Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Oh come on. The cgi in Jurassic park is NOT better than world.

Just about to say that. World had a few bad shots but overall the cgi was a marvel.

[Blu-Benny]

it all looks fantastic!!

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's still an indirect dig at the prequels because they're trying to ingratiate themselves with all the people who think that they were wall-to-wall CG. I still wonder if it'll turn out like Indy 4 though, where we were showered with promises of practical goodness and ended up with a very "digital" looking movie regardless. Having said that, JJ is usually extremely canny at picking the right effect for the right shot (digital train wreck in Super 8 aside) so it'll be a beautiful movie alright.

Star Trek is obviously CGI'd out the ass but still looks much more real and tactile than either the Star Wars prequels or Indy 4. Almost too tactile since the engine room of the new enterprise looks like a water treatment plant in Alabama. I'm not real worried about the look of this film.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Oh come on. The cgi in Jurassic park is NOT better than world.

I think it is.

It's all about balance, angles and melding with practical effects. JW looks fake and digital almost the entire time. JP, while having some dodgy moments, looks predominantly real.

[EvaDK]

A great behind the scenes reel. The cast and crew really look like they are having a blast doing this film.

Gwendoline Christie is so effing tall... and they placed poor Carrie Fisher right next to her. Now, that's cruel. She's so tiny in comparison that Gwendoline could eat her for lunch.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I still wonder if it'll turn out like Indy 4 though, where we were showered with promises of practical goodness and ended up with a very "digital" looking movie regardless.

The main reason "Crystal Skull" looked so obvious was because Spielberg refused to shoot overseas; as a result, more of the backgrounds were added in post-production. Also, the movie has a warmer color palette, with richer yellows and greens, because it was designed to mimic the serials of the 1950s. By contrast, Robert Zemeckis avoided that on "Back to the Future", because we were seeing the '50s from an '80s viewpoint.

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

The main reason "Crystal Skull" looked so obvious was because Spielberg refused to shoot overseas; as a result, more of the backgrounds were added in post-production. Also, the movie has a warmer color palette, with richer yellows and greens, because it was designed to mimic the serials of the 1950s. By contrast, Robert Zemeckis avoided that on "Back to the Future", because we were seeing the '50s from an '80s viewpoint.

From what I've read, Indy 4 looked so odd because Spielberg made the editors edit on an old school machine, which made it more noticeable when adding the CGI elements.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

From what I've read, Indy 4 looked so odd because Spielberg made the editors edit on an old school machine, which made it more noticeable when adding the CGI elements.

Well, if he was trying to emulate an older style, that approach would definitely make sense. Think of it this way: a retro video game can still play on an emulator, and sometimes, even look cleaner...but it was made for the original hardware. If you wanted total authenticity, you'd go with the latter...which seems to be Spielberg's aim with "Crystal Skull".

[EvaDK]

A lot of the jungle scenes in Crystal Skull looked like obvious sets. Especially the daylight scenes. There's no hint of that stark sunlight and those deep shadows that most surely will be very noticeable on those longitudes.

Look at Raiders for comparison. Both the jungle and desert scenes. It looks so much better.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Star Trek is obviously CGI'd out the ass but still looks much more real and tactile than either the Star Wars prequels or Indy 4. Almost too tactile since the engine room of the new enterprise looks like a water treatment plant in Alabama. I'm not real worried about the look of this film.

Close, some of it was a Budweiser brewery IIRC.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I think it is.

It's all about balance, angles and melding with practical effects. JW looks fake and digital almost the entire time. JP, while having some dodgy moments, looks predominantly real.

Those three things have nothing to do with the quality of CGI. Jurassic Park certainly looks better in certain aspects. Steven Speilberg is simply a far better director that Colin. However, the actual QUALITY and TEXTURE of the CGI in Jurassic World is better. The only reason you say it's not is because if nostalgia. It's better. The raptor scene in the kitchen compared to any scene with the raptors in world show exactly what I mean.

World looks fake due to the digital cinematography age we live in, not because of the work of the artists involved.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I think it is.

It's all about balance, angles and melding with practical effects. JW looks fake and digital almost the entire time. JP, while having some dodgy moments, looks predominantly real.

The special effects are impressive in Jurassic World... but this is exactly how I feel about it. I completely agree.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Those three things have nothing to do with the quality of CGI.

Disagree entirely. I ain't lookin' at these movies on a computer wireframe model. I'm watching a movie, and the CGI's ability to blend in, look real inside the frame and interact with the world is key to it being good CGI. Jurassic Park uses a ton of tricks and talent to create than realistic blending. Jurassic World looks like a cartoon by comparison, as do most modern films (not all).

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Those three things have nothing to do with the quality of CGI. Jurassic Park certainly looks better in certain aspects. Steven Speilberg is simply a far better director that Colin. However, the actual QUALITY and TEXTURE of the CGI in Jurassic World is better. The only reason you say it's not is because if nostalgia. It's better. The raptor scene in the kitchen compared to any scene with the raptors in world show exactly what I mean.

World looks fake due to the digital cinematography age we live in, not because of the work of the artists involved.

It's different because the process was different.

A great example is the T-Rex foot mark in the mud. In Jurassic World, they do their own take on this iconic moment from Jurassic Park. In Jurassic World, it was done completely with CGI and you can tell it was all digital... even though the effects are impressive.

For Jurassic Park, they built a model T-Rex foot that was designed to be just as large as what the real-deal would have been, and then added CGI over that model.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

The main reason "Crystal Skull" looked so obvious was because Spielberg refused to shoot overseas; as a result, more of the backgrounds were added in post-production. Also, the movie has a warmer color palette, with richer yellows and greens, because it was designed to mimic the serials of the 1950s. By contrast, Robert Zemeckis avoided that on "Back to the Future", because we were seeing the '50s from an '80s viewpoint.

Originally Posted by zafisher94

From what I've read, Indy 4 looked so odd because Spielberg made the editors edit on an old school machine, which made it more noticeable when adding the CGI elements.

AFAIK it was edited in the same non-linear digital fashion with a DI finish like pretty much every film is these days. You may be confusing the editing thing for the decision they made to shoot it on film, which got turned into ones and zeroes the second it hit the scanner for ingestion into the DI anyway.

What didn't help was the Lucas-style massaging of real elements, taking a real Hawaii jungle (which may not count as "overseas" to Americans but it's hardly a backlot in Burbank) and adding loads of digital crap to it. To whit:

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

You guys can post whatever behind-the-scenes pics you want but the prequels still look like super fake CGI explosions and nothing changes that.

Yeah it's not like people literally think the prequels were 100% cgi like a pixar movie-- they did build sets and use some miniatures and props.

HOWEVER, almost every single scene in the film is dripping with digital effects and backgrounds. The planets, the clone troopers, the Jedi Temple, etc. It's so lathered in green-screen and cgi that the movies have a very sterile, artificial look to them. A good chunk of the movies, according to the actors themselves, had to spend a lot of their time acting against nothing in a giant empty room with nothing there.

So yes, it is a big deal for JJ to talk about keeping everything real and authentic for Episode VII.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Oh come on. The cgi in Jurassic park is NOT better than world.

It's not about the cgi exactly, it's how you use it. Jurassic Park to me is still the more convincing and believable film because they carefully integrated cgi and blended it into the practical effects-- its an art form in and of itself. I liked Jurassic World overall, but my big criticism of it was that dinosaurs always looked like a bunch of cgi dinosaurs and it pulled me out of the movie a bit.

I had the same problem with Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy-- the cgi had improved since Lord of the Rings, but Lord of the Rings still looks better because he did a better job blending practical effects with the cgi. The Hobbit comes off more artificial-looking in comparison.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

It's not about the cgi exactly, it's how you use it. Jurassic Park to me is still the more convincing and believable film because they carefully integrated cgi and blended it into the practical effects-- its an art form in and of itself. I liked Jurassic World overall, but my big criticism of it was that dinosaurs always looked like a bunch of cgi dinosaurs and it pulled me out of the movie a bit.

I had the same problem with Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy-- the cgi had improved since Lord of the Rings, but Lord of the Rings still looks better because he did a better job blending practical effects with the cgi. The Hobbit comes off more artificial-looking in comparison.

I agree with this point, its not that JP1 was "better" [because its not lol] its that when you carefully craft around real and cgi, you inevitably get a better product because there will be few chances that you get those "ohhhh I see cgi" moments.

Jurassic world was excellent and I loved the movie [even with a few plot holes] but that amount of cgi, there are most certainly times in that movie where you pick up on it... Not a big deal to me but I can see what the post is getting at.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

It's not about the cgi exactly, it's how you use it. Jurassic Park to me is still the more convincing and believable film because they carefully integrated cgi and blended it into the practical effects-- its an art form in and of itself. I liked Jurassic World overall, but my big criticism of it was that dinosaurs always looked like a bunch of cgi dinosaurs and it pulled me out of the movie a bit.

I had the same problem with Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy-- the cgi had improved since Lord of the Rings, but Lord of the Rings still looks better because he did a better job blending practical effects with the cgi. The Hobbit comes off more artificial-looking in comparison.

I love The Hobbit films but you are right about those as well... having actors, traditional make-up, and props used to create orcs, etc. is better (ala Lord of the Rings) than the purely CGI creations in The Hobbit series. Though the special effects have improved dramatically.

Part of me wondered if Jackson had done it that way because The Hobbit book was aimed at younger readers, but really, he was having to mount such a large production it was probably in part due to how much work was involved.

[Fred Bang]

I just watched attack of the clones for the first time in 5 years and while I like the story , my avoid the fx aged badly. I don't know if it's one of the firstto be filmed digitally but it reminded me of the 90s Rebel Assault game which was using real actors against blue screen