CGI in TFA

I don't know many who have much quibble with the effects of TPM but also that models for the flight in space battles just won't cut it in 2016. It was really the over use of green screen in AOTC & ROTS that turned people off. When the background is CG & the character is CG too, it begins to look very fake and cartoony. As said above TFA combined practical & CGI superbly - infact the only sub-par CGI work was when the characters were fully CGI like Snoke & the Rathtars.

 

I found CGI the MAGIC TOUCH that take you FAR FAR AWAY.You must ONLY believe what you see is TRUE in the movie and without CGI the MAGIC in ANY movie is GONE.Just enjoy it.Is TODAY reality.

 

lol that guy Kylorey says that right now but let's see how he feels about the CGI and VFX in TFA 10+ years from now.

FYI: Why some people (actually, to put it appropriately, armchair filmmaker-minded cinephiles that talk as if they're experts in moviemaking but are really just nerds on stupid amounts of nerdrage and posers who are obsessively nitpicky like they have nothing else better to do instead of just shutting off their motors and making themselves get entertained) on here feel that the "dated" argument is good and works in their favor is beyond me as it really is a weak and baseless argument as EVERY movie also gets dated no matter the effects used (it's really a "grasping for straws" type of argument and these people also seem to have an agenda in their arguments). It's just natural for that to happen to movies as they get older and moviemaking techniques advance as the years go on (this includes the OT movies as well even if their rose-tinted OT fanboy purist glasses continue to make them be in denials) but hey, I can still like old movies and still find enjoyment out of them even if their age is showing. I guess some people don't understand that movies are static. As for TFA, the fact that it benefits from advanced moviemaking techniques from recent times compared to technology that was available 10+ years ago says more than anything else.

P.S. Also, there's nothing wrong with using digital cameras instead of film (like what the upcoming World of Worldcraft movie is utilizing).

P.S.S. TPM and AOTC both got Oscar nominations for visual effects (personally, why ROTS wasn't nominated in 2006 in this same category is beyond me (I fell like they got snubbed) but that's just my opinion; they did get nominated (and win) for that type of award from other award agencies however). Yes, I know that they didn't won them but the fact remains that they were nominated which says a lot about how the VFX in those movies were highly regarded by many people in the film industry during their respective times (they did win similar types of awards from other award agencies however). The haters seem to have forgotten this tidbit (conveniently might I add *cough* agenda *cough*) but I'm speaking facts after all that can be looked up.

 

It would be coo to see the video of the practical effects .

 

Alot of miniatures and sets are build for AOTC and ROTS. Real locations are also used. Difference is in age.
CGI evolves every year. 17 years old CGI will not look the same as CGI from 2015.

AOTC







ROTS







TFA

 

The sets in 2015 can look real while being entirely digital but it would have been harder in 2001.

 

You gota be kidding.
If you want to be really generous you could bring up Jar Jar as revolutionary, but to say that the prequels are ground zero for modern CGI when alot of TPM was practical and ATOC was released half a year after the truly groundbreaking Fellowship of the Ring (which established the effects company that did most of the important innovating in the last decade) is just downright forgetful of cinema history.

PS
As a sidenote I still remember what I was truly amazed by.
Our local cinema prides itself in keeping up to date and it just so happened that the film I saw after FOTR (in glorious 35mm) was indeed ATOC - in all its
1080p glory, projected on a 25m screen no less.
That was dazzling. And innovative.... in a way.
Hey at least 12 years later we now have the first digital camera to have comparable definition and
close enough colour tonality to 35mm film in the Alexa 65.

 

RED just released one, too .

 

The biggest mistake of the CGI use in the prequels is highlighted by the clone troopers in Episode II and III and sets that were fully CGI.
Would it have been too hard/expensive to make even a few suits of armour?
How about dropping Padme onto a real pile of sand?

 

Sand is expensive and also course and rough.

 

The strangest thing about the CGI video is that they used CGI for Kylo's mask in that scene. Why?

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 15, 2016 ---

Can't argue with that That's what the expert said on Naboo

 

Until this video was released, no one would have known the difference - I certainly didn't. Tells ya how far the technology has come and how well it was used in this film. That said, I think it's awesome we get a look here at Kylo's emotions in that scene without the mask.. makes ya wonder if they should have had him masked at all! Part of what made Kylo Ren's character so fascinating was his emotional and internal struggle, something I think Adam Driver did an incredible job of portraying to the audience.

And I'm not going to slam the prequels, they still tell an important story. But as someone who grew up on the originals I can tell you the feeling sitting in that theater for TFA on opening night was night and day compared to my feeling walking out of TPM. A tale of two extreme's lol

 

Havent you watched the clip I posted? Its not the same thing. Watch Matrix from 1999 or Fellowship of the Ring from 2001 or Two Towers from the same year as Aotc. Those movies were indeed groundbraking and hold up till today. Aotc and Rots look cringeworthy (Tpm not though! Imo that movie has a great visual style). The Cg enviroment is so emphatically fake it just hooks you out of the movie. Even Poor Natalie Portman's mentioned those greenscreen monstrosities almost ruined her career. Thankfully Hollywood gave her another chance.
In TFA the CGI dosent hook you out of the scene. Maybe except the rathtar chasing. But outside that its perfectly balanced between the real sets and practical effects. Old Star Wars and new technology in harmony. Great achievement by JJ and his team.

 

How many scenes GL could do better in his time, speaking about visuals only. And only about TFM.

 

The bigger question.... why did they film that scene without the mask?
Was Kylo originally going to be unmasked earlier in the film?

It blows my mind that it's CG though.
It's practically indistinguishable from the real thing.

 

Yeah, visuals are stunning no matter cgi or not. Progress))

 

I completely agree with you. I actually thought Snoke looked bad as a hologram so If they use that quality of cgi for him in the flesh it won't look convincing. I don't know why they didn't put Lupita and Serkis in makeup and prosthetics for their roles. I know Andy Serkis said Snoke's bone structure is extreme (paraphrasing) but I don't agree. I thought he looked virtually human anyway. As for maz they could have shrunk Lupita like how they made the hobbits looked smaller in lord of the rings. As every other creature was someone in a suit and in makeup it made Snoke and maz really stand out and not in a good way.

 

Jesus stops weeping. Deep breath. Sighs. Grabs tissue. Blows nose.

 

REALLY???

I thought BB8 was able to spin the walls in the Falcon corridor and stuck those cables. Shame on Abrams! If the droid wasn't able to do so, they could have spinned the corridor instead of him... but no! CGI.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 15, 2016 ---

No, the difference is not in age. The difference is the overuse.

TPM looked great:










The rest didn't:

 

You've got it, I think they switched things around a bit and felt the reveal of Kylos face for the first time would have more impact in the Rey interrogation so went back and digitally altered what they already shot.