George Lucas end of the world 2012

[rushmore223]

Two Face.

I never thought Gollum looked all that "real" to me. Davy Jones was far more realistic looking.

However, what Gollum did was create a really great character with tons of emotion using CGI. He was great, but he never felt real to me.....just my opinion.

Ahhh Two face, don't know why that slipped my mind, and it did look very good. Gollum still looks the best to me though.

No worries, it's all opinion, we all have em.

 

[the dude person]

Here's the thing: It's kind of hard to film on location... On a lava planet. Or inside a spaceship. Or in space iteself.

A lot of the time in the prequels, there IS a GINORMOUS set that's built, even if it's extended by CG later. Every time there's a hallway on a ship, it's an actual set on both sides that's usually pretty long (around 20 feet at least, I think.) Even Mustafar had actual set pieces that the actors climbed on, and some of the interiors were there. The background of Mustafar would have been impossible to film on location - you can't exactly take all your actors to a ring of actively erupting volcanoes and lava floes just for your shot, even if you could find a place like that when you needed it. I have a book, Creating the Worlds of Star Wars: 365 Days that shows all the different environments throughout the saga, and even if the actors weren't 'on location', they were still in huge and elaborate sets for most of the time.

Also, people's complaints about things like the opening scene of ROTS being all CGI instead of "real" models is kind of silly. You can't get that kind of shot using physical models, unless it was embellished with CGI after the fact anyway. So what if they didn't build a 10 foot long stardestroyer and match move it with other physical models, some team of people still had to make that model somehow, even in the computer.

I do a lot of work with 3D graphics in my spare time, and trust me. Making a star destroyer as inticate and detailed as a real model would be would be extremely difficult, and probably take me forever.

There are shots you just can't get without CG, so it's not fair to complain that the use of bluescreen was involved in them.

For things like the space battles, why would Lucas sacrifice the look of a shot because he wanted to use older technology and be 'traditional,' when it would be more expedient and get more controllable results with CGI?

I'll admit, CG isn't perfect, and doesn't always look as realistic as real stuff should. But it's the logical choice when you want every aspect of a shot to be exactly the way you want it to be, without the hassel of matchmoving, etc.

I think if the same results had been achieved with actual models and full backgrounds, that would've been AMAZING. But the CG looks pretty darn good too. Not to mention that even as late as ROTS, physical models were used. Pretty much all of the Utapau environment (including the scene where Grievous chases Obi Wan on his lizard) were a miniature with real tiny lights, shot with a computer controlled camera.

The prequels were no "AVATAR"... now that movie was all bluescreen, even without real actors most of the time.

 

[Khev]

I don't think anyone has any issues with CG planetary backgrounds, elaborate creatures or starfields. What I didn't like were the digitally created clonetroopers and simple set pieces like small balconies and so forth.

 

[CelticPredator]

Actually, it's not hard to film on Location with a "lava planet"

You make set. A real set. Not a blue set. Something the actors can feel, and touch. Go to New Zealand. Find some cool rocky location. Build a cool little set....or film it in a soundstage.....hell, you can make fake lava spraying everywhere, and have it feel real....

You have to understand, imagination is key, but when actors end up being more focused on "You cant step here, theres a window there..." rather then "You're whole family was killed, you have nothing to live for....ACT!" it becomes a problem.

Plinkett made the best point about the fake sets. The length of the blue set could be 30 feet. Now, a scene where you NEED to run and move to get to a location, it's very hard to film that because you have a short space to run...which is probably why half of ROTS's tense moments consist of walking.

Now, back to the ships. CGI ships may look good at THAT moment in time, but within a few years, they'll look horribly dated, and fake.

Take Pitch Black, I thought the ships back then looked great.....now...? Ugh.

The point Plinkett tried to make, which I agree with, and have agreed with for sometime (before he made it) is, we've seen CGI. We all know it, it's not a huge deal any more. But IF they did that whole scene with models and CGI....you'd bet that'd look a lot more impressive, and be probably one of the coolest shots of all time.

Would it be hard? Oh yes. But in the end, it WOULD be worth it. That would be so impressive to see. Hell, the final battle at the end of Jedi still impresses me. That's a fantastic space battle, that holds up today.

ROTS does not....all the effects look cheap, and dated.

Also, if you film something on Blue Screen, and add a real minature background, that still doesnt count as a set. That's just compositing. Not that impressive. I can do compositing on my computer.

What impresses me is doing something no one has ever done before, and making it work.....like Gollum. (You could say Jar Jar...but he didnt work. )

And on the last thing about Avatar...James Cameron DID do something new....he didnt just do what Lucas did, he actually got a proformence from the actor, and used that exact data for the CGI characters. And not only that, he made them look real. And not only that, he created a 3D that was incredibly immersive, and impressive.

Not like ROTS.

 

[CelticPredator]

I don't think anyone has any issues with CG planetary backgrounds, elaborate creatures or starfields. What I didn't like were the digitally created clonetroopers and simple set pieces like small balconies and so forth.

Yes, this. CG stars, and backgrounds are fine. But when a whole movie is filmed with blue screens, you tend to feel this restrictivness. Like you can tell where the blue set ends, and the other begins. I cant stand that feeling. I also dont know how 300 and Sin City got away with it better then Star Wars did....

 

[SpaceCrawler]

I think some clarification and focus is needed here:

I think the main objection to CG is its overuse in place of story telling. Eye candy cannot compare to a well written script.

Secondary is that compared to practical effects (like real ships, real makeup effetcs, etc) GC just lacks soul. Compare John Carpenter's The Thing with something current that's all GC. Now I may be biased since my brother worked on the effects crew for The Thing, but real effects can work much better and be far creepier than obvious GC.

Very few people are effectively combining practical effects with GC (like a practical monster makeup with only GC facial expression, if such expression is impossible in the real world), which is an alternative that can work.

Alien. Amazing film. All practical effects. Jaws. These films show what a good director and crew can do. When you half ass the story or execution in favor of instant gratification or thrills, then you're left feeling cheated. I mean a roller coaster ride rarely has a deep emotional impact on your life. And thrills are fine too, if done right with something deeper that draws you in.

THAT is the problem with not only the prequels, but most modern movies. Not only do the corporate studios insist they all mimic each other (style wise) and cater to people's dwindling attention span (and inability to process anything more complex than pretty scenery and copy-cat GC animation) but they insist on simple image over substance, quick thrills, instant profit.

Fine if you want to use GC to create an impossible landscape, but when that's all you create, and when it's used in a way that is cliché and tired, then that's what we object to.

Sean

 

[icruise]

We started out talking about whether Lucas thought that the world was coming to an end in 2012, and ended up talking about CGI and digital filmmaking. But I think these topics are not as different as they might first appear. I get the impression that the way Lucas handled the prequels (both in terms of the movies themselves and the marketing/merchandising surrounding them) is responsible for most of the animosity toward him. Was there so much anti-Lucas sentiment in the 1990s, for example? Thanks to things like Jar Jar and the questionable changes to the OT, people seem to be willing to believe any crackpot theory about the man, including the one that started this thread.

 

[Agent0028]

I added 2012 to my netflix instant queue. Just through everyone would wanna know.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Some equipment suggestions for the 2012ers. No thanks are necessary!

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41283196/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/?gt1=43001

 

[Master Wayne]

I'm familiar with this story from weeks ago. Didn't bother to read anything in this thread. I just popped in to say I hate that fact ____ George Lucas.

Thank you for your time.

 

[devilof76]

And like the rest of the nobodies, he has no opinion of you whatsoever.

 

[Master Wayne]

And like the rest of the nobodies, he has no opinion of you whatsoever.

Including yourself, I would say.

 

[devilof76]

I never pretended that my opinion of people more successful than me was important.

 

[Master Wayne]

No, you didn't. But your opinion about everything else is coating these boards as we speak. Come down from your pedestal before you catch cold up there.

 

[devilof76]

The cool air keeps me from spontaneously combusting. If I come down, the world may burn.

 

[Master Wayne]

Whatever makes you happy bud.

 

[devilof76]

What else is new?

 

[Master Wayne]

Cassette tapes.

 

[devilof76]

I would have gone with phonograph cylinders, but atleast you get the jist.

 

[krieg-der-sterne]

SHUT UP