stuff built and have had a bit more time to plan ahead, I wouldn't be surprised to see even more practical effects and sets in Ep VIII. There has been an awakening...

 

[Polygon]

... go on... yes yes go on MOAR

 

[Wolfsburg]

Well at least they don't look fake and out of place like certain other movies.

-Angel

Oh for sure. The movie showed a wise and (mostly) well integrated use of CGI. I just figured there would be some practical ship models built.

 

[DINVADER]

As noted above, some people still want these movies done only with 1983 technology.

 

[LrdSatyr8]

You mean like the full scale Millennium Falcon (and another partial for on location), X-wings, the numerous practical creatures and sets on Jakku and in the bar, the real crashed TIE fighter on fire, the hundreds of real Stormtroopers in costume, the entire forest set made for the lightsabre fight, BB-8, the practical explosions and smoke throughout? Yeah, I don't know what happened to them.

Ok... back it up here... The full scale falcon wasn't complete... was just the side that is always seen... they only made 1 X-wing, the rest in the background were CGI or Cardboard... the creatures yeah... those were cool (except the CGI ones)... The Crashed Tie... yes, that was alright, althou not enough screen time... and then was replaced by a CGI tie that got sucked into the sand (still don't understand that one, I mean, the sand was a hard enough surface to crash on, but then it became a sand pit?)... the stormtroopers... meh... it's not like the 501st didn't have anything better to do... the entire forest set wasn't an entire forest... 90% of it was CGI... it's not like there are hundreds of forest areas they could have actually used for that scene and saved a lot of money in CGI rendering... BB-8 was both real and CGI... practical explosions? So they hire a demolitions expert to make things go boom. Now... from all of that, the only real practical sets that I saw in the movie was the Falcon interior, Maz's place, the war room, and perhaps the ship that that Han had which ended up being just a bunch of hallways which I really didn't understand... you'd think there would have been rooms! I'm not talking about using 1983 technology... I'm talking about how CGI is being used as a crutch to the art of movie making anymore. No one wants to put in the work to achieve something truly remarkable... if they were given a budget of say $1 million dollars to do all the same effects, I'm sure it would have probably come out a lot better. Not because it would have been cheaper, but it would have forced them to come up with different ways of doing the same thing, would have made them THINK about how to achieve the same effects without having to resort to "oh we'll just make that in 3D". That's what made the OT trilogy so great... they HAD to come up with creative ways of doing things to achieve the same effects that we take for granted today. They HAD to make practical models to film... because they couldn't achieve it any other way. Look what happened to the prequels when Lucas had all that money to spend to make a movie and it really didn't matter because he could throw everything into the computer and use CGI everywhere. And look what happened. We got Jar-Jar Binks! I truly don't mind the use of CGI... It should be used so that you can't tell it's being used.... background set extensions are fine with me. But common... with the money they threw at this movie, they really over used it when they shouldn't have and it was obvious.

 

[spastromech]

Ok... back it up here... The full scale falcon wasn't complete... was just the side that is always seen

Yeah why can't they just do it like they did in the OT?


Oh.

... they only made 1 X-wing, the rest in the background were CGI or Cardboard...

Kinda like the 1 X-Wing they made in 1976. The rest were cutouts too.

That's what made the OT trilogy so great... they HAD to come up with creative ways of doing things to achieve the same effects that we take for granted today. They HAD to make practical models to film... because they couldn't achieve it any other way.

Yes, had to do things practically. No other way to do them.
No


Other


Way

Look what happened to the prequels when Lucas had all that money to spend to make a movie and it really didn't matter because he could throw everything into the computer and use CGI everywhere.

Yup, all that damn prequel CG! Why didn't they do anything practical?

 

[jaysethan]

I understand this is the place for CG hate, but you're making it sound like it's less of an art form than practical model making I find that a little insulting. Steve has done some fantastic CG modeling on this thread and he makes it look easy but it's far from easy. There were things in the movie that stood out as CGI but for the most part, and especially on the set extensions I felt it was pretty hard to detect. I think people need to stop thinking of CG as taking the easy way out. In the old days, using miniatures and in camera compositing is what they used because it was the best method available, and now we have better methods that let us do more amazing things. There's bad CG out there but back in the day there were bad practical shots too. I have the utmost respect for practical models and I love making things at home but by trade I'm a CG artist and proud of it. If you don't like the CG in The Force Awakens I challenge you to do better.

 

[LrdSatyr8]

Hey I'm a CG artist myself... but no matter how much work you do with CG you'll never be able to make it look as good as a practical model. Why? Well let's look at the process shall we? First you build everything in a 3D environment. All well and good, and standing still it will look practically perfect. But then you throw in animation, and that's where everything breaks down. Why? Because they allow the computer to come up with the various frames between keyframes. All the subtly of what a camera would catch in a happy accident are elimited. The computer tries to guess the position of the object moving in a 3D environment. Now I admit it's gotten better over the years, but what we've given the computer to do for us has eliminated all those happy accidents that occur in camera. The director can tell the cameraman to do this or do that, and then something happens that catches his eye that he would have never thought of that looks amazing. When you do the same thing in CG, all of that is completely taken out of the equation. There are no happy accidents anymore and it is like a Xerox that gets copied over and over and over... it degrades the process. Nothing will be able to beat the practical in camera look and it shows. Sure you can enhance a practical film shot with CG to make it a bigger explosion or a better effect, but when you replace the entire shot with a artificially created computer generated shot, it loses that quality and frankly really loses the feeling that would have been able to be obtained practically. Does that make sense?

 

[jaysethan]

It does make sense. I'm sorry they couldn't actually build the entire world of Star Wars. I watch that reel and see a lot of impressive work, and while you're entitled to your opinion and you can speculate all day long about how much better it COULD HAVE been, it never will be.

 

[Guns Akimbo]

No one wants to put in the work to achieve something truly remarkable... if they were given a budget of say $1 million dollars to do all the same effects, I'm sure it would have probably come out a lot better. Not because it would have been cheaper, but it would have forced them to come up with different ways of doing the same thing, would have made them THINK about how to achieve the same effects without having to resort to "oh we'll just make that in 3D". That's what made the OT trilogy so great... they HAD to come up with creative ways of doing things to achieve the same effects that we take for granted today. They HAD to make practical models to film... because they couldn't achieve it any other way. Look what happened to the prequels when Lucas had all that money to spend to make a movie and it really didn't matter because he could throw everything into the computer and use CGI everywhere. And look what happened. We got Jar-Jar Binks! I truly don't mind the use of CGI... It should be used so that you can't tell it's being used.... background set extensions are fine with me. But common... with the money they threw at this movie, they really over used it when they shouldn't have and it was obvious.

So, honest question...how would you have done the film using less CG and more practical effects? I also hazard to guess that you'd need more than a million dollars for actual physical models and sets.

 

[LrdSatyr8]

So, honest question...how would you have done the film using less CG and more practical effects? I also hazard to guess that you'd need more than a million dollars for actual physical models and sets.

If they had a limit of a million dollars to make the movie they would have been more creative... but instead they had a blank check and just threw CGI in everywhere. They had basically a blank check.... so in order to spend it all they just used CGI everywhere... it's like why use just the crescent wrench in the toolbox when you've got an entire selection of tools to work with. I'm not bashing CG and everyone thinks I am... I think CG when used properly looks awesome. But what I am saying is that all these directors today are using it as a crutch. They don't even think about practical anymore or how it could be done in practical anymore. They could have built the models under a million. Hell Lucas did it in the original with room to spare. That's why they used kit bashed... was cheaper to use premade kit parts then to fabricate every single part by hand... and he was right. Just by making a shell and then bulding on it, they came up with some of the most iconic ships in the world... and they really didn't cost that much to make. If I'm not mistaken the original ILM team was less then 10 members doing all the work (I could be wrong but I'm sure I'm not that far off). They made the original film for under 1.5 million total. And look how much it made... of course when Empire came around they had a lot more money to work with (hence the full scale Falcon was built). But, they had the limitations that made them think outside the box. But these days, those limitations are gone. The creativity has been replaced with CG that does all the work. If they took away all the CG, do you think it would look the same or better? Its not like they didn't have the money to do so... they could have had a team of 500 working on every single special effect practically and would have been able to achieve the same look if not better without having to rely on CG to do everything for them. That's all I'm saying. CG isn't bad if it's used properly. But when it's relied on so heavily, it detracts from everything else.

 

[Lt Washburn]

Thanks for that video. haven't seen the movie yet, so it was a cool first look at it.

 

[Irishman]

you mean something like this? I made it years ago, and it's a model of the exterior set they built combine with the interior set (with some movie magic to solve the problem of the two not fitting each other).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFAZG2CkQI

- - - Updated - - -

at the moment, I actually am working on what you suggest though. Once I'm done with my "new and improved" exterior copy of the CG asset, I'll render a new video flyingthrough similar to the above. I've got a model based on the new interior set piece in the works.

So, what size of a harmonized Falcon did you end up seeing?

 

[DINVADER]

CG artists don't get enough credit either, it's not just a switch you turn on/off to get CGI ships and backgrounds and such, it takes a lot of man hours to get it looking right. They don't just flip a few switches and it's there. It takes time. If it didn't take time, they could do all the effects in a month. They are artists just like the painters and model makers are, but in a different way.

 

[Crest VFX]

The Hollywood Reporter wrote a nice piece a couple days ago interviewing Roger Guyett (VFX Supervisor) for TFA on the re-creation of the falcon.
A good read with some nice images of the falcon from the film.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/star-wars-visual-effects-team-855707

Looks like Rey lost her forward landing gear doors in one shot.

 

[Jaitea]

The Hollywood Reporter wrote a nice piece a couple days ago interviewing Roger Guyett (VFX Supervisor) for TFA on the re-creation of the falcon.
A good read with some nice images of the falcon from the film.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/star-wars-visual-effects-team-855707

Looks like Rey lost her forward landing gear doors in one shot.

View attachment 578645

View attachment 578647

Hi Crest,...theres another wee thread with some thoughts, observations & practical model building over on the General Model building section

#47

J

 

[eagle1]

If they had a limit of a million dollars to make the movie they would have been more creative... but instead they had a blank check and just threw CGI in everywhere. They had basically a blank check.... so in order to spend it all they just used CGI everywhere... it's like why use just the crescent wrench in the toolbox when you've got an entire selection of tools to work with. I'm not bashing CG and everyone thinks I am... I think CG when used properly looks awesome. But what I am saying is that all these directors today are using it as a crutch. They don't even think about practical anymore or how it could be done in practical anymore. They could have built the models under a million. Hell Lucas did it in the original with room to spare. That's why they used kit bashed... was cheaper to use premade kit parts then to fabricate every single part by hand... and he was right. Just by making a shell and then bulding on it, they came up with some of the most iconic ships in the world... and they really didn't cost that much to make. If I'm not mistaken the original ILM team was less then 10 members doing all the work (I could be wrong but I'm sure I'm not that far off). They made the original film for under 1.5 million total. And look how much it made... of course when Empire came around they had a lot more money to work with (hence the full scale Falcon was built). But, they had the limitations that made them think outside the box. But these days, those limitations are gone. The creativity has been replaced with CG that does all the work. If they took away all the CG, do you think it would look the same or better? Its not like they didn't have the money to do so... they could have had a team of 500 working on every single special effect practically and would have been able to achieve the same look if not better without having to rely on CG to do everything for them. That's all I'm saying. CG isn't bad if it's used properly. But when it's relied on so heavily, it detracts from everything else.

I would be scared to think as to the cost of building all the miniatures as practical models for the new movies.
Maybe another reason why CG takes over. Even a small model is costly to produce. If say the new star destroyer was built in traditional methods as the old model shop, say 8 feet in length, then I would hazzard a guess of a million.
If you go back to Empire & look at the cost of the Executor, it was estimated to be around $200,000 back then, probably well over a million in todays money.
The 5 foot Falcon was built in 5 weeks, 24hrs a day being worked on, by many modelers, again a similar million dollar cost would come up here. If another were to be built for the new movies & the original couldn't be used for any reason, then boy, I'd hate to think of costs.
Its a tough question this CG v practical models. Being old school I prefer models, but I can see the practicality of CG & end of the day, money talks, or rather, lack of it!.
Stu

 

[Crest VFX]

Somehow this thread got a little hijacked about 2 pages ago and has become a discussion about practical effects vs digital and the pros and cons and comparisons between the old movie sets and the newest one...

This thread is about a digital 3D build of the Episode VII Millenium Falcon started by SteveStarkiller (Stinson Lenz). Here's his first post in the thread.
The nice thing about CG is that it can be used as a guide to make the real thing.
He created the plans for the Full Scale Falcon Project from one of his 3D falcon models.

I love his attention to detail and photo match images. I can tell he is as much of a Falcon nut as I am. Can't wait to see him finish it.
I'm building my own digitally, I've built a few over the years, but like anyone who builds a falcon, you want it to be accurate and up to date.
The new trilogy has offered up some great shots of the Falcon to help us make our builds as close to accurate as possible.

I am working on getting some high res shots of the falcon 3d model used in the movie -with permission of course.

I'm posting what images I can find from the movie here for SteveStarkiller to help his progress any way I can.
He also asked for screen shots a few pages back.

An old render of mine from Cinema 4D:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B25Xsf1r3lGjeG80ak5uZGVyT0U

My favorite SteveStarkiller quote on page one of the thread:
"hahahah "when it's done" ...what does 'done' mean?"

 

[rbeach84]

Hey, nice Crest VFX!

Cheers - Robert

 

[eagle1]

Somehow this thread got a little hijacked about 2 pages ago and has become a discussion about practical effects vs digital and the pros and cons and comparisons between the old movie sets and the newest one...

This thread is about a digital 3D build of the Episode VII Millenium Falcon started by SteveStarkiller (Stinson Lenz). Here's his first post in the thread.
The nice thing about CG is that it can be used as a guide to make the real thing.
He created the plans for the Full Scale Falcon Project from one of his 3D falcon models.

I love his attention to detail and photo match images. I can tell he is as much of a Falcon nut as I am. Can't wait to see him finish it.
I'm building my own digitally, I've built a few over the years, but like anyone who builds a falcon, you want it to be accurate and up to date.
The new trilogy has offered up some great shots of the Falcon to help us make our builds as close to accurate as possible.

I am working on getting some high res shots of the falcon 3d model used in the movie -with permission of course.

I'm posting what images I can find from the movie here for SteveStarkiller to help his progress any way I can.
He also asked for screen shots a few pages back.

An old render of mine from Cinema 4D:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B25Xsf1r3lGjeG80ak5uZGVyT0U

My favorite SteveStarkiller quote on page one of the thread:
"hahahah "when it's done" ...what does 'done' mean?"

Well then...I stand corrected & will never talk about the practical Falcon model here, you are correct...nothing but CG discussion here!.