It's not unheard of for learners to change masters for whatever reason. There's nothing to prevent Yoda from initially having been Obi-Wan's master in the usual sense before handing him off to Qui-Gon at some point.
Why no Obi-Wan movie??
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
It's not unheard of for learners to change masters for whatever reason. There's nothing to prevent Yoda from initially having been Obi-Wan's master in the usual sense before handing him off to Qui-Gon at some point.
I think that's more of an Abrams thing, he does prefer using practical effects whenever possible and saves CG for when it actually has to be done. That doesn't mean future SW movies are going to turn into the CG fest the Prequels were, indeed Rogue One certainly isn't and filming photos from Episode 8 which leaked earlier in the year indicated that movie is doing more things practically than the Prequels did. But the absence of extreme CG does not automatically mean they're distancing themselves from the Prequels. If anything, it just means someone realizes it's easier to film something with a minimum amount of green screens, takes up less time in post production and the actors likely enjoy having something they can play off of on set than having to stand in front of a green screen delivering their lines to a golf ball. Granted, this stuff is going to happen at some point anyway, but it's less work if it isn't in 90% of the movie.
I think there's been a sea change in certain quarters these last few years and some filmmakers (JJ among them) have started to advocate restraint when it comes to CG. To use it for what it's best at, not as a catch-all solution to all filmmaking challenges. Adversity breeds innovation after-all.
I recall an anecdote Ridley Scott mentioned from filming 'Black Hawk Down'. I forget the details, but I think it was something along the lines of; they were shooting an aerial scene when one of the helicopters drops a bunch of troops on the ground and he decided that he'd like/need one of the flat rooftops to be blackened. One of his people says "don't worry, we'll fix it in post" to which he responds "No we bloody won't. You'll get up there with a can and a brush and paint it black!"
It's emblematic of how lazy and unimaginative (to say nothing of fiscally cavalier) some people in the business had gotten even back then, thinking CG is the answer to everything.
I wouldn't characterise the prequels quite the same way since what George was doing was trying to push the technology. He also disliked location shooting, hence the drive for more and more green screen work, which I think is where most of the stuffy "fakeness" really comes from. People often forget just how much of the PT wasn't actually CG, but traditional model work and puppetry.
I recall an anecdote Ridley Scott mentioned from filming 'Black Hawk Down'. I forget the details, but I think it was something along the lines of; they were shooting an aerial scene when one of the helicopters drops a bunch of troops on the ground and he decided that he'd like/need one of the flat rooftops to be blackened. One of his people says "don't worry, we'll fix it in post" to which he responds "No we bloody won't. You'll get up there with a can and a brush and paint it black!"
It's emblematic of how lazy and unimaginative (to say nothing of fiscally cavalier) some people in the business had gotten even back then, thinking CG is the answer to everything.
I wouldn't characterise the prequels quite the same way since what George was doing was trying to push the technology. He also disliked location shooting, hence the drive for more and more green screen work, which I think is where most of the stuffy "fakeness" really comes from. People often forget just how much of the PT wasn't actually CG, but traditional model work and puppetry.
Digital compositing is demonstrably superior to photo-chemical techniques. That's just a technical and practical fact. How well those tools are wielded is as always, dependent on the artist.
It was also still quite new back then. Pushing up from the days of Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine, or the even older Space Rangers (1993). Ten or so years of advancements went into getting the PT were it was so all that stuff could be used on the big screen. Ten or more years have gone into cleaning it up so that it is harder to notice it from a practical effect. From the effects reels for TFA, there was a lot more CG than we expected because so much of it blended in.
In a way it was a little too clean of a composite as it tended to show up some of the limitations of the CG texture and shader quality, especially in the characters. Plus they were still experimenting with interactive lighting solutions so at times it was painfully obvious that the CG elements was floating around over the live action plate.
That old film grain used to hide a number of sins that a crisp, high-res digital image just won't let you get away with. Still, nobody else was as good at the time and with a few exceptions, it still holds up reasonably well even today. Not many (if any!) CG heavy films from that era can say the same.
That old film grain used to hide a number of sins that a crisp, high-res digital image just won't let you get away with. Still, nobody else was as good at the time and with a few exceptions, it still holds up reasonably well even today. Not many (if any!) CG heavy films from that era can say the same.
Looking bad and looking fake are not the same. The added effects in the SE releases of the OT were just as bothersome to me. Technical accomplishments they may have been, but I don't go to the theater to see technical accomplishment.
It has already been proven that Lucas had used at least 50% of practical effects and sets for the Prequel Trilogy. Or possibly more. I learned about this on THE FORCE.NET - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/ - website and in other articles. "Revenge of the Sith" was the only Star Wars film that did not shoot on location. Also, Abrams had utilized a good deal of CGI himself.
I have never understood the hullaballoo over CGI. To me, the arguments against it seem similar to those against the advent of sound and Technicolor. Have moviegoers, film critics and filmmakers have become so conservative these days that they want movie making to remain stuck in the present . . . or the past?
I have never understood the hullaballoo over CGI. To me, the arguments against it seem similar to those against the advent of sound and Technicolor. Have moviegoers, film critics and filmmakers have become so conservative these days that they want movie making to remain stuck in the present . . . or the past?
Last edited:
It isn't a matter of the tool used, it is a matter of the execution.
I think the main problem with late 90's/early 00's CG, is that was round about when it became a lot more widely available and thus a lot cheaper. That means a lot of mid and even high budget films were using it more for financial rather than artistic reasons, thus the results were often pretty sloppy. I've read several cases where the VFX companies at the time promised the earth but delivered dust and the filmmakers just had to work with it as best they could.
I sort of equate it to what was also happening in video games around the same time. That awkward transition from mostly 2D sprite based games to 3D polygon based ones. Where the former had about reached it's peak in terms of artistry where the latter was still finding it's feet, thus there's a very perceptible drop in quality.
As in VFX the best results were from those that played to the new tools' strengths and innovated where possible while the worst results were from those that didn't really understand it and were just following trends.
Not that much of this applies to the PT. ILM were, are and always have been the trend setters and innovators in the industry and back then were already 5-10 years ahead of anything anyone else could do for the same money. Sure, some of the shots looked really fake, but you know what else had really fake looking shots? The OT. Yes, especially before that terrible CG Jabba was put in there. Janky shots, dirty composites, unconvincing puppets and damned vaseline smeared on the lens!
Yes, it's part of the charm and I love the films all the same, but it's disingenuous to single out the PT in this regard.
I sort of equate it to what was also happening in video games around the same time. That awkward transition from mostly 2D sprite based games to 3D polygon based ones. Where the former had about reached it's peak in terms of artistry where the latter was still finding it's feet, thus there's a very perceptible drop in quality.
As in VFX the best results were from those that played to the new tools' strengths and innovated where possible while the worst results were from those that didn't really understand it and were just following trends.
Not that much of this applies to the PT. ILM were, are and always have been the trend setters and innovators in the industry and back then were already 5-10 years ahead of anything anyone else could do for the same money. Sure, some of the shots looked really fake, but you know what else had really fake looking shots? The OT. Yes, especially before that terrible CG Jabba was put in there. Janky shots, dirty composites, unconvincing puppets and damned vaseline smeared on the lens!
Yes, it's part of the charm and I love the films all the same, but it's disingenuous to single out the PT in this regard.
It somehow always bugged me that Lucas was SO proud he only built a single Clone Trooper suit. Reminded me of Neeson (who was badly misquoted afterwards) saying he might as well quit acting if all movies are going to be made with green screen and targets on sticks.
You can definitely tell that TFA is a more "real" film than all 3 prequels.
You can definitely tell that TFA is a more "real" film than all 3 prequels.
There was one? I thought they said somewhere on the prequel commentaries that there was no actual suit.
Really? That's not the argument that I've been hearing.
I heard that Sam Jackson didn't have a problem. And he had to do a lot of scenes with either a puppet or CGI Yoda.
Ya know, that might have been it. I just remember that it shouldn't have been something to be so proud of and reveled at all the practical actors playing troopers in TFA.
