Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release) (Spoilers)

[gizmo]

CG does look fantastic when done properly but when they use it to break the laws of physics like Legolas in Desolation of Smaug it just looks way silly. That is what I don't like about CG.The fact it makes some film makers go over the top with scenes just because they now can. Some modern CG is just jaw dropping good though and I think The Force Awakens will showcase that as well as bringing back some wonderful practical sets instead of just a sea of green screen actors can't relate to. So there's arguments both ways.


Ben

 

[Riceball]

CG does look fantastic when done properly but when they use it to break the laws of physics like Legolas in Desolation of Smaug it just looks way silly. That is what I don't like about CG.The fact it makes some film makers go over the top with scenes just because they now can. Some modern CG is just jaw dropping good though and I think The Force Awakens will showcase that as well as bringing back some wonderful practical sets instead of just a sea of green screen actors can't relate to. So there's arguments both ways. Ben

I agree with the general sentiment but to be honest, silly things like Legolas breaking the laws of physics can be done practically, either on a physical set or against a green screen and comped in during post; doing it completely in post just makes things somewhat easier but not impossible. Ultimately, it's not the medium (CG or practical) but the director and how he/she does thing. The one thing that I do agree with most everybody here is completely green screen sets, I have no problems with partial CG sets but not 100% digital sets, there needs to be something of an actual set present and not just a green screen and green boxes. I though that The Martian did that very well with the foreground of certain shots with Matt Damon in them were done with a practical set with real props but the background was a green screen so they could comp in the background.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

I'm still divided on complete CG sets; I still believe it's all down to director, the actors, and really, its use to make it work. To bring it back round to Star Wars, I saw a taped play of MacBeth with Ian McDiarmid and Ian Mckellan ages ago and the entirety of the sets were literally nothing. It was a completely black stage with black crates for tables and chairs and the occasional pitcher of water. Moreover, it worked.

It's not impossible to get great performances in front of nothing but it does take a certain level of talent that everyone needs to be up on par with to make it work, I think.

 

[gizmo]

I agree with the general sentiment but to be honest, silly things like Legolas breaking the laws of physics can be done practically, either on a physical set or against a green screen and comped in during post; doing it completely in post just makes things somewhat easier but not impossible. Ultimately, it's not the medium (CG or practical) but the director and how he/she does thing. The one thing that I do agree with most everybody here is completely green screen sets, I have no problems with partial CG sets but not 100% digital sets, there needs to be something of an actual set present and not just a green screen and green boxes. I though that The Martian did that very well with the foreground of certain shots with Matt Damon in them were done with a practical set with real props but the background was a green screen so they could comp in the background.

I'm still divided on complete CG sets; I still believe it's all down to director, the actors, and really, its use to make it work. To bring it back round to Star Wars, I saw a taped play of MacBeth with Ian McDiarmid and Ian Mckellan ages ago and the entirety of the sets were literally nothing. It was a completely black stage with black crates for tables and chairs and the occasional pitcher of water. Moreover, it worked.

It's not impossible to get great performances in front of nothing but it does take a certain level of talent that everyone needs to be up on par with to make it work, I think.

Great points by both of you. I agree that a huge amount comes down to the director and actors too. It can't just boil down to the mediums used but how people work with them and I'm really hoping The Force Awakens displays a new benchmark for all arguments. I'm looking forward to seeing The Martian toh And both Ian's really are at the top of there game and I wouldn't expect anything otherwise.


Ben

 

[LrdSatyr8]

Don't get me wrong... CG isn't a bad thing... but it can be over used to the point of nausea... I totally agree with the above. The use of CG should be subtle... you shouldn't be able to tell its being used at all. I have no problem with background replacement, wire removal, etc... it's changed the way matte paintings are used... but when it's used as a main feature, it is totally unbelievable. The ships in Star Wars are main features... its what everyone wants to see most and for them to be completely digital ruins the feel of them. That's all I'm saying!

 

[guabe]

Dont want to derail the current conversation but I just saw the Rebels season 2 UK trailer and I heard Sabine( i think it was her) say I am Clan "REN" house of Vizsla... could there be any relation between mandos and knights of Ren?

 

[SofaKing01]

I don't mind CG spaceships...

For me, if the ship was a clean, off the assembly line ship then CG would work for me without issue. But no amount Photoshopping / computer generated weathering can get the same look and feel of the grunge, grime, oil streaks and the natural freedom that weathering give us when applied to a physical model. Yes, you can take photos, turn them into skins and wrap them around a 3D mesh... but it still doesn't hold when compared to the real thing (a scaled down real thing) especially up close.

The second TFA trailer showed us a LOT of CGI paintings. From a distance, the crashed SD looked AWESOME! The flipped SSD was even more amazing - because our eyes didn't have time to focus on the subtle details or they're just too far away to show any real details (still an amazing work of art - dont get me wrong) but the graceful flyby of the Falcon during RotJ as the fleet readies its attack on the DS2... no CGI could replace that beautiful physical model.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[LrdSatyr8]

For me, if the ship was a clean, off the assembly line ship then CG would work for me without issue. But no amount Photoshopping / computer generated weathering can get the same look and feel of the grunge, grime, oil streaks and the natural freedom that weathering give us when applied to a physical model. Yes, you can take photos, turn them into skins and wrap them around a 3D mesh... but it still doesn't hold when compared to the real thing (a scaled down real thing) especially up close.

The second TFA trailer showed us a LOT of CGI paintings. From a distance, the crashed SD looked AWESOME! The flipped SSD was even more amazing - because our eyes didn't have time to focus on the subtle details or they're just too far away to show any real details (still an amazing work of art - dont get me wrong) but the graceful flyby of the Falcon during RotJ as the fleet readies its attack on the DS2... no CGI could replace that beautiful physical model.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

AMEN brother!

 

[jcoffman99]

Dont want to derail the current conversation but I just saw the Rebels season 2 UK trailer and I heard Sabine( i think it was her) say I am Clan "REN" house of Vizsla... could there be any relation between mandos and knights of Ren?

Her "ren" is Wren so I doubt it.

 

[Riceball]

For me, if the ship was a clean, off the assembly line ship then CG would work for me without issue. But no amount Photoshopping / computer generated weathering can get the same look and feel of the grunge, grime, oil streaks and the natural freedom that weathering give us when applied to a physical model. Yes, you can take photos, turn them into skins and wrap them around a 3D mesh... but it still doesn't hold when compared to the real thing (a scaled down real thing) especially up close.

The second TFA trailer showed us a LOT of CGI paintings. From a distance, the crashed SD looked AWESOME! The flipped SSD was even more amazing - because our eyes didn't have time to focus on the subtle details or they're just too far away to show any real details (still an amazing work of art - dont get me wrong) but the graceful flyby of the Falcon during RotJ as the fleet readies its attack on the DS2... no CGI could replace that beautiful physical model.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

It all boils down to the amount of time the artists are given and how detail oriented the director is, I can guarantee you that if someone really wanted that dirty, broken in look enough they can get done in CG, no problem. The state of the tech keeps on getting better constantly and I personally feel that the reason why people think a lot of CG looks "fake" is because they've convinced themselves of it simply because they know it's CG and they don't like it. If you just sit back and enjoy the ride (so to speak) and not look for the CG and start critiquing it and looking for flaws you'll find that, when done well, it's every bit as good as a physical model.

One of the few times that I feel that practical beats out CG is for close ups of large objects, that's when CG becomes impractical (for now) and practical is better. A good example of this is the close up shots of people boarding and exiting the Falcon, those kinds of shots are best with at least a partial model for parts like the ramp and the areas immediately surrounding it and a green screen for the parts of the ship that are more in the background.

 

[LrdSatyr8]

It all boils down to the amount of time the artists are given and how detail oriented the director is, I can guarantee you that if someone really wanted that dirty, broken in look enough they can get done in CG, no problem. The state of the tech keeps on getting better constantly and I personally feel that the reason why people think a lot of CG looks "fake" is because they've convinced themselves of it simply because they know it's CG and they don't like it. If you just sit back and enjoy the ride (so to speak) and not look for the CG and start critiquing it and looking for flaws you'll find that, when done well, it's every bit as good as a physical model.

One of the few times that I feel that practical beats out CG is for close ups of large objects, that's when CG becomes impractical (for now) and practical is better. A good example of this is the close up shots of people boarding and exiting the Falcon, those kinds of shots are best with at least a partial model for parts like the ramp and the areas immediately surrounding it and a green screen for the parts of the ship that are more in the background.

And that's where the problem is. I agree CG has come along way since the 80's, but with all the movie companies trying to squeeze every penny out of a production, the CG artists never have time to create truly believable work when making a physical model would take the same amount of time, cost less, and would be easier to shoot. Using the computer to calculate analog movements just hasn't come to a point that is convincible yet. The same actions can be done IN CAMERA at a much cheaper price and is cost effective. To do CG just for the sake of saying "that was all done in CG isn't it amazing" just doesn't cut it anymore. Sure when the tech was first coming out it was amazing, it was something new that had never been seen before. It has come along way since Tron. but now its a tool. It shouldn't be a crutch to move the story along... it should be used to help the story. Too many directors have gotten lazy and immediately think "oh well, we'll fix it in post" and then discover that the original footage that they messed up requires a lot more work to fix in post then should have been necessary, and viola... a crap fest... and all of it could have been avoided if they just had a real physical object they could have shot to begin with. Unlike us hobbyists who can spend 1000's of hours perfecting the perfect model in CG (eg: Steve Starkiller) the CG artists that work for the industry end up having a fraction of that time to develop and perfect a CG mesh. The cost of producing a CG scene has skyrocketed over the past few years as younger and eager talent has flooded the market and polluted the resource pool with subpar work at a lower cost. When you look at a movie like Star Wars, they never thought the movie would ever be a hit. That's one of the reasons all of the sets were destroyed after filming, but one of the things that still amazes to this day is the fact that everything was done IN CAMERA... no CGI... No computers. Just raw photography that was thrown together. Would it have been easier if they used CG back then? Sure... but it wouldn't have had the impact that it did. But like I said, I have no problem using it as a tool to replace backgrounds, to remove wires, to add an explosion where it would have been dangerous otherwise but not to make the main focus of the movie to be about those effects in order to be lazy and not do it right. Lucas made the mistake of doing everything in CG in the prequels and look how badly they turned out (do I have to mention Jar Jar?). Let he artists be artists and do what they do best... build something magnificent and show it off to the world.

 

[Halliwax]

Dont want to derail the current conversation but I just saw the Rebels season 2 UK trailer and I heard Sabine( i think it was her) say I am Clan "REN" house of Vizsla... could there be any relation between mandos and knights of Ren?

I heard the same thing, I re watched it acouple times and figured I was hearing ren but it was something else. glad I'm not the only one who caught this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Halliwax]

Her "ren" is Wren so I doubt it.

ok thanks, I jumped the gun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Riceball]

And that's where the problem is. I agree CG has come along way since the 80's, but with all the movie companies trying to squeeze every penny out of a production, the CG artists never have time to create truly believable work when making a physical model would take the same amount of time, cost less, and would be easier to shoot. Using the computer to calculate analog movements just hasn't come to a point that is convincible yet. The same actions can be done IN CAMERA at a much cheaper price and is cost effective. To do CG just for the sake of saying "that was all done in CG isn't it amazing" just doesn't cut it anymore. Sure when the tech was first coming out it was amazing, it was something new that had never been seen before. It has come along way since Tron. but now its a tool. It shouldn't be a crutch to move the story along... it should be used to help the story. Too many directors have gotten lazy and immediately think "oh well, we'll fix it in post" and then discover that the original footage that they messed up requires a lot more work to fix in post then should have been necessary, and viola... a crap fest... and all of it could have been avoided if they just had a real physical object they could have shot to begin with. Unlike us hobbyists who can spend 1000's of hours perfecting the perfect model in CG (eg: Steve Starkiller) the CG artists that work for the industry end up having a fraction of that time to develop and perfect a CG mesh. The cost of producing a CG scene has skyrocketed over the past few years as younger and eager talent has flooded the market and polluted the resource pool with subpar work at a lower cost. When you look at a movie like Star Wars, they never thought the movie would ever be a hit. That's one of the reasons all of the sets were destroyed after filming, but one of the things that still amazes to this day is the fact that everything was done IN CAMERA... no CGI... No computers. Just raw photography that was thrown together. Would it have been easier if they used CG back then? Sure... but it wouldn't have had the impact that it did. But like I said, I have no problem using it as a tool to replace backgrounds, to remove wires, to add an explosion where it would have been dangerous otherwise but not to make the main focus of the movie to be about those effects in order to be lazy and not do it right. Lucas made the mistake of doing everything in CG in the prequels and look how badly they turned out (do I have to mention Jar Jar?). Let he artists be artists and do what they do best... build something magnificent and show it off to the world.

You see, that's where you're wrong. Doing things with miniatures and real cameras isn't that much easier than doing it on a computer, both require a lot of time, patience, and skill. You put an inexperienced cameraman behind the camera to shoot a miniature you're going to get the same sub-par results as you would if you did the same on a computer. Granted that computer tech has come to the point that you could film a model against a green/blue screen and do digital composites without all of the complexities of doing multiple passes for an old optical composite but you're still limited in how you can film the model, certain angles just aren't possible because of the mount to hold the model. Sure you could make the model so that parts of it are removable to allow you to mount in different positions but then you're adding complexities and more time to it. Also, at the end of the day, it's going to go to post to comp it in to a background and you're still going to be running multiple passes during the comping to get it to look right.

Personally, I think the problem with CG and why some people always insist that it looks fake is, besides the psychological factor, I think that it's the compositing that's keeping things from looking as real as possible, and not the modelers and animators. I think that the compositiors, for the most part, are just not as good as the 3D people and that's probably what's causing the disconnect for lots of people. The thing is though, that's always been the case, even back in the days of optical compositing, a good example of this is the speeder chase scene in Jedi, that was done optically and it looked like a comp, screamed comp. Sadly, we still get that, even with the advent of digital composites, but at the same time, when done right it's completely seamless like many of the scenes from The Martian or Game of Thrones.

 

[Jaitea]

"This bickering is pointless!!"

Bad models are bad models, whether they are practical or CG

Badly composted Matte paintings can be as bad as their CG equivalents

The reason they are bad are down to the time restraints & budgets,.....I can think of examples of bad models & mattes in the OT Star Wars......I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about

.....look at the Dino's in the original JP,....compared to the Rontos in ANH,......time constraints

I linked to this promo before,...its a video from 2009,...if CG is done right it is unnoticeable:

It has got to the stage now that this argument is like saying this artist is better than that artist

J

 

[glunark]

But other than the smashed up ship, how much of those backgrounds are CG, and how much is just shot on location by the 2nd unit?

 

[Jaitea]

I'm not getting into this argument,...because there is no argument

That last video, as I said was made in 2009,...& is a great example of compositing,.....& keeping budgets down

CG backgrounds.....

J

 

[James Kenobi 1138]

According to photos in the Hasbro booth at NYCC BB8 has arms that come out of the different circles on his/her round body.

I already expected as much, but now more confirmed hopefully.

 

[Bryancd]

According to photos in the Hasbro booth at NYCC BB8 has arms that come out of the different circles on his/her round body.

I already expected as much, but now more confirmed hopefully.

I think they confirmed BB-8 is referenced as a "he".

 

[Halliwax]

According to photos in the Hasbro booth at NYCC BB8 has arms that come out of the different circles on his/her round body.

I already expected as much, but now more confirmed hopefully.

we were guessing that over on astromech, glad it was confirmed! it actually looks like he has minature r2 utility arms.

I am so excited to see bb8 on screen and what he's all about!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk