• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why no Obi-Wan movie??

Really? That's not the argument that I've been hearing.
Saying that Lucas depended too much on CGI, that much of the CGI looked fake, etc. is saying exactly that.

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

CGI became Lucas's hammer. the single solution he went to even for problems that did not call for it and the films are weaker for it. That doesn't mean some of it, even much of it, doesn't look fantastic. There was of course a place for CGI throughout the trilogy but it took over to such an extent that the movies look like cartoons half the time to many viewers. The same can be said of the Matrix sequels, or the Hobbit trilogy. CGI can do amazing things, but relying on it as the foundation of your film almost invariably results in a weaker whole.
I heard that Sam Jackson didn't have a problem.
Jackson didn't exactly show much range. Nearly every line of his throughout the trilogy is delivered in the same subdued thoughtful, concerned tone.
 
It's worth bearing in mind that different actors will deal with working with greenscreen & tennis balls differently, depending on their individual experience and skill sets. In a way it's no different than some actors being unable to perform well in heavy make-up prosthetics or struggle with unscripted or overlapping dialogue. It's a skill.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say those actors that have extensive theatre experience are somewhat less likely to have difficulty than say those that came the TV/screen acting route. Indeed, IIRC the approach the Avatar mocap performers took was to treat the mo-cap stage a little bit like a theatre rehearsal.

I might go as far as saying that mo-cap is what finally made CG characters viable and able to fool the audience into forgetting they're not real. Compare Golem to say Jar-Jar, Watto, Taun We or the CG Yoda and you can tell the latter were (painstakingly) key-framed. The process is much closer to stop-motion animation puppetry and as such is *very* difficult to do convincingly. On top of that CG needs to read as physically real, while stop motion can get away with looking like puppets.
Since mo-cap became more common, it's treated less and less like animation and more and more like puppetry mixed with digital make-up prosthetics. It's increasingly allowing them to more able to bridge that treacherous uncanny valley.
It's also making it a lot easier for other actors to perform with CG characters if the other actor is there in the scene, with a performance capture rig.

Now back when they started making the prequels they didn't have any of that. Most of it was pioneered by Weta while ILM was still using trial and error to figure out what did and did not work. As is typical for this kind of thing, by the time they'd just started to get good at it, the project was over.

It's easy to sit back now and say this or that was a misstep because we have the benefit of hindsight. The first poor sods to beat a new path through an uncharted jungle are also the ones most likely to get cut to shreds or fall down a sinkhole in the process.
I recall an example of this trial and process in the very expensive Jar-Jar suit they had made for Ahmed Best to wear on-set for TPM. At the time they didn't really know when it came to the final process if they'd just be superimposing eye and lip movement or replacing the whole head. It turned out to be they needed manually animate the whole character and the suit was only really useful for lighting reference.
This is why in AotC, Taun We was just the voice actor on set, wearing a foamcore silhouette glued to a hard hat. If it were done today, it'd be a mo-cap rig.
 
Venardhi said:
The same can be said of the Matrix sequels, or the Hobbit trilogy.

The Matrix series has a built-in excuse: much of it takes place within a virtual reality. It's basically living inside a video game!
 
That makes no difference. Agent Smith was a very real physical threat in the first movie and a couple of the squids came close to killing them all in the real world. In the sequels they had a huge CGI budget and suddenly there are a thousand goofy rubber Agent Smiths running around and a bunch of fake looking CGI mechs piloted by CGI people shooting down swarms of squids. It just became a visual mess with no tension at all.

I have a ton of respect for the technology and artists and every person who poured their blood sweat and tears into those movies but without the restraint of budget or a mature and self-editing artistic vision their efforts resulted in a whole that was far less than the sum of its parts.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top