CGI in TFA

I honestly don't see what's wrong with the latter three pictures; they look decent/fine to me (and even better when looking at it in HD on blu-ray).

And I disagree; the difference is age.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2016 ---

Sorry but ILM was and still is the top dog in innovation, not WETA (both this decade and the last decade). Case in point: they work the effects on many modern movies and movies from the last decade, including all the MCU movies that have come out.

Oh, and I think FOTR looks crappier and worse today than AOTC (in my opinion). I think this says a lot about the high regards the VFX in AOTC received at that time (yes, AOTC didn't win it but still, the fact of the matter is that it was recognize positively during that time; that says a lot about the VFX's positive qualities in that movie on things such as innovation and groundbreaking): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_Academy_Awards#Awards

And digital filming is groundbreaking and innovative.

 

meh... no metter how you look those "naboo cows" (I don't really know what those things are xD ), they move in a weird way and it doesn't seem at all that anakin is on one of them, you can clearly tell that's fake, and the last one on kamino looks more like a videogame than a movie to me

edit: at the time obviously that CGI was great and groundbreaking, but they didn't understand its limits and overused it in some scens that they could have just eliminate (i.e. naboo cows xD )

 

I'll break it down for you.

First, you need to understand that designs for the characters were not finalised until the last month of shooting. In fact, they initially wanted to make Maz a puppet, but because the film was rushed into production, they ran out of time to plan all the puppeteering needed to accomplish that.

Now, beginning with Maz. The most obvious thing that would make Maz impossible to implement through prosthetics, are the arms.
Maz's arms are freakishly long. The average person's finger tips will come down to about mid-thigh when they stand straight. With Maz, her finger tips reach down to her knees. Without even getting into the face, that already makes an actor portrayal impossible.

What about Snoke? The VFX breakdown shows a lot of footage that makes it rather obvious, providing lit renders of the sculpt, and non-final renders of the scene that really help you to see the design.
Overall, Snoke's head is both thinner, with a very narrow chin an jawline, as well as a smaller and majorly deformed nose. Clearly, you cannot make create that with makeup and prosthetics. On top of that, Snoke is essentially a more extreme version of The Dark Knight Harvey Dent (which was a CGI effect), with exposed muscles and tendons all the way down to his collarbone, as well as further skeletal deformation. The cheek bone on his left side of his face is practically gone below his eye, and whatever trauma caused this has resulted in the left eye sitting deeper into his head, further apart than eyes normally are, and at an unusual angle.
There is no way they could have used prosthetics to make a character matching Snoke's appearance.

 

Don't forget Jurassic Park.

 

No she didn't; all that she's mentioned is that it was a challenge (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/natalie-portman-sounds-israel-netanyahu-793425) but hey, as an actor in Hollywood, if you're not being challenged, you're not doing something right and you probably have no business being in Hollywood (after all, having challenges makes one a better actor). Acting isn't suppose to be easy and filming for any SW film is just like filming for any other movie out there, there will be challenges, complications, stress, etc, it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Stop reading those click-bait articles from click-bait sites such as MoviePilot and CinemaBlend where they do these attempts of "reading between the lines" where there most likely is nothing to read into at all (these type of websites are nothing but non-credible trash).

Besides, that work she did in the PT probably helped her in future effects-heavy movies such as the two Thor movies she's been in.

 

With all conciderable wiggle room given I think those comments are self-discrediting to a certain degree.
And just claiming that something is "top dog" doesn't make it so - I can rattle of a plethora of smaller effects companies that worked and work on many major motion pictures; that doesn't translate to them being innovative or even competetive with the cutting edge of whats feasible.
Compare Gollum to Jar Jar or Yoda in the PT or Weta's most recent digital creations to Maz, Snoke or the Rathars (as much as I love TFA those effects are
not only not pushing the boundary, they actually look worse then some contemporary CGI).
Or compare the split workload and output of Weta and ILM in Avatar. I can actually tell the difference on screen and did so before I knew for certain (as did indeed many interested in the craft).

As for digital cinema I wasn't being ironic. Just sometimes innovation isn't ready for the world just yet.
If you allow the assumption that ATOC ushered in the age of digital film due to its prominance you must also allow the assumption that its technical inferiority might have actually retarded the use of digital photography in turn. Its an impossible argument without concrete data - which is at his point all but obscure.

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

Of course that was groundbreaking. As were countless other ILM contributions. I specifically meant the PT and its historic place in effects history.
I'm not saying they didn't have great effects mind you - TPM ironically is incredible from a blended practical/CGI effects standpoint, apart from the obvious of course.

 

1. This is a lot of hardcore cinephile talk that you average moviegoer doesn't actually discuss and can't really decipher with their naked eye (and quite frankly don't really care to discuss as long as things look decent; mostly cinephile nerds that are a part of this contentious "geek culture" movement).

2. "Yoda in the PT" Well, even today there is A LOT of Yoda merchandise with his PT look and his green lightsaber (and as the old saying goes, they wouldn't make it if they know it wouldn't sell). Last time I checked I didn't see any Gollum merchanise in the stores despite this alleged "realistic" look that you claim he has.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_Academy_Awards#Awards

4. You contradict yourself in that last paragraph of yours and to be honest, it's unclear and muddled and overall a weak argument you tried to present.

5. If you feel that ILM, the effects company that GL put a lot of heart and sweat into building up since the 1970's, play's second fiddle and in VFX and isn't the top dog, then sorry but you've got no business being a fan of any movies that ILM worked on. ILM was and still is the best. Period. You disagree with this and you might as well check into the nearest mental facility because nobody, and I mean nobody, ever badmouths ILM and gets away with it.

 

They did indeed - couldn't adore the two companies more for what they are achieving.

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

1. So you are saying the argument you yourself are indulging is a waste of your time? Don't seek refuge in a hollow sense of majority - we are talking specifics here, based on merrits and demerrits.

2. I wasn't talking about a "realistic look" or merchandise success (which has to do with the innovation of CGI in what way?) - I'm stating he is rightfully seen as a watershed effect (in large part due to motion capture) and furthermore said that the PT featured no such innovation breakthrough with the possible exception of Jar Jar.

3. Don't seek refuge in a hollow sense of majority or argument from authority - we are talking specifics here, based on merrits and demerrits.

4.Its binary logic. If you want to give a film points for pioneering a new technology you must allow for the possibility that the poor results of that developing technology retarded the acceptance of the same.

5.I don't feel anything towards ILM or Weta than admiration and curiosity. I don't accept or entertain notions of rank or hirarchy when it comes to arbitrary parameters.
I was talking innovation in a specific timeframe - the rest is your projection.
I'm going to ignore those last remarks for the sake of not being yet more condescending.

 

They still revealed too much of his face in my opinion. It would have been more effective to express his insecurities through body language and voice alone.

No one knew what those characters were supposed to look like so they didn't need to design those characters in a way that you could only bring to life through cgi and motion capturing. They could have designed them in a way where they could have created those characters practically like unkar plutt. As soon as I heard they were going to mix mocap with people in suits and makeup I knew it would be unlikely they would be able to pull it off seamlessly and I was right. Cgi is still not at a stage where you can create a perfectly life like character. Also I've seen better in films like the new planet of the ape films. Cgi works better in cases like the Bear in the revenant where it's an animal for one, not a talking humanoid creature and it's edited in a way where you don't see the whole thing clearly and completely.

 

Well, I will go there (but on you):

All this pretty much makes you should like a pretentious person (probably a hipster that likes to got to art shows and go to coffee shops and be on your laptop working on some "novel" that probably very few will end up reading, all while sipping on a latte with the pinky raised in the air while holding said latte) who's always has to feel like they have to play the contrarian card felling like you are all "educated" and whatnot. You're still not winning this argument one bit as your arguments are both weak and illogical (especially this "binary logic" argument you tried to play; I studied math in college, and I know logic, and when some liberal arts-minded person like yourself tries to argue with a math person where logic comes into play, you're most certainly going to lose).

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2016 ---

Funny how some people still vilify CGI and VFX despite that it is being used in movies that are mean to be SCI-FI and FANTASY, in the GFFA (it other words, SW isn't meant to be realistic fiction. Get this through your head).

 

I feel flattered for that much personal attention but I'd much rather hear some of the academically trained "math person" logic instead.
Actually I think I'll just rest my case and leave all that in the safe hands of the fair minded fellow reader.

 

Thank you for conceding to your loss

 

That's a load of crap! It's fantasy yes but JJ has tried to make it as real as he thought he possibly could and in most cases he achieved that. Cgi in maz' case is an attempt to make it look more real than say a puppet (yoda ep V and VI). Don't treat me as If I'm dumb. In most cases any fantasy/Sci-fi film tries to achieve a realistic look so you believe that what you are seeing is real and it's immersive. You need to get out more.

 

She said these exact words: ,,Star Wars had come out around the time of Seagull, and everyone thought I was a horrible actress. I was in the biggest-grossing movie of the decade, and no director wanted to work with me." - New York magazine, 2014

And yea, the Thor movie she also hated and was basically forced to play in the sequel.

 

Thank you for proving my point about being influenced by click-bait sites (and their "reading between the lines"/spreading misinformation/"blowing things out of proportion" schtick).

(oh, and that was just 1 comment, and it was just on TPM, and that quote was actually from a long time ago (like early 2000's, not 2014))

And that bit about her involvement in the Thor movies actually came from a click-bait site as well, attempting the "reading between the line" schtick too.

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

Being that you're the one being obsessively nitpicky in every minute detail like a nerd on stupid amounts of nerdrage, perhaps it is you that needs to get out more instead of being holed up in your mom's basements watching movies all day (looking like you don't have much of a life and having nothing better to do).

 

Same here. Not that it would make a difference in how I rate the film.
This thread though! All this PT vs ST nonsense is getting old fast. I have always felt the visual effects and CG of the PT were the least of its substantive problems!

 

The original article, here you go: http://nymag.com/news/articles/reasonstoloveny/2014/mike-nichols/
Just because someting differs from your biased opinion its not a clickbait.

 

Yes it is, especially when the author of said site is injecting his/her biased opinion into the article (thus, re-enforcing the belief that the site is click-bait).

(Just because you see a quote from a 2014 article doesn't mean that is when it was originally stated. Like I said, she originally said that in the early 2000's. Still, some people here are pulling the "reading between the lines" schtick and sadly will continue to do so. By the way, SW is a big-budget tentpole full of special effects and whatnot. NP seems to really like smaller-scale dramas such as what that article talks about)

 

Hahahaha decided you couldn't win the argument that you started so instead you resort to playground back chat. Nerdrage - good one!