Star Wars: Episode VII Will Balance CGI and Practical Effects

[StewShearerOld]

Star Wars: Episode VII Will Balance CGI and Practical Effects

According to Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy, without a good story Episode VII's special effects "mean nothing."

In a weekend with <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126381-Star-Wars-Episode-VII-Lands-John-Williams>several bits of <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126389-Star-Wars-Rebels-Returns-to-Classic-Trilogy-Roots>exciting Star Wars news, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy perhaps provided the cherry on top of fans' Force-flavored cake. Speaking at a panel hosted by Warwick Davis, Kennedy told franchise devotees that the focus of the film's creative team was set firmly on developing a good story.

"The story and characters are all we're talking about right now," she said. "We have an amazing team at [Industrial Light & Magic], who can create fantastic effects, but if we don't have a great story and characters, the effects mean nothing." Kennedy would continue by expressing the production's desire to balance the use of CGI with the implementation of physical sets and practical effects. "It's a conversation we're having all the time in the development of Episode VII. Looking at all the Star Wars movies and getting a feel for what even some of the early films did, combining real locations and special effects - that's something we're looking very seriously at."

This led to an extended applause from the assembled audience, something that should come as no surprise to fans of the film series. The arguable <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123748-Mark-Hamill-Hopes-Episode-VII-Will-Balance-CGI>over-use of CGI was one of the biggest gripes many had with Star Wars prequel trilogy. Continuing her comments on the subject Kennedy said, "We're probably going to end up using every single tool in the toolbox to create the look of these movies." Asked to elaborate on what the "toolbox" might contain she added, "It's using model makers; it's using real droids; it's taking advantage of artwork that you actually can touch and feel. And we want to do that in combination with CG effects. We figure that's what will make it real."

Source: <a href=http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/27/star-wars-episode-vii-focussing-on-character-and-story-first-cg-balanced-with-practical-effects>IGN


Permalink

 

[Seydaman]

Not like I clapped in front of my computer alone at 5:04 AM.

No sir.

 

[VladG]

Actors count as practical effects... right?

 

[knight steel]

As long as they are as good as the prequels then I'll have fun and see it in the cinema

 

[Nouw]

I'll see it when I believe it <.>. Good to hear nonetheless.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Practical effects will always trump CG in my opinion. However, I am very old school when it comes to films. It is part of why I can barely stomach anything in theaters nowadays. If my brain detects CG, I am often completely taken out of the scene and I just lose all interest.
I'll take bad practical effects over awesome CG any day. I am in the minority I know. I just love knowing that what I am seeing exists in some form. I can also sit there and appreciate the work that went into making a shot work via a combination of camera tricks, miniatures, puppets, etc. It all makes me appreciate a movie so much more. A little bit of CG to clean things up isn't the end of the world, but I feel no matter how good it is. It won't ever compete with filming on location, and the construction of elaborate sets.
You also get a much better performance from the actors. If they can see something, it really helps. This is true of filming on location too, actors look hot as hell in a desert environment? Well, they probably are! It just helps my immersion into the film. Therefore, I hope they stick to this. Even if the prequels were a mastery of storytelling(They aren't.) I would never be able to get into them because the entire thing looks like a video game cutscene.
Rant over.




Also, no jedi please.

 

[Abomination]

I honestly couldn't give a shit if it's "practical" or CGI. The most practical effects are the ones that have the best effect, not the ones being employed for arbitrary reasons like "we must use 50% CGI only" or something ridiculous like that.

The whole idea that "animatronics were better!" is a load of garbage. Rose Coloured glasses much?

 

[Sku1c]

The whole idea that "animatronics were better!" is a load of garbage. Rose Coloured glasses much?

Compare ep4 animatronics to ep1 cgi; animatronics maintain a consistent quality at the least, cgi looks worse the more time passes by.

My 2 cents..

 

[Scars Unseen]

Actors count as practical effects... right?

Only where it is practical.

 

[Nazulu]

Well, this should be obvious. Hurray for common sense. I think they should avoid the CGI 'look' as much as possible.

Now. Do they actually know anyone who can write a good story and characters, as well as a script, and to get the actors to actually act well?

 

[havoc33]

Practical effects will always trump CG in my opinion. However, I am very old school when it comes to films. It is part of why I can barely stomach anything in theaters nowadays. If my brain detects CG, I am often completely taken out of the scene and I just lose all interest.
I'll take bad practical effects over awesome CG any day. I am in the minority I know. I just love knowing that what I am seeing exists in some form. I can also sit there and appreciate the work that went into making a shot work via a combination of camera tricks, miniatures, puppets, etc. It all makes me appreciate a movie so much more. A little bit of CG to clean things up isn't the end of the world, but I feel no matter how good it is. It won't ever compete with filming on location, and the construction of elaborate sets.
You also get a much better performance from the actors. If they can see something, it really helps. This is true of filming on location too, actors look hot as hell in a desert environment? Well, they probably are! It just helps my immersion into the film. Therefore, I hope they stick to this. Even if the prequels were a mastery of storytelling(They aren't.) I would never be able to get into them because the entire thing looks like a video game cutscene.

This is so true. CGI, when not used properly, totally kills the immersion. Perfect example of this is during the big jedi fight at that stadium during episode 2. Sand and explosions are everywhere, yet the actors are standing around wideeyed as nothing is going on around them. With that thick smoke and sand blowing everywhere, you wouldn't be able to see shit, let alone keep your eyes open. It's so obviously blue screen work and it totally kills the scene. The chase scene throughout the desert also suffers from this exact problem.

 

[piinyouri]

I mean, at least only use CG where it's warranted. (Where practical special fx would be impossible)
We watched a couple of the older movies recently and the times they use cg on something that could have easily been done irl is disturbing. Like, "We can do this, pretty easily too I imagine, but let's cg it anyway."

CG if done well and not taken overboard can be fine. 'the key here, it's not a "use it or don't use it" situation, rather a "how you use it" one.

 

[Magnethead]

..."if we don't have a great story and characters, the effects mean nothing."

So, the complete opposite to George Lucas' point of view when making the original Star Wars?

"A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing"

Oh, that's right, he said almost the exact same thing. Hopes suitable lowered. ;-)

 

[Doom-Slayer]

The whole idea that "animatronics were better!" is a load of garbage. Rose Coloured glasses much?

This can easily be answered by this.

This is so true. CGI, when not used properly, totally kills the immersion./quote]

A perfect statement in my opinion. CGI is great, but when used badly it is INCREDIBLY noticeable as you can bridge into the uncomfortable uncanny valley effect and things just looking really out of place, compared to bad practical effects just sometimes looking bad.

 

[Abomination]

The whole idea that "animatronics were better!" is a load of garbage. Rose Coloured glasses much?

This can easily be answered by this.

This is so true. CGI, when not used properly, totally kills the immersion./quote]

A perfect statement in my opinion. CGI is great, but when used badly it is INCREDIBLY noticeable as you can bridge into the uncomfortable uncanny valley effect and things just looking really out of place, compared to bad practical effects just sometimes looking bad.

Same applies to animatronics and set pieces. Use whatever best suits the scenario, but don't try and "balance" the two ("balance" implying a 50/50 split in use/budget).

If by "balance" they mean "use when suitable" then by all means full steam ahead.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

CGI can be good to expand a set and create things you couldnt do real life. But. You also need to accompany that with a good director. One that, even when filming on a blue screen, gives direction to the actors. Telling them when their are explosions or when things jump out at them. Basically telling them when and how to react to things they cant see.

 

[Something Amyss]

Rose Coloured glasses much?

Someone already pointed out how poorly a lot of the Ep 1 CG aged. Animatronics tend to be at least consistent in quality, and can still look significantly more "real" by virtue of actually, you know, being there.

I'm certainly not opposed to CG, but practical effects often accomplish things that look bad through CG.

On the other hand, if you can make the CG look good, awesome!

I'll still take the Christopher Reeve Superman flying over a lot of the computer model shots we see, though. Not because I think the movies were in some way perfect (far from it), but because it still ended up looking better.

And the less said about the Amazing Spider-Man's effects, the better. I mean, you're a 2010's movie, man!

OT: I'll believe it when I see it.

This is so true. CGI, when not used properly, totally kills the immersion.

Oh dear God, not "immersion" again. You have actors up onscreen playing make believe for your pleasure. What's so hard about a little imagination? If that's the absolute worst thing you can say about an epic scale fight, then they're doing something right (like distracting you from godawful writing, direction, and plotting).

 

[Casual Shinji]

I honestly couldn't give a shit if it's "practical" or CGI. The most practical effects are the ones that have the best effect, not the ones being employed for arbitrary reasons like "we must use 50% CGI only" or something ridiculous like that.

The whole idea that "animatronics were better!" is a load of garbage. Rose Coloured glasses much?

I think (hope) they mean a variety of different effects. This generally keeps visuals fresh.

Your avatar is the perfect example. Lurtz was just a big angry man, but he had an impossing presence because there was a real guy in practical make-up in the scene. Unlike The Hobbit where we have a fake looking CG orc for no reason other than "cuz CGI".

So yeah, I hope this new Star Wars is going to be more Lord of the Rings, less The Hobbit.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Practical effects... Great! That's one of the things I love about Christopher Nolan's films, it does just look better. Still I suppose it would be pretty dumb not to use CGI in a sci-fi film these days, there are some times where it's just necessary.