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

It's true. Computers are efficient and clean but very hard to make incorrect. Tangible things come with their own unique asymmetrical qualities for free. And in reality nothing is perfect.

This guy is obviously a physically made costume. But check out the eyes and nose. I feel like they're being enhance digitally and I love the effect.

 

The opening scene from RotS has multiple issues, IMHO:

• too many new, previously unknown designs you can't relate to, yet
• too much of everything, difficult to impossible to keep track of everything that's going on
• hundreds of people die almost every second

From what I've seen in the Star Wars Battlefront trailers the same is happening there: Too many Star Destroyers and Rebel Starcruisers crash onto Jakku's surface making it seem almost ordinary with little or no time to really reflect on all the hundreds of people that die during these events.

If the film or game maker fails to arise sympathies or concern for the death of so many people, then the scene - regardless of practical or CGI VFX - is appropriately reduced to what it is: just a special effect.

 

Yeah, the final shots of Felucia are lit in a way that flattens the image; they are augmented too much digitally. However, the miniature is amazing!

This is from http://www.starwars.com/revenge-of-the-sith-behind-the-scenes:

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2015, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2015 ---

A similar technique was used for Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are (Warner Bros 2009). For the beasts in the fantasy world, Jim Henson's Creature Shop created the animatronic suits worn by performers. Facial expressions were then enhanced by VFX company Framestore in post-production.

 

Right! Wild things creatures were awesome too.

The Felucia design is just weird to me. Nothing about it seems real. Did they build a life size set for the actors?

 

Where was this actually filmed? How high is that structure they are on?

 

Strange, I like all of that.
I like new designs, I like details.
I like how everything is busy, just like in real life.
In real life, fights would look like that.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2015, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2015 ---

That is the point of ''Alien world''.
To look different, alien from things we see on Earth.

I like Felucia design.

 

Alien is fine and good but realistic it must be. If it looks like a cartoon then it doesn't seem real to me. The movies need to be realistic.

 

Well i Like CGI Yoda way more than puppet Yoda. It looks more like a living being.
Puppet Yoda looks like puppet.

Felucia looks great. Like a real Alien world, not like something we can see on Earth.
Actually it is more realistic that alien worlds will look strange like Felucia.
Earth-like settings on Alien worlds ( plants, animals ect.. ) are unrealistic.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2015, Original Post Date: Nov 30, 2015 ---

Alien can not be realistic. In our reality we do not know how alien worlds look like.
But we do know that they would look totally different from the Earth.

Earth plants on alien planets are unrealistic.

Felucia looks great. I wanted something like that in TFA. True and original alien worlds.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2015 ---

And its shows

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2015 ---

That scene was great. And not that digital as you think.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 30, 2015 ---

Oh...for me that space fight from ROTS is absolutely visually the best space battle in Star Wars.
It looks Epic.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than space battle from ROTJ that looks fake for me.

 

There must be some sort of generational difference in the way people interpret CGI. Millennials apparently have no problem believing in the glaring artificialness of video-gamey CGI, whereas people brought up on practical effects can spot the fakeness a mile away over photographed and naturally-lit models.

 

And people from 20th century apparently have no problem believing in the glaring artificialness of puppets, matte lines, models and optical effects, whereas people brought up on CGI and modern practical effects can spot the fakeness a mile away in puppets and old model work from reality.

It can go both ways.

Model that looks like model ( toys in space ) is not any more convincing than CGI that looks like CGI.

 

Actual objects with real textures photographed on real sets under real light sources casting real shadows will always look more convincing to me than cartoony animation with computer programs created to simulate light and texture. You can easily eliminate matte lines today with modern composting techniques - and a lot of that was done in the special edition changes.

Model ships look better than CG ships any day of the week. The eye can detect the fakeness of a digital model through subtle things - motion blur, texture, lighting and shadows that just don't replicate real, tangible surfaces in a believable way.

The problem with with practical effects is getting realistic motion out of them - that is where CG trumps practical.

But a shot of Yoda on set talking to Mark Hamill will always look better than one created on a computer screen. Guys in actual stormtrooper costumes will always look better than CG ones that look like they were incorporated from a video game. And real environments filmed on real earth locations will always look better than synthetic digital terrains.

 

I disagree.

If model looks like real model it still looks like model, not real thing.
If puppet looks like real puppet, it still looks like puppet, not real, living being.

Real environments filmed on real earth locations will look like Earth. For true Alien worlds and environments partial or complete CGI is needed.
Film industry would look really sad and unimaginative if it were limited to the actual locations only.

Worlds like Pandora from Avatar would be impossible.
CGI is a great tool.

CGI Yoda looks more real to me than puppet Yoda. It has more natural movements and facial expressions.
And to me natural movements and facial expressions is what make fantasy characters real.

Also puppet Yoda is very limited, it would be impossible to recreate the scenes of CGI Yoda with Puppet Yoda.

 

The thing with CGI yoda vs. puppet yoda is that CGI characters kind of take me out of a scene personally. The first thing I think is "heh nice try, but that's not real." But with a puppet, I don't have the same reaction and I think it's because I recognize hat the director and special effects team aren't going all out to make sure that it feels real and convince me that it is. My reaction o puppet yoda or any of the practical effects we've seen advertised for TFA is somewhere along be lines of "well they don't actually expect me to believe that that 3 ton Lugabeast is real since this is a fantasy environment so it doesn't bother me as much that it doesn't look 100% authentic." And I actually am able to remain emerged in the film more wholly because at least I feel that in the Star Wars universe, it is real. For a more concrete example,When I can see Dexter Jetster's arm pass straight through the sleeve of Obi-Wan's arm in AOTC when they hug, I am immediately aware that the images I'm seeing are generated by a computer and it takes me out of the scene. But at least puppet Yoda was actually on set. So in a nutshell, my feelings on practical vs. CGI mirror most of the members'. I don't really think either one is superior, and I acknowledge that both are necessary for this kind of film, I just don't want my experience when watching it to be harmed due to obvious computer generation.

 

I find your whole post contradictory.

So basically you're saying that it is OK for puppets and models to look fake, but it is not OK for CGI to not look 100% real?!
Speak about double standards.

 

What happens when CGI becomes indistinguishable from "real"?
Maybe it's like painting and we move away from reality to the abstract.



Episode 14 perhaps?

Edit: This thread reminds me of discovering video feedback - my first digital/practical mash-up FX:
:

 

CGI isn't the problem. Pointless and stupid CGI is the problem.

 

I'm saying that it's not okay to take things that could be done with tangible practical effects with over-the-top and sometimes flawed CGI. Obviously Yoda in ESB is t real. He's a little green elf-wizard. So it's okay if he isn't 100% believable. The creators of the film put genuine effort into that character. Frank Oz's portrayal of Yoda was pure Art and I have always felt that Yoda fit perfectly in the fantasy world that was ESB. We're talking about movies where wizards use a mystical energy field to accomplish unbelievable feats. Where thousands of creatures from countless worlds can survive in the same atmosphere without artificial life support. The puppet yoda is much more believable than all that. But tbh, we'll probably never agree on this. We've discussed many things on hear forums and it's clear that you value different aspects of Star Wars than I do. So we'll just agree to disagree in order to avoid a long drawn out discussion that ultimately results in neither one of us changing our minds.