Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

Except a bad shot *isn't* just a bad shot. Some things take people out of a movie more than others, and the "thereness" of a character is high on the list. It takes an immense amount of work to make a CG element feel physically present in a way that is obviously inherent to practical effects and puppets. Certainly there are exceptions--E1 Yoda puppet looks terrible and Davey Jones looks absolutely incredible--but the plain fact is that most people's brains are more forgiving of a puppety puppet than a CG character looking "slotted in".

It's been 10 years since the last prequel was in production, there's been a lot of advancements since then. The primary issue with having CG feel part of the scene is lighting, and for the most part the high end CG houses have figured it out enough that a lot of people don't realize something is CG. The first Iron Man was 6 years ago, and even in that film there were scenes where people during production couldn't tell if a shot was using the practical suit footage or the CG model.

Today, it comes down to execution and planning. If they slam ILM with too many shots and not enough time (they have Avengers 2 and other work still to do), then you could very well end up with a bunch of average to sub-standard final shots. All I'm saying is that we're at the point where just because something is CG doesn't automatically mean it'll feel out of place and that it really isn't out of the norm or an exception these days for places like WETA or ILM to get something that looks and feels right.

 

[Interceptor]

Don´t get me wrong. CGI is fine if used properly. Lets hope Abrams brings the dirt back to Star Wars. The prequels looked way to clean. And bring back Ahsoka.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah. Puppets. That's what made Star Wars great. It wasn't the likeable characters, believable emotional responses and fast-paced adventure. It was the puppets.

 

[Warm Machine]

It seemed when I watched Mission Impossible, Super 8, and both Star Trek movies that JJ used an awful lot of CGI.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

SW nostalgia? So what you mean is go back to a time when technology was limited.

Not SW, but don't mistake puppets/animatronics as simple nostalgia pandering. They can be timeless and effective.

 

[Mighty Chin]

This is getting me pumped for Corner Gas: The Movie.

 

[WARP10CK]

Too bad the title a new hope is taken that should have been the title for this movie I am really hyped now ...... PUPPETS

 

[WyndhamPrice]

It seemed when I watched Mission Impossible, Super 8, and both Star Trek movies that JJ used an awful lot of CGI.

More of it's practical than you probably think, especially Star Trek.

And Super 8's CG was the creature and... the train crash? Parts of the train crash? That's pretty much it.

 

[Tobor]

SW nostalgia? So what you mean is go back to a time when technology was limited.

Yes! Limitations can be good. It forces ingenuity and problem solving and can make for a better movie.

Look at Jaws. The massive limitations imposed on Spielberg by the shark not working forced a rewrite and kept the sharks visibility to a minimum. This made for a far better movie.

If a movie like Jaws were made today, it would be filled with shots of a CGI shark doing flips and barrel rolls and all kinds of stupid shit just because they can.

 

[Shanks D Zoro]

Don´t get me wrong. CGI is fine if used properly. Lets hope Abrams brings the dirt back to Star Wars. The prequels looked way to clean. And bring back Ahsoka.

I liked the cleanness of the prequels. The cleanness shows a republic at the height of its power and glory just before its fall. It is a great place and age to live in. Where as the OT is dark and gritty when the empire and the dark side has cast a shadow over the galaxy. It is an age of despair and fascist conformism.

Spoiler

That is how I have always interpreted it

Not SW, but don't mistake puppets/animatronics as simple nostalgia pandering. They can be timeless and effective.

That is beautiful and always will remain so.

Yes! Limitations can be good. It forces ingenuity and problem solving and can make for a better movie.

Look at Jaws. The massive limitations imposed on Spielberg by the shark not working forced a rewrite and kept the sharks visibility to a minimum. This made for a far better movie.

If a movie like Jaws were made today, it would be filled with shots of a CGI shark doing flips and barrel rolls and all kinds of stupid shit just because they can.

That is more to do with the difference between a good director and a bad director.

 

[charsace]

Current CGI can look better than that puppet.

 

[phazedplasma]

Hilarious that everyone's expectations of this movie now hinge on a single puppet.

 

[Into]

There will still be CGI to enhance the puppet, lightning, add and erase a few issues, which is probably the best of both worlds.

CGI is not bad, its just that The Flanneled One took it to the extreme and had actors on green sets talk to ghosts in real life.

Peter Jackson used CGI for great effect for Gollum and now Smaug in the Hobbit films. Great achievements in films

 

[Norns]

You're an idiot if you think CG was the problem with the prequels and the "special editions" of the first 3 films.

With that said, I like practical effects.

 

[Spiritreaver]

Hilarious that everyone's expectations of this movie now hinge on a single puppet.

It's Star Wars every fan wants something different and none of them are going to get what they want.

 

[jtb]

it's too bad JJ Abrams is a terrible director who has zero understanding of what makes a good movie, let alone a good Star Wars movie.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

what do you guys not understand about this? Let us regain some hope for Star Wars. The last three movies drug our love of the franchise into the deepest sarlacc pit. At this point YES a fucking puppet is a big deal. Nobody is saying Star wars is saved because of puppets.

 

[Liamario]

You're an idiot if you think CG was the problem with the prequels and the "special editions" of the first 3 films.

With that said, I like practical effects.

The excessive CG was only part of the problem.

 

[Nerdkiller]

I liked the cleanness of the prequels. The cleanness shows a republic at the height of its power and glory just before its fall. It is a great place and age to live in. Where as the OT is dark and gritty when the empire and the dark side has cast a shadow over the galaxy. It is an age of despair and fascist conformism.

Spoiler

That is how I have always interpreted it

Yeah, I've always interpreted the Empire's designs as evoking fascist architecture, considering the rather simple designs of the TIE fighters and the Death Star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture

 

[Interceptor]

I liked the cleanness of the prequels. The cleanness shows a republic at the height of its power and glory just before its fall. It is a great place and age to live in. Where as the OT is dark and gritty when the empire and the dark side has cast a shadow over the galaxy. It is an age of despair and fascist conformism.

Spoiler

That is how I have always interpreted it

That is beautiful and always will remain so.



That is more to do with the difference between a good director and a bad director.

Even the mighty republic at its absolute peak doesn´t have to look like it was build 5 minutes ago.

 

[inky]

Movie will have tons of CGI. It's nice to see some neat puppets tho.

 

[subrock]

I'm almost as excited about the puppets as much a as I'm excited about the fact that they are on a fucking location. Hallelujah for sensibility!

it's too bad JJ Abrams is a terrible director who has zero understanding of what makes a good movie, let alone a good Star Wars movie.

Did you catch your mom cheating on your dad with JJ or something

 

[Jibbed]

People should probably consider the puppet's 'acting' in front of the camera for YouTube =/= the quality of acting, positioning of cameras, whether it's a background or foreground character etc. I could go on.

Get a grip.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

It looked good.

Wow Star Wars is filming right now guys! I have to imagine that so many model makers, puppeteers, choreographers are living a lifelong dream right now.

A dude I knew from school made Darth Vaders helmet and outfit for the prequels. Hope he's in on this one.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Not SW, but don't mistake puppets/animatronics as simple nostalgia pandering. They can be timeless and effective.

You do realize several scenes of the T-Rex and other dinosaurs were fully CG right?

More of it's practical than you probably think, especially Star Trek.

The Star Trek films had a lot of practical effects and sets, but it had a LOT of CG as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzZAL7JHh2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_36xOkTZb0

And even the scenes primarily shot on set had a bunch of digital alterations done to them in post-production.

And Super 8's CG was the creature and... the train crash? Parts of the train crash? That's pretty much it.

A lot more than that for Super 8. A bunch of the train shots before the crash, a bunch of stuff in the crash investigation scene i.e. helicopters, a lot of the destruction scenes in town, the spaceship bit at the end (every single piece of junk that flew around towards the water tower was CG), even some of the town shots from a distance had a bunch of digital effects and CG.

 

[Warm Machine]

More of it's practical than you probably think, especially Star Trek.

And Super 8's CG was the creature and... the train crash? Parts of the train crash? That's pretty much it.

Same with the Star Wars 1-3. Loads of practicals. It doesn't change the film. In so far as restraint, did the crash at the end of Into Darkness show restraint?

JJ knows how to put these kinds of movies together. You are fooling yourselves if you think this is any kind of sign. It looks like the misc puppet work in the background shots of Phantom Menace.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

You do realize several scenes of the T-Rex and other dinosaurs were fully CG right?

Trust me, it's JP, I realize. :lol

I am all for CG. As well as puppets/animatronics. I'm not arguing against CG, I am simply saying seeing a puppet made me happy.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I love it! I'll throw in $10 for a chance.

 

[charsace]

With good shot references CG will look better than puppets every time.

Look at the new Robocop for example. Most of the suit scenes are CG. At times when the visor is down even the face is CG. It looked real most of the time. Only when there wasn't a real world reference for something did the CG stand out as CG.

 

[BumbleB]

I think any rational person expects any big budgeted film in 2014 and beyond to leverage CG. Understanding that, some of you just need to understand that many of us here are very pleased to see on location sets, and puppets in some form. A blend of old and new, and at its surface level its makes it believable that this SW film is learning from past mistakes.

 

[munchie64]

Can't people just feel the way they want to feel about this film? Be it excited as hell (like me) or cautiously optimistic or nothing or whatever.

Anyway this whole argument is taking away from the point which is giving money to charity and a chance to be in Star Wars. A chance to be in fricken Star Wars guys. I'm pumped

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

With good shot references CG will look better than puppets every time.

Look at the new Robocop for example. Most of the suit scenes are CG. At times when the visor is down even the face is CG. It looked real most of the time. Only when there wasn't a real world reference for something did the CG stand out as CG.

It works really well for armor / hidden faces. Clone troopers, Iron Man, etc.

 

[Davey Cakes]

With good shot references CG will look better than puppets every time.

Look at the new Robocop for example. Most of the suit scenes are CG. At times when the visor is down even the face is CG. It looked real most of the time. Only when there wasn't a real world reference for something did the CG stand out as CG.

For me it's less about "how it looks" and more about "how it feels."

Interactions with non-CG elements will always be more convincing to me and will make me feel more like they're "actually happening."

That's just the way it is. I don't just want to watch movies. I want to experience them and be drawn in by them. Physical, practical things help with that greatly.

 

[Messypandas]

The hoodie dude was throwing some dehumanising stares at the camera. Might be some important character they're teasing like that as a joke?

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

I love how JJ and the alien have the same face here:

 

[zma1013]

I can't believe they shoot on location in a galaxy far, far away. That must be hella expensive.

 

[Carcetti]

For me it's less about "how it looks" and more about "how it feels."

Interactions with non-CG elements will always be more convincing to me and will make me feel more like they're "actually happening."

That's just the way it is. I don't just want to watch movies. I want to experience them and be drawn in by them. Physical, practical things help with that greatly.

Practical effects always have a sense of 'realness' unlike CGI. Nothing has ever beat Carpenter's Thing in creature features. Same goes for sets. The world of the prequels never felt real. It was just computer game scenery.

 

[pyrealnova]

Hmm...I want to go with the $100 donation/t-shirt pack, but there's nowhere to select your size. I'm all for donating $100 for the cause but I'd rather not end up with a typical XL promo shirt that I'll never wear.

 

[Zen]

The prequels had extensive amounts of prosthetic make-up, sets, miniatures, animatronics, and practical effects mixed in with the CG. But you'll never be able to change the now established narrative that they were nothing but CG tech demos.

Because the CG was so prevalent, poorly emphasized, and so many scenes noticeably took place in crappy green screen rooms.

The problem is that they were CG tech demoes. They put the CG front and center at the expense of other elements, and the CG was not even that good (because of how it was used it was often very obvious that actors were acting against green screens etc).

The established narrative is true and exists for a reason.

For me it's less about "how it looks" and more about "how it feels."

Interactions with non-CG elements will always be more convincing to me and will make me feel more like they're "actually happening."

That's just the way it is. I don't just want to watch movies. I want to experience them and be drawn in by them. Physical, practical things help with that greatly.

One of the benefits of practical is that your object is actually a part of the shot with 100% authentic interaction when it comes to all the lighting etc. One of those, you might not have noticed, but your brain did, things.

 

[Grym]

Hell yeah I'll donate $10 for a chance to be in the biggest theatrical disappointment since The Phantom Menace!!!

Spoiler

seeing puppets/practical effects is a small bit encouraging at the very least

 

[vagabondarts]

Star wars: Episode VII: The Dark Crystal

Awesome.

Love puppets and practical effects in general.
CGI doesn't age well at all.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Practical effects always have a sense of 'realness' unlike CGI.

I've seen a film exec take a look at a shot of a robot and complain about the reflections and how out of place it looked in the scene. It was reference footage of a practical model.

The mind sees what it wants to see.

Because the CG was so prevalent, poorly emphasized, and so many of the seen took place in crappy green screen rooms.

The problem is that they were CG tech demoes, they put the CG so front and center at the expense of other elements, and the CG was not even that good (because of how it was used it was often very obvious that actors were acting against green screens etc).

The real problem was a combination of not enough bandwidth (too many shots to give each one enough time to iterate on given the schedule given) and directorial discretion (even if the CG guys think a shot can be improved, if it's good enough for the director it'll be marked final).

 

[Stinkles]

Looks like The Prophet of Truth.

 

[Zen]

I've seen a film exec take a look at a shot of a robot and complain about the reflections and how out of place it looked in the scene. It was reference footage of a practical model.

The mind sees what it wants to see.

Tell that to The Thing. People can be fooled sure, but no one mistook the CG in the PT for anything but, and an over reliance on CG in 2014 is still going to stick out as such if they were going to go the PT route. They are smart, and they are not, because they know it is not realistic.

And reference shots usually have *unnatural lighting*.

 

[sn00zer]

PUPPETS....my goodness if they are using more practical effects

 

[Halcyon]

I'm fully expecting this to be gritty as all hell and an extension of a New Hope. I don't think JJ is unaware of the backlash that the prequels brought.

In the end though it's going to come down to good writing, interesting story, and good characters.

I have no faith that harrison ford will give a crap about the movie though and will ruin han solo for everyone.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Looks like The Prophet of Truth.

Omg. :lol

 

[zma1013]

I have no faith that harrison ford will give a crap about the movie though and will ruin han solo for everyone.

I think the saving grace here is that old Harrison Ford is exactly what I'd imagine old Han Solo being like. It's just going to be coincidentally perfect.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Tell that to The Thing. People can be fooled sure, but no one mistook the CG in the PT for anything but, and an over reliance on CG in 2014 is still going to stick out as such if they were going to go the PT route. They are smart, and they are not, because they know it is not realistic.

Poor execution does not equate into "they're using CG, it will obviously look fake no matter what."

We ARE to the point where the CG can be seamless. The question is, will they allow enough time and resources to actually make it happen? It's no different than practical effect considerations. If they poorly plan and budget that out, even practical stuff can look jarring and out of place. After what I saw at ILM when I was there for the past 5 years, we're at the same point with CG.

And reference shots usually have *unnatural lighting*.

Not when the purpose of the particular shot is to display the exact lighting conditions they want to recreate in the final render.

 

[Halcyon]

I think the saving grace here is that old Harrison Ford is exactly what I'd imagine old Han Solo being like. It's just going to be coincidentally perfect.

I hadn't thought of that. He's beaten down and has to look at carrie fisher all day.