Star Wars Episode VII Has "Hundreds" of Live-Action Stormtroopers

[Li Mu]

I for one support this.
CGI is great for depicting places like Coruscant, but Lucas got completely carried away with the CGI and was creating simple rooms entirely from it. Go back and look at Episode III, even the most basic sets have huge amounts of CGI in them. Even Ewan Mcgreggor stated that it was difficult to act in front of a green screen the entire time.

The part when he's riding that lizard through the gorge looked awful. It looked like an old bit of CGI that Blizzard made for Diablo 2. CGI ages badly, but real effects don't. I remember watching Deep Blue Sea at the cinema and thinking that the sharks looked so real. When watching it recently I laughed at how terrible and unreal they look.

 

[C. Cain]

(...) The prequels suffer from what I like to call "We've seen it before" syndrome. In other words if the prequels had come first and the original trilogy had come second, the prequels would be the movies getting the standing ovations and the original trilogy would be the one getting all the hate.

No, had the prequels come first the entire franchise would have been canned after the first film.

(...) Most all the problems people had with the prequel movies were the same ones the original trilogy had but nobody noticed or cared about because it was new and fresh.

That's just not the case. The problems with the prequels run much deeper than that. They are more or less flawed on every level. Story, plot, pacing, basic cinematography, you name it. For an amusingly detailed rundown I suggest checking out the Plinkett reviews. The guys from RedLetterMedia illustrate the problems much better than I ever could.

OT: I'll say it, I like CGI and can't understand why people hate it so much. Any CGI looks much more realistic than practical effects provided they put a little effort into it, and the prequel trilogy had VERY good effects.

It's not CGI per se. People have been pretty impressed with Gollum or even Rocket. It's just the way filmmakers utilise it. Having actors slowly shuffle around on small sound stages and having them interact with things they cannot see comes off as fake. No matter how impressive General Grievous' lightsaber show looks on its own, the scene falls flat because we can tell that the real actor in front of him is just gormlessly staring at a green wall.

 

[Petromir]

It's not CGI per se. People have been pretty impressed with Gollum or even Rocket. It's just the way filmmakers utilise it. Having actors slowly shuffle around on small sound stages and having them interact with things they cannot see comes off as fake. No matter how impressive General Grievous' lightsaber show looks on its own, the scene falls flat because we can tell that the real actor in front of him is just gormlessly staring at a green wall.

Which is why standard practice in such cases is generally to have real actor there, often in a green/bluescreen suit, otherwise simpler versions of a cosutume, the former is what happened here. Commonly done with objects to. For similar reasons where possible action is repeated offshot in closeups etc to get the reactions right, (though sometimes extras and even crew are used instead of the real thing).

That you are inventing such issues to blame indicates you are blaming CGI for faults not of its making.

Sound stages get bloody huge, even with bluescreen/greenscreen there (consistent lighting is a much bigger issue, and while greenscreen adds extra challenges, this isnt something that dissapears with practical effects).


The CGI was not the cause of the prequals issues, relatively poor direction, script and acting were. Gravity is a great example, so much of that was CGI, sets as minamalist as they come, even in the stations, often theres a simlar level of detail to the star wars sets. The difference is the direction, script and were acting were better.

 

[C. Cain]

Which is why standard practice in such cases is generally to have real actor there, often in a green/bluescreen suit, otherwise simpler versions of a cosutume, (...)

I'm aware of that.

(...) the former is what happened here.

Of that particular instance not so much. So it was either McGregor's terrible acting in this scene, or his counterpart screwed up. Either way, they didn't utilise their tools properly.

Commonly done with objects to. For similar reasons where possible action is repeated offshot in closeups etc to get the reactions right, (though sometimes extras and even crew are used instead of the real thing).

And yet they evidently didn't get it right in post. It's the application they got wrong, not the CGI itself.

That you are inventing such issues to blame indicates you are blaming CGI for faults not of its making.

Which of part of "It's not CGI per se. (...) It's just the way filmmakers utilise it" don't you understand, my presumptuous friend?

Sound stages get bloody huge, even with bluescreen/greenscreen there (consistent lighting is a much bigger issue, and while greenscreen adds extra challenges, this isnt something that dissapears with practical effects).

They do. Occasionally. But the 'Making Of' footage of the stages they used in the Star Wars prequels simply were not "bloody huge".

The CGI was not the cause of the prequals issues, relatively poor direction, script and acting were.

You're either projecting so hard that you lost your eyesight, or your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
To wit, I listed the problems of the prequels. Did I mention the general concept of CGI? Did I say that CGI ruined the movies?

No, I did not.

I merely commented on George Lucas' ineptitude when it comes to using CGI to its fullest potential.