George Lucas: 1983 vs. 2005

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

you can overuse ANYTHING. again my argument is the cg is always the one attacked not the director/producer who made the choice.

easier? to whom?
yes the good old press a button makes it much easier.. 6 years in this racket and i still havent found the "make easy" button everyone talks about.

I believe he meant easier in terms of location, safety, time, production costs, personnel involved, etc.

No one here is saying CG is ALWAYS bad just like I assume you wouldn't say CG is ALWAYS good. There's always a balance.

 

[Felix K.]

you can overuse ANYTHING. again my argument is the cg is always the one attacked not the director/producer who made the choice.

How is this thread called? "Special FX: 1983 vs. 2005"?

NO!

It is called "GEORGE LUCAS: 1983 vs. 2005".

And then you storm in and shout people down who never said anything against VFX in paticular...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think good CG work has made SciFi movies a thousand times better as long as the scripts are as good. The problem is that too many new films try and use CG to make up for a poor script, winding up with nothing more than an amusement park ride on a big screen.

Thats a total crock, If you listen to the commentary track Lucas is very keyed into story and character in fact probably understands it better than anyone in this forum.
The problem is he writes very wooden dialogue and is a visual storyteller, Originally George wanted to have someone else write the screenplays for the movies but his friends told him he should write the films himself because the story was his baby or something like that.

Personally I think CGI is just a patsy for people who are angry that the new films didn't recreate they're childhood memories and the films where never going to do that because they are completely different stories.

The original series is about hope, adventure and fantasy and plays to this in a strong way and the prequels have none of these things.

 

[MiguelOrtega]

How is this thread called? "Special FX: 1983 vs. 2005"?

NO!

It is called "GEORGE LUCAS: 1983 vs. 2005".

And then you storm in and shout people down who never said anything against VFX in paticular...

if i need to explain it to you , based on your photo of a man standing in front of miniatures in one photo and the other a greenscreen and you honestly think this is not a statement about VFX.....then its best i not even respond.

 

[Felix K.]

Thats a total crock, If you listen to the commentary track Lucas is very keyed into story and character in fact probably understands it better than anyone in this forum.
The problem is he writes very wooden dialogue and is a visual storyteller, Originally George wanted to have someone else write the screenplays for the movies but his friends told him he should write the films himself because the story was his baby or something like that.

Then he shouldn't have listened to his friends.
I listened to the commentary as well by the way (last week). Yes he is dedicated to his story. But that doesn't make a good film script. How many good stories (or books) end up as a bad screenplay.
You say it yourself, dialog is not Lucas' specialty. I think back in 1977, the actors helped a lot to loosen things up. They spent a lot of time together on screen which means they spent a lot of time on set together. That helped. Having Kirshner direct the second one helped even more. There are good articles about the work on set with him and Ford and Hamilton. Even Lucas must have thought that as he did not direct the 3rd one either.
Humor was a big problem.

He should not have produced, directed and written Episode 1-3.
My 3c. (Mind the inflation!)

 

[Felix K.]

if i need to explain it to you , based on your photo of a man standing in front of miniatures in one photo and the other a greenscreen and you honestly think this is not a statement about VFX.....then its best i not even respond.

Not my photo by the way.

And yes, I criticise his decision to use that much greenscreen instead of building sets like in IV - VI.

 

[MiguelOrtega]

ut:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Sound in movies is such a crutch.

There are a lot of rose tinted glasses in this thread. Watch the Rancor fight with luke on VHS (pre digital cleanup) and tell me that it looks better than the modern effects.

The problem with the prequels was that the story was lame. The director hadn't done anything for 30 years and was debatebly talented in directing actors then (the infamous two lines of direction "faster" "louder") and cast and or poorly directed a lousy Anakin to build a story around.

I love practical work as much as the next guy but the prequels have more miniatures and more practical effects than the originals.

Also most of Episode I was shot on set and on location, but it's arguably the worst of the 3. Episode III was the most green screen heavy and it's probably the best.

 

[christopher witzke]

I does not matter what or how something is created.... it can be done poorly, or brilliantly.

 

[Joseph Ward]

OK my turn. lol

Off topic but related. The first three Episodes 1-3 didn't Completely match the last 4-6. Pop on Return of the Jedi and go to the scene with Luke and Leia where Luke reveals to her that he is her brother. Luke asks her, "do you remember your real mother". She says, "just a little bit...."


Skip to 6min and play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewB3hdZH428&feature=related

Inconsistencies, George! lol :nono:

Back to topic. What is the topic?!

Back to Off Topic, FX VS VFS. Using both at the right time and need, is what makes them work best for me. Movies are good with good layers and right combinations. I love the first three episodes 4-6 best but the first episode 1, as far as visually, looked the best to me. It is really a matter of Opinions, people. No one is better than the other. Each have their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Andrew Walker]

If a good director knows how to use CGI elements to their fullest then more than likely they will tell the story the director wanted to tell and make for a very enjoyable film.

If a bad director/writer/producer (Lucas) tires to use CGI to push his film forward instead of good writing and performances from the actors then you get the horror that is Episodes I-III.

I personally am amazed at how far VFX have come. I mean look at Pirates I-III. 2 and 3 had some of the most amazing characters I have ever seen. Davy Jones looked so good I didn't realize it was CGI until I saw the RAW plates during a presentation over at Disney. I thought it was a hybrid between CGI and a mask.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Andrew you have to be right on this topic, with your last name being so close. atriot:

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I'm not really sure when FX shots suddenly became only CG? If a person feel that the choice of leaning heavily on CG instead of modeling and animatronics is the wrong decision, why attack him for it? Then if that person feel that an approach like that is lazy direction, is that wrong? When is that opinion seen as attacking the FX guys themselves?

I agree with a lot of people that the last Star Wars episodes had none of the originality that the first ones had. This is IMO a product of bad directing. Simply because of not developing the script properly, not giving proper instructions for decent visual storytelling (storyboard) and so on (the list is long). The choice they made when deciding for shooting digital I thought was wrong. I agreed that some green screen shots could take it, because there were so much CG in it anyway, but the outdoor scenes looked IMO horrible.

I think that a great example for me is Mann and "Collateral" and even worse "Miami Vice:. With Collateral I found myself thinking. Sure this is great acting/ improv but what the hell are they talking about? I found myself yawning at times cause they were talking nonsense, which wasn't leading the story forward. This was (I think) a product of Mann having complete freedom with that there was no limit to his takes and he therefor just let the camera role and cut it together afterwards. This went a step further in Miami Vice were he shot 240 to 1 and then more or less just edited. IMO plain lazy. Just cover yourself and not really think it thru. Now I could be wrong in both of these cases but I don't think so and I feel he has made really big mistakes with those two films (haven't seen the latest one). IMO he has become to lazy with to much freedom.

This is what I feel with the last Star Wars episodes. They relied to much on CG and not enough of a collaboration with normal sets and model FX. I feel George Lucas did an artistic mistake and should have kept more of the old feel then he did. Some might not agree but I believe that in camera effects mixed with CG is the way to go and it didn't feel like there were enough in camera in those episodes. To me it felt that 1 to 1 scaled sets were very sparse and that green screen was used to often.

I also think a big mistake was to make the reality so clean because it makes it all feel so fake. That the wrong choices were made in how to pattern any models, sets or CG environments.

That is not FX faults but the choice by Director and Production.

I just worked with FX make up guys who were suppose to do the infected people in I AM LEGEND. There approach looked brilliant. It was unfortunately ruled out because of production logistics, the amount of make up time to do it, the weather factor and so on. They ended up using their masks etc as reference for the CG. Now IMO if those people would have been real and not CG that film would have become completely different. A lot more scarier and definitely a lot more identifiable. I understand why they had to rule it out, but wish they would have said... F lets go 50/50.

Good FX are always a symbiosis between in camera and post production. Has always been and so far in a lot of peoples opinions still is.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

George may have fallen short on story by a little or a long shot depending on how much you liked the films but the idea that he sacrificed it in favor of shoehorning visual effects in to the film is ridiculous.

I still think episode 3 is an excellent film and the rotten tomatoes ratings show they are at least all carrying a fresh rating.

 

[M Most]

if i need to explain it to you , based on your photo of a man standing in front of miniatures in one photo and the other a greenscreen and you honestly think this is not a statement about VFX.....then its best i not even respond.

I made the statement that you reacted to. And I'm telling you it was NOT about visual effects. I was a visual effects supervisor, for chrissake....

 

[Craig Ryan]

The Original Trilogy looked like a lived-in, functional world that could exist; the Prequel Trilogy had a much cleaner, glossy look that I think for most translated into more of a "video game look", and the overdose of CG elements helped that. It also has a WHOLE lot to do with the way those movies were shot; I recall a lot of High key lighting with a lot of low-contrast scenes; there was rarely any sense of depth to the images. Everything contributed to the way those films looked and felt; not JUST the CGI.

What it really comes down to is whether or not the CG is aiding the story, or simply being used as a spectacle. When it becomes the latter, it is difficult to pull off without the audience going "Oh cool! Nice CGI!" rather than staying in the story.

EX of aiding the story: Lt. Dan's legs in Forrest Gump.

Now, as mentioned before, characters like Gollum in LOTR were extremely well done, and didn't take me out of the story at all. Everything about that character served the story, not to show off technology.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

you can overuse ANYTHING. again my argument is the cg is always the one attacked not the director/producer who made the choice.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Samuel Doyle]

you can overuse ANYTHING. again my argument is the cg is always the one attacked not the director/producer who made the choice.

easier? to whom?
yes the good old press a button makes it much easier.. 6 years in this racket and i still havent found the "make easy" button everyone talks about.

ah com'on Miguel....I know you have a "make easy button" to do all your vfx work....we all have one...its called "press button to make bad coffee"

 

[DCC Erickson]

I like stories that are presented in such a way that you are forced to suspend disbelief - I don't want to be spoon-fed a plastic reality. I'd rather watch ALPHAVILLE again than EPISODE 1. Dig the Ford Mustang spaceship.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

What it really comes down to is whether or not the CG is aiding the story, or simply being used as a spectacle.

Yes, I agree... but clearly the Star Wars series is set in a place and time that requires VFX to tell the story, or it would look like New Jersey.

What has been lost in my opinion is the "organic" quality of these effects and I think this is two fold. First, I think technology has advanced so far that you find aspects of some films that are distracting because the effects look hyper-real and don't feel as connected to the actors and environments, i.e. "the story". This is not true of ALL GCI/VFX, but certainly some of it.

Second, since what you can now do is seemingly limitless and there are lots of films using thousands of effects shots, I think we've become desensitized to what a great effects film really looks like. We expect the unbelievable and impossible and will settle for less than meaningful moments, we've been encouraged to now watch films for the eye candy and not the story. Again not ALL VFX films are this way, but it seems to be a growing trend.

I think the Lord of the Rings films came a long way to integrating awesome GCI and emotional character connection, probably the best modern examples of a great VFX film.

I am of course a fan of Star Wars, but my favorite Lucas film is THX-1138, because the story and the acting were amazing, and I don't think anything he has made since has come close in this regard. By far is most connected, personal and emotional film. I also think as a film he allowed his audience to feel the pain of the characters and therefore be very invested in the film.