Emphasis on the "practical" - what is lost and gained

yuck...

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 21, 2015, Original Post Date: Jul 21, 2015 ---

I think Lucas was also using the Prequels to show off what ILM could do digitally by using digital cameras and only digital FX. It was a giant demo reel for ILM to show how they can make cool looking stuff for cheaper. Which worked and almost everyone came to ILM to make their CGI movies.

 

Exactly

 

I have a strong quibble with the acting argument as a theater buff but I addressed that elsewhere

If you're into the method and "the less you have to fake the better" then it absolutely makes a difference. Key actors themselves have been quoted on this. Ian McKellan for example is very vocal about this and Carrie Fisher has spoken of the difficulty to fully emote when what you are reacting to is just a green sheet.

I think we'll see less "stiff" performances in the ST, just a guess. One reason will be the director will loosen up the cast and the dialog itself will be more playful, but the other reason is they are in organic spaces, rather than just an empty room of green paint.

I still think CGI has its place and that it will be used frequently even in TFA, but there's no doubt in my mind the live sets improve the entire theatrical experience, this includes lighting, with CGI you can't get real shadow, you get simulated shadow and since film is a medium of light, this can deteriorate rather than enhance the experience at times.

But it's good we agree to disagree, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

Obviously there is green screen in TFA. But at least the ground and foreground elements are real.

 

First and foremost, welcome to the Cantina. Next, I want to say that I meant no disrespect to you with my initial response to this thread.

Having said that, I don't doubt that you searched for similar threads and I honestly don't know whether any would turn up... But I have seen on multiple occasions that a thread has gone off the rails and devolved into a PT vs. OT debate (or more aptly described mutual "bashing") that rages on and on. Perhaps they all deserved an "off topic" since they were not precisely the point of those threads. Nonetheless, the subject has in fact been debated here to the point that mods have discouraged many such discussions as it tends to turn into a flame war.

I am all for healthy debate, so I hope this thread does not follow a similar path, as I do think it is an interesting topic of whether or not TFA will suffer from a lack of originality in "alien" worlds due to the emphasis on practical sets rather than CGI.

 

Usually due to deadlines and sloppy attention to detail, there ain't many Kubricks and Finchers around.

Prometheus is a good example of a modern film which blended practical and CG elements well, there were actually WETA employees on the sets during filming.. measuring everything, taking photos and matching up the lighting to when things were filmed etc. Prometheus is almost timeless visually, just a shame they couldn't use models for the ships.

 

Wait...are they using real puppets and practical effects this time instead of CGI?!!! I don't think I've heard about this yet! JJ should bring this up.

 

So i've heard two groups now freaking out about the focus on practical effects coming out of SDCC (MSW/SWU). SWU also said in their last podcast that people at SDCC were claiming that simon pegg featuring in the movie was "another shot at the prequel fans" URGH get a grip. So i feel like a rant .

This whole debate has become stupidly over-complicated. Yes, CGI has its place and it's a wonderful tool. If anyone disagrees that's fine, but i believe CGI is crucial. However, the issue has always been and will remain, that the balance has to be right.

TFA is using it as a marketing ploy because it's trying to build TFA as a return to THAT world, the 4-5-6 world.

In the words of Mark Hamill "Nothing's changed really....I mean everything's changed but nothing's changed, Thats the way you want it to be really" .

Nothings changed = going back into that lived in world that felt real and alive, interacting with real things
Everything's changed = Technology has progressed so far, it's a powerful tool to help the movie go beyond what was possible in 4-5-6
but nothings changed, Thats the way you want it to be really = The balance between CGI and Practical comes together in TFA

An this is the real joke, while both extreme sides freak out about Practical and CGI, TFA is probably going to nail that balance of both to create a jaw-dropping beautiful movie and yet this stupid argument will rage on.

 

If you're as experienced with theatre as you say so, I would imagine that you understand that stage acting is fundamentally a different exercise than film acting. It's not a simple parallel to acting on stage with sparse sets to acting on film against a empty room of green. Stage performance, more often than not, becomes more exaggerated in cadence and movement the more sparse the staging becomes. That kind of compensation is impossible on film.

You're not wrong that good acting is possible without tactile references to engage with, but you're also trying to contradict a decade and a half of actors' testimonies that trying to act on film in blank green screen sets, especially with no other actor to engage with, makes them feel silly and frustrated in their performance. The effort put into Episode VII's practical design has seen nothing but praise and appreciation from the actors actually having to act in the film. It's not like there isn't going to be CGI in the film. So literally nothing is lost.

Okay. Actors CAN theoretically, maybe, act just as well against empty green-screens given the right training, mindset, and care to their performance. We all accept that for the sake of argument. But the film isn't doing it that way, and it's only making the actors happy and more engaged with their performance, so I don't really know why arguing FOR placing actors into blank green-screens is so important.

 

Maybe he will in the next event.

 

I'm actually a bit annoyed with the whole ,,we're using practical effects" by pretty much everybody taking part in SW:TFA. It's good but being constantly reminded that they are using practical effects worries me(sound weird,huh?). As @Momaw Nadon said, it would be VERY difficult to introduce new types of planets. We could see Yavin or Hoth easily a few more times but to introduce a new one,with new characteristics doesn't look easy without a good extent of CGI. I still thing ST will be amazing thought.

 

Obviously there is still going to be a lot of CGI. But when compared to the PT I think that everyone is just noting how they are using more actual set pieces, masks and costumes than previously used.

 

Haha at all the people complaining about the people WORKING EXTREMELY HARD to make this movie awesome. What I've seen are actors, puppeteers, and set builders out in the elements. Sorry, but I'm not going to sit behind my computer and whine about this.

Let's not forget the hype of digital filmmaking and CGI during the prequel promotion... and these guys were working mostly in air conditioned sets and studios!

Overall, no one here has seen the film yet. I can't help but chuckle at all of this. (Commence negative ratings)

 

Speak for yourself, it gets me rock hard every time

 

Man, I know. So annoying when people are proud of their work. It's like geez, rub it in my face some more how awesome it was to make a star wars movie on a real set.

 

Great example and good use of CGI

play video for scene..... CGI example

 

What's funny, is that a lot of the "CGI" in The PT were actually miniatures or videos that were then composited together, besides the obvious need for pure CGI .

 

yes, there were a ton of minatures in the PT....