for all the people that have an issue with BB-8

[Ghisallo]

..you do have to at least admit that the fact he is not CGI but a remote control robot that (probably via magnets) has a free floating head that can be moved independent of the body is freaking cool.

 

This is one of the things I was hoping to see. I think Lucas went WAY to CGI in the end. What made the non-remastered Star Wars OT so engaging and believable was that most everything was real. You were in a desert for Tatooine, not a CGI background. When you saw the Millennium falcon in Empire and RoJ it was a 1:1 full size prop made by maritime engineers...not CGI. That is what made the OT special (and that Lucas in a feat of what I can only call insanity tried to destroy) and I am glad to see that this aesthetic may be returning to us.

[WardenoftheNorth]

And again, people claiming all the PT is nothing but blue screen... Seriously, go see some behind the scenes stuff. They DID use sets, and they DID go on location. Tatooine and Naboo were mostly filmed on location, FYI. The other places HAD to be digitally created/on sets since there's no place in the world that looks like Mustafar or Geonosis. And most of those were miniatures used for filming, as one of the creators said yesterday at Celebration. The lightsaber duel in TPM was mainly filmed on sets, the whole Naboo hangar was a fully fledged set. And less you forget, R2 was practical in the PT too, except for his more adventurous antics, as were the other astromechs. Battle droids, they did create a full life size version of one they used for reference, but with the CIS it's hard to create real droids like that. BB-8 is just a ball essentially, easier to make and film.

 

So again, enough with the over exaggeration of the PT not using any old school techniques. They did, and just as much hard work went into it as the OT.

Edited April 18, 2015 by WardenoftheNorth

[Ghisallo]

And again, people claiming all the PT is nothing but blue screen... Seriously, go see some behind the scenes stuff. They DID use sets, and they DID go on location. Tatooine and Naboo were mostly filmed on location, FYI. The other places HAD to be digitally created/on sets since there's no place in the world that looks like Mustafar or Geonosis. And most of those were miniatures used for filming, as one of the creators said yesterday at Celebration. The lightsaber duel in TPM was mainly filmed on sets, the whole Naboo hangar was a fully fledged set. And less you forget, R2 was practical in the PT too, except for his more adventurous antics, as were the other astromechs. Battle droids, they did create a full life size version of one they used for reference, but with the CIS it's hard to create real droids like that. BB-8 is just a ball essentially, easier to make and film.

 

So again, enough with the over exaggeration of the PT not using any old school techniques. They did, and just as much hard work went into it as the OT.

 

I know they did but the degree of full sets etc dropped off dramatically vs before. The actors themselves complained about the amount of green screen and the difficulties involved in it. Not trying to sound rude but I will take the word of the actors who performed in the movie. Also if it were not true you would not have the people working on the new films throwing Lucas under the bus with comments like Rian Johnson (episode 8 writer and director)

 

I think people are coming back around to [practical effects]. It feels like there is sort of that gravity pulling us back toward it. I think that more and more people are hitting kind of a critical mass in terms of the CG-driven action scene lending itself to a very specific type of action scene, where physics go out the window and it becomes so big so quick.”

 

So either it's true or the entire industry is out to get poor George. Which do you find most likely?

 

Also from a technical standpoint getting BB-8 top work, ball or know is a pretty serious technical achievement for a movie. If his head was on a rod or something your "it's just a ball" would bear some weight buthaving it so the body and head can rotate and move independently of each other and with their being no direct "hard connection" between the two... yeah it isn't George but it is pretty cool.. not trying to be rude but this "omg George is without fault" crap gets kinda old.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Ghisallo

[WardenoftheNorth]

Just as old as PT bashing and the false accusations given to it. I'm not saying Lucas is without fault. He has his faults, yes, but that's beside the point. The point I was making was all the nonsense the PT had no sets or on location filming involved. Aside from Jakku, the rest of the film will most likely be sets and blue screen. Which I have no problem with. People seem to think SW always has to have 1980s effects and look grainy and grimy. No, IMO, SW is a film that pushes technical boundaries of its time, like the PT did, and like, apparently, the new trilogy will do, too. And I don't think BB-8's head was floating, I'm pretty sure I saw a rod underneath holding it aloft.

[Ghisallo]

Just as old as PT bashing and the false accusations given to it. I'm not saying Lucas is without fault. He has his faults, yes, but that's beside the point. The point I was making was all the nonsense the PT had no sets or on location filming involved. Aside from Jakku, the rest of the film will most likely be sets and blue screen. Which I have no problem with. People seem to think SW always has to have 1980s effects and look grainy and grimy. No, IMO, SW is a film that pushes technical boundaries of its time, like the PT did, and like, apparently, the new trilogy will do, too. And I don't think BB-8's head was floating, I'm pretty sure I saw a rod underneath holding it aloft.

 

Ummm... Just saying but both JJ and the director I mentioned have specifically stated in interviews that they purposefully want to avoid blue screening sets because of the backlash of those of use that saw all three OTs in their original lack of green (then blue) screen.

 

This is not to say that JJ will not use "flash" but they want to recapture the essence, nostalgia, whatever you want to call it, of the original movies...the constant remastering of which led to South Park Parodies. You might not agree with the sentiment personally but the current film makers...who have locked Lucas out BTW...have quite publicly said they do.

[Beniboybling]

I would also just point out that many of the vehicles in the Prequel Trilogy, such as the AATs we seen in the Battle of Naboo are props, not CGI. However what I take issue with is the assumption that CGI = bad.

 

CGI is not just some cheap short cut to flashy visuals folks, those graphics have to be created by artists and require just as much effort as the creation of any prop. We are happy to sing the praises of the CGI prevalent in modern video games - such as the upcoming Battlefront - as stunning works of art and testaments to creativity blah blah blah.

 

But the instant we see it in the movie for some reason it ceases to be art. They are cheap and "flashy". We cease to appreciate the landscapes of Naboo, Corucant, Mustafar etc. for what they are, technological marvels. Works. Of. Art.

 

Art that should be appreciated.

 

I understand that in terms of Star Wars, the "used galaxy" look is much more effectively achieved through real props as opposed to CGI. But that doesn't dimish CGI's quality and standing as art, and doesn't mean we should throw around the word CGI as it it were a pejorative in itself, which is something done not only to Star Wars, but many other movies.

 

Folks also need to realise that there are some things that simply cannot be achieved without CGI, and start to acutally appreciate what CGI did for the Prequel Trilogy, for Star Wars as a whole, and what it will do for the Sequels.

 

I also disagree with this notion that CGI = bad acting. Avatar is a prime example, those guys didn't even have the luxury of sets, they didn't even have costumes, it was all green screens and motion sensors.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Beniboybling

[Fyurii]

Everything I'm about to say in this post regarding the quality of CG work is entirely opinion based.

 

CGI is not just some cheap short cut to flashy visuals folks, those graphics have to be created by artists and require just as much effort as the creation of any prop. We are happy to sing the praises of the CGI prevalent in modern video games - such as the upcoming Battlefront as stunning works of art and testaments to creativity blah blah blah.

 

Completely CG is fine, and most of the time is highly impressive. Even the Final Fantasy movie was gorgeous.

The CGI cinematics for TOR itself are jaw droppingly amazing.

 

But the instant we see it in the movie for some reason it ceases to be art. They are cheap and "flashy". We cease to appreciate the landscapes of Naboo, Corucant, Mustafar etc. for what they are, technological marvels. Works. Of. Art.

 

Art that should be appreciated.

 

Something being a work of art is subjective, and varies from one example to the next.

 

Dredd from 2012 used a fair amount of CGI for scenery and special effects, but it wasn't a case of slamming you in the face with an orgy of mainly CGI with minimal real, physical objects and people.

 

I understand that in terms of Star Wars, the "used galaxy" look is much more effectively achieved through real props as opposed to CGI. But that doesn't dimish CGI's quality and standing as art, and doesn't mean we should throw around the word CGI as it it were a pejorative in itself, which is something done not only to Star Wars, but many other movies.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that it shouldn't diminish CGI's quality and standing as art, but the problem comes when there is a clear and distinctive difference between the CGI and the non CGI.

It can quite often be jarring to see, and leaves some more focused on the fact that they were aware of the CGI/non CGI differences, that it distracts from the scene.

 

Folks also need to realise that there are some things that simply cannot be achieved without CGI, and start to acutally appreciate what CGI did for the Prequel Trilogy, for Star Wars as a whole, and what it will do for the Sequels.

 

Starting off with a non Star Wars reference, the CGI work that was done to enhance what practical effects they did for the The Thing prequel looked bad. Instead of enhancing, they effectively downgraded.

The exception to this takes place when they're trying to helicopter someone out for medical aid, and one of the helicopter team has already been replaced.

 

When CGI is done well, it's good and people won't talk about it much. If it's done badly, it'll become one of the main topics about a movie.

 

This touches on what I mentioned earlier with the "orgy" of CGI.

Yes, CGI let them do and show more. The problem was Lucas used it for all the wrong things at the time, and had far too much of it going on at once in many parts, and all because there was nobody who could or would rein him in and say "George, you're reaching for too much too soon".

 

Episode 1 obviously had the worst quality of CGI in the prequels, and its overuse only makes the lower quality more apparent and leave it aging badly when compared to both the practical (and digitally restored) effects of the original trilogy, and the better done CGI of the following prequels.

However, even much of the practical effects seemed to be of poorer quality in general, compared to both the earlier and later films.

At least the CGI work looked better than the CGI additions to the Special Edition release of Episode 4. The Mos Eisley arrival scene was horribly, pointlessly expanded upon with pretty bad looking CGI.

 

Episode 2 was a step up, but still suffered from similar issues of too much going on at once in the majority of the CGI heavy parts - Droid factory (CGI 3P0 looked disgustingly fake) and the Arena rescue/Geonosis battle.

They definitely stepped up when it came to Yoda's appearance and choreography though.

The CGI Clones vs CGI droids looked great, incredibly well done. However the blending of real actors/costumes/props with the CGI was still jarring at times, in particular during the Jedi vs droids section of the Arena rescue.

 

 

Episode 3, personally, got off to a bad start with the first encounter with Grievous on the bridge of his ship.

The green lighting from the floor and roof made the difference between the CGI and non CGI much more apparent, and worse still it managed to cheapen the look of the set. Parts that didn't have the green lighting on them looked great.

The quality of work on the Clone Troopers throughout the film was greatly improved, with the only exception coming to mind was the two that attempted to kill Yoda. The close up of their helmets seemed off by comparison to the rest of the CGI troopers on Kashyyyk, which I'm putting down to the reflective visors in that close up.

 

Ultimately, the biggest reasons for the failings of the CGI effects and characters was down to the shot compositions Lucas used, combined with improper matching of lighting of scenes between the CGI environments, real environments and actors.

 

The last time I watched Episodes 2 & 3 (I really don't find Episode 1 all that relevant or necessary to watch more than the half dozen times I've watched it to date) was on my pc, and by messing around with the brightness/contrast and colour saturation of my monitor, I was able to tone down and in some parts almost eliminate noticeable CGI/non CGI differences.

[tunewalker]

These movies WILL have CGI lets not joke ourselves there, but I am hoping they are doing the CGI RIGHT.

 

 

Special effects are supposed to enhance the story telling of a particular movie. If it detracts from it, then it is not good special effects. The most ground breaking movies in the Special effects departments, either did something completely new (OT Star Wars) or did a blend of CGI AND practical effects (Jurassic Park, Terminator 2) sometimes CGI is going to look better then Practical effect would... in this case do CGI, Sometimes its just not Practical to DO a practical effect, in this case do CGI, at other times Practical looks better then CGI, it may be rougher, but in this case DO Practical.... and if you can help it Sets and "on location" I have never seen not look better then Blue screen. If you can shoot on location, even if it comes with its own set of monsterous problems, then try to do so because the movie will be better for it. If you cant, make the CGI look good.

 

All of this though costs money, and I am sure the studios and all know this, but if they do it right, they will rake in so much money for Star Wars it will be rediculous.

 

I will say BB-8 bothered me at first, but he is growing on me so I have less of an issue with him. The speeder bike from the first trailer on the other hand... I will only be fine with if its noted a friken ancient trash heap of a speeder . There is no way that thing is recent.

Edited April 18, 2015 by tunewalker

[Beniboybling]

@Fyurii, good points good points, and I agree with much of what you said. Although you must have a keener eye than mine for I for the most part didn't have any issues with the CGI AoTC onwards.

 

However I feel a distinction needs to be made between CGI done wrong and CGI itself. Indeed since the Prequels CGI has come a long way and I have little doubt the guys behind Star Wars could do CGI pretty seamlessly.

 

So there is no need to be up in pitchforks when the word is mentioned.

 

I also agree with what Tunewalker said, and I think this is something J.J definitely understands.

 

On topic however, BB-8 is frikken impressive, I mean did you see how fast that guy was moving in the trailer? I was very impressed to find out that it was not CGI at all, practical effects have come a very long way indeed.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Beniboybling

[Beniboybling]

I will say BB-8 bothered me at first, but he is growing on me so I have less of an issue with him. The speeder bike from the first trailer on the other hand... I will only be fine with if its noted a friken ancient trash heap of a speeder . There is no way that thing is recent.

Well she lives on a trash heap, so I'm going to say likely.

[Fyurii]

However I feel a distinction needs to be made between CGI done wrong and CGI itself. Indeed since the Prequels CGI has come a long way and I have little doubt the guys behind Star Wars could do CGI pretty seamlessly.

 

Absolutely.

Like I said, done badly it'll become one of the talking points about a film. Done well, not many people will bother to comment.

The same goes for practical effects too though.

 

I'm pretty ambivalent about BB-8 now though, in a good way.

In a way I feel a little down that ol' BB isn't CGI (because he looked so good), but also happy that he's a practical effect.

[Ghisallo]

I would also just point out that many of the vehicles in the Prequel Trilogy, such as the AATs we seen in the Battle of Naboo are props, not CGI. However what I take issue with is the assumption that CGI = bad.

 

CGI is not just some cheap short cut to flashy visuals folks, those graphics have to be created by artists and require just as much effort as the creation of any prop. We are happy to sing the praises of the CGI prevalent in modern video games - such as the upcoming Battlefront - as stunning works of art and testaments to creativity blah blah blah.

 

But the instant we see it in the movie for some reason it ceases to be art. They are cheap and "flashy". We cease to appreciate the landscapes of Naboo, Corucant, Mustafar etc. for what they are, technological marvels. Works. Of. Art.

 

Art that should be appreciated.

 

I understand that in terms of Star Wars, the "used galaxy" look is much more effectively achieved through real props as opposed to CGI. But that doesn't dimish CGI's quality and standing as art, and doesn't mean we should throw around the word CGI as it it were a pejorative in itself, which is something done not only to Star Wars, but many other movies.

 

Folks also need to realise that there are some things that simply cannot be achieved without CGI, and start to acutally appreciate what CGI did for the Prequel Trilogy, for Star Wars as a whole, and what it will do for the Sequels.

 

I also disagree with this notion that CGI = bad acting. Avatar is a prime example, those guys didn't even have the luxury of sets, they didn't even have costumes, it was all green screens and motion sensors.

 

I don't think CGI is bad, I just think if you have the options, real set and full size prop vs green screen real set and full size is better especially, as you said, when you want things to look gritty. Even then sometimes you have to use CGI. Example at the time they used glass painting and today they would use green screen for the "Ben turns off the tractor beam" scene in Episode IV. But if you have the options between full size prop set piece star ship you should use it. I just think, especially in his "remasterings" Lucas fell to much in love with CGI. Especially in Episode IV in Mos Esley, there was a LOT of gratuitous stuff added that distracted rather than enhanced things (at least imo.). Then we have directors like del Toro who show use that things we thought could only been done with CGI, and look good, can be done irl. Lol I will admit it is complicated.

 

I also never said it = bad acting. What the actors have said is it = difficult acting.