|
|
Post by jppiper on Feb 12, 2024 21:53:34 GMT
Since the PT was criticized for using CGI white the ST promoted a return to Practical effects (Did they forget that film has evolved for over a century?) What is the preferred method of choice?
|
|
|
|
Post by eljedicolombiano on Feb 14, 2024 1:34:26 GMT
Depends on the artistic intent/ what suits the movie.
I think part of the problem is phenomenological; each of us see things a little differently and so how we each perceive reality is somewhat subjective. I know for a fact that I would have preferred for George to have changed the puppet Yoda of ESB and ROTJ to a digital version; I don’t particularly like the puppets lack of muscle and mouth movement, but I realize that many (especially if you grew up in the 80’s) will disagree.
I remember thinking at the time that TFA looked far more like a video game than anything in the Prequels, and they did have more digital shots than any of those movies. It’s also a fact that digital effects are cheaper in many scenarios than building miniatures, puppets, etc so filmmakers/studios go with what is more economical most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Feb 14, 2024 5:07:48 GMT
I prefer both, honestly. In, fact, there are even practical effects that are not convincing in their realism, but are delightful anyway. The original King Kong looks like the filmmakers were playing with a toy gorilla, but it is still delightful. Same goes for the OG Godzilla, who was just a guy in a rubber suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Feb 15, 2024 7:23:27 GMT
Nuance certainly makes it difficult to force the matter into any clear dichotomy. An 'owner's manual' answer might be: CGI to facilitate practical effects for the vast canvas of sci-fi/fantasy world-building or as an absolute, entirely, wherein to place minimal live-action subjects as a very conscious and specific aesthetic while allowing for practical effects to dominate as much as possible genres of straight creature-feature/bodily horror and real-world traditional action staging, stunts, pyrotechnics etc. That's about as simple a binary as I can give.
When you get into historical settings the more you can achieve with in-camera sets & locations, obviously the better, relying further on scaled miniatures and hand matte paints for ever greater extensive vistas; digital then serves merely and uninvasively the purpose of compositing together all the above. It's also an undeniable improvement for not adding but removing—wire work, cables, crane attachments and so on, thus leaving unmolested the sensation of whatever car chase or crazy-ass Tom Cruise stunt.
Yet the topic can proceed further into minutiae as to where CGI can micro-assist an otherwise verisimilitude intent. I think for now its only a discussion that can be commenced, never concluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Feb 15, 2024 8:30:29 GMT
They have their pros and cons. While photorealistic animation gives you more freedom, it colors the proceedings in a way that practical effects don't.
I really do kind of wish Lucas would have made the prequels to at least look like a movie made in the 50s, or 60s. With stop motion effects, and dated haircuts, etc. So that watching them with the original trilogy in chronological order wouldn't be as absurd. But he was the kind of guy to always want to push the boundries of technology that barely existed yet. So there's that.
I have more thoughts but im done for now
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Feb 15, 2024 10:03:58 GMT
Neither. It's not one or the other. People often forget that Lucas was funding his own movies. And because he was willing to push the technology for years, CGI reached a point where it offered the best cost-efficient way to realize his vision, and above all, the freedom to change things around whenever he wanted if he so chose at minimal cost.
Of course real sets and miniatures can look more realistic, but they also require more time and money. How much more expensive would all that be? How much more time it would take? How many shots would be compromised or not realized at all because they would not have the time and money to develop them with practical effects? And what if Lucas had a better idea down the line and wanted to change things? All these things need to be considered, but people prefer to think that it's all a matter of whim.
Besides, the amount of practical effects in the prequels is often underestimated or flat out ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Feb 24, 2024 13:43:45 GMT
Someone should explain to me this existential drama about practical vs. CGI because clearly I don't understand it. Cinema is, after all, art of illusion. If the illusion works and makes the audience think that it is a real world, then what is the matter how it worked? Ok, for some specialists or hardcore cinema fans should be interesting how the trick works otherwise I consider this the next stupid cliche. Let's not forget that some youtube "experts" on practical effects blamed the landscapes of Naboo for CGI because they were so shiny and beautiful. I have seen the lake Como, guess what, is real. Also the "palace" which is situated in Sevilla, Spain. There are some "corrections" on the roofs but otherwise is real. So is the problem of the CGI or is the problem with the aesthetic of these experts who clearly are not used to such?
Ok, there is bad CGI of course but the same can be said about the practical effects in general. I cannot see some strikingly bad practical or CGI effects in SW. Maybe there are some not so good in some backgrounds in a very few shots but we are not talking about this here.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Feb 24, 2024 16:14:51 GMT
Someone should explain to me this existential drama about practical vs. CGI because clearly I don't understand it. Cinema is, after all, art of illusion. If the illusion works and makes the audience think that it is a real world, then what is the matter how it worked? Ok, for some specialists or hardcore cinema fans should be interesting how the trick works otherwise I consider this the next stupid cliche. Let's not forget that some youtube "experts" on practical effects blamed the landscapes of Naboo for CGI because they were so shiny and beautiful. I have seen the lake Como, guess what, is real. Also the "palace" which is situated in Sevilla, Spain. There are some "corrections" on the roofs but otherwise is real. So is the problem of the CGI or is the problem with the aesthetic of these experts who clearly are not used to such? Ok, there is bad CGI of course but the same can be said about the practical effects in general. I cannot see some strikingly bad practical or CGI effects in SW. Maybe there are some not so good in some backgrounds in a very few shots but we are not talking about this here. The drama comes down to the distinction between documentary footage and animation. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Feb 25, 2024 23:28:03 GMT
The anecdote I always go back to is back in 2017-ish, a guy I worked with, who was about 20 at the time, was talking about how he'd never seen any Star Wars movies before, so I let him borrow my dvds. After he watched all 6 I asked him what he thought and he said he didn't like the OT because "there's too many puppets."
And yeah, sometimes these days when I watch the OT, there's moments with Yoda and Jabba that are a little ehh? And Dagobah looks very much like a set.
So no, practical effects is not always the objective preference for everybody.
And cgi doesn't automatically make a movie bad, like pt haters try to say.
For me, I personally didn't particularly care for cgi when it first started coming out, and in my defense it wasn't great in the '90s. And yes, I thought it was a little jarring to see in SW, which I'd grown so accustomed to seeing done in old school practical effects. But it was state of the art and brought a lot of improvements, so I quickly got used to it.
And even the OT was about Lucas pushing the boundaries of what technology was capable of, so why wouldn't the Prequels?
Yeah, like others have said, it just depends on if it serves the story, the film, and the production.
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Feb 26, 2024 5:35:40 GMT
The anecdote I always go back to is back in 2017-ish, a guy I worked with, who was about 20 at the time, was talking about how he'd never seen any Star Wars movies before, so I let him borrow my dvds. After he watched all 6 I asked him what he thought and he said he didn't like the OT because "there's too many puppets." And yeah, sometimes these days when I watch the OT, there's moments with Yoda and Jabba that are a little ehh? And Dagobah looks very much like a set. So no, practical effects is not always the objective preference for everybody. And cgi doesn't automatically make a movie bad, like pt haters try to say. For me, I personally didn't particularly care for cgi when it first started coming out, and in my defense it wasn't great in the '90s. And yes, I thought it was a little jarring to see in SW, which I'd grown so accustomed to seeing done in old school practical effects. But it was state of the art and brought a lot of improvements, so I quickly got used to it. And even the OT was about Lucas pushing the boundaries of what technology was capable of, so why wouldn't the Prequels? Yeah, like others have said, it just depends on if it serves the story, the film, and the production. This anecdote highlights something I have noticed many times, that the media environment that one is immersed in has a huge influence on shaping one's taste. If you are more used to puppets, you will probably prefer the puppets. The same is true for CGI. I have an anecdote of my own. Despite the fact my mom is much older than me, whenever we watch an Old Hollywood film together, she complains that the acting is so phony, probably because she has become so used to modern acting styles (thanks to all the Netflix shows she watches, I guess). The funny thing is, she has never complained about the acting in Star Wars. |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Feb 26, 2024 5:42:07 GMT
But at the end of the day, no matter which you prefer, a puppet was captured on film, while CGI had to be drawn in.
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Feb 26, 2024 5:46:56 GMT
But at the end of the day, no matter which you prefer, a puppet was captured on film, while CGI had to be drawn in. When you put it like that, I prefer CGI because it makes the movie more like a painting. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Mar 1, 2024 1:12:57 GMT
But at the end of the day, no matter which you prefer, a puppet was captured on film, while CGI had to be drawn in. When you put it like that, I prefer CGI because it makes the movie more like a painting. Yeah, I think in the not too distant future, the new thing people will be saying is, "I miss cgi that was created by artists" when that stuff will be made by ai. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 1, 2024 7:50:16 GMT
Despite the fact my mom is much older than me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Mar 1, 2024 22:08:22 GMT
Despite the fact my mom is much older than me, whenever we watch an Old Hollywood film together, she complains that the acting is so phony, probably because she has become so used to modern acting styles (thanks to all the Netflix shows she watches, I guess). The funny thing is, she has never complained about the acting in Star Wars. Yeah, I think the acting in the Prequels is a lot better than the acting in the movies they're emulating. I'd even say better than a lot of the acting in the OT. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Mar 15, 2024 20:36:16 GMT
The anecdote I always go back to is back in 2017-ish, a guy I worked with, who was about 20 at the time, was talking about how he'd never seen any Star Wars movies before, so I let him borrow my dvds. After he watched all 6 I asked him what he thought and he said he didn't like the OT because "there's too many puppets." And yeah, sometimes these days when I watch the OT, there's moments with Yoda and Jabba that are a little ehh? And Dagobah looks very much like a set. Does anyone else here remember before the Special Editions watching SW on film, tv or vhs and seeing the matte boxes around all the spaceships? Also, what they were able to do with the stop-motion (go-motion) with the Taun-Tauns and Walkers was groundbreaking, but still no match for cgi. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 16, 2024 10:57:44 GMT
Also, what they were able to do with the stop-motion (go-motion) with the Taun-Tauns and Walkers was groundbreaking, but still no match for cgi. On that claim I must contend...up to a point, anyways.
My exhibit-A before the court would be Vermithrax Pejorative from 1981's Dragonslayer. As an example of creature design, CGI dragons at their finest are of course replete with a virtually limitless degree of animated articulation, forwarding said aspect of realization deep into a kind of vanishing point. An abyss. Nothingness. Meaninglessness. Such absolution can be a bit numbing for me. The go-motion work for Vermithrax remains arguably unmatched to this day; it was a technique left with but a fraction of a lifespan, unfortunately, caught between generations of traditional stop-motion and the advent of digital.
Yet the sequences of Vermithrax, processed and moving in full body view, while liberated from the "jerkiness" typically associated with all previous efforts in stop-motion, are likewise acquitted of the uncanny smoothness that taxes all CGI. In short, Vermithrax never feels like a cartoon, not even a high budget 3D photorealistic cartoon. Because he's not. He's a real puppet that reflects real photographed light and in turn gives way to real shadows. His movements are not staccato jerky, thus betraying the illusion of film, but seemingly rotary to the human eye, subject to tiny rods 'n' motors equating more effortlessly the limitations of bone, muscle limb proportions etc. Creature-like in a manner that is visceral.
I've seen CGI that works as a more efficient, more indulgent and oft more gluttonous expression of the animators but never anything that matches the unique affect of the dragon above. And I'm not simply talking about quaint charms either, but a genuine distinction to something on screen that's never been achieved through digital tools by my count. If CGI can be more hyper-real then go-motion in its brief heyday was more primeval-real. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Mar 16, 2024 21:32:54 GMT
Yeah, I just watched the making-of Dragonslayer yesterday on youtube, but have never seen the movie. The scene of Vermithrax walking in go-motion was very nice. It is a shame go-motion kind of just quickly fell out of use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seeker of the Whills on Mar 18, 2024 14:29:38 GMT
I like both, though in the case of Star Wars I prefer CGI. It goes hand in hand with the slick, futuristic technology inherent in the SW galaxy. Technology and Star Wars are made for each other. While I love the dirty, used look of the OT, I think the more Flash Gordon, shiny and polished look of the PT is better. And Lucas still used costumes and practical effects in the PT. For all their talk of "realness," the Disney ST used CGI on characters like Unkar Plutt, while Lucas used practical makeup on Tion Medon, for example, even in his last SW film. Lucas had the right idea, which he iterated many times: Technology is just a tool to tell a story. And the story of Star Wars isn't about spaceships and laser swords, it's a family drama. That's what the Disney movies didn't really get. They were too enamored with the extraneous paraphernalia such as the Millennium Falcon (I still cringe at the over-the-top reveal in TFA) and Luke's old lightsaber. They fetishized those elements that were just set dressing in Lucas' films, where they were used as tools to tell a greater human story. In the Disney films, the toys took center stage instead of the humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on May 9, 2024 19:31:29 GMT
|
|
