Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Warpaint
- Start date
cboath
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Personally I find it a huge overstatement when people say they can always tell. I'm someone who should know the difference and stuff surprises me all the time.
2 effects in TPM still are killer to me - both I though originally were CG, but turned out to be practical. One, the water falls of naboo. I'd have sworn they were some animated fluid sim thing ILM worked up. But know...blue screen, blue dishwashing gloves, and a box of salt!
Second, the overhead shots of the pod racing arena - painted qtips
Sets get replaced all the time and it's nearly impossible to tell.
People raved about the effects in LoTR and frankly I found a number of instances that pulled me out by being clear CG.
Some people have no patience. Go watch the FX films of the 40's and 50's (if not later). There's some really bad practical effects out there. Even into modern day there's some really bad effects out there. You've got to start somewhere and the tech has to grow and evolve - which it is doing. As noted, there's stuff don't exquisitely in CG AND practical as well as poorly. You can't cite an example of something poor and apply it to a whole industry/method.
The big problem to me is directors/studios who don't really understand it and think you can whip up a good CG shot in a matter of a couple days or something (at least it seems like it). Give it the time it needs and you'll get a proper result. Force it out in a shot timeframe and the results will suffer.
Personally I find it a huge overstatement when people say they can always tell. I'm someone who should know the difference and stuff surprises me all the time.
2 effects in TPM still are killer to me - both I though originally were CG, but turned out to be practical. One, the water falls of naboo. I'd have sworn they were some animated fluid sim thing ILM worked up. But know...blue screen, blue dishwashing gloves, and a box of salt!
Second, the overhead shots of the pod racing arena - painted qtips Sets get replaced all the time and it's nearly impossible to tell.
People raved about the effects in LoTR and frankly I found a number of instances that pulled me out by being clear CG.
Some people have no patience. Go watch the FX films of the 40's and 50's (if not later). There's some really bad practical effects out there. Even into modern day there's some really bad effects out there. You've got to start somewhere and the tech has to grow and evolve - which it is doing. As noted, there's stuff don't exquisitely in CG AND practical as well as poorly. You can't cite an example of something poor and apply it to a whole industry/method.
The big problem to me is directors/studios who don't really understand it and think you can whip up a good CG shot in a matter of a couple days or something (at least it seems like it). Give it the time it needs and you'll get a proper result. Force it out in a shot timeframe and the results will suffer.
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
That's one aspect of FX that people don't realize or often forget, set extensions. There were a lot of set extensions and complete "fake" sets in all 3 of the OT as well as in the Indy movies, instead of CG set extensions and the like thy simply used matt paintings but the concept is the same. It's actually pretty common for shows and movies to do set extensions using CG renders, even ones set in present day with no sci-fi or fantasy elements, it's just that some hide it better than others. Lucas with the PT, in my opinion, went overboard with his using entirely CG sets. that's entirely unnecessary unless you're trying to build some sort of set that can't be physically built.
That's one aspect of FX that people don't realize or often forget, set extensions. There were a lot of set extensions and complete "fake" sets in all 3 of the OT as well as in the Indy movies, instead of CG set extensions and the like thy simply used matt paintings but the concept is the same. It's actually pretty common for shows and movies to do set extensions using CG renders, even ones set in present day with no sci-fi or fantasy elements, it's just that some hide it better than others. Lucas with the PT, in my opinion, went overboard with his using entirely CG sets. that's entirely unnecessary unless you're trying to build some sort of set that can't be physically built.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I think it was intentional as he wanted to see if it could be done and remember, the entire PT party was done on his own dime, so the cost savings need to be considered.
I think it was intentional as he wanted to see if it could be done and remember, the entire PT party was done on his own dime, so the cost savings need to be considered.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Excellent examples. The salt thing was absolutely brilliant.
2 effects in TPM still are killer to me - both I though originally were CG, but turned out to be practical. One, the water falls of naboo. I'd have sworn they were some animated fluid sim thing ILM worked up. But know...blue screen, blue dishwashing gloves, and a box of salt!
Excellent examples. The salt thing was absolutely brilliant.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I haven't watched TPM in, oh, probably 10 years or more, but that's interesting info.
Creature effects looked clearly CG to me, but...what can you do? It's difficult to showcase a fast-moving cave troll puppet, and even then, you'd just get complaints about "rubber suits" or "a bunch of muppets."
Yeah, I mean, old Flash Gordon serials and Godzilla movies are notorious for "aw, man, you can see the string/zipper!" or looking like 1:60 scale models or whatever.
I actually agree with you. And I think that highlights a really, really, really important fact: CG, no matter how mind-blowingly good, is simply no substitute for a good story.
I can, for example, happily watch old-school Doctor Who episodes from the 60s and 70s when the BBC had NO money, wobbly sets, rubber masks, and all. Why? Because the stories themselves are engaging and interesting to me. Some of the early Cybermen stories are really cool, particularly when you examine them conceptually given the time-period in which they were shot. By contrast, GORGEOUS films (a la TPM) simply do not hold up to repeated viewings for me because the story itself doesn't engage me in the slightest. There are some cool CG shots in Man of Steel, and Transformers 1. Would I ever watch either again? HELL NO. Why? Because they're boring.
Ultimately, it comes down to a Lucasism from the early 80s. "A special effect without a good story is a really boring thing."
And I'll just leave that line of thought right there.
I think the issue is twofold, and it's not in any way limited to Lucas (although he's guilty of it as well).
All too often, movie-makers want to make their CG the star of the show, rather than the story. As a result, when the story suffers, the CG is both derided as being a cheap ploy to make the film more interesting, and you also end up nitpicking the failures of it (e.g. uncanny valley territory, inconsistent mass, sub-surface lighting, etc.). I remember the Ed Norton Hulk movie, watching Hulk walk away carrying Betty in the rain, and thinking "Why the hell isn't he leaving HUGE footprints and sinking far further into the mud than he is? He's gotta weigh, like, 3 tons!" Why was I thinking that? Because the film itself was showcasing the CG, and wasn't really all that engaging to me in and of itself.
But the same is true of practical effects. You can ignore "the string" if the story is engaging enough. By contrast, no matter how well that string is hidden, if the story is dull, your eyes will start looking for it.
The one advantage that I think practical effects have -- which CAN be corrected, but for whatever reason often isn't -- is lighting. Practical effects, shot on a set, play with lighting more naturally than a CG model can. HOWEVER, if you have good artists, paying attention to detail, or a mix of practical and CG, a lot of that can be covered up. And you can certainly screw it up with practical effects, too, like shooting a model in blue-screen, and then compositing it into another model shot. Like, I don't remember clearly, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were no shadows of the fighters cast on the walls of the trench in the 1977 Death Star trench run, ya know? But, that also goes back to my point about the story. You're invested in it, you care what happens, etc., so you aren't saying "Wait a minute...why is the X-wing not casting a shadow on the wall there?"
2 effects in TPM still are killer to me - both I though originally were CG, but turned out to be practical. One, the water falls of naboo. I'd have sworn they were some animated fluid sim thing ILM worked up. But know...blue screen, blue dishwashing gloves, and a box of salt!
I haven't watched TPM in, oh, probably 10 years or more, but that's interesting info.
Creature effects looked clearly CG to me, but...what can you do? It's difficult to showcase a fast-moving cave troll puppet, and even then, you'd just get complaints about "rubber suits" or "a bunch of muppets."
Yeah, I mean, old Flash Gordon serials and Godzilla movies are notorious for "aw, man, you can see the string/zipper!" or looking like 1:60 scale models or whatever.
I actually agree with you. And I think that highlights a really, really, really important fact: CG, no matter how mind-blowingly good, is simply no substitute for a good story.
I can, for example, happily watch old-school Doctor Who episodes from the 60s and 70s when the BBC had NO money, wobbly sets, rubber masks, and all. Why? Because the stories themselves are engaging and interesting to me. Some of the early Cybermen stories are really cool, particularly when you examine them conceptually given the time-period in which they were shot. By contrast, GORGEOUS films (a la TPM) simply do not hold up to repeated viewings for me because the story itself doesn't engage me in the slightest. There are some cool CG shots in Man of Steel, and Transformers 1. Would I ever watch either again? HELL NO. Why? Because they're boring.
Ultimately, it comes down to a Lucasism from the early 80s. "A special effect without a good story is a really boring thing."
And I'll just leave that line of thought right there.
I think the issue is twofold, and it's not in any way limited to Lucas (although he's guilty of it as well).
All too often, movie-makers want to make their CG the star of the show, rather than the story. As a result, when the story suffers, the CG is both derided as being a cheap ploy to make the film more interesting, and you also end up nitpicking the failures of it (e.g. uncanny valley territory, inconsistent mass, sub-surface lighting, etc.). I remember the Ed Norton Hulk movie, watching Hulk walk away carrying Betty in the rain, and thinking "Why the hell isn't he leaving HUGE footprints and sinking far further into the mud than he is? He's gotta weigh, like, 3 tons!" Why was I thinking that? Because the film itself was showcasing the CG, and wasn't really all that engaging to me in and of itself.
But the same is true of practical effects. You can ignore "the string" if the story is engaging enough. By contrast, no matter how well that string is hidden, if the story is dull, your eyes will start looking for it.
The one advantage that I think practical effects have -- which CAN be corrected, but for whatever reason often isn't -- is lighting. Practical effects, shot on a set, play with lighting more naturally than a CG model can. HOWEVER, if you have good artists, paying attention to detail, or a mix of practical and CG, a lot of that can be covered up. And you can certainly screw it up with practical effects, too, like shooting a model in blue-screen, and then compositing it into another model shot. Like, I don't remember clearly, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were no shadows of the fighters cast on the walls of the trench in the 1977 Death Star trench run, ya know? But, that also goes back to my point about the story. You're invested in it, you care what happens, etc., so you aren't saying "Wait a minute...why is the X-wing not casting a shadow on the wall there?"
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
At the end of the day this whole argument stemmed from people expressing some love for that one puppet. I think it's been blown alittle out of proportion. Of course there will be CG in this movie. It's a no brainer. And I have no problem with that. Yes there is amazing CG out there and I'm sure this movie will showcase that. Personally I just find it more magical when something is hand crafted,built and then painted with love the old way. While I acknowledge it as an art and that it takes extreme talent and does look amazing when done right I just find some guy sitting at a computer making images not so magical. Yes I know there's more to it than just sitting at a computer but the end result from a computer is all you see.
I too think that practical mixed or enhanced by CG is the way to go. TPM and Prometheus are great examples.
Ben
At the end of the day this whole argument stemmed from people expressing some love for that one puppet. I think it's been blown alittle out of proportion. Of course there will be CG in this movie. It's a no brainer. And I have no problem with that. Yes there is amazing CG out there and I'm sure this movie will showcase that. Personally I just find it more magical when something is hand crafted,built and then painted with love the old way. While I acknowledge it as an art and that it takes extreme talent and does look amazing when done right I just find some guy sitting at a computer making images not so magical. Yes I know there's more to it than just sitting at a computer but the end result from a computer is all you see.
I too think that practical mixed or enhanced by CG is the way to go. TPM and Prometheus are great examples.
Ben
TazVader
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Well I really enjoyed super 8. Doesn't really worry why and how lol
In regards to the SW, I am hoping to be surprised and I know even if it isn't everything I want... it will be nice to see some more of the universe.
What some people seem to forget is younger folks raised up on 1, 2 & 3 usually visit the OT to see what's what. A signpost is better than no direction. lol
Bring it on!
Regards
T
A
Z
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I really enjoyed super 8. Doesn't really worry why and how lol
In regards to the SW, I am hoping to be surprised and I know even if it isn't everything I want... it will be nice to see some more of the universe.
What some people seem to forget is younger folks raised up on 1, 2 & 3 usually visit the OT to see what's what. A signpost is better than no direction. lol
Bring it on!
Regards
T
A
Z
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I was lucky enough to watch Alien at the cinema last week, there was not one shot in space in the ePT that looked better than the landing of the Nostromo in alien, to see it on the big screen was as real as seeing it in real life and looked incredible........ Its not about better or worse or how or how not its about nuance and mass......... Not one shot in the PT could physically have more mass than the real like mass of the model. It was awe-inspiring to see that model in use......... Its like comparing an MP3 to vinyl..... vinyl is coming back for a reason
CG is an awesome tool so is practical both done badly are bad, both done well are great. But one will never be the other in both sense but only one will ever have mass...... Mass in CG can only ever be simulated no matter how great it looks on the screen your brain knows it has no mass...... With no mass the belief is less
I was lucky enough to watch Alien at the cinema last week, there was not one shot in space in the ePT that looked better than the landing of the Nostromo in alien, to see it on the big screen was as real as seeing it in real life and looked incredible........ Its not about better or worse or how or how not its about nuance and mass......... Not one shot in the PT could physically have more mass than the real like mass of the model. It was awe-inspiring to see that model in use......... Its like comparing an MP3 to vinyl..... vinyl is coming back for a reason
CG is an awesome tool so is practical both done badly are bad, both done well are great. But one will never be the other in both sense but only one will ever have mass...... Mass in CG can only ever be simulated no matter how great it looks on the screen your brain knows it has no mass...... With no mass the belief is less
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I generally liked the Prequels and never thought the CGI took me out of the movie. Even as a kid watching ESB when it came out I could easily pick out the Tauntauns as not looking right for some reason when they ran. Just like CGI there is good stop motion, and then stop motion that is good, but still doesn't look right. On the other side in Blade 2 I think the scene where the vampire "ninjas" attack his HQ is the fakiest CGI I've ever seen. That didn't make me think all CGI is bad forever. I think too many people jumped on the CGI is bad bandwagon without taking those effects on a case by case basis. There are also bad practical effects as shown by that Muppet. I just hope it is waaaaaaay in the back somewhere.
I generally liked the Prequels and never thought the CGI took me out of the movie. Even as a kid watching ESB when it came out I could easily pick out the Tauntauns as not looking right for some reason when they ran. Just like CGI there is good stop motion, and then stop motion that is good, but still doesn't look right. On the other side in Blade 2 I think the scene where the vampire "ninjas" attack his HQ is the fakiest CGI I've ever seen. That didn't make me think all CGI is bad forever. I think too many people jumped on the CGI is bad bandwagon without taking those effects on a case by case basis. There are also bad practical effects as shown by that Muppet. I just hope it is waaaaaaay in the back somewhere.
cboath
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
They made the big deal back in '99 about the 'making of' video of TPM a month or so after release. That's where i saw both of those examples. The salt thing has made my jaw drop ever since
I think part of the issue with CG in the prequels at times is George's penchant for changing his mind. Lots easier to change/redo a virtual set than an existing one. The concept supposedly was that he held off om them until the tech was sufficient for him to do what he wanted. I don't recall anything in the story of the prequels that couldn't have been done in the mid 80's frankly except yoda vs dooku and the bizarre zoom shots in AOTC. GL just wanted total free reign without the restriction of physical sets and took it too far at times.
----------------
The stuff in LoTR that got me multiple times weren't character aspects, but rather some bad compositing. Too many times you'd see an over head or distance shot of the group walking or running and it was just plainly obvious the characters weren't matched/blended to the background very well. May not have happened in part I, but definitely 2 and 3. With all they accomplished in those flicks, some of those shots were just plain bad IMO. Again, like other effects, there wasn't another way to pull them off - just think those shots would have benefitted from more work.
They made the big deal back in '99 about the 'making of' video of TPM a month or so after release. That's where i saw both of those examples. The salt thing has made my jaw drop ever since
I think part of the issue with CG in the prequels at times is George's penchant for changing his mind. Lots easier to change/redo a virtual set than an existing one. The concept supposedly was that he held off om them until the tech was sufficient for him to do what he wanted. I don't recall anything in the story of the prequels that couldn't have been done in the mid 80's frankly except yoda vs dooku and the bizarre zoom shots in AOTC. GL just wanted total free reign without the restriction of physical sets and took it too far at times.
----------------
The stuff in LoTR that got me multiple times weren't character aspects, but rather some bad compositing. Too many times you'd see an over head or distance shot of the group walking or running and it was just plainly obvious the characters weren't matched/blended to the background very well. May not have happened in part I, but definitely 2 and 3. With all they accomplished in those flicks, some of those shots were just plain bad IMO. Again, like other effects, there wasn't another way to pull them off - just think those shots would have benefitted from more work.
Zombie_61
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I concur. For Lucas the attraction to CGI was the convenience of it. But that sort of over-indulgence isn't necessarily a good thing, and I think that shows in the Prequel Trilogy movies and the Not-So-Special Editions of the Original Trilogy movies. Lucas can be a brilliant filmmaker, but he really needs someone to rein him in and keep him from ruining his own movies.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I've always said that. The restrictions of film making around the OT time stopped Lucas going too far over the top and made the movies better for it. I like the prequels but a lot of the time things on screen were just too busy with too much going on. It was like Lucas just added them because he could. Again I like the prequels and Lucas but these things are obvious.
Ben
I've always said that. The restrictions of film making around the OT time stopped Lucas going too far over the top and made the movies better for it. I like the prequels but a lot of the time things on screen were just too busy with too much going on. It was like Lucas just added them because he could. Again I like the prequels and Lucas but these things are obvious.
Ben
Edwardowan
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
over use of the CGI and overwhelming scenery aside, my 14 year old daughter is watching Attack of the Clones right now as I type this... its the horrid acting by Hayden Christensen that is killing me, not the CGI sets. I can live with all the CGI stuff, I feel Hayden's performance wasn't right... it may not have been his fault as we all have read about GL's directing... so multiple versions, takes or motivations should have been considered for his dialog. His conversation with Obi Wan about getting to meet Padme' again while in the elevator and in her office just before she appears is appalling... he thought about her every day since they first met but instead of being excited about this opportunity he comes across as agitated, upset, annoyed and angry and on the verge of crying about it... just weird. he should have been giddy and smiling.. instead he looks like he's about to take a punch at somebody and is constipated at the same time. Sorry, the prequels had some issues but I still say it was casting Hayden that was the biggest problem of them all.
He should have been charming and funny... a hero. The scene where he tells Padme' he doesn't like sand, "It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." is delivered in a melodramatic and whiny way... it should have been a funny laugh out loud moment instead... he needed a sense of humor and some wittiness. The catalyst for his anger and angst should only have been when he finds his mother dying because of the sand people... then we feel for him... and see his eventual path to the dark side. anyway, we've been down this road before with anakin and how he should have been portrayed...
Just my opinion of course.
over use of the CGI and overwhelming scenery aside, my 14 year old daughter is watching Attack of the Clones right now as I type this... its the horrid acting by Hayden Christensen that is killing me, not the CGI sets. I can live with all the CGI stuff, I feel Hayden's performance wasn't right... it may not have been his fault as we all have read about GL's directing... so multiple versions, takes or motivations should have been considered for his dialog. His conversation with Obi Wan about getting to meet Padme' again while in the elevator and in her office just before she appears is appalling... he thought about her every day since they first met but instead of being excited about this opportunity he comes across as agitated, upset, annoyed and angry and on the verge of crying about it... just weird. he should have been giddy and smiling.. instead he looks like he's about to take a punch at somebody and is constipated at the same time. Sorry, the prequels had some issues but I still say it was casting Hayden that was the biggest problem of them all.
He should have been charming and funny... a hero. The scene where he tells Padme' he doesn't like sand, "It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." is delivered in a melodramatic and whiny way... it should have been a funny laugh out loud moment instead... he needed a sense of humor and some wittiness. The catalyst for his anger and angst should only have been when he finds his mother dying because of the sand people... then we feel for him... and see his eventual path to the dark side. anyway, we've been down this road before with anakin and how he should have been portrayed...
Just my opinion of course.
Last edited:
joshvanrad
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I feel like this is an appropriate time to drop this here...
I feel like this is an appropriate time to drop this here...
Last edited by a moderator:
Edwardowan
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Perfect! Hadn't seen that... it confronts every single gripe I had with the film thanks for that... very funny! will check out the others.
Perfect!
Hadn't seen that... it confronts every single gripe I had with the film thanks for that... very funny! will check out the others.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I wish everyone would just relax and chill a bit. I know we've got alot of hope invested in this and have been disappointed before but really ,I've got a good feeling about this.
The argument over CGI effects usage in film (and everywhere in general really) is effectively a done issue, given the vast improvements in computing power , frame rendering rates, specialized visual programming ,and of course the proper drifting back towards more practical shooting by nearly every movie director that was started by Chris Nolan in his Batman films.
There really has been a “balance” reached by the forces that produce movies these days, and the SW prequels effectively showed the industry exactly why films made that way didn’t work well without the real live action elements and proper sets being used in a more practically nature, both in terms of producing good actor performances and also convincing the audience of the realityof what they were watching.
Certainly in nearly all the films I’ve seen over recent years ,as much as the stories can be critically suspect and openly criticized for implausibility ,its been almost impossible to find fault in the effects work, which on the whole has been breathtakingly good where the real industry leaders have been used. ILM, Weta Digital, The Moving Picture Company ,Framestore and others are producing work now that’s almost indistinguishable from reality . Even just a few years, the improvements are dramatic. So what about after nearly four decades? I’m not worried. At all. Not with ILM producing the majority of the shots.
And as much as I admire the skills of old practical model builds , hell, I do the same myself, I’ve got to say the digital work they are producing now is almost totally photo realistic and superior to anything I‘ve ever seen previously on the screen.
“Gravity” for example, was almost perfect beyond my expectations, and who could deny that the incredible realism of the Helicarriers and planes of the “The Winter Soldier” , not to mention the Triskillion headquarters of Shield. I'd argue modeling and matt paintings have now been totally digitally superceeded ,BUT SW has a definite style and design and that will be the key to reproducing an authentic looking SW film .
Outside of the sci fi/fantasy film genre CGI has effectively become such an invisible and heavily used tool, its simply so good now you just don’t know its there. If you don’t believe me just go and look at the lists of films completed by the various effects production. Then look at the adverts you watch, the television shows, the you tube clips ,the list is endless. All CGI'd.
Why everyone is getting so worked up about what looks to me like a walking tortoise with a long beard is a bit daft. It’s very likely just a background character, it has a lot of charm and is well in line with the kind of creatures you’d expect in the rich universe of Star Wars. If you think its a weak design , go look at those used in the original ANH and then tell me differently.
Rather what immediately struck me on seeing that market was just how beautifully and properly Star wars that set looked to me, I’d loved to have walked around that for a day. But I can't afford $50,000!
I believe the newly franchised series of Star Wars will be a spectacular success. The attention to detail and authenticity as regards the Original Trilogy is massively reassuring, and so far I cannot see where they have put a foot wrong. The old cast is back, the new generation of actors is with them, they hired a Director that worshipped the old films and who has surrounded himself with people who have exactly the same reverence and respect for that first trilogy as most of the people on this forum.
So it'll look like Star Wars. It'll sound like Star Wars. And the story? Well, if its got so many of the old characters back, I'm sure ,given the quality of the new cast as well it will be impressive. Most Impressive.
I know the Star Wars universe had a blueprint of originality that was all its own and of its time, but it looks to me as if everybody now involved is doing their level best to drag it back to the hardcore roots of its popularity.
They havebeen politely trimming away decades of untidy and unwanted growth ,swept away a lot of the fallen and unloved debris quietly to one side , decided very carefully where they want it to go and what they want to do with it and now they are replanting the garden, not by ploughing everything under but by carefully following all the old outlines that still exist from the Original Trilogy.
If their starting point HAD been the prequels then they would have had a hell of a job, but no, they are starting this from the best possibly place they could in the timeline, after the events of ROTJ. There is thus a huge amount of freedom to innovate the series whilst being directly accountable to all the truths we OT fans hold dear.
If they make even half as good a job as they have managed with the Marvel universe then I would be very pleased. That works because the film makers they got to work on them were ,first and foremost fans of that universe and they knew what to do with it. Just look at Joss and “The Avengers“. Now think the same about JJ and his production team. I don't see a problem.
As it is, given the huge popularity SW has across so many generations of cinema goers, I think they are probably not only going to thrill us with what they produce but more than likely totally exceed all our expectations.
I wish everyone would just relax and chill a bit. I know we've got alot of hope invested in this and have been disappointed before but really ,I've got a good feeling about this.
The argument over CGI effects usage in film (and everywhere in general really) is effectively a done issue, given the vast improvements in computing power , frame rendering rates, specialized visual programming ,and of course the proper drifting back towards more practical shooting by nearly every movie director that was started by Chris Nolan in his Batman films.
There really has been a “balance” reached by the forces that produce movies these days, and the SW prequels effectively showed the industry exactly why films made that way didn’t work well without the real live action elements and proper sets being used in a more practically nature, both in terms of producing good actor performances and also convincing the audience of the realityof what they were watching.
Certainly in nearly all the films I’ve seen over recent years ,as much as the stories can be critically suspect and openly criticized for implausibility ,its been almost impossible to find fault in the effects work, which on the whole has been breathtakingly good where the real industry leaders have been used. ILM, Weta Digital, The Moving Picture Company ,Framestore and others are producing work now that’s almost indistinguishable from reality . Even just a few years, the improvements are dramatic. So what about after nearly four decades? I’m not worried. At all. Not with ILM producing the majority of the shots.
And as much as I admire the skills of old practical model builds , hell, I do the same myself, I’ve got to say the digital work they are producing now is almost totally photo realistic and superior to anything I‘ve ever seen previously on the screen.
“Gravity” for example, was almost perfect beyond my expectations, and who could deny that the incredible realism of the Helicarriers and planes of the “The Winter Soldier” , not to mention the Triskillion headquarters of Shield. I'd argue modeling and matt paintings have now been totally digitally superceeded ,BUT SW has a definite style and design and that will be the key to reproducing an authentic looking SW film .
Outside of the sci fi/fantasy film genre CGI has effectively become such an invisible and heavily used tool, its simply so good now you just don’t know its there. If you don’t believe me just go and look at the lists of films completed by the various effects production. Then look at the adverts you watch, the television shows, the you tube clips ,the list is endless. All CGI'd.
Why everyone is getting so worked up about what looks to me like a walking tortoise with a long beard is a bit daft. It’s very likely just a background character, it has a lot of charm and is well in line with the kind of creatures you’d expect in the rich universe of Star Wars. If you think its a weak design , go look at those used in the original ANH and then tell me differently.
Rather what immediately struck me on seeing that market was just how beautifully and properly Star wars that set looked to me, I’d loved to have walked around that for a day. But I can't afford $50,000!
I believe the newly franchised series of Star Wars will be a spectacular success. The attention to detail and authenticity as regards the Original Trilogy is massively reassuring, and so far I cannot see where they have put a foot wrong. The old cast is back, the new generation of actors is with them, they hired a Director that worshipped the old films and who has surrounded himself with people who have exactly the same reverence and respect for that first trilogy as most of the people on this forum.
So it'll look like Star Wars. It'll sound like Star Wars. And the story? Well, if its got so many of the old characters back, I'm sure ,given the quality of the new cast as well it will be impressive. Most Impressive.
I know the Star Wars universe had a blueprint of originality that was all its own and of its time, but it looks to me as if everybody now involved is doing their level best to drag it back to the hardcore roots of its popularity.
They havebeen politely trimming away decades of untidy and unwanted growth ,swept away a lot of the fallen and unloved debris quietly to one side , decided very carefully where they want it to go and what they want to do with it and now they are replanting the garden, not by ploughing everything under but by carefully following all the old outlines that still exist from the Original Trilogy.
If their starting point HAD been the prequels then they would have had a hell of a job, but no, they are starting this from the best possibly place they could in the timeline, after the events of ROTJ. There is thus a huge amount of freedom to innovate the series whilst being directly accountable to all the truths we OT fans hold dear.
If they make even half as good a job as they have managed with the Marvel universe then I would be very pleased. That works because the film makers they got to work on them were ,first and foremost fans of that universe and they knew what to do with it. Just look at Joss and “The Avengers“. Now think the same about JJ and his production team. I don't see a problem.
As it is, given the huge popularity SW has across so many generations of cinema goers, I think they are probably not only going to thrill us with what they produce but more than likely totally exceed all our expectations.
Similar threads
