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

[octagon]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

...and the less said about TPM original puppet Yoda the better. CGI Yoda looked like a colorform in AOTC, but looked better in ROTS, but still not as "real" as in Empire.

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

That TPM puppet however was simply awful.

The puppet itself was pretty awful but now you've got me wondering whether my discontent with the CG Yoda in TPM is due to the way the puppet was originally integrated/composited as opposed to the CG itself.

I saw TPM once in the theaters and watched the DVD once (maybe twice) and thinking back, the puppet never really seemed to fit quite right in a lot its scenes either.

[Strevlac]

If they make another Muppet movie I hope they make all the Muppets CGI. That would be so much better than those restricted, antiquated puppets. I hate watching those, it's so obvious that they aren't real.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's not quite that cut and dried. Puppet Yoda was pretty clearly superior to CG Yoda in TPM but it gets murkier after that. The CG in Clones and Sith was awfully good and it allowed the character to do things that would have been hard to pull off with puppets.

The Yoda puppet in The Phantom Menace is awful.

Yoda somehow looks older than he does in Episodes V & VI even though he's meant to be younger and his facial features look completely different.

The CGI replacement that was done for the BD is one of the few changes I actually really like because he now not only looks like himself again but it makes his appearance consistent with the other two movies in the PT.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Lord Method Man

It has screen presence. CGI does not.

I don't love much CGI, but I disagree with your statement. Did you think the apes in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" didn't have what you call "screen presence".

There's a lot more CGI in movies than you think. It's just that like boob and nose jobs, you only notice the bad ones. There are plenty of non-effects movies that are filled with CGI to change the set design, etc. You're just not expecting CGI so when done well, you don't notice it.

It's very easy to criticize something when you already know the technique used to produce it. But show it to someone who isn't familiar with such techniques and ask them if they think they characters were real or not and in almost all major films, they'll tell you that they believe that the character was on the set and interacting with the other actors.

The problem with Yoda CGI in Star Wars wasn't the way he looked. It was that his physical movement, especially in the silly PT fight scenes, defied what we perceived to be the physics of that universe.

[The Fallen Deity]

The problem with CGI is that it's frequently abused and not much effort goes into making it look convincing.

If a perfect balance can be made between CGI & Practical Effects it'll look amazing.

Especially when it's done so well that you can't tell the difference.

[Revolution 9]

Originally Posted by Lord Method Man

It has screen presence. CGI does not.

Andy Serkis disagrees with you.

[Revolution 9]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

The problem with CGI is that it's frequently abused and not much effort goes into making it look convincing.

If a perfect balance can be made between CGI & Practical Effects then it'll look amazing.

Especially when it's done so well that you can't tell the difference.

The funny thing about the prequels is that a lot of special FX were frequently accused of being terrible CGI.... when in fact, they weren't CGI at all. The prequels actually had some of the most extensive model work ever put on film. But so many of these models were either so good that people didn't realize they weren't real... or they were so elaborate that people couldn't believe that they were just models and so accused them of being CGI.

Watching the special features on DVD/Blu-Ray was an eye-opener for me, personally. Some of the stuff that I had assumed were green screen CGI effects were, in fact, practical sets and meticulous model work.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Revolution 9

The funny thing about the prequels is that a lot of special FX were frequently accused of being terrible CGI.... when in fact, they weren't CGI at all. The prequels actually had some of the most extensive model work ever put on film. But so many of these models were either so good that people didn't realize they weren't real... or they were so elaborate that people couldn't believe that they were just models and so accused them of being CGI.

Watching the special features on DVD/Blu-Ray was an eye-opener for me, personally. Some of the stuff that I had assumed were green screen CGI effects were, in fact, practical sets and meticulous model work.

That's true.

I had no idea how many practicals were used in the prequels until I watched the behind the scenes stuff.

Funnily enough the effects that I thought looked the best were actually the practical ones.

The stuff that was done in CGI looks really cartoony though for the most part and could've been done much, much better.

There's no excuse really when the CGI in Jurassic Park looks 100x better and that came out in 1993 when the technology was still in its infancy.

[madmojo]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

There's no excuse really when the CGI in Jurassic Park looks 100x better and that came out in 1993 when the technology was still in its infancy.

That's because Jurassic Park used the CGI to compliment, not replace the puppetry/animatronics. They did a great job on the t-rex, but the CGI raptors you can tell are CGI in parts. CGI these days doesn't bother me, but some of the stuff in the early 2000s was horrible. Like when the troll in Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone picks up Harry and shakes him around. Or in 2008's Hulk.

CGI has come a long way since then and I think the studios have learned that sometimes practical effects work better and that CGI should be used sparingly in some cases.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by madmojo

That's because Jurassic Park used the CGI to compliment, not replace the puppetry/animatronics. They did a great job on the t-rex, but the CGI raptors you can tell are CGI in parts. CGI these days doesn't bother me, but some of the stuff in the early 2000s was horrible. Like when the troll in Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone picks up Harry and shakes him around. Or in 2008's Hulk.

CGI has come a long way since then and I think the studios have learned that sometimes practical effects work better and that CGI should be used sparingly in some cases.

The CGI in the Prequels definitely fits into that horrible early 2000's CGI category.

Whatever CGI will be used in the new trilogy will probably look much, much better.

[madmojo]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

The CGI in the Prequels definitely fits into that horrible early 2000's CGI category.

Whatever CGI will be used in the new trilogy will probably look much, much better.

Oh I agree. The 1997 original trilogy re-release CGI was even worse.

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by madmojo

Oh I agree. The 1997 original trilogy re-release CGI was even worse.

The Jabba scene in the 97 A New Hope release looked like it belonged on a made for Sci-Fi channel movie.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Lord Method Man

The Jabba scene in the 97 A New Hope release looked like it belonged on a made for Sci-Fi channel movie.

I've always disliked that scene. I don't know why Lucas insists on keeping it. Especially with the crap CG.

[madmojo]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

I've always disliked that scene. I don't know why Lucas insists on keeping it. Especially with the crap CG.

Well, they did redo it a few years later, but it's still crap. I'm too afraid to watch the latest re-releases because now the Krayt dragon sound Obi-Wan makes to scare the sandpeople off sounds like he's been kicked in the nuts and the Ewoks in Jedi look really creepy with the horrible blinking eyes. I would have thought he'd at least take out the Jedi Rocks bit. Ugh.

[nagysaudio]

It's not just CG which made the prequels look cheap. The Sony HDC-F950 cameras produced some of the ugliest images in motion picture history (Avatar also had that ugly look, but with incredible production values and CG). The movies were low budget relatively speaking. The production values were uninspired, rushed, and done on the cheap. The acting was wooden. And the scripts focused way too much on the politics of that Universe instead of the characters and the action to move the narrative along.

And who cares about prequels in general? Prequels are some of the most pointless movies that could possibly be ever made. It's taking the exposition of a movie (the boring unimportant crap) and making an entire movie out of it.

Lucas should have made the sequels instead. A hugely missed opportunity on his part.

But we are extremely fortunate. The Ancient Fear has an incredible cast. Incredible composer. Original writer. A Star Wars fanboy for a director. Disney for a huge $200-$250 million budget and their high standards to production values, CG, sound effects, 3D, etc.

What else could we ask for?

[CinemaBlu]

I think the biggest problem with most bad CGI is that the animators are very bad actors. Or they over-animate. Like when a CG character is talking and for some reason every muscle in their body is moving.

That's part of what made Avatar so good. The acting wasn't left to the animators.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by madmojo

Well, they did redo it a few years later, but it's still crap. I'm too afraid to watch the latest re-releases because now the Krayt dragon sound Obi-Wan makes to scare the sandpeople off sounds like he's been kicked in the nuts and the Ewoks in Jedi look really creepy with the horrible blinking eyes. I would have thought he'd at least take out the Jedi Rocks bit. Ugh.

To be fair, the Ewoks were kind of creepy when they had dead doll eyes too

ROTJ definitely got the worst changes.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I don't love much CGI, but I disagree with your statement. Did you think the apes in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" didn't have what you call "screen presence".

There's a lot more CGI in movies than you think. It's just that like boob and nose jobs, you only notice the bad ones. There are plenty of non-effects movies that are filled with CGI to change the set design, etc. You're just not expecting CGI so when done well, you don't notice it.

It's very easy to criticize something when you already know the technique used to produce it. But show it to someone who isn't familiar with such techniques and ask them if they think they characters were real or not and in almost all major films, they'll tell you that they believe that the character was on the set and interacting with the other actors.

The problem with Yoda CGI in Star Wars wasn't the way he looked. It was that his physical movement, especially in the silly PT fight scenes, defied what we perceived to be the physics of that universe.

Great point. Everybody I talked to about AOTC, even the ones who hated it, had no idea that the clones were all CGI. Conversely, a lot of things were assumed to be CGI that weren't.

Not sure what people are talking about with the early 2000s CGI. A lot of it holds up quite well. The prequels have some moments that look dated, but they still look excellent overall, as do other films from the time.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by thegoat

Great point. Everybody I talked to about AOTC, even the ones who hated it, had no idea that the clones were all CGI. Conversely, a lot of things were assumed to be CGI that weren't.

Not sure what people are talking about with the early 2000s CGI. A lot of it holds up quite well. The prequels have some moments that look dated, but they still look excellent overall, as do other films from the time.

Gollum looks good and he's from 2002&2003.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the only film Yoda looked "real" in was Empire. I thought even in ROTJ he looked too puppety, and the less said about TPM original puppet Yoda the better. CGI Yoda looked like a colorform in AOTC, but looked better in ROTS, but still not as "real" as in Empire.

I thought if anything that as good as he looked in Empire, the more restricted location in his short screen time in Jedi helped made Yoda even more life-like then he ever was in Empire.