Mark Hamill Hopes Episode VII Will "Balance" CGI

[Hellfireboy]

I wholeheartedly agree that the CGI beast has to be brought under control since every movie out now is so ridiculously overproduced they look like Bugs Bunny cartoons. Unfortunately, while Weta did it right with Lord of the Rings they seem to have lost their way with The Hobbit. Just look at the scenes in Goblin Town to see what I mean. Of course Lucas took it to the most irrational extreme where he didn't even have sets. He probably would have done away with the actors if he could.

 

[Frotality]

im not really worried about it. really, after what lucas did to his own franchise, there is nowhere to go but up. whatever crazy deviations from the themes and atmosphere of the original trilogy disney comes up with, i know ill be sitting there in the theatre thinking, "well, its not as bad as jar jar binks." of course actually bringing on the original cast opens a whole new can of nerd rage if they arent portrayed just right, but i think we're all at the "reunion party" stage of this star wars thing... theyll have fun reprising their roles, itll show in the final cut, and we'll have fun too.

 

[Mr. Q]

Well said, Mark Hamill, and thank you.

If there is anything that yanks me out of a good movie experience, its massive uses of CGI in areas where practical effects can do the job. This is why I've never gotten on board with Avatar. I understand that its using cutting edge technology to render facial animations of actual actors but the movie as a whole feels like a video game instead of a movie imo. If there was ever a need for the people behind Episode VII to take advice from someone, they should definitely listen to Luke F-in' Skywalker.

It's fantastic when even video game enthusiasts complain of movies looking like video games.

No sarcasm!

I'm speaking from a movie enthusiasts POV. I don't mind CGI when it is used properly. If you've gotta make something like the Hulk or the insect aliens from District 9 with CGI, that's fine with me so long as it's done right. But if you're using CGI to make damn near everything from making locations to making characters without considering using practical effects (I.E. models and make-up effects), then its straight up abuse. The worlds and aliens in the original Star Wars trilogy looked and felt more realistic than those in the prequels. Yes, one could argue that the advances of technology made the process easier but there is a big difference between busting one's butt to make a location look like the vision in your head and sitting on your butt in a green screen studio telling actors to use their imagination.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I second that. Films rely on CGI way too much sometimes (the rumours of an all CGI Labyrinth reboot actually made me weep). This is why I love Del Toro!

The mere thought of a Labyrinth reboot makes me sad and angry...

I hope they listen to this guy, why not do something like Prometheus or Moon, they had a great balance and looked amazing, while All-CG movies tend to look samey and sterile, even when done well.

 

[RA92]

Well said, Mark Hamill, and thank you.

If there is anything that yanks me out of a good movie experience, its massive uses of CGI in areas where practical effects can do the job. This is why I've never gotten on board with Avatar. I understand that its using cutting edge technology to render facial animations of actual actors but the movie as a whole feels like a video game instead of a movie imo. If there was ever a need for the people behind Episode VII to take advice from someone, they should definitely listen to Luke F-in' Skywalker.

It's fantastic when even video game enthusiasts complain of movies looking like video games.

No sarcasm!

I'm speaking from a movie enthusiasts POV. I don't mind CGI when it is used properly. If you've gotta make something like the Hulk or the insect aliens from District 9 with CGI, that's fine with me so long as it's done right. But if you're using CGI to make damn near everything from making locations to making characters without considering using practical effects (I.E. models and make-up effects), then its straight up abuse. The worlds and aliens in the original Star Wars trilogy looked and felt more realistic than those in the prequels. Yes, one could argue that the advances of technology made the process easier but there is a big difference between busting one's butt to make a location look like the vision in your head and sitting on your butt in a green screen studio telling actors to use their imagination.

Nah, I totally understand. Animatronics and real props can make things carry a certain... weight. For example, The Thing's prequel does not at all compare well to John Carpenter's original. And this isn't nostalgia talking - I saw the movie recently.

 

[Mr. Q]

Well said, Mark Hamill, and thank you.

If there is anything that yanks me out of a good movie experience, its massive uses of CGI in areas where practical effects can do the job. This is why I've never gotten on board with Avatar. I understand that its using cutting edge technology to render facial animations of actual actors but the movie as a whole feels like a video game instead of a movie imo. If there was ever a need for the people behind Episode VII to take advice from someone, they should definitely listen to Luke F-in' Skywalker.

It's fantastic when even video game enthusiasts complain of movies looking like video games.

No sarcasm!

I'm speaking from a movie enthusiasts POV. I don't mind CGI when it is used properly. If you've gotta make something like the Hulk or the insect aliens from District 9 with CGI, that's fine with me so long as it's done right. But if you're using CGI to make damn near everything from making locations to making characters without considering using practical effects (I.E. models and make-up effects), then its straight up abuse. The worlds and aliens in the original Star Wars trilogy looked and felt more realistic than those in the prequels. Yes, one could argue that the advances of technology made the process easier but there is a big difference between busting one's butt to make a location look like the vision in your head and sitting on your butt in a green screen studio telling actors to use their imagination.

Nah, I totally understand. Animatronics and real props can make things carry a certain... weight. For example, The Thing's prequel does not at all compare well to John Carpenter's original. And this isn't nostalgia talking - I saw the movie recently.

I saw the Thing prequel on cable many months ago and, despite it being a free preview weekend for a cable movie channel, I still felt ripped off.

 

[Norix596]

Yeah but CGI has gotten MUCH better and more accepted since the Phantom Menace - people kind of take realistic looking CGI stuff for granted now especially in big budget movies.