StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Borgholio wrote: I really don't understand why people whine so much about the "Practical Effects" statement. Sure, practical effects were used in the PT all over the place. Nobody is saying they weren't. What they're saying is that CGI was used in excess in the PT and they're trying to avoid that. Look at the whole clone trooper thing from Episode 3, where they put the actor's head on a fully CGI body. Was that really necessary? Why not just build a few dozen plastic stormtrooper suits and have something actually there to interact with?

Considering that those fans did not even realise some of the scenes they thought was made from CGI was actually model work, it does put some of their concerns into certain perspective.

The lava scene in ROTS? Model work with some CGI. The weird planet the Blue Jedi was on before she was killed by her Clones? Model work.

People who complain about CGI in the prequels often can't even distinguish whether the set they are talking about is digital or model work. It's why hearing all the complains about CGI is rather funny.

I would hardly call a large group of people who grew up with Star Wars to be whiny ass fanboys because the very nature of one of the main characters was flipped on it's head in a really half-assed way, or do consistently less-than-perfect CGI which people will notice, when a plastic costume or a rubber suit with some CGI finishing touches will work so much better. I mean sure, to someone who just watches Star Wars as another movie, these might seem to be nitpicks. But to people who want to get totally immersed in the SW universe, these things stand out like sore thumbs.

I find some of the puppets in the Old Star Wars movie to be fake as hell because of the plastic and rubbery texture. To me, having costumes and rubber suits doesn't make it any more realistic than a CGI monster/alien.



Take a look at some of the scenes people thought was CGI...

It's worst when an actor looks lost because he's acting against a green screen and performing a scene with a fucking mannequin instead of another live actor. Competent actors with competent directors can usually overcome that difficulty though.

Galvatron wrote:It's worst when an actor looks lost because he's acting against a green screen and performing a scene with a fucking mannequin instead of another live actor. Competent actors with competent directors can usually overcome that difficulty though.

The OT was full of green screen usage as well. They just model background and paintings instead of Digital sets.



Just a few more pics of physical sets/models used in the prequels:

People who complain about CGI in the prequels often can't even distinguish whether the set they are talking about is digital or model work. It's why hearing all the complains about CGI is rather funny.

Actually the complaints aren't about the sets. Most of the sets are fine. It's the living actors and characters that are problematic. Again with the example of the CGI clonetrooper bodies with human actor heads composited onto them. Or when Obi Wan gives Dex a hug and they CGI everything but his face. Or during the fight between Obi Wan / Anakin and Dooku in EP 3, the scene clearly jumps between live actors and CGI characters whenever a stunt is performed.

And I know it's a dead horse, but Han vs Greedo in the Cantina. That CGI is just horrible. Not only is the scene fine the way it was for dramatic and character purposes, it's quite clearly digitally hacked in addition to being thematically butchered.

Don't get me wrong way, I agree that there's plenty of good CGI and I also freely acknowledge that there are plenty of models and sets used. It's the cases where CGI has no business being used that are the ones people are complaining about.

Borgholio wrote:
Don't get me wrong way, I agree that there's plenty of good CGI and I also freely acknowledge that there are plenty of models and sets used. It's the cases where CGI has no business being used that are the ones people are complaining about.

Except they are not. I've read many complaints over the Mustafar scene when people do not even know it was shot with a scale model.

Except they are not. I've read many complaints over the Mustafar scene when people do not even know it was shot with a scale model.

I'd actually have to disagree with them on that one...the only issue I had with Mustafar was the fact they didn't get burned to a crisp at any point until Vader got his legs hacked off. It didn't look bad to me though visually.

Borgholio wrote:

Except they are not. I've read many complaints over the Mustafar scene when people do not even know it was shot with a scale model.

I'd actually have to disagree with them on that one...the only issue I had with Mustafar was the fact they didn't get burned to a crisp at any point until Vader got his legs hacked off. It didn't look bad to me though visually.

There's are segement of fans that wants to hate everything associated with the prequels. To them, every single scene is a bad one. One of them happens to be a writer for the new Star Wars movie.

There's are segement of fans that wants to hate everything associated with the prequels. To them, every single scene is a bad one. One of them happens to be a writer for the new Star Wars movie.

Yeah well we shouldn't be talking about those people. For most people who don't abhor the PT and who are willing to give Abrams a chance, they're not going to be THAT nitpicky. Even for me, the only issues I had with the PT were Anakin's whining, Jar Jar, the forced love scenes with Anakin and Padme, and the *Human* parts of the CGI. The sets actually were fine for me.

ray245 wrote:

Borgholio wrote:

Except they are not. I've read many complaints over the Mustafar scene when people do not even know it was shot with a scale model.

I'd actually have to disagree with them on that one...the only issue I had with Mustafar was the fact they didn't get burned to a crisp at any point until Vader got his legs hacked off. It didn't look bad to me though visually.

There's are segement of fans that wants to hate everything associated with the prequels. To them, every single scene is a bad one. One of them happens to be a writer for the new Star Wars movie.

Besides your rants about it, I'm unaware of this vitriol from JJ Abrams on the PT.

I think he thinks J.J. Abrams has contempt for the prequels because of those various articles noting how Disney is distancing themselves from the prequels. I think it's overstated a bit considering every single piece of "new" supplementary material from the comics, to the books, to the cartoons has some link to the prequel era.

I find some of the puppets in the Old Star Wars movie to be fake as hell because of the plastic and rubbery texture. To me, having costumes and rubber suits doesn't make it any more realistic than a CGI monster/alien.

The problem with CGI effects, IMO, is not their look, but their movements - it is often difficult to get a CGI character/creature to have the right sense of weight and interaction with their surroundings. Yes, many of the OT aliens looked silly, but because they were actually there on set, their costumes moved as they should, they impacted the ground in a realistic manner, (because they actually were touching/hitting it), and so on.

Another thing that's problematic are lights and shadows. It is very difficult to model those accurately in CG. There are methods such as raytracing etc. but really it's not on par with actually having a physical model in the room under the lights you are using. This is especially problematic if you are not just trying to create a realistic scene but to actually insert your CG into a real scene with real actors and effects. Than the problem becomes not just making it look good but accurately mimicking something that frankly can't be measured. I don't envy anyone who has to work on that.

biostem wrote:

I find some of the puppets in the Old Star Wars movie to be fake as hell because of the plastic and rubbery texture. To me, having costumes and rubber suits doesn't make it any more realistic than a CGI monster/alien.

The problem with CGI effects, IMO, is not their look, but their movements - it is often difficult to get a CGI character/creature to have the right sense of weight and interaction with their surroundings. Yes, many of the OT aliens looked silly, but because they were actually there on set, their costumes moved as they should, they impacted the ground in a realistic manner, (because they actually were touching/hitting it), and so on.

The Rancor scene looks horrible to me as a kid. At no point do I believe Luke was facing a huge Rancor and not a minature puppet. The movement looks like stop-animation even when it is not.

Suits and costumes have limitation when they have to simulate actual muscles as opposed to exoskeletons. I certainly don't believe there's any muscles under the skin of Admiral Ackbar compared to say, Jar Jar Binks. I will take the CGI Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park over all the puppet monsters in the old Star Wars any day.

I don't care whether they are actually on-set. If it looks like a rubber suit, it will always jump out to me as fake. Just because it is phyiscally there doesn't necessary increase my suspension of disbelief.

Another thing that's problematic are lights and shadows. It is very difficult to model those accurately in CG. There are methods such as raytracing etc. but really it's not on par with actually having a physical model in the room under the lights you are using. This is especially problematic if you are not just trying to create a realistic scene but to actually insert your CG into a real scene with real actors and effects. Than the problem becomes not just making it look good but accurately mimicking something that frankly can't be measured. I don't envy anyone who has to work on that.

CGI have a problem when some of the rendered image looks too "soft" compared to its surrounding.


To sum up my position, I will take bad CGI over bad puppets anytime of the day. Bad CGI still looks like they are trying to sell this off as a movie/show watchable for adults. Bad puppets just reminds me of another episode of Seasme Street. I would prefer bad CGI in Babylon 5 over sci-fi shows that used bad usage of model props in the old Star Trek because bad CGI still looks cooler than bad toy props.

You know what I hate about Mustafa?

Just one bit.

When they're balancing on the pipe, wobbling from side to side. For a moment, it almost looks like one might fall. (though u know they wont hehe).

And then a little robot flies into the screen, looks at each of them, makes a noise, and flies out again going "weewooweewooweewoo".

That, more than anything else, pisses me off about RotS. That single clip, that lasts 3 seconds maybe. It pisses me off.

That single thingy, in and of itself, sums up the prequels mixed with the special editions for me. Useless, needless CGI additions that serve nothing, look like shit and really distract.

There's that wonderful scene of padme and anakin looking at each other.




It's a wonderful scene, spoiled right at the end but the wiiirrr niiiirrr wiiir niiirrr of a CGI 3cpo (or maybe the read deal, i dont know, i dont care**) coming up. That noise was not needed. Have the character, but that NOISE!. Why??!!

Why have that dinosaur ... thing at mos eiseley in the SE?



It's not necessarily "CGI" in and of itself that's an issue in the PT.

I think the problem is "George... sometimes less is more."


that sums it up for me.


** is that a CGI 3p0? He kinda "slides" across.... his shadow doesn't look right.

I dunno.

Other than the floor and the window walls everything is fking CGI anyway. And if not CGI it just looks... fake.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:You know what I hate about Mustafa?

Just one bit.

When they're balancing on the pipe, wobbling from side to side. For a moment, it almost looks like one might fall. (though u know they wont hehe).

And then a little robot flies into the screen, looks at each of them, makes a noise, and flies out again going "weewooweewooweewoo".

That, more than anything else, pisses me off about RotS. That single clip, that lasts 3 seconds maybe. It pisses me off.

....

You mean the little robot Anakin rides a few seconds later? The one that needed setting up for that purpose?

If the worst sins you can lay at RotS door is some crude chekov gunning and a long establish sound effect for protocol droid movement... then I'd say it's doing pretty fucking well.

The Rancor scene looks horrible to me as a kid. At no point do I believe Luke was facing a huge Rancor and not a minature puppet. The movement looks like stop-animation even when it is not.

Suits and costumes have limitation when they have to simulate actual muscles as opposed to exoskeletons. I certainly don't believe there's any muscles under the skin of Admiral Ackbar compared to say, Jar Jar Binks. I will take the CGI Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park over all the puppet monsters in the old Star Wars any day.

I thought that the Rancor *was* stop motion... Regardless, a big part of the issue with how they looked was due to the limitations on compositing the various elements. That's why, in the original cut of TESB, you can see through the snow speeder cockpit in some parts.

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 1 were a combination of animatronics and CGI.

biostem wrote:

The Rancor scene looks horrible to me as a kid. At no point do I believe Luke was facing a huge Rancor and not a minature puppet. The movement looks like stop-animation even when it is not.

Suits and costumes have limitation when they have to simulate actual muscles as opposed to exoskeletons. I certainly don't believe there's any muscles under the skin of Admiral Ackbar compared to say, Jar Jar Binks. I will take the CGI Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park over all the puppet monsters in the old Star Wars any day.

I thought that the Rancor *was* stop motion... Regardless, a big part of the issue with how they looked was due to the limitations on compositing the various elements. That's why, in the original cut of TESB, you can see through the snow speeder cockpit in some parts.

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 1 were a combination of animatronics and CGI.

The Rancor scene was a handpuppet shot with very low amount of frames per second, apparently to give the impression that the Rancor is huge and had large impact on the ground it is walking on.

In Jurassic Park, even the dinosaurs that were purely CGI was much more believable than the Rancor scene.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:That, more than anything else, pisses me off about RotS. That single clip, that lasts 3 seconds maybe. It pisses me off.

That single thingy, in and of itself, sums up the prequels mixed with the special editions for me. Useless, needless CGI additions that serve nothing, look like shit and really distract.

Tell you what.

Tell us how you know that's CGI and not a composited miniature. Go on.

NecronLord wrote:

Prometheus Unbound wrote:That, more than anything else, pisses me off about RotS. That single clip, that lasts 3 seconds maybe. It pisses me off.

That single thingy, in and of itself, sums up the prequels mixed with the special editions for me. Useless, needless CGI additions that serve nothing, look like shit and really distract.

Tell you what.

Tell us how you know that's CGI and not a composited miniature. Go on.

I don't care whether it's CGI or a prop on a fishing line floating in the air - it's retarded.

Crazedwraith wrote: You mean the little robot Anakin rides a few seconds later?

No.

ray245 wrote:The Rancor scene was a handpuppet shot with very low amount of frames per second, apparently to give the impression that the Rancor is huge and had large impact on the ground it is walking on.

In Jurassic Park, even the dinosaurs that were purely CGI was much more believable than the Rancor scene.

Agreed. CG is fine if done well and not overused. What I don't about it is the temptation it gives filmmakers to jam-pack every scene with as much "stuff" as possible just because they have a small army of graphic artists who can add or delete them at will.



Note, I'm not saying that George Lucas is the only filmmaker guilty of this.

It's not about cgi but about what the director wanted to do. If it is cheap for him to build so many props that fills up the screen he would. If Peter Jackson could find 20,000 extras all suited in proper costumes cheaply, he would.

Most Sci Fi and fantasy directors are in the business because they want to show off as much stuff as they want. Cgi vs. Physical sets don't really play into this. It's why we have fans complaining about bad cgi even when the scene was actually model work.

I also feel the filmmakers should use whatever methods they deem as desirable. It is up to the discretion of the filmmakers to make these decisions. I am not a filmmaker. But if I was one and I decided to make a film based completely on CGI elements, do I have the freedom as an artist to choose this method? I believe I do.

If I was to start making a film tomorrow knowing how others feel about CGI that wouldn't sway my decision from utilizing as much CGI as I wanted. If it happened to be a lot of CGI, then so be it

I have always wondered when people make claims of "overuse of CGI" mean? Well first we have to be able to quantify what constitutes an overuse? And as far as "stuffing so much on screen" in the PT was a hefty combination of practical and CGI elements. Because if Lucas really did "go crazy" with CGI than all those sets, props, costumes, miniatures, models all seem to have been a waste of time to make if supposedly "everything was CGI" in the PT now wouldn't it?

See fans can complain about CGI till their blue in the face, but fact of the matter is CGI is here to stay. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon. CGI will be utilized in every film going forward. In the end it is the filmmakers choice what effects to utilize for whatever reason they choose. Some people will love it and some people will hate it. But that is how things go. I am one that believes that the artist should use any method of their choice regarding their art. Some fans seem to think they have a say in the matter. Doesn't work like that.

Andy Wylde wrote:I have always wondered when people make claims of "overuse of CGI" mean?

It's simple. A good artist needs to know not only what he wants to represent and how but when to stop. With real models each and every item is expensive and thus each and every one need to be calculated. This forces the artist to think carefully about what they are doing and makes sure that he usually stops in time. CGI, especially bad CGI is far cheaper. Thus a movie maker can far ore easily go beyond that line and into bad taste.

Purple wrote:

Andy Wylde wrote:I have always wondered when people make claims of "overuse of CGI" mean?

It's simple. A good artist needs to know not only what he wants to represent and how but when to stop. With real models each and every item is expensive and thus each and every one need to be calculated. This forces the artist to think carefully about what they are doing and makes sure that he usually stops in time. CGI, especially bad CGI is far cheaper. Thus a movie maker can far ore easily go beyond that line and into bad taste.

What is "bad CGI" in this context? So you are saying a movie maker can easily go beyond that line and into bad taste? Isn't this all subjective? If the filmmaker feels whatever method the choose best represents their vision, isn't that all that matters?