Akwat Kbrana said:
Agreed. Some of the horde shots were CG, but usually real stuntmen were used.
Moreover, Jackson's "CG only when necessary" philosophy extended even to locations-shots, buildings, etc. As much as possible, he used models and location shooting rather than just using a quick-fix CGI "band-aid." He also used animatronics for as many creatures as he could (Treebeard, "giants" from the Hobbits' perspective in the Prancing Pony, etc.) In addition to adding a sense of weight and realism to the final film, this approach also gave the actors something to interact with, rather than just putting them in front of a greenscreen with a suspended golf-ball, and shouting, "Faster, more intense!"
::nods:: Makes a difference.
ChainsawAsh said:
If it's not possible to do it 100% practically, you should aim for part practical and part CGI. All-CGI is a last resort.
For example, the space battle in ROTJ would look fantastic if it had been shot the exact same way, but the compositing had been done with modern computers. The space battle in ROTS looks like a video game.
For a non-Star Wars example: Instead of Jar Jar-ing it, Guillermo del Toro used a man in a suit with CG alterations for Pan's Labyrinth, and that looks 100% seamless.
Look, physical models will always look more real than CG, because they *are* real. They're physically tangible. CG is, by its very nature, not. CG should be used to enhance things, not to create them from sratch. The exception is if what you want to do is completely and utterly impossible any other way.
I know someone brought up I Am Legend as a negative example, but look at the opening scenes of a devastated New York City. Except for the CG animals roaming around, which look awful, showing New York City like that would have been impossible without the use of CGI - and it looks pretty damn good to me. That's something that was necessary for the story that couldn't have been done any other way. The "vampires," on the other hand, look like shit and should never have been done using CGI - they just dont look real.
For example, the space battle in ROTJ would look fantastic if it had been shot the exact same way, but the compositing had been done with modern computers. The space battle in ROTS looks like a video game.
Yeah. A lot of stuff in the PT comes off video-gamish, one way or another.
For a non-Star Wars example: Instead of Jar Jar-ing it, Guillermo del Toro used a man in a suit with CG alterations for Pan's Labyrinth, and that looks 100% seamless.
Love that film. Del Toro does his supernatural stuff really well. I loved the troll mart in Hellboy 2. Lucas should learn from that guy. His films show depth and vividness of imagination, while Lucas's recent films have shown an imagination that doesn't believe in itself -so different from his old films.
Look, physical models will always look more real than CG, because they *are* real. They're physically tangible. CG is, by its very nature, not. CG should be used to enhance things, not to create them from sratch. The exception is if what you want to do is completely and utterly impossible any other way.
I think all-cgi can sometimes be done very well, but generally yeah, cgi shouldn't be used when it can be avoided. Solid objects are so much more convincing.
Akwat Kbrana said:
SW creatures, on the other hand, just look like cartoon characters. Jar-Jar's bug-out eyes swivel around like a cartoon frog. Everything about him - his appearance, his movements, his voice, his dialogue - would be more at home in a road runner cartoon than in an epic Space saga. Dex's four arms and airbag chin, the willowy and lighter-than-air kaminoans, that stupidly over-the-top lizard thing on Utapau, that Jedi council member with the giraffe neck (that couldn't possibly support the weight of his head), the Fraggle-Rock reminiscent podracers...everything about these characters seems designed to terminate suspension of disbelief and pull you out of the illusion. "Look! Look! We're CG!! How silly and crazy our anatomical dimensions are! Ha, ha! Look, now I'm defying gravity and doing a quadruple-backflip in midair, just like Bugs Bunny might do! Isn't this great?!"
Exactly! To me it was like Lucas no longer believed in his universe, because that stuff is like an attempt to make it come off not real. In the OT, the aim is clearly to make everything come off as real as possible, as if they believed in the universe and wanted to make you believe too. Whereas in the PT and SE it's like they don't believe in the universe and want to make it impossible for you to believe too. Jar Jar is just the tip off the iceberg. A whole host of fake-looking characters and creatures and a lot of fake-looking places too. And even when they weren't doing cgi -look at how cartoonish the Trade Federation guys look.
skyjedi said:
There are more examples too. Look at the way the character of yoda is handled in the original empire strikes back and return of the jedi. He is dignified and wise. His lines of dialogue are short and to the point and not wasted. The character is invested with a believable amount of humanity. Then in Episodes II and III he is a green jumping bean. With a lightsaber. Becomes a comicly farciful and unbelievable character. Not only that his character is ruined he is extremely unlikable in the prequels the exact opposite of the original films.
Arrogant pompous green jumping bean. Looking like a cartoon. They fucking ruined that character so much.