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

[Fred Bang]

Can we just agree that the prequels special-effects are now dated and hope that the Awaken's special-effects will remains timeless, regardless of what technology is used?

Yesterday I watched Spielberg's Lost World, and the CGI was much more believable than anything in the prequels (and it came out a couple of years before). Like someone mentioned here before (not sure who), it's not the fact that CGI or practical effects is used that dates a movie, but if they are used well.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by rickah88

So the Prequel CGI vs Practical Effects debate rages on in the VII thread.

When it comes to bashing the prequels, no opportunity is wasted.

[A.MONK]

Originally Posted by rickah88

So the Prequel CGI vs Practical Effects debate rages on in the VII thread.

Tell me about it. It's the same sh!t over at theforce.net

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by rickah88

So the Prequel CGI vs Practical Effects debate rages on in the VII thread.

I for one am shocked! Aren't you?

[Darth Helmet]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Exactly.

People were surprised at the amount of model work because the movies all look like super fake CGI-a-thons. No behind-the-scenes photo makes that not the case. Also for every BTS model shot there is another one of poor Ewan McGregor standing in an all green room reacting to nothing, so it's a mixed bag anyway.

The same with the arena scene where McGregor and Jackson are in a green room reacting to nothing. It makes me think of Ian McKellen in the firs Hobbit movie during the dinner scene. He was in a green room all by himself reacting to no one just so that they could make him look taller than everyone else. He almost quit because that scene took forever to do.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by rickah88

So the Prequel CGI vs Practical Effects debate rages on in the VII thread.

It's not really about that, the recent Comic Con reel has Mark Hamill, Peter Mayhew and a few other people saying how real the new picture is going to be, Peter even says he's "getting back to the old ways the old way of doing things ..." and if I remember he was in his suit for Revenge of the Sith!

The seems to be a campaign to get fans to know that these pictures are going to be more real than what was previously done, which we can assume as prequel talk. Personally it's a bit distasteful, but everyone at Lucasfilm seems to be spurting out the same message.

I'd rather they just said they're making sequels to three of the biggest movies of all-time and they're doing everything they can to recapture the look and feel of them.

These pictures are all about the oily bits, I didn't feel they existed in the prequels. Even if things were real they felt like they were made in a mould, like out of a 3D printer, the original trilogy felt like it was all about the moving parts, all the knobs looked like they turned all the buttons looked like they did something. Even the actors had a cardboard cut-out quality to them, sure they were great looking, but they didn't always come across as three-dimensional.

I think that's what they're going for with, The Force Awakens.

[steel_breeze]

I'm glad Episode VII is getting back to the textured, tactile world of the original trilogy… but I really like the fact that the different eras of galactic history have different "looks". Makes the Old Republic "feel" different than the Empire. And now JJ Abrams' vision looks like it's going even darker than the OT, ushering in a new Post-Empire age. It's all good, in my book. I wouldn't want all three trilogies to look the same; they are decades apart, after all. EDIT: It's one of the many reasons I hate the digital additions to the original trilogy -- especially the changes at Mos Eisley and the ending celebration of ROTJ when we see Coruscant and Naboo looking exactly the same as they did in the prequels. Takes away some of the feeling that time has passed under an evil Empire.

The prequel trilogy had a lot of problems, but the design and execution of the "world" was never one of them, IMHO. I actively like the "cartoonish" or "painterly" look they established. Reminds me of a certain series of books my brother and I used to love when we were kids (in the 70's/80's), which we affectionately called "space paintings" books. Stewart Cowley wrote a couple of the biggest ones: "Spacebase 2000" and "Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 AD". Some examples can be found along this link: https://www.google.com/search?q=stew...ley spacecraft We used to wish that special effects were good enough to capture that "painterly" look… and IMHO, "Attack of the Clones" was the first movie to really do so.

[Ernest Rister]

If Kasdan and Abrams haven't nailed the script, it doesn't matter how many real sets, locations, or characters are in front of the camera. Lucas used the Prequels as an opportunity to experiment with a "digital back lot". I have no problem with that. It was the writing that sank those films, not green screens and tennis balls. When Padme tells Anakin she loves him in Attack of the Clones, Anakin looks as surprised as the audience. "You love me?" he asks, and the audience thinks, "Yeah, when did that happen?" That's what was wrong with the Prequels, not the digital sets or the use or underuse of practical f/x. All of this talk about getting back to more tactile locations and sets and characters isn't going to matter a hill of beans if Kasdan and Abrams haven't crafted a decent script.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by chip75

These pictures are all about the oily bits, I didn't feel they existed in the prequels. Even if things were real they felt like they were made in a mould, like out of a 3D printer, the original trilogy felt like it was all about the moving parts, all the knobs looked like they turned all the buttons looked like they did something. Even the actors had a cardboard cut-out quality to them, sure they were great looking, but they didn't always come across as three-dimensional.

I think that's what they're going for with, The Force Awakens.

Yes indeed.

Even tossing the CGI debate out the airlock the original films had a realistic "junk future" aesthetic that me and millions of other kids fell in love with in the 80's. The prequels in contrast looked squeaky clean and fake. Even if the new movies use a ton of CGI, if they have that dirty, real look of the original trilogy then people will be happy.

[Moviefan2k4]

I didn't have many complaints with the writing in the prequels; what really seemed to bog them down was Lucas getting lost in his "new world" of ideas. For the most part, I believed in the characters, even Anakin & Padme's romance. The problem, according to Lucas, was he spent too much time with extraneous story threads, particularly in Episode II. By the time he started writing "Revenge of the Sith", he realized there wasn't enough screen time to wrap everything up and still focus on Anakin's fall. So, he did the best he could, allowing Matthew Stover and James Luceno to explain things like Kamino's absence from the Jedi archives and Sidious' knowledge of Darth Plagueis.

Personally, I think he could've solved those problems easier, by getting rid of General Grevious. The character was memorable, and Matthew Wood did a good job...but he didn't really serve much purpose outside of separating Obi-Wan from Anakin.

[klauswhereareyou]

The integration of live action, practical effects, and computer effects looks like complete garbage in the prequels (specifically AOTC and ROTS): FACT. I blame it on the $#$$$ digital cameras Lucas decided to go with instead of sticking with film.


BTW: Just because we are shown images of practical effects shots that we thought were CGI doesn't mean Lucas may have gone back later and said...uhh let's just make redo it CGI. This is the same guy that apparently strung a number of takes together within shot, thus much of the actors seem like they aren't even looking at each other when they should be.

One of the worst effects was Puppet Yoda in PM though. Why does he still look so good in Empire and Jedi, yet like something from Build a Bear in PM??????????

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Personally, I think he could've solved those problems easier, by getting rid of General Grevious. The character was memorable, and Matthew Wood did a good job...but he didn't really serve much purpose outside of separating Obi-Wan from Anakin.

He could have solved those problems easier by using the 16 year break between Jedi and Phantom Menace by writing the screenplays. No excuse, really. All the time in the world, all the money in the world, access to all the talent in the world...and we get, "I wish I could just wish away my feelings..."

[Fred Bang]

Back to Episode VII, we can agree that everything we've seen so far looks promising and I have high hopes for everything (acting, story, dialogues, special effects)

For my part, the only fear I have is that it will be shot like a "moderm" movie like the Star Trek reboots: Quicks edits, nervous camera spinning everywhere and messy action scenes.

Am I the only one? I want clear space battles where you understand the scope and geography of the fight. Not a mess like Independence Day.

[klauswhereareyou]

Chewie looked like absolute garbage in ROTS. Looked like ol' Petey was wearing a chewie Halloween costume. Once again...wow it's great that its was done practically, but it don't matter when your lighting and camera suck to the degree they did in the Wookie scenes in ROTS! Maybe they shouldn't be saying oh we're going back to the practicals but we're lighting and shooting scenes so they don't look like a mid-90's fan film shot on VHS!

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by Fred Bang

Can we just agree that the prequels special-effects are now dated and hope that the Awaken's special-effects will remains timeless, regardless of what technology is used?

No. We must have a continued "discussion" about how fake the prequels look...

[chip75]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yes indeed.

Even tossing the CGI debate out the airlock the original films had a realistic "junk future" aesthetic that me and millions of other kids fell in love with in the 80's. The prequels in contrast looked squeaky clean and fake. Even if the new movies use a ton of CGI, if they have that dirty, real look of the original trilogy then people will be happy.

I think that's one of the reasons people responded so well to Star Wars, it was a new Universe, but it looked lived-in handed-down. Things had an age to them, you could pick them and feel their history. I've heard people say the prequels featured newer worlds and everything should be new and shiny and that's fine, but even it's the little attention to details that add to a films reality. You can get too sterile and lose atmosphere.

[EvaDK]

Lucas could probably have avoided most of the backlash from the fan community altogether, had he made the unaltered OT available in the best possible quality. Much of the 'hate' (including what people have to say about the prequels) probably originate from or is escalated by that single decision on his part.

As for VII, the Comic-Con reel was great. Watching Anthony Daniels standing inside the real set of the Falcon with a huge smile on his face, looking around and soaking it all in, was just heart warming and assuring.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

He could have solved those problems easier by using the 16 year break between Jedi and Phantom Menace by writing the screenplays. No excuse, really. All the time in the world, all the money in the world, access to all the talent in the world...and we get, "I wish I could just wish away my feelings..."

Lucas' absence from the film world was largely due to him making fatherhood his first priority. His marriage to Marcia ended shortly after "Jedi" opened, and over the years he adopted two more kids. He took on smaller projects like the "Young Indy" TV series, and still guided ILM from the sidelines...but his family was first, and I commend him for that.

Another reason was because originally, he hadn't given much thought to how Anakin became Vader, other than being burned in a volcano after fighting Obi-Wan. Most of his initial concepts from the early '70s wound up in "Episode III", but he still had tons of room left. So, he kept thinking about the rise of the Empire, and decided it should be done in politics rather than an outside attack. As I said before, he admitted "Episode II" was his biggest stumbling block, and wound up sacrificing various things because he got carried away. As for the dialogue, Anakin was young and isolated, having never been in love before; how many people under those conditions sound like Shakespeare?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Lucas' absence from the film world was largely due to him making fatherhood his first priority. His marriage to Marcia ended shortly after "Jedi" opened, and over the years he adopted two more kids. He took on smaller projects like the "Young Indy" TV series, and still guided ILM from the sidelines...but his family was first, and I commend him for that.

Another reason was because originally, he hadn't given much thought to how Anakin became Vader, other than being burned in a volcano after fighting Obi-Wan. Most of his initial concepts from the early '70s wound up in "Episode III", but he still had tons of room left. So, he kept thinking about the rise of the Empire, and decided it should be done in politics rather than an outside attack. As I said before, he admitted "Episode II" was his biggest stumbling block, and wound up sacrificing various things because he got carried away. As for the dialogue, Anakin was young and isolated, having never been in love before; how many people under those conditions sound like Shakespeare?

No...just no. Not going down the Justification Rabbit Hole. He had 16 years. There's no excuse. Here's hoping Kasdan and Abrams don't likewise stumble on the most important aspect of the film.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by chip75

It's not really about that, the recent Comic Con reel has Mark Hamill, Peter Mayhew and a few other people saying how real the new picture is going to be, Peter even says he's "getting back to the old ways the old way of doing things ..." and if I remember he was in his suit for Revenge of the Sith!

The seems to be a campaign to get fans to know that these pictures are going to be more real than what was previously done, which we can assume as prequel talk. Personally it's a bit distasteful, but everyone at Lucasfilm seems to be spurting out the same message.

I'd rather they just said they're making sequels to three of the biggest movies of all-time and they're doing everything they can to recapture the look and feel of them.

These pictures are all about the oily bits, I didn't feel they existed in the prequels. Even if things were real they felt like they were made in a mould, like out of a 3D printer, the original trilogy felt like it was all about the moving parts, all the knobs looked like they turned all the buttons looked like they did something. Even the actors had a cardboard cut-out quality to them, sure they were great looking, but they didn't always come across as three-dimensional.

I think that's what they're going for with, The Force Awakens.

Well said, but i can't help but think some "fans" will latch on to anything at all to bash any of the seven episodes for whatever reason.
For me special effects come in a wide variety: stop motion, cut scenes, camera angles, lighting, practical, models, set, cgi etc etc.
I think they all work well, and all offer their own unique touch. Especially in the Star Wars saga. For six films, so far, I have been pretty wowed by what the creative teams have done. Its been a brilliant blend in my opinion.
Six times now I've enjoyed being transported to a long time ago...in a galaxy far, far away.
And I'm looking forward the seventh, eigth and ninth!