Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

I see it both ways. Any actor with a good imagination shouldn't have any problem reacting to things that aren't there. I still think you maybe need to give them some part of the set to interact with. I think most of it comes down to people just not liking the story and it wasn't what they imagined the Prequels were going to be for 24 years.

 

[astroboy]

Like I said earlier, I've worked in theatre for a long time now. I even build scenery. But an actor and director should have their game together before they even get on the set. You rehearse. That's where you wade through the dialogue, beat by beat. You find the intention for every moment. Your job should be done by time you get on set.

Any actor who says they can't work without the real thing doesn't have the experience needed. The job is about being good at make believe.

Did anyone see dogville? Did those actors have a hard time selling it on an empty sound stage? Not at all.

and I'm sorry but Anthony Daniels isn't the authority on this. His experience is almost entirely limited to star wars. And as a Droid.

Let's talk to Portman, Jackson, mcdiarmid, or MacGregor.

I'd be willing to bet they would all say the same thing. The director didn't know how to work the script with the actors

 

[gizmo]

Acting aside I find physical sets to be more immersive and have more weight.THAT comes across onscreen for me.


Ben

 

[hansicle]

No matter how well the background is rendered, inserting the actors in the digital environment isn't as easy as just dropping them in. Even a subtle mistake can throw off things enough to make the scene look awkward. I have a book done by a GREAT digital artist. It is almost impossible to tell his work is rendered. In this book, he has race cars and real people interacting with them. In 1 picture, a guy is standing next to a car with his hand on top. The picture bugged me for a while because there was something off with it. A friend pointed out that , where the guy has his hand, there was a side mirror, and ideally, there should be a shadow on the guys hand. Even that little mistake made the picture look off.

Putting people in real environments helps to reduce that "dropped in" effect when green/blue screen is done poorly.

 

[The Terminator]

A lot of trouble with things that are put in later is the lack of weight and interaction, take the levitating fruit in AOTC, at no point did it convince that there was anything there, same with any of the fights against droids or clones.

Compare to guardians of the galaxy where Drax pats Rockets back, that looked more real because he was patting the back of a stand in who was later removed.

The EP2 fruit scene is a perfect example of something that could be done EXTREMELY easily for real using a rod, which you then remove in post. That way you also have characters with their eyes on said object at all times.

No matter how well the background is rendered, inserting the actors in the digital environment isn't as easy as just dropping them in. Even a subtle mistake can throw off things enough to make the scene look awkward. I have a book done by a GREAT digital artist. It is almost impossible to tell his work is rendered. In this book, he has race cars and real people interacting with them. In 1 picture, a guy is standing next to a car with his hand on top. The picture bugged me for a while because there was something off with it. A friend pointed out that , where the guy has his hand, there was a side mirror, and ideally, there should be a shadow on the guys hand. Even that little mistake made the picture look off.

Putting people in real environments helps to reduce that "dropped in" effect when green/blue screen is done poorly.

Exactly our eyes and brain pick up all sorts of stuff that we don't think about. We know there is something wrong but we don't know what, so we have no way of perfecting the CG work.

 

[niennumb1]

While I do agree that professional actors should be able to do anything giving any direction at any time and place. However, having worked on some sets before, there is something truly immersive about being on a live set where you just get a real sense of where you are and makes it far easier to be your part than on a chroma screen. I would much prefer practical sets myself than just doing everything green screen from a visual standpoint. To this day I still see some real sore thumbs of effects work in the PT where I just don't believe what I am seeing over the OT where you can just see everything works better. The distraction of effects is just not as evident as it is in the PT when you add up all the shots.

I am fine with whatever they choose in showing us on screen in the end. They just better darn well have made it convincing to not distract from the film.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

...
Actor - to act. You're playing pretend. Do stage actors bitch about their sets not being real or that the "fourth wall" is not there and an audience is in its place?

Peter Jackson said in one of the documetaries that he had the sets for LotR built to give the actors something to work with. I personally, as a former production designer/se designer/art director have of course to emphasize the importance of real sets to make a movie become believeable, to give it the ever needed texture. Of course we now have the means to manipulate imagery to an extent that we often can´t tell cgi apart from ,real images.

But Lars von Trier showed us in Dogville what a movie without a set looks like. It worked (although not everyone´s cup of tea) because of the excellent actors. Come to think of it, it would be interesting to see this movie with digital sets.But I digress.

Episodes 1 to 3 had weak stories with weaker dialogues and plots. That´s not the fault of the sets, although the set design was more about oohs and aahs than about enhancing the movie going experience (the opera scene for example).
It´s like a splatter movie, if the gore is there just for the excitement of the fans and does not propel the story forward, then it´s just pointless.

So yes, we are again bashing GL for being great visionary but a bad author and even worse actor director.

Remember what Alec Guiness thought about his dialog? "new rubbish dialogue reaches me every other day on wadges of pink paper – and none of it makes my character clear or even bearable."

Lucas' style with actors is not something new with the prequels.

 

[CutThumb]

Strange choice with “Dogville”. As a piece of theatre it was considered minimalist in the extreme. As a piece of cinema , well lets just say, it wasn’t what I would choose to go and see on the big screen. It looked like a prequel set but without the green screens (and the robots! of course). I’m not ashamed to admit I managed to watch about an hour of it on Film4 and then went to bed. The acting was strong no doubt, but it failed to reach me and hold my interest. As DFN says it would be interesting to see what the sets would have been like, the the uses of lighting and sound did go some way to filling the space.
Astro, you’ re missing the point I was trying to make. The Prequels failed for some of us on many levels. For people raised on the OT they were mostly a tremendous disappointment . For younger generations and the less critical they were a success. Kids mostly loved it (and Jar-Jar!!!). They liked the endless saturated action sequences, the banal dialogue, the childish characterisations, the colourful crowded Flash Gordon Buck Rogers like visuals , the simple story, virtually all the reasons I find as a weakness in them.
I missed that “real worlds” feel. That worn ,tired and faded design aesthetic that suggested hard environments and harsher characters making cruel and telling choices. I wanted the mature storylines and complexer character choices that played to a grown up audience not a bunch of kids. I accept that some of the lines were a bit weak but in comparison to your average sci fi show they weren’t all that bad at all. Infact many of the lines remain extremely memorable quotes used commonly today.
Now imagine if that cast then had been asked to shoot Star Wars: A New Hope using the Prequel techniques. It doesn’t bare thinking about, particularly from a veteran of the stage and film like Alec Guinness who distained most of the dialogue then. And Ewan McGregor was particularly disappointed in the Prequels and voiced his opinion on shooting them in rather derogatory terms well afterward. Him and many others.
“The Force Awakens” was deliberate shot using the real sets and props because that’s what everybody felt was the major fault of the Prequels. Sure, there will be a lot of visual effects, but the mass saturation of CGI as used in the Prequels is predominantly missing. The integration of set design and computer previsualisation is well managed now and often using real world footage (which is why the second unit EPVII crew were shooting backgrounds in Iceland and Abu Dhabi well before the rest of the film production got going).The props were lovingly recreated and newly built because thats what everybody wanted.
Personally I rejoice they have gone this way. I know a few of the set locations used personally anyway. Puzzlewood is a superbly creepy place to shoot forest scenes and there are a few other places around there that are almost as good. The feedback from everybody working on the film and visiting the sets has been one of thrilled excitement and of having their high expectations met and well exceeded. They felt like they have visited the Star Wars world. The post production vibe has been hugely positive from what little is being said, and I’m willing to bet that for many of us this will be a hugely emotional renewal with a universe that left many of us feeling so horrible disenfranchised with the Prequels so many years ago.
Have faith my Brothers, our lonely vigil in the wilderness is shortly about to be rewarded.

 

[ixtore]

Abrams wants the actors in an environment as much as possible. I agree. Star Wars (Ep. IV if you must) had sets as well.

 

[Bryancd]

Like I said earlier, I've worked in theatre for a long time now. I even build scenery. But an actor and director should have their game together before they even get on the set. You rehearse. That's where you wade through the dialogue, beat by beat. You find the intention for every moment. Your job should be done by time you get on set.

Any actor who says they can't work without the real thing doesn't have the experience needed. The job is about being good at make believe.

Did anyone see dogville? Did those actors have a hard time selling it on an empty sound stage? Not at all.

and I'm sorry but Anthony Daniels isn't the authority on this. His experience is almost entirely limited to star wars. And as a Droid.

Let's talk to Portman, Jackson, mcdiarmid, or MacGregor.

I'd be willing to bet they would all say the same thing. The director didn't know how to work the script with the actors

Ewan was NOT a fan of blue screen...

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2005/07/ewan_on_acting_in_front_of_a_b.html

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said earlier, I've worked in theatre for a long time now. I even build scenery. But an actor and director should have their game together before they even get on the set. You rehearse. That's where you wade through the dialogue, beat by beat. You find the intention for every moment. Your job should be done by time you get on set.

Any actor who says they can't work without the real thing doesn't have the experience needed. The job is about being good at make believe.

Did anyone see dogville? Did those actors have a hard time selling it on an empty sound stage? Not at all.

and I'm sorry but Anthony Daniels isn't the authority on this. His experience is almost entirely limited to star wars. And as a Droid.

Let's talk to Portman, Jackson, mcdiarmid, or MacGregor.

I'd be willing to bet they would all say the same thing. The director didn't know how to work the script with the actors

Ewan was NOT a fan of blue screen...

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2005/07/ewan_on_acting_in_front_of_a_b.html

 

[LrdSatyr8]

Blue/green screen acting can be done properly if the direction and motivation is there... It usually helps if the post CGI is done ahead of time so that the actors have a much better idea of what to imagine rather than rely on emptyness... take a look at Sky Captain!

 

[MastahBlastah]

Adam Driver being interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR right now ... Ask him about TFA, TERRY!!!

 

[Axlotl]

... take a look at Sky Captain!

Sky Captain was awful.
Which makes me sad, because I really wanted to like it.

 

[LrdSatyr8]

Sky Captain was awful.
Which makes me sad, because I really wanted to like it.

No it wasn't! I don't know what movie you saw but I thought it was pretty good for being completely shot in green screen! The only things that were real were the actors and they admitted to having fun doing it. I guess you also didn't know that Sky Captain was actually just a 5 minute little CGI animation that the creator did on his home computer. You should go on Youtube and check out the behind the scenes. Took him forever to do, but really was impressive. For a completely independant movie, I thought it was really well done.

 

[Axlotl]

Like I said, I really, really wanted to like it - I just couldn't.
I bought it on DVD and watched it a couple of times, trying to MAKE myself like it.
But I couldn't.

 

[niennumb1]

Me, too. I just couldn't get through it.

 

[cayman shen]

Me three. Really, really hard to sit through.

 

[Laspector]

Gotta agree. I watched it once and until just now had never given it another thought.

 

[glunark]

I watched sky captain at the cinema, enjoyed it enough, just never had the inclination to watch it again.

 

[joshvanrad]

Add me to the column of couldn't care less for Sky Captain.

I was really pumped for it when it came out, and it was a cool concept, but it didn't do anything for me.