|
turtlecrunch posted:More mirrors for the Force Awakens VFX video since they keep trying to hide it (contains spoilers): Wow, look at all the cgi and green screen sets . . probably this will help fuel "awakens is bad" nerd criticisms in the future.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
And again i should stress that I dont hate CGI. CGI is constantly used correctly for things downright impossible to fake in real life, and is essentially synonymous with post-production. Fury Road is a good example of this and I have praised its use in TFA. Using Guy's explanation, the majority of complaints stem from being able to see the "strings" of CGI. Producers and directors have simply underestimated the immense feat required to realistically replace a physical object interacting with another physical object. Yes, there is a lack of appreciation for computer artists (in part because they're in canada or china and speak funny accents), but lets' not pretend the constant insistence of Argonauts skellies looking like crap pays intense respect towards the sculptors, artists, and puppeteers/clay animators involved in its production. CGI is the modern Argonauts; charming to some, immensely fake and detached to many. Only a film reader deals in absolutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Wow, look at all the cgi and green screen sets . . probably this will help fuel "awakens is bad" nerd criticisms in the future. I just can't figure out why someone would presume this thread is hostile to alternate opinions, I mean look at this!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:He also pointed out how he has been part of several projects where the plan was to do a practical effect, but it looked so bad that they needed to use CG as a last resort. The least convincing TFA CG character (Maz) was going to be a puppet, but they took so long figuring out her design they didn't have enough time to make it. It started as "copy Yoda" and then JJ got his high school teacher involved yada yada so she became "slightly less Yoda".  Snoke's design has a similar story, was at one point going to be a (not old, not infirm) woman, etc. In both cases they wanted to do at least some level of practical effects but then they dun goofed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
From my point of view it is practical effects that are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I'm young and I know plenty of people who complain about movies being "just only CGI". Not film nerd people either. It really boils down to the storytelling. A lot of these CGI heavy films are completely empty. They seem to exist to show off special effects, but in 2016, special effects are pretty much the norm, so it's hard for people to be really impressed by CGI these days. A giant earthquake wipes out a city! And a main character is driving away, but it's no use! They die! And their car is sent 100 feet into the air and explodes! But it's all CGI. It's disconnecting. We know that poo poo isn't real. We don't believe the magic any more. We're not impressed by it. 10 years ago? We totally would be. I think that's why practical effects are being pushed on us so hard these days. If that same scene was done using a real person in such a way that we can tell it was a real person, people do feel it. It's visceral. It might be effects for the sake of effects, but people do respond more to someone risking their life over an effect vs someone spending hours rendering on a computer. We can now see the difference. While CGI isn't an easy thing at all to do, and requires months and months of planning, it's the idea that you can do anything in a computer that seems to turn people off. It feels like everything is a free for all, and the director can add or remove anything he/she wishes. There's no sense of restraint too it. And it's why we have Transformers where there's sooooo much poo poo going on in one shot that at times it can be almost incomprehensible. (It's so dense, every frame has so much going on...) CGI is a great tool that's being abused by filmmakers who need restraint. Which is why people dig the effects for The Force Awakens. CGI for scenes that truly need it. No one is going to build a gigantic room with a hundred story drop. CGI will do that fine! But we can shoot in a desert! Well, we need a giant forest for this battle scene....how about we build it on a set, and then use some CGI extensions for extra depth! They found a way to use practical and CGI in an organic way that feels fresher than just filming people in front of a green screen. Cause we can tell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho9zoH8Bi-U EDIT: or I could've just said "watch that video posted a few posts above me" CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
The very first action scene of Fury Road, where Max's car is run down and flipped by the warboys, is a perfect example of how much of an impact practical effects can have in a CGI dominated industry. That roll-over crash is so visceral, and so perfectly filmed, it serves notice right away that this is not going to be the typical action movie that we've gotten used to over the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
I don't think the special effects for this forum are doing so good these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:I don't think the special effects for this forum are doing so good these days. We'll fix it in posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:I don't think the special effects for this forum are doing so good these days. Eh. You had to be there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:I don't think the special effects for this forum are doing so good these days. Hey, the forums are up aren't they? In my day we had to walk four hours in the snow just to defend the prequels!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:"I thought TFA was being done like Star Wars '77 all practical effects, saving us from the awfulness that was the CGI-only prequels." And yes you can dredge up the poo poo about how many sets were in the prequels. There were sets in the prequels. They were awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:The least convincing TFA CG character (Maz) was going to be a puppet, but they took so long figuring out her design they didn't have enough time to make it. It started as "copy Yoda" and then JJ got his high school teacher involved yada yada so she became "slightly less Yoda". This disappoints me, because I love the design of a scrappy spinster that collects esoteric war gear (her empire pilot helmet thing). If her writing was set in stone I could see revising her to better fit, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:
It is true that comparing the number of sets on TFA to those used in the prequels is pretty meaningless because of how the prequel sets were designed. They were purposely built to blend with the aesthetic that all the CGI was going for, so if you don't like the look of the prequels in general its not going to matter how many actual sets were used.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
      GoGoGadgetChris posted:What's the canon explanation for why Palpatine became ugly after the Mace Windu fight? It's none of the above; Palpatine is absorbing Windu's power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This disappoints me, because I love the design of a scrappy spinster that collects esoteric war gear (her empire pilot helmet thing). If her writing was set in stone I could see revising her to better fit, though. Stay tuned for the special edition releases! The movie J Jabrams originally wanted to make!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:Stay tuned for the special edition releases! The movie J Jabrams originally wanted to make! This would be badass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:The least convincing TFA CG character (Maz) was going to be a puppet, but they took so long figuring out her design they didn't have enough time to make it. It started as "copy Yoda" and then JJ got his high school teacher involved yada yada so she became "slightly less Yoda". While I love OT Yoda, I'm glad Maz isn't just a rehash. Yoda required a custom set and was designed to accommodate for the fact that he was a puppet: he was tiny to hide behind things, he was old so that he could waddle around with a cane and so his wrinkled rear end old face only needed to show off a few distinct emotions. Puppetry hasn't had major updates in the last 30 years so you would have had to do the same thing which would have been severely limiting (the only update I can think of is possibly mechanisms in the face for greater emotional range). She wouldn't have had the same range of motion and expression as a puppet. Also, this isn't an argument either way but just an interesting thing to point out: Mark Hamill complained about being the only human character on set for the several months he was filming those scenes. Which mirrors a lot of complaints that modern actors have to acting opposite a tennis ball or a green wall. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:While I love OT Yoda, I'm glad Maz isn't just a rehash. Yoda required a custom set and was designed to accommodate for the fact that he was a puppet: he was tiny to hide behind things, he was old so that he could waddle around with a cane and so his wrinkled rear end old face only needed to show off a few distinct emotions. Puppetry hasn't had major updates in the last 30 years so you would have had to do the same thing which would have been severely limiting (the only update I can think of is possibly mechanisms in the face for greater emotional range). She wouldn't have had the range of motion and expression as a puppet. While I agree with your primary point (CGI excels at fake mechanical bits, expressive eyes, and fast or active movements), puppetry has actually seen a LOT of improvements from the development of mocap technology, affordable hobbyist microcomputers, and 3d printing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQyWTivri1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vVblGlIMgw As is turns out, crowdsourced development giving cheap technology to poor smart people results in amazing strides akin to the CGI boom. Kinect 1, Arduino, Pi, and 3d printer kickstarters have resulted in an amazing boom of tech workarounds and improvements on traditional methods. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:While I agree with your primary point (CGI excels at fake mechanical bits, expressive eyes, and fast or active movements), puppetry has actually seen a LOT of improvements from the development of mocap technology, affordable hobbyist microcomputers, and 3d printing: drat, those are rad links, thanks. I stand corrected. In that case I think the new Star Wars would have been a great opportunity to showcase the latest in cutting edge puppetry. Maybe we will get something in the next film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:CGI is a great tool that's being abused by filmmakers who need restraint. Ultimately I think this is the key. The example of bad CG in the prequels that always stuck in my mind is the clone troopers. There's a shot in (I believe) episode 3 where there's a few of them standing around talking to Obi Wan before he gets in his ship. Inexplicably, they're all CG, so you have a bunch of janky-looking cartoon characters who move like something out of Garry's mod standing around chatting. One of them has his helmet off so you've got the added bonus of seeing Temuera Morrison's head pasted on the body like one of those old Jib Jab videos. If there wasn't some kind of budgetary/scheduling reason they couldn't stick Temuera Morrison and two or three other dudes in some armor to actually stand there and shoot the poo poo with Ewan McGregor, then why? They had plenty of opportunities to push the boundaries of believable CG humanoids in all the action scenes that feature scores of them, if that was the goal. Why do it in a scene like that where it's so noticeable and so totally unnecessary? Someone mentioned earlier that characters like Jabba and Yoda, as well as the locations in which they appear, were designed around the limitations of puppets and animatronics. That kind of discipline seemed to go out the window in the prequels. That said, I think it's also kind of unfair to compare the two since it seems like puppets/animatronics/stop motion were probably a little more mature in 1980 than CG was in 1999. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
just because miniatures were used, doesn't mean that they look good when actors are keyed into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
The best effects have always worked so well because of the thought that went into how to use them effectively. Harryhausen's best stuff was always written to accentuate the positives in his animation techniques, and make the negatives seem like a part of the trick. I'm thinking of the bronze statue from Jason and the Argonauts. You can still watch that scene today and be totally immersed in it because the thing moves exactly how you'd expect a living metal statue to move. Slow, jerky movements fit perfectly with the effects technique Harryhausen was using. The same could be said for the way Spielberg shot the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Using new technology, it seemed like he really had the Harryhausen spirit when he figured out how best to use it, and the result was a timeless film. That same restraint and creativity is rare these day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
It's important that the clone troopers were CGI. ILM was specifically instructed not to build a physical prop out of their design. No clone trooper is ever depicted wearing a real costume. The civilian pajamas they wear on Kamino while being served empty plates and bowls for lunch are CGI. Even the pilots have transparent CGI helmets superimposed onto photographed faces. The problem with the clone troopers in Attack of the Clones is that the mocap was not captured from actors skilled at moving the way soldiers move. They hired some actual soldiers for Revenge of the Sith, et voila. It's a learning process. It's important to make mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:drat, those are rad links, thanks. I stand corrected. In that case I think the new Star Wars would have been a great opportunity to showcase the latest in cutting edge puppetry. Maybe we will get something in the next film. No problem, the entire channel is pretty awesome and worth subscribing to. And again, I dont mind CGI, I like CGI; some of the most amazing movies in the last two decades outright wouldn't exist without it. I just feel that many directors and producers have forced a round CGI peg into a square practical effects hole because it's easier and cheaper (not actually cheaper, but there's no instances of a CGI character breaking down or needing an entire reworking due to intricate mechanical flaws; a CGI ewok will always blink). I hope TFA and Fury Road kick off a trend of blending both of them more often, because the result is just beautiful (as prequel fans can attest to).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So essentially, everyone both in the films and outside of them is reacting to the death of God. The real secret is that Jesus is also the God of the Old Testament, as well as the New, and that he was also Resurrected. God is not dead, for he is risen. "Before Abraham was, I am." The message of Christ at one time was for his people Israel to murder every single man, woman, child, and animal in their homeland. Largely for the crime of idolatry (worship of false gods like Darth Vader,) which Israel (Kylo Ren) later succumbed to. They later constantly depose evil rulers in the name of Jehovah, particularly in the Book of Judges but also all throughout. Even in the New Testament, the last Herod is stricken to death and eaten by worms for his ingratitude, and Annias and Saphira were slain by Peter's God magic for keeping back some of their property from the socialist distribution of the church. You can use Christianity to say whatever you want.  Ultimately it doesn't work if Jesus was evil, or even if he was evil and then redeemed. That's what's so ignorant about having Vader be a Christ figure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Also, on a side note, sometimes better practical effects make for a worse looking creature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80EaBRgGylo So now we go to years later, in 2004. Technology has improved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHiYVluNmg&t=92s Now we can make Predators that have incredible facial movements! We've never been able to give these characters such a wide range of expressions! It's incredible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtIrjW7-TYQ&t=70s oh...oh no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:What's the canon explanation for why Palpatine became ugly after the Mace Windu fight? I asked this earlier in the thread, and upon a rewatch of the RLM RotS review, it's brought up as well. My take is that the redirect of the force lightning drops his facade, and shows his true form. He's not a secret monster or 700-year old freak or anything - his path to the dark side came with a cost (his appearance), and once his deceit was revealed, and was physically confronted, he lost his "disguise". We can assume that his appearance is due to self-experimentation, or abuse by Darth Plagueis. But it's not super important why. SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's none of the above; Palpatine is absorbing Windu's power. I wouldn't agree with that - Palpatine is in a prone and vulnerable position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
In current canon, literally the only discussion of Plagueis is Palpatine's story at the opera, right? So it isn't even definitively true that Palpatine was his apprentice and killed him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:In current canon, literally the only discussion of Plagueis is Palpatine's story at the opera, right? So it isn't even definitively true that Palpatine was his apprentice and killed him? I think we're meant to infer, from Palpatine's speech, that Palpatine killed Plagueis, and became the master - and wants Anakin as his apprentice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Was there some (now) unofficial book or something that said Plagueis was a Muun? I swear I remember seeing something about that on the wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:In current canon, literally the only discussion of Plagueis is Palpatine's story at the opera, right? So it isn't even definitively true that Palpatine was his apprentice and killed him? Yea we know zero about Plagueis other than what was given to us by Palpatine, so it can't really be taken at face value. It seems feasible to me that the whole thing could have been a reaaalllly long game played by Plagueis, possibly with the cooperation of Palpatine . Like, maybe Palpatine knew the whole time that he was just clearing the board so that his master could eventually take control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Was there some (now) unofficial book or something that said Plagueis was a Muun? I swear I remember seeing something about that on the wiki. Yes, and Wookieepedia has a lot on information on Palpatine and Plagueis' relationship, and the 'Grand Experiment', but - I don't know that any of that is considered canon anymore. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Plagueis http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Experiment They also worked together to create the clone army under Syfo Dias (sp?)'s name, and on and on. Edit: Palpatine's wiki page has a ton of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
I don't think it really needs to be spelled out in a series of novels or anything. It's pretty obvious from what we already have. And his face literally looks like it's melting. It was basically an excuse to visually signify that he's now openly evil, but I don't think it was an actual 'disguise' or anything. Is facial re-constructive surgery a Sith power? Which level does it unlock?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Pretty sure when people say they hate CGI they mean they hate bad CGI, specifically organics rendered before the technology existed to render them realistically or when the talent or budget just wasn't there to get it done properly. I love CGI but I loving hate the Hobbit movies, for a variety of reasons, but not least of all the use of CG for almost everything and the HFR that made the movie look like a lovely cartoon. There's lots of CGI in the LOTR movies but it looks a ton better for some reason, perhaps the ability to hide imperfections since they weren't dealing with filming for 3D and using HFR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I don't think it really needs to be spelled out in a series of novels or anything. It's pretty obvious from what we already have. The point is that Ian McDiarmid was the best thing about those lovely, lovely movies, and I love that someone with his theatre background went so hog wild with a villain role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Was there some (now) unofficial book or something that said Plagueis was a Muun? I swear I remember seeing something about that on the wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:It's important that the clone troopers were CGI. ILM was specifically instructed not to build a physical prop out of their design. No clone trooper is ever depicted wearing a real costume. The civilian pajamas they wear on Kamino while being served empty plates and bowls for lunch are CGI. Even the pilots have transparent CGI helmets superimposed onto photographed faces. And this "mistake" can still work within the film's story - the troopers grow through experience and become better at what they do!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty sure when people say they hate CGI they mean they hate bad CGI, specifically organics rendered before the technology existed to render them realistically or when the talent or budget just wasn't there to get it done properly. I love CGI but I loving hate the Hobbit movies, for a variety of reasons, but not least of all the use of CG for almost everything and the HFR that made the movie look like a lovely cartoon. Any visual effect could look good if done well. CGI is super good and appropriate in stuff like District 9, Lord of the Rings and Life of Pi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Someone posted this already, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2xhBSfFps The best(?) CGI
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:55
|
|