Star Wars: Force for Change - A Message from J.J. Abrams

Status
Not open for further replies.
hachi said:
ignegtMwiBIMF.gif


So much better than CGI. There is hope.
Click to expand...
That looks so right! I'm glad they're not relying on CG for every little thing this time.
 
Guy.brush said:
To the contrary. My job is in CG.

But if you promise to go oldschool in a message directly to the audience of the original trilogy and then the very first frame of the movie is a CG animal...
The whole movie just had the same fake sheen and shine as ROTS. Just too much compositing and trying to get away with tinkering.
For a movie that tries to be a successor to RAIDERS that is a sacrileg imo.
Click to expand...

Abrams never promised anything for Ep7 so you're set.
 
Guy.brush said:
It's also easier when you still have like a 80% physical set where you can place your silver ball in, take a HDR sphere image and then use the accurate on set lighting to light your CG creatures.
On Ep2 and Ep3 that opportunity got less and less.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything was really generated from that silver ball. I'm not even sure they had that for Episode 1. I think much of the light was hand done with point lights. Ep 1 has some shockingly good creature lighting for the time. When they meet Watto for the first time and he is underlit from the panel on the desk it looks damn good. Same as when Jar Jar is in the sub and the lights in it dim down and it is all matched in beautifully.

Here is a good timeline of effects tech for CG

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/ben-snow-the-evolution-of-ilm-lighting-tools/

Seems like Ambient Occlusion was first used in Pear Harbour in 2001. It might not have even been used in Attack of the Clones given the volume of shots. HDR seems like it was first used on Hulk.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
Which is what I'm advocating. When CG is effectively used in the right place, it doesn't stand out as CG. And there have been a lot of instances where people saw something on film and they didn't realize it was all CG, i.e. most of New York City in Avengers.

It's the "no CG at all costs, everything must be practical" camp that I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with you there. CG has some great uses, same with practical effects.
 
Warm Machine said:
I don't think anything was really generated from that silver ball. I'm not even sure they had that for Episode 1. I think much of the light was hand done with point lights. Ep 1 has some shockingly good creature lighting for the time. When they meet Watto for the first time and he is underlit from the panel on the desk it looks damn good. Same as when Jar Jar is in the sub and the lights in it dim down and it is all matched in beautifully.

Here is a good timeline of effects tech for CG

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/ben-snow-the-evolution-of-ilm-lighting-tools/

Seems like Ambient Occlusion was first used in Pear Harbour in 2001. It might not have even been used in Attack of the Clones given the volume of shots. HDR seems like it was first used on Hulk.
Click to expand...

I remember John Knoll (VFX supervisor for Ep1-Ep3, senior ILM guy) being featured in several making ofs about AOTC or even TPM. He was the one running around with the silver and grey ball to create HDRIs, measure the set, etc... Some of them even made it to VR quicktime for the fans.
And he was definitely doing this for lighting. It could be that they matched it by hand in 1998 for TPM but AOTC should have had the HDR stuff already being used.
But then, there weren't that many physical sets that could have used that procedure anyway :P
 
Guy.brush said:
I remember John Knoll (VFX supervisor for Ep1-Ep3, senior ILM guy) being featured in several making ofs about AOTC or even TPM. He was the one running around with the silver and grey ball to create HDRIs, measure the set, etc... Some of them even made it to VR quicktime for the fans.
And he was definitely doing this for lighting. It could be that they matched it by hand in 1998 for TPM but AOTC should have had the HDR stuff already being used.
But then, there weren't that many physical sets that could have used that procedure anyway :P
Click to expand...

They could simply render the ball from the CGI set or put a mini ball in the model they used. And they used a ton of models.
 
Could be.
I always thought the prequels were doing too much too soon anyway.
The same supervisor did such a perfect job for the Pirates movies. It feels like photoreal CG where basically 100% of the frame is created was not achieved before 2005/2006.
ROTS was the first one that felt on a new level. Davy Jones was that new level.
 
Guy.brush said:
Could be.
I always thought the prequels were doing too much too soon anyway.
The same supervisor did such a perfect job for the Pirates movies. It feels like photoreal CG where basically 100% of the frame is created was not achieved before 2005/2006.
ROTS was the first one that felt on a new level. Davy Jones was that new level.
Click to expand...

Visually ROTS was definitely an improvement in CG over Ep2. Episode 2 backgrounds look fake most of the time on Geonosis.
 
Don't practical effects make better sense for our 4k (and possibly 8K) future?

Modern CGI isn't future proofed for 4K. From what I've seen, they aren't rendered that well when shown on a 4K screen.

Couldn't practical effects, puppets and the like, make better sense for 4K content?
 
Digital-Hero said:
Visually ROTS was definitely an improvement in CG over Ep2. Episode 2 backgrounds look fake most of the time on Geonosis.
Click to expand...

That is 90% models and digital mattes though.

AOTC6_zps612992b2.jpg


phkq3z47.jpg


EP2_2_1.jpg


EP2_2_3.jpg


StarWarsEp1_Dennis_Muren_400.jpg


image11.jpg


JCreasy said:
Don't practical effects make better sense for our 4k (and possibly 8K) future?

Modern CGI isn't future proofed for 4K. From what I've seen, they aren't rendered that well when shown on a 4K screen.

Couldn't practical effects, puppets and the like, make better sense for 4K content?
Click to expand...


Every movie you have seen in the last 5 years of so has been having their effects rendered out at 4k. It is already here.
 
I like how no one can tell the difference when models or CGI are used. Every time someone in this thread is like "The CGI in this scene sucks" someone else has a behind the scenes shot of them working with models and physical sets.
 
PeskyToaster said:
I like how no one can tell the difference when models or CGI are used. Every time someone in this thread is like "The CGI in this scene sucks" someone else has a behind the scenes shot of them working with models and physical sets.
Click to expand...

It's the single funniest thing about prequel bashing. Never gets old.
 
PeskyToaster said:
I like how no one can tell the difference when models or CGI are used. Every time someone in this thread is like "The CGI in this scene sucks" someone else has a behind the scenes shot of them working with models and physical sets.
Click to expand...

So it might not be the CGI people don't like, maybe the overall art style?
 
Those are some good intentions, although it looks kind of stupid there. Could look much better on screen of course.

Now, if JJ used models for the spaceships I'd build a shrine in his honor. It's not happening but I can dream.
 
It'll probably be in the background of a 5-second shot.

I'm not the biggest fan of Abrams, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. This is more about showing his intentions than anything.
 
Snake said:
Those are some good intentions, although it looks kind of stupid there. Could look much better on screen of course.

Now, if JJ used models for the spaceships I'd build a shrine in his honor. It's not happening but I can dream.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you that he will use models. CG models.

In fact, I bet he will use a combination of both CG sets/models and practical/miniature sets/models just like GL did for Episode 1, 2 and 3.
 
Guys don't you remember Mystery Science Theater 3000, if it has feet it's a costume, otherwise it's a puppet.
 
Puppeteers/Animatronics>CGI

Yeah that's right i like it more and also use CGI when needed..i do like this though getting that Dark Crystal feeling all over again.
 
Monocle said:
That looks so right! I'm glad they're not relying on CG for every little thing this time.
Click to expand...

Amen brother,

I re-warched the prequels with my wife last week (she never saw the prequels before), and they sure sucked, all the CGI looks so fake that I just can't stand them.
 
I tend to find modern CGI more convincing. Better materials, more animated, more variation, et cetera. That puppet looks like a puppet.

My mother used to swear that certain CGI effects were real. The nature shots in Cars, Aslan in Narnia, she was convinced that there are some things you just can't fake.

I think some people have the opposite problem. You see something so convincing that you know it couldn't have been done by a puppet or anything in real life, so you automatically know it was CG. That's not bad CGI, it's just something you know is fantasy.

Looking at the puppet, it looks like a puppet. Not like an alien, not a living thing, but a puppet. And that bothers me.
 
Warm Machine said:
That is 90% models and digital mattes though.

Every movie you have seen in the last 5 years of so has been having their effects rendered out at 4k. It is already here.
Click to expand...
The issue with episode 2 wasn't entirely CGI per se(although the CGI characters looked awful), but the extreme overuse of greenscreen and lack of full-scale physical sets, combined with the primitive digital camera. It gives the whole movie a ridiculously cheap look. TPM looks substantially better just from using film.
 
CloudWolf said:
I like puppets/practical effects as much as everyone, but this seriously doesn't look very good for today's standards IMO. It looks like it belongs in a Jim Henson production from the 90's.
Click to expand...

I would definitely take that over CG, so that's okay by me. I still rewatch Dark Cystal quite a bit. Although, that is from the beginning of the 80's.

Plus, animatronics have gotten better. I am sure that character will look amazing in the film.
 
I just want puppeteers to have a place in hollywood again. The way that creature moved was really well done, and it moved like it should move. I dislike when an old looking character moves nothing like an old character. It's boring to me when many different creatures/characters, big, small, young, or old all move the same way.
 
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this is a quick promo video, not the movie itself.

Once you consider that this thing will likely be part of the background of some shot and will be subjected to different lighting, colour-grading and if necessary - CG touchups, it won't stand out as 'obviously a puppet' nearly as much as it does now.

JJ is one of the few tentpole directors working today that fucking knows how to blend practical and digital effects seamlessly.

This isn't Joss Whedon or Matthew Vaughn.
 
Scullibundo said:
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this is a quick promo video, not the movie itself.

Once you consider that this thing will likely be part of the background of some shot and will be subjected to different lighting, colour-grading and if necessary - CG touchups, it won't stand out as 'obviously a puppet' nearly as much as it does now.

JJ is one of the few tentpole directors working today that fucking knows how to blend practical and digital effects seamlessly.

This isn't Joss Whedon or Matthew Vaughn.
Click to expand...

Can you share more about this? I'm interested in how CGI can enhance puppets like this.

Are they any examples you can share?
 
JCreasy said:
Can you share more about this? I'm interested in how CGI can enhance puppets like this.

Are they any examples you can share?
Click to expand...

Teddy from Artificial Intelligence is a good one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9aZiQqQ84

Animatronic puppet, but if they wanted him to emote a certain way (like blinking or glowering for effect) or even tweak the way he's walking, alter the lighting, they would do it in post. Some of the best character creations have been a blend between practical and CG. All the way back to Jurassic Park's T-Rex. It works better because for the CG parts, they have a real figure with real movements and real lighting to match to.
 
PeskyToaster said:
I like how no one can tell the difference when models or CGI are used. Every time someone in this thread is like "The CGI in this scene sucks" someone else has a behind the scenes shot of them working with models and physical sets.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really matter though. Shit scenes are still shit scenes.
 
DiipuSurotu said:
That doesn't really matter though. Shit scenes are still shit scenes.
Click to expand...

That's the point.

Puppets do not make a movie good.

CGI does not make a movie bad.

People who say or imply these things are stupid and dumb and need to stop.

Good movies make good movies and bad movies make bad movies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Disney removes Star Wars from 2026
2 3
148
9K
Interfectum replied
Andor S2 |OT| Remember Star Wars?
2
60
289
Mattyp replied
Star Wars Maul shadow lord annonced
38
2K
spookyfish replied
John Boyega attacks Stars Wars fans for not wanting him as a hero
2 3 4 5
237
10K
tkscz replied
Star Wars: Starfighter comes to theaters on May 28, 2027, directed by Shawn Levy and starring Ryan Gosling
2
61
2K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Top Bottom