CGI in TFA

Some of the sets from AOTC...

 

So what point is being made here? That TFA has CGI? That it's good? That it's bad? That the prequels used CGI? I honestly don't get what's being talked about in this thread.

 

I love miniatures, I appreciate the creativity and the craftmanship/hours of work.
I can recommend whole-hearted every series from Gerry Anderson. (if someone is interested in miniatures based series)

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 16, 2016 ---

I guess the CGI in TFA looked good, the only thing that looked odd to me were the Rathars, they looked unreal to me.

 

Some real locations in AOTC...

 

I know most of the pictures already, but I have to say nice sets.
No doubt, there was craftmanship going on in the PT, everyone who says otherwise is not fair judging.

 

I saw some comments about Natalie Portman earlier from some of people here and I couldn't help but share this. It's an article from 2015:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-793210

This was an interesting comment: "No one’s contacted me about it," she says. "I think, because I’m dead, that it kind of seals the deal, unless there are even more prequels." She has no special plans for seeing the upcoming Episode VII: The Force Awakens, but says: "I would love to. I would love to. I’m very excited that they’re making them, of course. I think everyone is. And great people [are] doing it." She adds: "I really liked all the people I worked with. You know, between George[Lucas] and Ewan [McGregor] and Hayden [Christensen] and Jake [Lloyd] on the first one and Ahmed [Best], who played Jar Jar, they were all wonderful." So yeah, take that for what it's worth.

 

It is the same thing.
AOTC VFX where nominated for the Oscar.

These effects where groundbreaking. And like I said. LOTR trilogy used that same tehnology created for prequels.
Difference is in the style.
LOTR is fantasy but based on earth. Everything is much like the things that can exist on earth. Star Wars is SF Fantasy. Worlds and creatures in that universe are nothing like we can see on Earth. It is not the same when you see CGI of something you know does not exist in real world and something that could or exist in real world.

But LOTR effects also look dated now.

TFA is using as much CGI, if not more as prequels. Difference is, TFA is using modern 2015. CGI.

 

Poor Anthony Daniels on this set in Tunisia.

 

This movie was the worst Star Wars in my opinion... But Daniels is the only actor in all 7 movies.

 

Yes it looks hot, very hot there.

 

I agree, I would not be surprised to find out that TFA uses the same amount of CGI like any of the PT movies.
Sure they advertised practical effects, but I suppose the use of CGI in a modern day directed Star Wars movie becomes necessary.
If I would be a director I would avoid the use of CGI as much as possible, only to mask wires or other things, to conceal visual effects.
But I guess a well made combination of practical effects and the use of CGI combined with real set and miniatures is the way to go.

 

Actualy all 3 screenshots from AOTC and ROTS there are mix of practical effects ( miniatures ) and CGI. And they look great.
Also these effects are 14 and 11 years old.
Now compare selfphones 14 years old with smartphones from 2015.

As for overuse. TFA has as much if not more CGI as AOTC and ROTS.

For example Kamino. There is alot less CGI there than you think.

 

I don't think that really engages the point I'm making.
You originally said that "Lucas created tehnology 1999. ( 17. years ago for TPM ) that is still in use today. Modern CGI is evolution of that tehnology."
In reality modern CGI has evolved for far longer than from 1999.

There is nothing in the prequels one could concider a watershed moment for the industry except for Jar Jar being a fully digital principal character
- which I have allready conceded.
You yourself point out the enormous amount of high quality traditional work (models etc.) done for TPM.
But the same reason I can't subscribe to the blanket "TPM utilizes to much CGI" argument leads me to say that its just as untrue to claim it was the foundation for modern CGI. It was an accomplished blend of tried technologies applied to a hitherto unattemptedly large volume of shots.

The reason I bring up FOTR is simple: If you take a look at the innovation and artistry of the work in the three largest "effect-laden franchises" of that day (early Harry Potter, LotR and the PT) I would pick LotR as having made the largest stamp on the face of contemporary CGI.
Going from the obvious standout technologies like "Massive" to the genuine coming of age of simulation based animation and finaly the inception of performance capture as we know it today - its just unfair to claim the PT has that historic and exclusive place when others have made just as large a contribution at least.
That much is true wether you agree with my personal choice or not.

As far as I am aware there has not been a technology transfer from ILM to Weta Digital - I'm honestly interested in any sources to read up on or watch though.

 

I think you mean "created for Episode 1" not, the prequels.
Fellowship released before Attack of the Clones.

Side note: each film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy won the Academy Award for Visual effects in their respective, while none of the Star Wars prequels did. In fact, Revenge of the Sith wasn't even nominated.

Except for where it actually mattered.
Padme standing up in that digital sand with that digital clone coming to help her is one of the most unnecessay CGI shots in the movie.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of excellent practical work at play here... For the most part I don't have any problems with the use of CGI in the prequels.
The worst for me is in AOTC. I don't know if it was just things filmed in reshoots, after sets had been dismantled, or something else, but there's a few shots in the movie that really stand out as looking lazy, and unnecessary

Here are the main 3 that bug me:
- Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and Yoda walking through the Jedi temple. The Set is entirely CG. Not even the floor is real.
- Padme falls from the ship, and lands in the sand. The sand is fake and the clone trooper is fake, and it looks awkward.
- Obi-Wan and Anakin lying on the ground after being defeated by Dooku. For some reason, shots switch between them on a real set, and between them on a digital set. The main problem here is that the floor on the digital set doesn't even match the one on the real set.... the size of the pattern on the floor is vastly different.

They already had Temuera Morrison, his stunt double Scott McLean, and the actor who played the younger matured clones, Bodie Taylor. I would never have expected all of the clones to be real (although they could have filmed the same few actors a few times). Except for the wide battle shots, You rarely see more than 5 clones in a single frame, so they would only need another small handful of people to wear those suits. It's not too much to ask.

The part in Revenge of the Sith when Cody gives Obi-Wan his lightsaber on Utapau is one such instance where practical armour would have made a world of difference

Indeed.
I quite like the "bigiatures" that Weta made for the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well... even the practical sets they made for the CGI Thunderbirds reboot are probably the best thing about the show.

 

Utapau was practical for the most part too....

 

Abrams said the film has more digital fx shots than any previous SW movie in several interviews.

 

It is not unfair to claim that CGI in prequels was groundbreaking and that CGI in LOTR is based on that tehnology. That is a fact.

Harry Potter VFX are done by Industrial Light & Magic. Who was owned by George Lucas. All effects in them are done using tehnology created for prequels.
Star Wars VFX are done by ILM.
ILM was always groundbreaking.

 

And again I ask you to substantiate that claim.
Are you saying that ILM transfered its most precious business assets to a would be competitor or does "based on" mean that someone else also crafted digital effects to meet similar goals?

PS
What is your point about HP being ILM's show? I think most of us are aware of that fact.

 

Well you will be suprised. That is not a CGI but miniature, practical effect.











And that scene in the sand looks great in my opinion. It was done that way for the reason.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 16, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 16, 2016 ---

Weta digital used that tehnology yes. Gollum is created using tehnology developed to create Jar Jar.

As for HP it is obvious. ILM used the same tehnology on its both movie series SW and HP.

 

I'm referring to this:

If that's a miniature, then it's not very good.

In reality, using miniatures for interiors isn't a very good idea at all in live action movies. Using miniatures as for interior sets has the effect of losing surface texture and making everything look plastic, because you need to scale it up to the actors.
Don't do it.

Made that way for a purpose? What purpose? To look CG?