Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)

[JD]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Just to reiterate:

Bad practical effects = Bad CG
Good practical = Good CG

There is no > or <. It's in your head.

Again, the rest is in your head. Is a good practical humanoid any better or less telling than a CG humanoid? No - if both are done right, you probably won't even notice or think twice.

There is a very large prejudice against CC - especially on the RPF and other "geek circles." You can try to justify a dislike of CG by talking about physics or whatever - the truth can be just the opposite and I'd wager a lot chunk of CG goes completely unnoticed just due to how seamless it really is.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Just to reiterate:

Bad practical effects = Bad CG
Good practical = Good CG

There is no > or <. It's in your head.

Again, the rest is in your head. Is a good practical humanoid any better or less telling than a CG humanoid? No - if both are done right, you probably won't even notice or think twice.

There is a very large prejudice against CC - especially on the RPF and other "geek circles." You can try to justify a dislike of CG by talking about physics or whatever - the truth can be just the opposite and I'd wager a lot chunk of CG goes completely unnoticed just due to how seamless it really is.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with you here.

CG is better at some things than practical effects, and practical is better than CG at some things. Trust me, I certainly don't dislike CG, I'm a professional CG artist. However in regard to real physics practical effects have the edge because they're actually real and have to conform to the laws of physics themselves.

The thing I hate about CG is when it's used to do something that would otherwise be impossible in one of two ways:

- Physics - Within the framework of the film of course, Men can't fly but if a character flies that's fine. I'm referring more to Autobots smashing through steel and concrete skyscrapers like there's nothing there.

- Camera Moves - If you couldn't actually do it with a camera don't do it with CG. Period. Takes me out of the film every time.

 

[Bigdaddy]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

The thing I hate about CG is when it's used to do something that would otherwise be impossible in one of two ways:

- Physics - Within the framework of the film of course, Men can't fly but if a character flies that's fine. I'm referring more to Autobots smashing through steel and concrete skyscrapers like there's nothing there.

- Camera Moves - If you couldn't actually do it with a camera don't do it with CG. Period. Takes me out of the film every time.

thumbsup:thumbsup This is was just ONE thing that ruined the Hobbit for me.

 

[Mola Rob]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I don't see anyone disagreeing with you here.

CG is better at some things than practical effects, and practical is better than CG at some things. Trust me, I certainly don't dislike CG, I'm a professional CG artist. However in regard to real physics practical effects have the edge because they're actually real and have to conform to the laws of physics themselves.

The thing I hate about CG is when it's used to do something that would otherwise be impossible in one of two ways:

- Physics - Within the framework of the film of course, Men can't fly but if a character flies that's fine. I'm referring more to Autobots smashing through steel and concrete skyscrapers like there's nothing there.

- Camera Moves - If you couldn't actually do it with a camera don't do it with CG. Period. Takes me out of the film every time.

Exactly, I don't hate CG but I do hate some of the ways it has been used. They need the perfect blend of practical effects and CG.

 

[JD]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I don't see anyone disagreeing with you here.

CG is better at some things than practical effects, and practical is better than CG at some things. Trust me, I certainly don't dislike CG, I'm a professional CG artist. However in regard to real physics practical effects have the edge because they're actually real and have to conform to the laws of physics themselves.

The thing I hate about CG is when it's used to do something that would otherwise be impossible in one of two ways:

- Physics - Within the framework of the film of course, Men can't fly but if a character flies that's fine. I'm referring more to Autobots smashing through steel and concrete skyscrapers like there's nothing there.

- Camera Moves - If you couldn't actually do it with a camera don't do it with CG. Period. Takes me out of the film every time.

Not quite. Practical effects don't necessarily apply "real physics" simply because scale doesn't always apply; or there are other factors (wires, etc) that can assist practical effects.

As far as camera moves - well, that's usually a stylistic choice that the filmmakers opt for. Look at the first Star Wars film - there was some innovative use of camera/effects there and I guess had we internet forums to complain about movies back then, we'd read the bitching about matte lines and camera movements and the like that date way back then, too.

Some filmmakers are looking to push the edge - with camera moves or whatever. CG is just another tool, just as ILM used practical model and miniatures and stop motion - unfortunately many of us are unable to put perceived biases aside.

I look at Empire Strikes Back - one of my favorite movies ever and I just shake my head at the Tauntauns. The stop motion has looked terrible to me since I was a kid... it just sticks out like a sore thumb. No one will ever be to tell me or show that this practical effect is any better than - say, the "set extending" CG of BSG.

 

[Westies14]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

But of course those Star Wars camera moves could be done in real life - they were! The issue he's describing is the "virtual camera" flying circles around the characters in an action scene, for instance. It is very distracting.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Not quite. Practical effects don't necessarily apply "real physics" simply because scale doesn't always apply; or there are other factors (wires, etc) that can assist practical effects.

Actually yes. Anything you build has to actually exist and real physics apply to that object. Can you do stupid s*** with it? Of course, but physics will always apply. Bad practical effects will do the same thing that bad CG will with messing with those physics but will always have their grounding in reality. CG does not require that grounding.

As far as camera moves - well, that's usually a stylistic choice that the filmmakers opt for. Look at the first Star Wars film - there was some innovative use of camera/effects there and I guess had we internet forums to complain about movies back then, we'd read the bitching about matte lines and camera movements and the like that date way back then, too.

It's absolutely a stylistic choice but it's one that will often remove a viewer from a film. The key to good film making is to make your audience forget that there's a camera at all. Films like Saving Private Ryan (D-Day sequence), The Blair Witch Project, and Cloverfield intentionally remove that veil as a stylistic choice. The same applies to editing, a great editor will piece a film together so that you don't notice the cuts unless they want you to notice them. The difference between a good editor and a bad one is only a couple of frames.

Some filmmakers are looking to push the edge - with camera moves or whatever. CG is just another tool, just as ILM used practical model and miniatures and stop motion - unfortunately many of us are unable to put perceived biases aside.

Again, nobody here (since your first posting of the good = good / bad = bad) has disagreed with you. CG is absolutely just another tool and it's one that keeps me employed. This has nothing to do with bias. The problem arises when you've got a toolbox full of tools and always keep reaching for the hammer. A hammer is a fantastic tool when used right but if you want to make a cut you use a saw, if you want to bore a hole you use a drill. The big issue over the last decade or so hasn't been the use of the tool, it's been the misuse of it. The amount of times I've looked a director or producer in the eye and told them that it would look a lot better if they just had the object built is staggering. Almost always the response is "but then I can't change my mind later".

Which brings us to the biggest bane of the industry as it stands today. Lack of decisiveness. A huge reason why CG will often fall flat is because it isn't being used to innovate, it's being used to propagate lazy film making. It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the tools using it.

- - - Updated - - -

But of course those Star Wars camera moves could be done in real life - they were! The issue he's describing is the "virtual camera" flying circles around the characters in an action scene, for instance. It is very distracting.

Exactly. :thumbsup

 

[Riceball]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Actually yes. Anything you build has to actually exist and real physics apply to that object. Can you do stupid s*** with it? Of course, but physics will always apply. Bad practical effects will do the same thing that bad CG will with messing with those physics but will always have their grounding in reality. CG does not require that grounding.

But when we're talking about things like planes, spaceships, giant space stations, etc. it's no different in CG than with models. Sure the model physically exists but it has nowhere the weight and mass of what it's supposed to be and so that sense of weight and mass can't come from the physical model but from the way it's shot. The same applies with a CG model, they also lack the weight and mass of the objects they're supposed to represent and so it's up to the CG artist to move the virtual camera in the same manner as they would a real physical camera to impart a sense of weight and mass to the CG model. I bet you that if you taught the cameramen who shot the opening scene with the Star Destroyer in Star Wars some CG software, be it in animation software or compositing, and you teach the lighting techs how to use CG lighting software and had them redo that same scene all in CG it would look and feel exactly the same. There's nothing inherent in CG that makes it less real than physical models, it's all in the details just like with models and miniatures, you paint, shoot, and light a model wrong it will look every bit as bad as bad CG.

 

[jme3]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I look at Empire Strikes Back - one of my favorite movies ever and I just shake my head at the Tauntauns. The stop motion has looked terrible to me since I was a kid... it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

Has there ever been a really believable stop-motion? If there has, I haven't seen it. They all stick out like sore thumbs to me.

Maybe the problem, as you say, is that REALLY good cg has yet to be employed across the board, and if it were, the complaints would undoubtedly be a lot less than they've been. But at this stage of the game, the practicality of a "real" person in a "real" suit beats anything of the cg variety I've seen so far. But that just goes to the "some practical effects are better than some cg effects" argument. One is ideally suited in many ways that the other is not.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

But when we're talking about things like planes, spaceships, giant space stations, etc. it's no different in CG than with models. Sure the model physically exists but it has nowhere the weight and mass of what it's supposed to be and so that sense of weight and mass can't come from the physical model but from the way it's shot. The same applies with a CG model, they also lack the weight and mass of the objects they're supposed to represent and so it's up to the CG artist to move the virtual camera in the same manner as they would a real physical camera to impart a sense of weight and mass to the CG model. I bet you that if you taught the cameramen who shot the opening scene with the Star Destroyer in Star Wars some CG software, be it in animation software or compositing, and you teach the lighting techs how to use CG lighting software and had them redo that same scene all in CG it would look and feel exactly the same. There's nothing inherent in CG that makes it less real than physical models, it's all in the details just like with models and miniatures, you paint, shoot, and light a model wrong it will look every bit as bad as bad CG.

I agree. Only difference being that with CG there is NO physics period. I mean this more in the design than how it moves or is presented. I've seen designs that would simply be impossible in real life come from CG. With a model, whatever you have has to actually be built so structurally it has to hold together.

That's not to say that CG isn't sometimes done VERY well. There are great examples of fantastic CG work in tonnes of applications.

Again, never said CG was bad. That would be very counter productive for me to do. :lol

 

[JD]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Actually yes. Anything you build has to actually exist and real physics apply to that object. Can you do stupid s*** with it? Of course, but physics will always apply. Bad practical effects will do the same thing that bad CG will with messing with those physics but will always have their grounding in reality. CG does not require that grounding.

You're totally missing - or ignoring - the point. Yes, "real physics" apply to practical effects. That said miniatures and/or other practical effect does not have the same properties that the object they are portraying... a wire (or other support - or simply by the way it's built - 2D construction, etc.) that might support a practical effect will appear to defy physics.

CG is progressing to the point where there are enough programs, formulas, codes, or whatever that give CG more and more realism - ie, the physics you seem to cling to. However, the CG artists, the moviemakers, producers or whomever should be skilled enough to know what works and what doesn't and make the proper edits.

Likewise, with camera moves and the like - the moviemakers have been pushing the envelope of camera moves and edits for a long time now. I think it was Joss Whedon in an episode of Firefly (maybe it was Serenity) where he was so proud of the how he was able to control the camera and edit the footage to make a scene seamless... without the use of effects at all. So while that might not meet your criteria of a believable camera moves - it's in the same vein.

The same applies to editing, a great editor will piece a film together so that you don't notice the cuts unless they want you to notice them.

Some might say the same about CG.

 

[Jaitea]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

I copied this thought from another site:

adywan said:
But have you noticed that, when ILM do effects for anything by Lucas/ Lucasfilm, they are nowhere near as good as when they do effects for other companies? By that i mean anything since the Special Editions. Look at the Rontos in ANH. they used the same model they used in Jurassic Park, yet they looked nowhere near as realistic as the dinosaurs in that film. All the additions just scream fake. They used the same Red 2 CG model for every CG X-wing in ANH. The CG R2 in the prequels looks like a damn cartoon, especially in ROTS. The rocks in front of R2, Jabba's new door, Jabba in docking bay 94, the monkeys in KOTCS, the jungle, etc etc all scream fake. Now compare that to their work on other films where their work is stunning. But there is one common factor in all of the bad ones though; George Lucas was in charge.

I've always noticed that, its like they knew the work for the boss was guaranteed, but to keep the client work, they needed to push boundaries.

It's a real shame....but now now SW is in the hands of a different customer, I'd say they'll deliver Disney effects that'll impress......but now to think about it ILM's new boss is Disney....hmm

J

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

You're totally missing - or ignoring - the point. Yes, "real physics" apply to practical effects. That said miniatures and/or other practical effect does not have the same properties that the object they are portraying... a wire (or other support - or simply by the way it's built - 2D construction, etc.) that might support a practical effect will appear to defy physics.

CG is progressing to the point where there are enough programs, formulas, codes, or whatever that give CG more and more realism - ie, the physics you seem to cling to. However, the CG artists, the moviemakers, producers or whomever should be skilled enough to know what works and what doesn't and make the proper edits.

Likewise, with camera moves and the like - the moviemakers have been pushing the envelope of camera moves and edits for a long time now. I think it was Joss Whedon in an episode of Firefly (maybe it was Serenity) where he was so proud of the how he was able to control the camera and edit the footage to make a scene seamless... without the use of effects at all. So while that might not meet your criteria of a believable camera moves - it's in the same vein.

I think you're finding attacks where there aren't any. If you go back I've been agreeing with you the whole time, just pointing out where the pitfalls of my own industry still are. I'm not being biased, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm speaking from 15 years of post production film and television experience. Does that make me the expert? Hell no, but I'm not pulling this out of my ass either. I've clarified my point above but if you want to think I'm hating on my own profession just because I've got it in for CG then go ahead. You're a nice guy man, but you're misreading my position.

Some might say the same about CG.

Read my comments again. I have said this very thing.

 

[JD]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Umm... never said there were attacks and didn't try to imply. Just having a bit of discussion. I understand that we agree on the most basic part of my initial comment - and while I agree and respect your opinion on some aspects of it, I don't think we quite have quite the same opinion (and nothing wrong with that).

But, that said... I think it's time to move back to the topic.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

(and nothing wrong with that).

Agreed! :thumbsup

But, that said... I think it's time to move back to the topic.

:lol Probably. So, how about all that new Star Wars news??? :lol

I hear the JJ stepping down rumors have picked up. I can't imagine it would be true. If I were in his shoes I'd kill for that job.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Agreed! :thumbsup



:lol Probably. So, how about all that new Star Wars news??? :lol

I hear the JJ stepping down rumors have picked up. I can't imagine it would be true. If I were in his shoes I'd kill for that job.

I expect it's a question of money and scheduling. MAYBE creative differences. Although, I suppose teh family-relocating-to-England-for-the-next-decade (or however long) issue might be up there.

Frankly, I think they should suck it up and go. England rocks.


As far as CG vs. practical effects, I think that each can be done REALLY poorly. It may just be that the bigger budget stuff done with practical effects that I can remember seemed to look better because people were better at (and more experienced in?) shooting, lighting, editing, etc. around practical effects. With CG, I can't help but think that there's too often a desire to almost highlight the CG so that people really notice it, and that attempt ends up makign it look worse. That's not to say that CG CAN'T be done right, just that, in my recollection (which admittedly may be selective), CG is more often done poorly in movies where you would expect it to be done better, whereas practical effects, while imperfect in their own right, still seem more likely to be done well.

All that said, I still think that CG artists have a devil of a time convincingly portraying the movements of real-world animals or humans, even at the best of times. The animation just doesn't capture real movement effectively, and things like hands and feet always seem...off. To be fair, there's plenty of BAD prosthetics and animatronics out there. I'm looking at YOU, Kuato. Some of that can be explained away in-story (e.g., "Well, Kuato's a mutant, so of course he'll look off"), but a lot of the time it's just fake looking all around.

Really, though, I think that there's just more of a body of experience and knowledge out there for techniques on doing and shooting practical effects, whereas CG is a comparatively very young tool for filmmakers, and one which allows for a LOT of cheating. Actually, I'll also say this: given the choice between really awful CG and really awful practical effects, I think CG takes the prize because you can do more with it. Unfortunately, that seems to be the threshold for a lot of filmmakers out there, and they don't bother to push for the BEST that CG has to offer.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Agreed! :thumbsup



:lol Probably. So, how about all that new Star Wars news??? :lol

I hear the JJ stepping down rumors have picked up. I can't imagine it would be true. If I were in his shoes I'd kill for that job.

I expect it's a question of money and scheduling. MAYBE creative differences. Although, I suppose teh family-relocating-to-England-for-the-next-decade (or however long) issue might be up there.

Frankly, I think they should suck it up and go. England rocks.


As far as CG vs. practical effects, I think that each can be done REALLY poorly. It may just be that the bigger budget stuff done with practical effects that I can remember seemed to look better because people were better at (and more experienced in?) shooting, lighting, editing, etc. around practical effects. With CG, I can't help but think that there's too often a desire to almost highlight the CG so that people really notice it, and that attempt ends up makign it look worse. That's not to say that CG CAN'T be done right, just that, in my recollection (which admittedly may be selective), CG is more often done poorly in movies where you would expect it to be done better, whereas practical effects, while imperfect in their own right, still seem more likely to be done well.

All that said, I still think that CG artists have a devil of a time convincingly portraying the movements of real-world animals or humans, even at the best of times. The animation just doesn't capture real movement effectively, and things like hands and feet always seem...off. To be fair, there's plenty of BAD prosthetics and animatronics out there. I'm looking at YOU, Kuato. Some of that can be explained away in-story (e.g., "Well, Kuato's a mutant, so of course he'll look off"), but a lot of the time it's just fake looking all around.

Really, though, I think that there's just more of a body of experience and knowledge out there for techniques on doing and shooting practical effects, whereas CG is a comparatively very young tool for filmmakers, and one which allows for a LOT of cheating. Actually, I'll also say this: given the choice between really awful CG and really awful practical effects, I think CG takes the prize because you can do more with it. Unfortunately, that seems to be the threshold for a lot of filmmakers out there, and they don't bother to push for the BEST that CG has to offer.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Other than the ships having that shiny look that CG has, I didn't have any big problems with the Prequel effects. The only CG that was extremely bad, were the ninja vampires in Blade II when they are fighting Blade in his HQ. They just move unrealistically. Someone mentioned stop motion, and I've thought it looked off ever since I was a kid. I just accepted it because I figured that's the best way they could do it.

 

[Lutso]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Stop motion has an interesting evolution. I think it generally looked pretty *****y up until the point where Paul Tibbet started revolutionizing things in the 70's and 80's. I still the Rancor in ROTJ is one of THE best special effects sequences out there - bar none. I might be alone in that. There's that one frame where it looks like his head is caving in. But other than that, the thing looks more realistic than I would have ever thought possible. I'm still floored when I see it.

Just me.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Star Wars Episode VII

Stop motion has an interesting evolution. I think it generally looked pretty *****y up until the point where Phil Tippett started revolutionizing things in the 70's and 80's. I still the Rancor in ROTJ is one of THE best special effects sequences out there - bar none. I might be alone in that. There's that one frame where it looks like his head is caving in. But other than that, the thing looks more realistic than I would have ever thought possible. I'm still floored when I see it.

Just me.

Also, as I recall, the rancor was actually a puppet, operated by Tippett himself from below the stage. There might've been some stop-motion done, but the rancor was mostly a puppet, I think.