Mark Hamill Hopes Episode VII Will "Balance" CGI

[deadish]

The CGI in Iron Man was totally fail right?

It's not the technology, it's how it's used.

It's like blaming the use of oil paints when a painting comes out liking like crap.

ok... now go read the article and thread and youl see eveyrone is saying what you are

???

This has mostly been a CGI bashing thread up to the point I posted.

Mark Hamil is calling for a "balance" ... There is no need for "balance" of any kind. Just use what deliver results effectively and efficiently.

CGI isn't the "problem". It's poorly done CGI that look bad. Old fashion physical effects can look like utter crap too if done wrong. Many here are wearing rose tinted glasses as they only remembers the well done physical effects in their favorite movies.

 

[Lunar Templar]

favorite Joker, Ledger was great, Hamill is legend

o.0 he was Hob Goblin ... >.> how did I not know this ...

I do not know this old man, but feels as though I should. who be he?

anyway, balance is all well and good, but a wise line from a car related song once said 'it doesn't matter what you drive, it's how you drive what you got', I feel this fits here as well

 

[direkiller]

I do not know this old man, but feels as though I should. who be he?

[/quote]
he is from Metalocalypse
Mr. Selatcia

 

[Olas]

Mark Hamill Hopes Episode VII Will "Balance" CGI

"I guess you can call that"

( ?_?)
( ?_?)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_&#9632

"A New Hope"

[sub]I'm so... so sorry[/sub]

I like this attitude, CGI can be good, just not for everything, it should be used where most appropriate. Not overused, not underused. I also hope that they don't make the creatures and technology look too insanely different from what we remember from the original trilogy, like they did with the prequels. Just because you have flashy new FX doesn't mean you have to deviate completely from the designs and aesthetics that we all know. The prequels barely resembled Star Wars until the end of the third one, and it created a large cognitive dissonance for me.

 

[The Floating Nose]

Of course they have to balance it ! Because when you use both CGI and practical effect, this is where special effects really shine for me. If a filmmaker wants to do an effect, if it's possible to do it practically, why not use it ? It looks much more belivable (Jurassic Park, PumpkinHead, The Thing) and im pretty sure that it is MUCH easier for the actors to play in front of it. CGI should be used when you have no other choice (AVATAR, The moving T-REX in Jurassic Park, Lord of The Rings) not because everybody is doing it. Also CGI looks terrible when done poorly, it looks fake and lifeless. Im pretty sure that practical effect are much easier to do. Both of them require work but sometimes filmmaker seems to think that CGI=less work and when filmmakers start thinking that you get results like Birdemic and The Day The Earth Stood Still remake.

This is a pet peeve of mine but i really hate CGI blood in action and Horror films. What happened to movies like Total Recall, Friday The 13TH and Robocop ?

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Mark brings up a valid point, though it will be interesting to see what Disney will do with a Luke Skywalker in his early 60s.

He won't be 60. They will construct a younger Luke Skywalker entirely out of CGI and then have Hamill voice act it. Just like they did with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the latest terminator movie.



And CGI Leia and GCI Han Solo. The only thing real in the new movies will be the sets. It will make filming a breeze. Set up a camera for 5 minutes on an empty set and then go somewhere else to set up more cameras.

 

[Vivi22]

The CGI in Iron Man was totally fail right?

It's not the technology, it's how it's used.

It's like blaming the use of oil paints when a painting comes out liking like crap.

Did you even read the article or the thread?

No one is complaining about using CGI. People do tend to complain when a movie is filmed entirely with green screens and everything is CGI, even if it really doesn't need to be, and would actually look better if it weren't. I'll gladly go on record saying that of the prequel trilogy, the only movie that didn't look like complete ass 99% of the time was Episode 1. Sometime after that Lucas completely forgot what a set was and just said "fuck it, we'll add everything in post production."

He won't be 60. They will construct a younger Luke Skywalker entirely out of CGI and then have Hamill voice act it. Just like they did with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the latest terminator movie.

The face was digitally superimposed on a body builder matching Arnold's Terminator proportions. It was really CGI, not purely anyway, and there was an actual guy on the set filming those scenes.

 

[Sealpower]

I must say I'm surprised to hear that Hamill is returning to Star Wars and I couldn't agree more with his opinion on CGI.

CGI is best used when it enhances the practical shot. Good examples of this are the Lord of the rings films (and heck even Titanic)

Shooting 93,7% (made up statistic) of a movie on a green screen (EP3) just feels wrong somehow.

 

[deadish]

The CGI in Iron Man was totally fail right?

It's not the technology, it's how it's used.

It's like blaming the use of oil paints when a painting comes out liking like crap.

Did you even read the article or the thread?

No one is complaining about using CGI. People do tend to complain when a movie is filmed entirely with green screens and everything is CGI, even if it really doesn't need to be, and would actually look better if it weren't. I'll gladly go on record saying that of the prequel trilogy, the only movie that didn't look like complete ass 99% of the time was Episode 1. Sometime after that Lucas completely forgot what a set was and just said "fuck it, we'll add everything in post production."

Have you read the thread? There are people here that feel "physical" is "better" and CGI is all that is wrong with movies these days.

And I hope you aren't one of those people who blame the suckiness of the prequels on the over use of CGI. There are so many things wrong with those movies that CGI "flaws" are the least of your problems.

In summary, don't blame the tool. Blame the "artist" that misuses it. Every tools has its limitations, you either work within those limitations or you have no one but yourself to blame when the result looks like ass.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I say throw Abrams out and get somebody that will stay true to the style of the franchise material. Abrams proved he can't do that.

I think it will be fine in JJ's hands, look at the first Star Trek movie he made. The cgi was good and was used well. Plus the overall acting and how he moved the camera made the film fun and interesting to watch. Where as the shots in SW1 - 3 were so slow, boring and static that you couldnt help but look at the background to much.

Yeah, I had the horrible honor of actually going to see "his" Star Trek movie in the theaters. If I could time travel, I'd tell myself not to waste the money. I'm definitely not going to see his new filthy sequel, that looks to be just as much a travesty to the Star Trek franchise, if not more.

Abrams proved with his first Star Trek movie that he doesn't know or care how to stick to a franchise's style. His version of Star Trek is a soulless "pew pew pew" action flick, and that is not what Star Trek is.

Granted, in many respects, the Star Wars franchise is more action oriented than the Star Trek franchise, but Star Wars was still a majority about story. So Abrams's style of 90% action, 9% lens flare, and 1% story, will not cut it.

Yes I know there was a story in his Star Trek, but there was so much ADD action that the story couldn't be followed properly, not that there was any fleshed out polish to the story to begin with for such following. Basically:

Proper canon Spock did something, in comes bad guy "har har har", boom explosions, alternate reality people flee, comedic antics, alternate reality crew come back, more explosions, comedic antics, more explosions......win, the end.

You talk about camera movement, but the problem with that is that it was action movie movement(even in scenes that should be static) in a movie that if it had been done properly, it should have been about a thought provoking story and not action action action, pew pew pew. Star Trek movies are not suppose to wholly be about action.

As I said, both Star Trek and Star Wars at their cores have always been about story where action is just icing on the cake and definitely not the main focus. Soulless action is what JJ is about, and that is why I think he should be removed from control of both franchises. Go let him make his own IP that fits his style, so he doesn't end up ruining established IPs.

 

[shrekfan246]

uhm..

have you not seen his resume?

'twas a joke, I'm aware of his voice acting.

I mean, voice acting's all well and good, but the guy starred in one of the biggest movie franchises of all time. You would sort of expect a long and distinguished acting career, no?

To be fair, the only person who came out of Star Wars with an acting career that wasn't on life support was Harrison Ford.

Unless you count James Earl Jones (and Frank Oz), but he was just a voice, not the actual person behind the mask.

OT: I've never really minded CGI. It'd be nice if they didn't go overboard, obviously, but I doubt the end result would impact how much I enjoy or dislike the films either way unless it's so far off the edge of practicality that it swings right down into being gaudy.

By which I mean, I even liked the action sequences and CGI in Revenge of the Sith, so I've got a pretty high tolerance for ridiculous amounts of impractical effects.

 

[deadish]

OK those of you who think CGI is "bad" and physical effects are "great", what this


It's a bit biased, but it's educational nonetheless.

 

[BlackStar42]

Wisdom in your words I find, Mr. Hamill. Respect for you, I have.

*drinks a gentlemanly cup of tea*

*spits tea back out*

Holy SHIT, Mark played Firelord Ozai and Captain Stickybeard? How the hell did I not know that?!? Jesus Christ, I can't even tell from his voice the slightest.

*double take*

HE WAS OZAI?!

 

[Dfskelleton]

I couldn't have said it better myself. I've been on a binge of older 80's and 90's movies as of late, and I've actually been more impressed with some of the things that they managed with prosthetics and animatronics than I've been with a lot of CGI. I'm not saying CGI is bad; it's amazing how far we've gotten with it. It's just that making everything CGI feels really inorganic.

Also, on the subject of the new Star Wars movies... Robert Englund as a Sith Lord.
Make it happen, Disney.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Listen to Mark Hamill, you should. Speaks wisdom, he does.

 

[uzo]

... the rumours of an all CGI Labyrinth reboot actually made me weep ...

Wait what ?! *checks*

Hmm ... so are they going to do a CG model of David Bowie's crotch?


Dunno if a reboot will work. The glory of the original was in the puppets, and that it was written by one of the Monty Python boys. We don't watch CG versions of the muppets ffs.

Ahh Labyrinth ... I fell in love with Jennifer Connelly thanks to that movie.

 

[Quellist]

He's fooling himself' its going to be trite mass produced dross' like most every other Disney property. Arguing over CGI vs FX in this context is like wondering whether to put cherries or peach slices on a cake made of shit.

 

[Edguy]

One thing we know for sure, since JJ is directing ep.VII is going to have a metric fuckton of lens flares.

Go to the old joke corner, and stay there.

 

[Nazulu]

I reckon they should try to avoid the average CGI look these days as much as possible and try to make everything look as realistic like they used to. We really need to encourage individuals different styles again as well.

I still can't believe how much it stood out in The Hobbit, especially after how great the LotR series looks even now.