Star Wars VII - Trailer Discussion

[ray245]

I don't think you read my post. I did not say they were doing away with CGI entirely, nor did I say that physical models are superior. Having physical models and sets give actual objects and environments for the actors and cameramen to interact with. It actually adds to the realism if there's something physically there in front of the camera. What they're doing is using CGI to add detail, special effects, and planetary / space backgrounds.

Let's not assume there isn't any major trade-off when you are using physical sets. There is a limitation to how massive your sets can be, and there are times when your physical sets doesn't help to sell the realism of the fictional universe. Take JJ's Star Trek for example, whereby the use of a refinery does not convince people that this is really the engine room of a real starship.

It think it can be a mistake when directors assume that just because there is physical sets, it will automatically enhance the realism of the fictional universe.

Reasoning please?

Maybe it is because it makes little sense to use a physical model for scenes whereby the MF is flying around when it saves time and money, and it's quite clear that the MF is CGI and needs more rendering work for a number of frames?

It's stated in black and white by the film's producer that they'll be using more models and less CGI. My judgment has nothing to do with it:

My issue is with your claim that the MF scene was shot with real models as opposed to CGI. I'm not saying there isn't real models, but I think you are wrong on that scene.

I'm half inclined to think you're trolling. At least I hope you are. The PT had almost as much CGI as it did live-action (sometimes more) and it showed. For example, in Episode 3, they photoshopped an actor's face onto a fully CGI clone trooper body. Some clone troopers having face to face conversations with main characters didn't even exist at all! In the lightsaber battle between Count Dooku and Obi Wan / Anakin, you could tell immediately when it switched from the live actors to CGI and back. It was really bad. Why would you want to go back to that?

Oh please don't tell me you are one of those fans who attacks the prequels for having too much CGI and henceforth all good Sci-fi movies should use less CGI.

It completely ignores the fact that the prequels used a lot more model-work that most films nowadays, to the extend that fans often confuse which scenes are shot in CGI and which scenes are shot using models. Moreover, it also ignores the technology advance that has occurred in regards to CGI, whereby more and more sets are actually digital sets that are so real that most people assume that they are actually physical sets.

In addition, films like Avatar and Avengers are widely acclaimed for their impressive visuals DESPITE the fact that they have more VFX shots than EP 3. Avatar shows that you can have a good film with excellent visuals that can appease the public. The argument that you need to use more physical sets and less CGI to make the film look better doesn't hold much water.

I think it is a terrible idea to have a blacklash against the prequels for using too much CGI when fans nowadays clearly have no problems with films that uses even more CGI than the prequels. I would not enjoy the movie if all we see is desert and forest that looks exactly like some location seen on earth, when you are making a movie about alien worlds.

I think it is a horrible idea to use less CGI simply because there are a few vocal fans who hated the prequels. I like films that uses extensive CGI if they can show space battles that look more epic and worlds that look even more alien. I think the whole argument that using less CGI is good is misguided and will make the new Star Wars movie look less impressive than the prequels visually.

[Lord Revan]

I've always belived that complaint that "the prequels have too much CGI" was just another disguise for the "why didn't you make the film I had dreamt in my head" whine, while there's some bad CGI effects in the prequels it's still just a bad effects shot regardless of the way the effect was done.

As always it's about striking a good balance of what's CGI and what's done using other methods, IMHO the Lord of the Rings movies stuck a decent balanced between the methods without letting their bias run too rampant.

[Borgholio]

Let's not assume there isn't any major trade-off when you are using physical sets. There is a limitation to how massive your sets can be, and there are times when your physical sets doesn't help to sell the realism of the fictional universe. Take JJ's Star Trek for example, whereby the use of a refinery does not convince people that this is really the engine room of a real starship.

Of course there are trade-offs. Sets do have limitations which is why nobody is even talking about getting rid of CGI. What they're talking about is using CGI in a more selective manner. But having a physical set for you to work with DOES make a difference. Take your brewery example from Star Trek. They did an excellent job of making it look like the engineering section of a large ship, while using CGI for the background to show that it is inside a starship and not a factory.

Maybe it is because it makes little sense to use a physical model for scenes whereby the MF is flying around when it saves time and money, and it's quite clear that the MF is CGI and needs more rendering work for a number of frames?

How does it make little sense? Mount the Falcon model, spin the camera around, use CGI to render the sky and desert sand. Where's the difficulty in that? And which frames need more rendering work? I didn't see anything that obviously looked bad.

My issue is with your claim that the MF scene was shot with real models as opposed to CGI. I'm not saying there isn't real models, but I think you are wrong on that scene.

Still waiting for proof.

Oh please don't tell me you are one of those fans who attacks the prequels for having too much CGI and henceforth all good Sci-fi movies should use less CGI.

No, I attack the prequels for using CGI when they could have used real objects that look and react better on screen. All of the bad CGI shots I can think of were not even necessary. What was the logic behind using a CGI body instead of an actual costume for the Clone Trooper actors?

It completely ignores the fact that the prequels used a lot more model-work that most films nowadays, to the extend that fans often confuse which scenes are shot in CGI and which scenes are shot using models.

It really depends on the shot. In space, it's very hard to tell. Are they models or CGI? When live actors are involved, it can stand out a lot more.

films like Avatar and Avengers are widely acclaimed for their impressive visuals DESPITE the fact that they have more VFX shots than EP 3. Avatar shows that you can have a good film with excellent visuals that can appease the public.

Yes because it was done well. The quality of the CGI work in Avatar was far superior to what I remember seeing in the PT. It was obviously CGI, but it was very hard to separate that from the live action. Compare with the Obi-Wan + Anakin vs Dooku fight where it stood out...and not in a good way.

The argument that you need to use more physical sets and less CGI to make the film look better doesn't hold much water.

That was never my initial argument. Re-read my original post. I said they're not going overboard on CGI like they did in the PT. Sure you can make CGI look great, but you can definitely go overboard and put too much CGI, which is what they did in Ep3.

I think it is a terrible idea to have a blacklash against the prequels for using too much CGI when fans nowadays clearly have no problems with films that uses even more CGI than the prequels.

Is that so? I challenge you to find one person (other than yourself) who thinks it was a good idea to CGI every single clonetrooper in Episode 3.

I think it is a horrible idea to use less CGI simply because there are a few vocal fans who hated the prequels. I like films that uses extensive CGI if they can show space battles that look more epic and worlds that look even more alien. I think the whole argument that using less CGI is good is misguided and will make the new Star Wars movie look less impressive than the prequels visually.

Ok I see where you are disconnecting here. You are assuming I am against *all* CGI. Let me try to explain a bit better.

When trying to film an epic space scene or a fully alien world, you are quite correct in that you need CGI to make it work. The opening fight in Episode 3 was the best in the entire series and no matter how many models were used, CGI was critical to pulling it off. What MY problem is, is when they used CGI for things they had no business using CGI for. As stated before, they used CGI for every single Clone Trooper body in Episode 3. Why was that necessary? See, my argument is that they used too much CGI and animated things they had no business animating. Space battle? Fine. Clone Trooper bodies? No. Obi-wan's body? No.

See what I'm saying here? Models and sets have their place. And if you want to use CGI to enhance them, go for it. But if they do a shitty job of using CGI for something they could do fine with wires, pulleys, and models...wouldn't it be better to just not use CGI there?

[ray245]

Of course there are trade-offs. Sets do have limitations which is why nobody is even talking about getting rid of CGI. What they're talking about is using CGI in a more selective manner. But having a physical set for you to work with DOES make a difference. Take your brewery example from Star Trek. They did an excellent job of making it look like the engineering section of a large ship, while using CGI for the background to show that it is inside a starship and not a factory.

I disagree. I think the whole set looks too similar to a factory than a massive engine room of a starship. I think using a CGI set would have help in this regards.

How does it make little sense? Mount the Falcon model, spin the camera around, use CGI to render the sky and desert sand. Where's the difficulty in that? And which frames need more rendering work? I didn't see anything that obviously looked bad.

You know you are going to make the SFX crew a very difficult job because you need to match the light of the sun at every angle to the Falcon. This mean the artists have to basically recreate the CGI model anyway for those scenes. It makes very little sense for that scene to be shot as opposed to being rendered in CGI.

Still waiting for proo.

You are the one making claims that the Falcon scene was shot using a model as opposed to CGI. If you refuse to see how rendered the scene was, I'm not sure how can I ever convince you that it is not a real life model.

No, I attack the prequels for using CGI when they could have used real objects that look and react better on screen. All of the bad CGI shots I can think of were not even necessary. What was the logic behind using a CGI body instead of an actual costume for the Clone Trooper actors?

Because they need to ensure all the troopers are of the exact same height? I have no issues with using CGI Clone Troopers, as they looked fairly realistic to me.

It really depends on the shot. In space, it's very hard to tell. Are they models or CGI? When live actors are involved, it can stand out a lot more.

The team were using a large number of miniature for a number of establishing scenes as well.

Yes because it was done well. The quality of the CGI work in Avatar was far superior to what I remember seeing in the PT. It was obviously CGI, but it was very hard to separate that from the live action. Compare with the Obi-Wan + Anakin vs Dooku fight where it stood out...and not in a good way.

So why can't we have a Star Wars movie with CGI that match Avatar? Why do we have to run away from matching Avatar in regards to how well you can use CGI?

That was never my initial argument. Re-read my original post. I said they're not going overboard on CGI like they did in the PT. Sure you can make CGI look great, but you can definitely go overboard and put too much CGI, which is what they did in Ep3.

I want them to use more CGI than the PT, and I find it weird that you can go overboard with too much CGI, when there is so many other movies that uses even more CGI than the prequels and no one is complaining about them.

Is that so? I challenge you to find one person (other than yourself) who thinks it was a good idea to CGI every single clonetrooper in Episode 3.

What about the fact that there were very few people that even notice Iron-man suit worn in the Marvel movies were actually CGI as opposed to an actual suit? I think people are fine with using extensive CGI, because it has advanced to a stage whereby people get confused whether what they saw on screen is real or CGI.

Ok I see where you are disconnecting here. You are assuming I am against *all* CGI. Let me try to explain a bit better.

When trying to film an epic space scene or a fully alien world, you are quite correct in that you need CGI to make it work. The opening fight in Episode 3 was the best in the entire series and no matter how many models were used, CGI was critical to pulling it off. What MY problem is, is when they used CGI for things they had no business using CGI for. As stated before, they used CGI for every single Clone Trooper body in Episode 3. Why was that necessary? See, my argument is that they used too much CGI and animated things they had no business animating. Space battle? Fine. Clone Trooper bodies? No. Obi-wan's body? No.

See what I'm saying here? Models and sets have their place. And if you want to use CGI to enhance them, go for it. But if they do a shitty job of using CGI for something they could do fine with wires, pulleys, and models...wouldn't it be better to just not use CGI there?

I get your point. You want the ST to use less CGI than the prequels. I disagree as I think they should use even more CGI than the prequels, because CGI is now that good that most people cannot tell what is CGI and what is real for the top-tier movies like Avatar and Avengers.

You should not use CGI merely to enhance the CGI, you should be daring enough to use them for almost every scene like Avatar, Gravity and etc.

[Borgholio]

I disagree. I think the whole set looks too similar to a factory than a massive engine room of a starship. I think using a CGI set would have help in this regards.

Ever see the engine room of a modern warship? Looks very similar to a factory. And I refuse to get into the dead horse debate about how something that's high tech can't have "old tech" things such as physical pipes and valves.

You know you are going to make the SFX crew a very difficult job because you need to match the light of the sun at every angle to the Falcon. This mean the artists have to basically recreate the CGI model anyway for those scenes. It makes very little sense for that scene to be shot as opposed to being rendered in CGI.

Having correct lighting is something that artists have had to deal with for centuries, before CGI even existed. How is tweaking lighting with CGI more difficult than creating all the lighting completely from scratch and still having to match it with the Falcon at every angle? This way, they have a physical model they can "airbrush", rather than creating the entire thing from wireframe.

You are the one making claims that the Falcon scene was shot using a model as opposed to CGI. If you refuse to see how rendered the scene was, I'm not sure how can I ever convince you that it is not a real life model.

When the producer of the movie herself says they'll be using more models, I think it's safe to assume that some of critical models like the Falcon or the X-wing will have models made of it. IF this is pure CGI though, then I will retract my statement and concede this point.

Because they need to ensure all the troopers are of the exact same height? I have no issues with using CGI Clone Troopers, as they looked fairly realistic to me.

Finding a bunch of people of the same height isn't that hard. In Ep2 when they had the visual of hundreds of Clone Troopers boarding the transports on Courscant, it was blatantly fake. They could have CGI'd the troops in the background where we wouldn't notice the difference, but the close-up of them marching up the ramp was not realistic at all.

So why can't we have a Star Wars movie with CGI that match Avatar?

Avatar was primarily rendered by a totally different company. ILM helped out a bit but the bulk of the work was done by Weta Digital. So why do the CGI characters in Avatar look so much more convincing than the ones in Star Wars? I have no idea. I just know that my immersion was broken in Ep2 and 3 by the kind of CGI work they did, while in Avatar it was pretty much flawless.

I want them to use more CGI than the PT, and I find it weird that you can go overboard with too much CGI, when there is so many other movies that uses even more CGI than the prequels and no one is complaining about them.

Because these other movies you mentioned did it right. I'll be honest, if they used all CGI in Ep7 but did it so well that it was seamless...I wouldn't really complain about it. But in Ep 2 and 3, frankly, it sucked. So more of that kind of suck is not a good thing, and more of it is what I'm worried about.

What about the fact that there were very few people that even notice Iron-man suit worn in the Marvel movies were actually CGI as opposed to an actual suit? I think people are fine with using extensive CGI, because it has advanced to a stage whereby people get confused whether what they saw on screen is real or CGI.

Actually they did make a suit for him. Much of the time he wore part of it like the gauntlets and helmet, then they CGI'd the rest in. But I get your point. When it was CGI, it looked amazing. So why didn't the Clone Troopers look that believable?

As I think about it, the Clones just didn't move realistically. Iron man was basically a robotic suit of power armor, but the Clones were still human....and yet they moved like robots. I think had they moved more naturally it wouldn't have been so noticeable.

[ray245]

Ever see the engine room of a modern warship? Looks very similar to a factory. And I refuse to get into the dead horse debate about how something that's high tech can't have "old tech" things such as physical pipes and valves.

The point of fictional universe, especially for a sci-fi setting is not to make things look as realistic as real life. It's in part to depict people's perception of what the future looks like as well. If the scene does not help to make the scene feel like a sci-fi setting, then you might as well make a modern day movie.

Having correct lighting is something that artists have had to deal with for centuries, before CGI even existed. How is tweaking lighting with CGI more difficult than creating all the lighting completely from scratch and still having to match it with the Falcon at every angle? This way, they have a physical model they can "airbrush", rather than creating the entire thing from wireframe.

Because a 3D models makes everything easier for the SFX team without necessarily making the scene any less realistic?

When the producer of the movie herself says they'll be using more models, I think it's safe to assume that some of critical models like the Falcon or the X-wing will have models made of it. IF this is pure CGI though, then I will retract my statement and concede this point.

It doesn't have to be models for starship. It could be more set models or miniatures of cities. I fail to see how can you jump to the claim that X-Wings and Falcon are CGI, when it's pretty clear they look CGI to a number of fans.

Finding a bunch of people of the same height isn't that hard. In Ep2 when they had the visual of hundreds of Clone Troopers boarding the transports on Courscant, it was blatantly fake. They could have CGI'd the troops in the background where we wouldn't notice the difference, but the close-up of them marching up the ramp was not realistic at all.

They look real enough to me.

Avatar was primarily rendered by a totally different company. ILM helped out a bit but the bulk of the work was done by Weta Digital. So why do the CGI characters in Avatar look so much more convincing than the ones in Star Wars? I have no idea. I just know that my immersion was broken in Ep2 and 3 by the kind of CGI work they did, while in Avatar it was pretty much flawless.

So why can't we hope to see that in EP 7?

Because these other movies you mentioned did it right. I'll be honest, if they used all CGI in Ep7 but did it so well that it was seamless...I wouldn't really complain about it. But in Ep 2 and 3, frankly, it sucked. So more of that kind of suck is not a good thing, and more of it is what I'm worried about.

You shouldn't be using the prequels to judge the quality of effects ILM can produce nowadays. The effects were almost 10 years old. However, in comparison to many other CGI scenes from movies that was produced during the early 2000s, the prequels CGI looks quite decent.

And your comment about being worried about having a repeat of the prequels is the exact kind of blacklash I am arguing against. Just because you do not like the CGI in the prequels does not mean you should aim to use less CGI in the ST. This kind of attitude will hinder the visuals of the movies if you spend too much time worrying about overusing CGI as opposed to simply creating top tier visuals with all available tools at your disposal. As the director of a sci-fi movie, worrying about the overuse of CGI should be the least of your concern.

Actually they did make a suit for him. Much of the time he wore part of it like the gauntlets and helmet, then they CGI'd the rest in. But I get your point. When it was CGI, it looked amazing. So why didn't the Clone Troopers look that believable?

As I think about it, the Clones just didn't move realistically. Iron man was basically a robotic suit of power armor, but the Clones were still human....and yet they moved like robots. I think had they moved more naturally it wouldn't have been so noticeable.

So you admit that CGI has improved in the past ten years. And you have no issue with the current state-of-the-art CGI. So why are you saying using less CGI is a good thing? You are falling into the trap of trying to hope for a movie that is the complete opposite of the prequels because you disliked them rather than what is the best way to create excellent visuals for EP 7.

[Borgholio]

If the scene does not help to make the scene feel like a sci-fi setting, then you might as well make a modern day movie.

The scene was meant to make it look like an engine room, not to make it look like Star Trek TNG. So it worked fine.

Because a 3D models makes everything easier for the SFX team without necessarily making the scene any less realistic?

How, exactly? Tweaking a physical model vs building a CGI one from scratch?

It doesn't have to be models for starship. It could be more set models or miniatures of cities. I fail to see how can you jump to the claim that X-Wings and Falcon are CGI, when it's pretty clear they look CGI to a number of fans.

I fail to see how you can jump to the claim that they're CGI when a person who knows a lot more about the movie than you do says they're using models.

They look real enough to me.

Well that explains a lot then. No, really. If you look closer, you would see they march too perfectly for humans..even trained soldiers. Their movements are too fluid, too smooth, and lack realism. If you can't see that, then that's probably why you don't notice the other examples of bad CGI that stick out to me...since the other examples are along a similar vein.

So why can't we hope to see that in EP 7?

Oh we certainly can, and I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised.

And your comment about being worried about having a repeat of the prequels is the exact kind of blacklash I am arguing against.

Why shouldn't I be concerned that poor judgement in using CGI will cause visual issues in the new trilogy? Yes I'm sure the CGI was fine compared to other films of the era, but they had no business using CGI to replicate certain things at that time. If they did better motion capture this time around and made it work, sure I'd be on board with it.

So you admit that CGI has improved in the past ten years. And you have no issue with the current state-of-the-art CGI. So why are you saying using less CGI is a good thing? You are falling into the trap of trying to hope for a movie that is the complete opposite of the prequels because you disliked them rather than what is the best way to create excellent visuals for EP 7.

I'm hoping for a movie where the story is good, the characters are interesting, and the visuals blow me out of my chair. If they have fixed the flaws that led to unrealistic characters and effects in Ep3, then honestly I don't care about them using CGI for lots of stuff. But it had better be perfect. That's why I like them using more models and sets..there's less chance they'd screw up.

[Adam Reynolds]

Amusingly, the phrase on the X-wing pilots vest says "Pull to inflate" when translated. It is interesting that they actually bothered to use the actual language rather than simply gibberish as was usually the case in previous films.

[The Romulan Republic]

Amusingly, the phrase on the X-wing pilots vest says "Pull to inflate" when translated. It is interesting that they actually bothered to use the actual language rather than simply gibberish as was usually the case in previous films.

Really?

I always appreciate that kind of attention to details from a filmmaker. My respect for Abrams as a director just went up considerably.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I don't whether to be impressed at the filmmakers for being so detailed or alarmed that soemone was sad enough to actually check. I'll think I'll be both.

[SpottedKitty]

I was playing chase-the-links after rewatching the trailer tonight, and came across this little offering. Amusing...

[Batman]

Not half bad. I think the ISD in the background should've been a little clearer but otherwise, nicely done.

[Adam Reynolds]

Not half bad. I think the ISD in the background should've been a little clearer but otherwise, nicely done.

I also liked the DS2 and shield generation in the background. It was impressive that the various vehicles were seen interacting with each other, something that most such videos never have. Even the sounds were right.

Another random tidbit I saw is that the ball droid is apparently based on Mcquarrie's notes for one of the suggested looks for R2. Obviously at the time it would have been rather difficult to film, but now is relatively easy.

As a side note, as for the comments about it not featuring anything in space, one hopes that the opening will keep the tradition of starting with a star destroyer. The only two movies to not have this are often considered the worst. Perhaps this is equivalent to the Star Trek odd numbered curse. Regardless of what happens, let's be glad it won't be this version, which doesn't even start in space.

Wasn't Star-Lord leaving in the background?

[SpottedKitty]

Not half bad. I think the ISD in the background should've been a little clearer but otherwise, nicely done.

I also liked the DS2 and shield generation in the background.

Hah — and I didn't even notice the DS2 tucked away in the background at all until I rewatched it just now.

[Patroklos]

Let's not assume there isn't any major trade-off when you are using physical sets. There is a limitation to how massive your sets can be, and there are times when your physical sets doesn't help to sell the realism of the fictional universe. Take JJ's Star Trek for example, whereby the use of a refinery does not convince people that this is really the engine room of a real starship.

Of course there are trade-offs. Sets do have limitations which is why nobody is even talking about getting rid of CGI. What they're talking about is using CGI in a more selective manner. But having a physical set for you to work with DOES make a difference. Take your brewery example from Star Trek. They did an excellent job of making it look like the engineering section of a large ship, while using CGI for the background to show that it is inside a starship and not a factory.

I am with you on your general points whole heartedly but you have to be blind to think the brewery thing in any way worked. Not only did it still look exactly like a brewery despite the radioactive symbols decorated throughout, they had shots with the camera twenty feet in air above the machinery clearly destroying any feeling that you were confined within a starship. This was further ruined by showing us extensive footage of ahuge hanger from outside the ship showing us scale and just how space was not available for those expansive engine room shots.

This is not a critique of physical sets however, but rather a critique of substituting real places for creating purpose built sets for fictional locals. They could have used a cruise ship engine room (which are huge) and done a much better job.

And no, that brewery looks nothing like a real warship engine room. It's too damn roomy. This is a place where CGI should have been used to muddy the backspace and make things feel confined. There is a good and bad way to to use CGI, a good and bad way to use real sets.

[Adam Reynolds]

One point with the under use of sets in the preqeuls is that they actually were there often times, but only for the foreground shots*. In almost all of those scenes it worked as well as would be expected. This was also done in The Avengers, which built the main street scene in full scale as a set as well. The key thing is that for up close work it has two advantages. It allows the actors to interact with something, as well as simply being easier in that physical sets naturally have more detail. Fractalsponge once made the comment that for digital models to look as good as physical models, they have to have twice the detail. This is generally not done as CGI makes it easier to fake things.

* The two largest exceptions that I remember from behind the scenes documentaries were the droid foundry and Mustafar. Even the element that I criticized earlier, the interior shots on the Invisible Hand, often did have physical sets.

The other issue with physical models is that it limits what can be shown. In the prequels, only Naboo and Tatooine could have ever been shown with physical sets(and were). Every other world we see required a great deal of CGI work. That might be the biggest downside to reliance on physical sets for the new films as it would limit the number of new and alien worlds that could be shown.

[biostem]

One of the biggest critiques of the prequals, which I tend to agree with, is that by them choosing to film so many scenes on fairly small greenscreen soundstages, scenes where there was supposed to be a sense of urgency had to be artifically slowed down, due to the confined space - take the scene in the first NuTrek, when Kirk is running from the infirmary to warn of the space-wedgie, and compare it to when Anakin and Mace are charging to confront Palpatine - the first had these fast, energetic tracking shots, where the actor was free to run because they used a real set, while the second had them casually walking along like there was no urgency.

Yes, use CGI for the really out-there stuff, but when you want to portray a sense of grittiness and intensity, you need those elements for the actors to interact with, which are really there. It's sort of like the blood squibs vs CGI shot effects, (which drive me nuts).

There are ways of getting the benefits of both, with regard to the space battles - build a high quality physical model, use a high quality 3D scanner to get a virtual model, and use references shots for lighting and textures to get things just right.

[LaCroix]

Not half bad. I think the ISD in the background should've been a little clearer but otherwise, nicely done.

I also liked the DS2 and shield generation in the background.

Hah — and I didn't even notice the DS2 tucked away in the background at all until I rewatched it just now.

I dislike that the generator is clearly not aimed at the DS2...

[Anacronian]

I was playing chase-the-links after rewatching the trailer tonight, and came across this little offering. Amusing...

That AT-AT seem so lost, I can just imagine the drivers going "Wheres the terminal i'm sure i saw it around here somewhere?".

[Purple]

God no...

[Adam Reynolds]

One of the biggest critiques of the prequals, which I tend to agree with, is that by them choosing to film so many scenes on fairly small greenscreen soundstages, scenes where there was supposed to be a sense of urgency had to be artifically slowed down, due to the confined space - take the scene in the first NuTrek, when Kirk is running from the infirmary to warn of the space-wedgie, and compare it to when Anakin and Mace are charging to confront Palpatine - the first had these fast, energetic tracking shots, where the actor was free to run because they used a real set, while the second had them casually walking along like there was no urgency.

That is an interesting point, one I hadn't thought of much as a limit of greenscreens. But it's not like this isn't also a limit of physical sets, TNG used angled hallways so that one wouldn't notice that they weren't very long. While obviously with a movie budget it could be possible to create something longer as was done in NuTrek, simply having physical sets isn't necessarily better. They were also a limitation of the OT, which also never had that type of long tracking shot. There was always a sense of confinement, enough so that on Cloud City for the special editions Lucas added large windows throughout the city to make it feel more open.

Though partially this was a stylistic choice in the case you mentioned. The point with Mace Windu and the Jedi was to give something of a vibe of US Marshalls showing up in a western. As for Anakin, he was running, and it wasn't like the fight would end before he got there*.

Part of this is actually a result of budget as much as anything. Despite the huge box office draw, the prequels were actually relatively low in budget for a summer blockbuster, due to largely being made outside the studios**. With inflation, NuTrek had $25 million more to spend, Iron Man had $55 million more, and The Avengers had $87 million more. This would likely be avoided for the new film which has a $200 million dollar budget, $67 million more than ROTS(with inflation).

* I would say that Mace Windu would have likely won the fight eventually regardless, but the timing was largely influenced by Palpatine to give a good show. The novelization(though I doubt it is canon anymore) backs up this interpretation.
** This was partially due to the fact that Lucas always put the credits at the end of the movie rather than the beginning. He was forced to withdraw from the guilds after this issue. I wonder if the new films can retain this?

[Borgholio]

I am with you on your general points whole heartedly but you have to be blind to think the brewery thing in any way worked. Not only did it still look exactly like a brewery despite the radioactive symbols decorated throughout, they had shots with the camera twenty feet in air above the machinery clearly destroying any feeling that you were confined within a starship. This was further ruined by showing us extensive footage of ahuge hanger from outside the ship showing us scale and just how space was not available for those expansive engine room shots.

This is not a critique of physical sets however, but rather a critique of substituting real places for creating purpose built sets for fictional locals. They could have used a cruise ship engine room (which are huge) and done a much better job.

And no, that brewery looks nothing like a real warship engine room. It's too damn roomy. This is a place where CGI should have been used to muddy the backspace and make things feel confined. There is a good and bad way to to use CGI, a good and bad way to use real sets.

Fair enough about the brewery. The main reason I liked it was because it was a departure from the clean and sterile version of the engine room we found in other ST series but that's about it. I can understand why others might hate it. I agree about the sizing...it was all over the place...but that's not really something unique to Trek.

[Patroklos]

I am with you there regarding the "lived in" feel. That's something Star Wars did well before the prequels.

As for the clone troopers you brought up earlier I can only imagine that by EP3 some of the production folks were realizing how cartoonish their CGI was being perceived and went all CGI to avoid highlighting this by showing contrasting real and CGI troopers in the same scene or chronologically close scenes. By going all CGI the visual trip might work better. Just a guess.

[Borgholio]

By going all CGI the visual trip might work better.

That makes sense actually. It really broke the scene when you had Commander Cody speaking with Obi Wan...live face, fake armor.

[Adam Reynolds]

In defense of CGI clones, they did have the advantage of looking more like real soldiers thanks to being based on motion capture of them. For every moment of clone trooper CGI feeling off, there is one of OT stormtroopers bumping their heads into doorways or consistently shooting from the hip with bad tactics. While obviously this could be done with trained extras, it is easier and cheaper with CGI.