Practical doesn’t make the shots better the shots being better makes the shots better CGI or not.
It’s amazing how many movies actually have CGI in it that don’t seem to really even need it. So if you’re watching something like Fallout, it 100% has CGI in it, it’s just so good you don’t notice.
Just learned yesterday they almost caused an international incident filming in Tunisia. Libya almost declared war, since the Jawa sandcrawler was practically made… with military vehicles.
Matters reached high intensity when Libyan made a demand that Tunisia immediately cease its provocative deployment of a massive military vehicle near the border. Gaddafi warned that conflict was inevitable if Tunisia did not comply with his demands at once.
I’m not gonna link a source for that quote because they were all just endless link-circlejerks to other equally bad websites.
There was a Yt short with Lucas talking about that bit as well, but here’s him talking about them having the military help them and have all sorts of tracked vehicles as well because the trucks were stuck youtube.com/shorts/CPG2fSoM9HE?
Didn’t they also almost get in trouble with Hollywood for filming out of the country? There was some sort of guild issue at the time trying to boost in country filming
For those who haven’t seen it yet, this is a great video series on why practical effects and CGI aren’t mutually exclusive, and why the backlash on CGI is mostly unwarranted.
Damn I’ve been watching this all morning. Really interesting watch. The main takeaway is that the “practical vs CGI” debate is entirely fabricated by the media, but doesn’t exist in the film industry. Though it seems likely that studios have something like Non-disclosure Agreements with actors and directors where they have to talk around it.
The public have no idea what CGI even means. Technically something like The Volume is CGI, but most people would look at it and think they are seeing practical effects, because, in a very real sense, they are seeing a practical effect, a practical effect that’s also CGI.
The fact that an effect can be both, undermines the whole definition the public have in their minds.
These models were pioneers of visual effects. I think they were one of first to use tracking shots for minis that replicated the full scale moves. They also created the way of moving the camera just enough during an exposure to give it realistic motion blur.
I’m enamored with these old models and techniques. Light And Magic on D+ is a phenomenal retrospective of ILM. Through watching that, I learned recently that the Mandalorian’s ship was, in fact, a physical model. Presumably enhanced and composited using CGI.
Nevertheless, it was a weird realization. There is an old charm to the techniques of the 80s, matte lines and all. Even with the same approach (physical models and motion control), the shots in the Mandalorian just looked too clean, too smooth.
The moral is: it’ll never go back to what it was, and even if it does, it won’t be the same.
Original Yoda looks great. That puppet from TPM has too much hair, has its eyes too wide open, is lit poorly… it’s just a laundry list of how not to use a practical effect.
That picture is a great example of how to light a puppet. Overhead diffused lighting gives the hair an airiness that makes it feel like an aura around the puppet head. TPM is diffused side lighting like they are lighting a person, but it highlights the differences that make it not a person. Plus the puppet is ugly and only tangentially like Yoda.
I don't think this is really a good assessment. Plenty of movies then looked terrible and plenty now look amazing. The recent Dune films look absolutely phenomenal. It's a matter of how the films use the technology available, whether that means miniatures with camera tricks or it means completely CG stuff
Add comment