Use of Puppets / Costumes vs CGI

[Nightblazer]

So from watching the trailers I've noticed that in the new Star Wars film they are going back to the use of actual puppets or people in costume or actual sets versus heavy use of CGI.

 

Obviously CGI will be used when needed but what does everyone feel about how they are making the new Star Wars movie using puppets and costumes and actual sets and minimizing CGI or Green Screens when needed?

[Selenial]

CGI has always seemed like the shortcut to me, if you have something you can make with props, it's generally going to look better when made with props. Even the most modern CGI doesn't look entirely real, it's even less convincing when it's landscapes.

 

I can understand places like Mustafar and Coruscant needing to be CGI, but the old classics like Tatooine and Endor don't need to be, and they look better when done properly.

 

I'm all for the style that Abrams is going for.

[StarSquirrel]

I think CGI is best when it supports or touches-up a real prop. I imagine that's the road they're taking and I love them for it.

[Kaedusz]

there has to be no rule that applies to all,

 

different things demand different tools

[Newyankalt]

I think CGI is best when it supports or touches-up a real prop. I imagine that's the road they're taking and I love them for it.

 

I agree with this. If CGI isn't needed then don't use it.

 

 

Blur Studios could make the prequels and get the same result with the CGI in that.

[Fyurii]

I agree with this. If CGI isn't needed then don't use it.

 

 

Blur Studios could make the prequels and get the same result with the CGI in that.

 

Except the CGI wouldn't look out of place, since Blur studios would do the whole thing in CG as opposed to almost everything that's not a human actor.

[annabethchase]

So, I watched the comic con panel already fully aware they were using real sets for Ep7 instead of CGI as much as possible. But it's still immensely satisfying to see how it's playing out.

 

For comparison sake, I watched Ep 3, Ep 4 and the blur cinematic for Deceived. Ep 4 is the closest to the feel of Ep7 and I'm very excited for that. However, what stood out to me was that the blur cinematics simply are more impressive than the CGI from Ep3. Comparing the same essential concept, the Sacking of the Jedi Temple, I can't help but feel that Deceived did it better.

 

So, to me, that says that CGI can be used where necessary and that 10 years of technology advancement should make what they do use more impressive this time around.

[ShadowMudkip]

I don't really understand the hate that CGI gets. Is some of it warrented? Perhaps. But simply put, CGI does things that props cannot. I also think that CGI has come a looong way from when Episode 1 was released. That being said, props and CGI together really do complement each other nicely.

[tunewalker]

 

vs

2:00 this is what caused CG to be prefered. It is still a break through style, but it needs to be used properly. And I hope they use it, in that manner because there are just some things that you cant do any other way.

[annabethchase]

 

vs

2:00 this is what caused CG to be prefered. It is still a break through style, but it needs to be used properly. And I hope they use it, in that manner because there are just some things that you cant do any other way.

 

Here's the thing, to me as an adult man, the thing that makes Jurassic park 1 great isn't the dinosaurs, it's the actors. To me, the dinosaurs are the backdrop to a story, not the other way around. I get that kids really just want to see dinosaurs, but there's a reason that movie works on so many different levels to connect with such a wide audience.

 

Here's how this plays out to me, the great part of that clip isn't the T-rex, it's the cup of water. That is to this day far more suspenseful to me than anything the dinosaur could actually do.

[tunewalker]

Here's the thing, to me as an adult man, the thing that makes Jurassic park 1 great isn't the dinosaurs, it's the actors. To me, the dinosaurs are the backdrop to a story, not the other way around. I get that kids really just want to see dinosaurs, but there's a reason that movie works on so many different levels to connect with such a wide audience.

 

Here's how this plays out to me, the great part of that clip isn't the T-rex, it's the cup of water. That is to this day far more suspenseful to me than anything the dinosaur could actually do.

 

but which looks better?

 

this isnt about how good a movies story or characters are that is universal and wont change. this is about what special effects techniques to use. In this case CG was the proper call for effects. They still had practical effects such as models and animatronics, but the effect that looks better isnt the Live Stop motion thing, its the CG thing. I agree the movie's characters need to be good, but this conversation wasnt about characters it was about the special effects.

[annabethchase]

I think it's best to write the script in a way that focuses on the characters and lets the background be the background. We'll obviously have a lot of CGI, but I much prefer the on screen results of puppet Yoda to the CGI Yoda. Clearly, the CGI Yoda is more detailed, but they used puppet Yoda in a way that it didn't matter. You didn't really have to think about it being "odd" but it was odd to see CGI yoda spinning around in mid air during his fights.

 

I don't think the Jurrassic park scene is a fair comparison. The non-cgi scene clearly wouldn't have been considered screen ready at that state.

Edited July 13, 2015 by annabethchase

[tunewalker]

I think it's best to write the script in a way that focuses on the characters and lets the background be the background. We'll obviously have a lot of CGI, but I much prefer the on screen results of puppet Yoda to the CGI Yoda. Clearly, the CGI Yoda is more detailed, but they used puppet Yoda in a way that it didn't matter. You didn't really have to think about it being "odd" but it was odd to see CGI yoda spinning around in mid air during his fights.

 

I don't think the Jurrassic park scene is a fair comparison. The non-cgi scene clearly wouldn't have been considered screen ready at that state.

 

The point was there was a reason they went with CG at the time. The special effects manager of the movies went to Speilberg and showed him what some of it looked like CG... compared it pre completed vs pre completed and they went to their team, including the stop motion guy and asked what they thought.

 

The stop motion guy responded "I think I just went extinct" that's the REASON for the line in Jurassic Park.... "I think we're out of a job" and Jeff Goldblums response of "dont you mean extinct". It wasnt cost, the fact is at that time, the way they needed it to work CG was just pure better then Stop motion.

 

And being this is a conversation PURELY about special effects we have to give credit where credit is do. Terminator 2 vs Terminator 1, the stop motion T1 terminator looked cheap, the CG T-1000 still looks good to this day. It is STILL laden in with fantastic Practical effects by the Late great Stan Winston (both jurassic park and terminator had this guy behind it so its no wonder hte practical effects look phenominal) but there is still time transitioning between the practical effects that honestly CG is just better, but yes it HAS to blend in to the rest of the scene. Yes I agree Puppet Yoda looks better, but that doesnt mean we NEVER use CG, nor does it mean CG will never be better then a puppet or stop motion. There is a reason King Kong with 2005 looks like this

and not like this

[Fyurii]

but which looks better?

 

this isnt about how good a movies story or characters are that is universal and wont change. this is about what special effects techniques to use. In this case CG was the proper call for effects.

 

The CGI work for the T-Rex was impressive (in that scene especially) because it was both slow moving and the care and attention spent on properly texturing and lighting the CG model, so that it matched as closely as possible to the animatronic used for other parts of that scene.

The only 2 occasions I can think of where the CG work became obviously CG was when the raptors were moving faster, and the T-Rex/raptor brawl at the end as the people are escaping.

 

There are always going to be situations where CGI is the necessary choice for a scene or majority of a movie, but the over use of it, especially when it's contrasting with humans in normal and brighter lighting, usually makes it all that more obvious.

For some people, that also breaks their immersion into the movie.

 

I have been wondering lately whether or not a higher frame rate than 24fps would be of more benefit to CGI effects.

Before anyone mentions it, I watched the first two of Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies, but only the 2D versions (3D still is too much of a gimmick that creates awkward camera angles and shots).

Certain CGI looked great whilst others, again due to lighting and contrasting with the live action actors, looked "bad" by comparison.

[Vyerix]

CGI has its place when used right. As it looks great when it is used properly. Otherwise I'd rather see puppets, costumes and real sets be used over CGI and green screens whenever possible. I know not every movie can do that. I just wonder if CGI is just relied on too much in this day and age.

 

From what I've seen of Force Awakens. I'm very happy that CGI is being kept to a minimum.

[tunewalker]

The CGI work for the T-Rex was impressive (in that scene especially) because it was both slow moving and the care and attention spent on properly texturing and lighting the CG model, so that it matched as closely as possible to the animatronic used for other parts of that scene.

The only 2 occasions I can think of where the CG work became obviously CG was when the raptors were moving faster, and the T-Rex/raptor brawl at the end as the people are escaping.

 

There are always going to be situations where CGI is the necessary choice for a scene or majority of a movie, but the over use of it, especially when it's contrasting with humans in normal and brighter lighting, usually makes it all that more obvious.

For some people, that also breaks their immersion into the movie.

 

I have been wondering lately whether or not a higher frame rate than 24fps would be of more benefit to CGI effects.

Before anyone mentions it, I watched the first two of Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies, but only the 2D versions (3D still is too much of a gimmick that creates awkward camera angles and shots).

Certain CGI looked great whilst others, again due to lighting and contrasting with the live action actors, looked "bad" by comparison.

 

Exactly this is my point. Its not always the right answer (again Stan Winston's animatronics are amazing) but if care and detail are taken into consideration and its blended in with other techniques it can have a wonderful effect.

 

Also I agree some of hte Raptor CG effects look dated, but honestly the stop motion ones did to if you have seen some of the Stop motion raptor scenes.

 

The scenes that always seem to be the worst to me is the scenes with abusive green screen. Be it miniatures or CG using them abusively instead of doing it with mostly sets can take you out of a scene so easily. Hell it takes the actors out of the scene. They cant see what is supposed to be around them and get a feel for the area all they see is a big blue thing...

[Karkais]

I don't really understand the hate that CGI gets. Is some of it warrented? Perhaps. But simply put, CGI does things that props cannot. I also think that CGI has come a looong way from when Episode 1 was released. That being said, props and CGI together really do complement each other nicely.

 

Yes it does things that normal movie cannot, and it is also usually immediately noticeable. That is a major problem in itself.

 

Another big issue is that directors don't seem pay as much attention (or can't?) to the 'camera movement' or how the scene plays out in the finished product, when CGI are involved. Maybe because the effectiveness of a CGI-based scene is down to skill of the animators instead of the director. I have a feeling that profession is not getting enough attention.

 

There are so many people involved in making a CGI scene or a special effect-happy movie, its no wonder most of them fail in visuals. Compare this to the old: actors, lighting, cameraman, director.

 

ps. I think the

showed at comic con was a masterpiece. It did everything exactly right. It played on the nostalgy; it played on the childish wonder that we used to feel when we saw the original trilogy; it showed that the director was moving back to the good old days of special effects, live sets and puppets and whatnot. This is also moving away from George's CGI-happy vision, something that is immediately likable. Edited July 15, 2015 by Karkais