• I think there was a tweet or two from JJ reiterating the focus on practical effects
• The most recent behind the scenes reveal has Mark Hamill stating as much as well

I have to say this alone bugged me. "Focus on practical effects"? I could care less, in fact it can easily be a detriment. What I want is a good story with believable effects that don't jar me out of the narrative. E6 is absolutely the worst for practical effects that kill belief, so it's not exactly a selling point.

So the "behind the scenes" mechanics of how those effects are produced is irrelevant. It's kind of like buying a computer and having some geek tell you all the technical specs, when all I want to know is, if I turn it on, will it do what I need it to do?

What I infer from that personally is "less greenscreen" which in turn usually results in "better acting". This could be something the old cast themselves had a say in as well, considering some of the horror stories regarding greenscreen over-use we've had in the last couple of years.

What I infer from that personally is "less greenscreen" which in turn usually results in "better acting". This could be something the old cast themselves had a say in as well, considering some of the horror stories regarding greenscreen over-use we've had in the last couple of years.

The problem here is the assumption that it's the green screen and not the way the director might have given the actors something to work with. The PT suffers, that's for sure, and that's on George. But Lord of the Rings did not. Compare the stupid spider in E6 where the feet don't even touch the ground, with Shelob...I'll take CGI and good director/actor interaction any day. The director for Starship Troopers was very "in your face" with his actors, proving you can take even mediocre talent and make it believable.

All I'm saying is the focus is wrong. Practical effects won't make a crappy movie good, and CGI won't save one. Talking about it as if it will takes the focus off where it should be: telling a good story.

^No, idea how this is considered shitting all over the prequels though...

The focus is the OT. Which is not weird since the films follow the OT.

There is a focus on practical effects.

They are moving away from CGI a move prophecized by a lot of filmmakers including Peter Jackson.

That was the same Comiccon press conference if I recall corrctly and again that is not being harsh abot the prequels but it is just a way of letting people know what these movies will harken back to.

Kevin Smith has nothing to do with these movies, besides visiting the set one day.

Simon Pegg has been dumping on the PT for over 10 years.

And you can't be miffed about No to midichloirans can you?

Perhaps if you are seeing a narrative there it is because you are looking for it. I see no reason to find offense in any of these things (besides Simon Pegg perhaps who is just stating a personal preference). Now if they would say things like "Unlike the prequels..." or "not making the same mistakes again..." then you would have a point.

however right now as it stands there has been no offensive behaviour from the team creating the movies.

If it were just me that was thinking along these lines then yeah, perhaps I would agree I am reading into it. But I have had others (friends, comic book store owners and patrons, and acquaintances) who have pointed it out as well.

Aside from the people I've talked to, there are others who think the same over here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

http://screenrant.com/star-wars-force-awakens-midi-chlorians/

Star Wars: The Force Awakens': J.J. Abrams Says No Midi-Chlorians

Disney has created a super smart marketing campaign: "**** all over the prequels and we will get ALL the fans!" Their pandering to OT grognards will get them to show up and they will STILL get those they are pissing off who enjoy the PT. Ugh.

Seriously, all the hate they are spewing on the PT really has soured my expectation for this movie. It is simply unnecessary.

I'll be honest, if there was a whisper hint the new movies were going to be like the PTs I wouldn't go see them in the theater. They clearly are focusing on the OT and abandoning alot of the PT baggage. Are you saying you won't go see the new movies in the theater?

Honestly, it did cross my mind. But then I saw the trailer in 3D again, and holy ****! I consume all things Star Wars anyway, so it is a foregone conclusion that I will participate in anything Star Wars. Perhaps that brief thought of not going to see EP VII still has me in shock! What is this crazy feeling of not wanting to see a Star Wars film!?!?!? That's... unnatural!

All I'm saying is the focus is wrong. Practical effects won't make a crappy movie good, and CGI won't save one. Talking about it as if it will takes the focus off where it should be: telling a good story.

Well they can not focus on the story much now can they? Star Wars stories have always been kept under tight wraps. So they focus on the things they can talk about. Such as a return to more practical effects and such. Personally I like that. The latest Mad Max has to one of my favorite movies this year. A nice nod to the originals but with new actors and stunts that looked awesome for an hour and half long chase scene. I will judge the movie on its own merits once released, but I will not fault them for promoting the movie in whatever way they can.

The problem here is the assumption that it's the green screen and not the way the director might have given the actors something to work with. The PT suffers, that's for sure, and that's on George. But Lord of the Rings did not. Compare the stupid spider in E6 where the feet don't even touch the ground, with Shelob...I'll take CGI and good director/actor interaction any day. The director for Starship Troopers was very "in your face" with his actors, proving you can take even mediocre talent and make it believable.

All I'm saying is the focus is wrong. Practical effects won't make a crappy movie good, and CGI won't save one. Talking about it as if it will takes the focus off where it should be: telling a good story.

They're probably talking about the effects because they were one of many critiques about the PT and want to reassure people they aren't George Lucas. There's also Ian McKellen on the Hobbit, which presents another reason why too much greenscreen, or acting in a void, is less effective than having something there for the actors to work with. It's stressful and it makes older actors have nervous breakdowns. Inversely, people work better with what they're used to. So, knowing that, you have a fairly old cast in episode VII, so having actual sets and props accomodates them and filming in a way they're familiar with means they will probably perform better.

Good director/actor interaction adds to that, but from all I know about JJ, that's probably the case already, and if it weren't, some of those names involved are big enough to set him straight, like they orignally did George Lucas himself way back when.

^No, idea how this is considered shitting all over the prequels though...

The focus is the OT. Which is not weird since the films follow the OT.

There is a focus on practical effects.

They are moving away from CGI a move prophecized by a lot of filmmakers including Peter Jackson.

That was the same Comiccon press conference if I recall corrctly and again that is not being harsh abot the prequels but it is just a way of letting people know what these movies will harken back to.

Kevin Smith has nothing to do with these movies, besides visiting the set one day.

Simon Pegg has been dumping on the PT for over 10 years.

And you can't be miffed about No to midichloirans can you?

Perhaps if you are seeing a narrative there it is because you are looking for it. I see no reason to find offense in any of these things (besides Simon Pegg perhaps who is just stating a personal preference). Now if they would say things like "Unlike the prequels..." or "not making the same mistakes again..." then you would have a point.

however right now as it stands there has been no offensive behaviour from the team creating the movies.

If it were just me that was thinking along these lines then yeah, perhaps I would agree I am reading into it. But I have had others (friends, comic book store owners and patrons, and acquaintances) who have pointed it out as well.

Aside from the people I've talked to, there are others who think the same over here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

Whether one person, a dozen or hundreds think or feel something really makes no difference.

I know a few things thousands are absolutely wrong about...

I see why PT fans have grown accustomed to being on the defensive side but there is absolutely nothing in the remarks made by the team that implies anything cynical, deriding or negative about the PT.

In fact so far, the most talked about alien played by Lupita Nyongo is a Gosam, a species introduced in the PT.

^No, idea how this is considered shitting all over the prequels though...

The focus is the OT. Which is not weird since the films follow the OT.

There is a focus on practical effects.

They are moving away from CGI a move prophecized by a lot of filmmakers including Peter Jackson.

That was the same Comiccon press conference if I recall corrctly and again that is not being harsh abot the prequels but it is just a way of letting people know what these movies will harken back to.

Kevin Smith has nothing to do with these movies, besides visiting the set one day.

Simon Pegg has been dumping on the PT for over 10 years.

And you can't be miffed about No to midichloirans can you?

Perhaps if you are seeing a narrative there it is because you are looking for it. I see no reason to find offense in any of these things (besides Simon Pegg perhaps who is just stating a personal preference). Now if they would say things like "Unlike the prequels..." or "not making the same mistakes again..." then you would have a point.

however right now as it stands there has been no offensive behaviour from the team creating the movies.

If it were just me that was thinking along these lines then yeah, perhaps I would agree I am reading into it. But I have had others (friends, comic book store owners and patrons, and acquaintances) who have pointed it out as well.

Aside from the people I've talked to, there are others who think the same over here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

http://screenrant.com/star-wars-force-awakens-midi-chlorians/

Star Wars: The Force Awakens': J.J. Abrams Says No Midi-Chlorians

Disney has created a super smart marketing campaign: "**** all over the prequels and we will get ALL the fans!" Their pandering to OT grognards will get them to show up and they will STILL get those they are pissing off who enjoy the PT. Ugh.

Seriously, all the hate they are spewing on the PT really has soured my expectation for this movie. It is simply unnecessary.

I'll be honest, if there was a whisper hint the new movies were going to be like the PTs I wouldn't go see them in the theater. They clearly are focusing on the OT and abandoning alot of the PT baggage. Are you saying you won't go see the new movies in the theater?

Honestly, it did cross my mind. But then I saw the trailer in 3D again, and holy ****! I consume all things Star Wars anyway, so it is a foregone conclusion that I will participate in anything Star Wars. Perhaps that brief thought of not going to see EP VII still has me in shock! What is this crazy feeling of not wanting to see a Star Wars film!?!?!? That's... unnatural!

That's my point and I'm pretty sure they've done the math. Those that enjoyed the PT may be upset if elements from it are excluded from the new flicks, but they'll still go see them. Lotsa folks like me though saw the PTs once in the theater and said never again. It's pretty easy math I bet carries over.

What I infer from that personally is "less greenscreen" which in turn usually results in "better acting". This could be something the old cast themselves had a say in as well, considering some of the horror stories regarding greenscreen over-use we've had in the last couple of years.

The problem here is the assumption that it's the green screen and not the way the director might have given the actors something to work with. The PT suffers, that's for sure, and that's on George. But Lord of the Rings did not. Compare the stupid spider in E6 where the feet don't even touch the ground, with Shelob...I'll take CGI and good director/actor interaction any day. The director for Starship Troopers was very "in your face" with his actors, proving you can take even mediocre talent and make it believable.

All I'm saying is the focus is wrong. Practical effects won't make a crappy movie good, and CGI won't save one. Talking about it as if it will takes the focus off where it should be: telling a good story.

Good point. Let's compare the practical effects in a movie made over 30 years ago with CGI effects in one made ten years ago.

Look, CGI can be good, but it really needs to be mixed in with practical effects.

The problem with CGI isn't that it can't look good, it's that it's the "lazy way out" in many cases.

If you ask me (which you won't, but I'll say it anyway), I say go with practical effects if possible. If not, use CGI. In the borderline cases, use both.

Just look at mad max.

The vast majority of the stunts and those type of effects were practical. The CGI was mostly to change the background and enviroment.

It was also used in the scenes where they just couldn't pull it off with practical effects, but it was instantly recognisable as CGI when they did that.

But that's ok. As long as you don't overuse CGI, you can get away with using it in the cases where practical effects just wouldn't work.

I guess my only concern is not if there is too much CGI, or crappy practical effects, but if Abrams can handle the job. If there's a weak point in the chain, it's JJ. I didn't like Star Trek (and liked The Remix of Khan even less), Mission Impossible was meh, Cloverfield was crap, I wasn't fond of what Lost I've seen. In fact looking over his IMDB listings, there's not a film on there that I can point to and go "Yeah, I actually enjoyed that".

I guess my only concern is not if there is too much CGI, or crappy practical effects, but if Abrams can handle the job. If there's a weak point in the chain, it's JJ. I didn't like Star Trek (and liked The Remix of Khan even less), Mission Impossible was meh, Cloverfield was crap, I wasn't fond of what Lost I've seen. In fact looking over his IMDB listings, there's not a film on there that I can point to and go "Yeah, I actually enjoyed that".

Did you see Super 8? That's the one that sold me - it could've been made by 80s-era Spielberg. The performances Abrams got out of those kids were fantastic.

I guess my only concern is not if there is too much CGI, or crappy practical effects, but if Abrams can handle the job. If there's a weak point in the chain, it's JJ. I didn't like Star Trek (and liked The Remix of Khan even less), Mission Impossible was meh, Cloverfield was crap, I wasn't fond of what Lost I've seen. In fact looking over his IMDB listings, there's not a film on there that I can point to and go "Yeah, I actually enjoyed that".

I liked both Cloverfield and Star Trek! And dude, did you see Super 8?

Star Trek did a great job on making me care about the characters and have fun while watching them interact. To me, the characters and interaction is a huge part of what makes Star Wars and the OT so great.

So I believe this will be good. He also has proven that he takes these kinds of franchises very seriously and gets the fans. I guess he is a fanboy himself.

See I thought super 8 was button pushing. A good forgery but not inspiring. I liked Trek 2009 alot and loathed Into Darkness. I will say he can get actors to act and knows good from bad. They brought in Kasdan for the story. Taken together I've got a good feeling on ep 7.

Did you see Super 8? That's the one that sold me - it could've been made by 80s-era Spielberg. The performances Abrams got out of those kids were fantastic.

Okay, to be fair Super 8 is one I've not seen yet. It very well may be awesome and I just don't know it. However (super 8 not withstanding), I've been underwhelmed so far.

Actually I'm more excited for Gareth Edwards' stand alone flick. I really liked Godzilla and I thought Monsters was pretty solid for a low budget monster flick.

I liked both Cloverfield and Star Trek!

My problem with Cloverfield is that it took half an hour of insufferable character development - AKA Twenty Minutes With Jerks - before you got anywhere. And even then I was praying that the main cast die slowly and painfully before the movie was over.

I liiked Cloverfield was different at least. Its not something id be a fan of like star wars but I liked it had alot of unique things I haven't seen before.

Star trek was ok imo, but alot of things that make me cringe.

Kirk running from police as a child, and kirk walks into a bar and gets insta recruited for starship

I like when practical effects and digital effects are used together, then they have enough to look natural to the eye and can go beyond what people can realistically animate. Game of thrones vfx would be like this

• I think there was a tweet or two from JJ reiterating the focus on practical effects
• The most recent behind the scenes reveal has Mark Hamill stating as much as well

I have to say this alone bugged me. "Focus on practical effects"? I could care less, in fact it can easily be a detriment. What I want is a good story with believable effects that don't jar me out of the narrative. E6 is absolutely the worst for practical effects that kill belief, so it's not exactly a selling point.

So the "behind the scenes" mechanics of how those effects are produced is irrelevant. It's kind of like buying a computer and having some geek tell you all the technical specs, when all I want to know is, if I turn it on, will it do what I need it to do?

Uh-oh. You probably haven't heard the set interview with JJ Abrams, where he discusses a scene involving an alien popping out of a pit trap in the desert. One of his special effects people suggested it looked a bit unrealistic and maybe they should smooth it over with CG. Abrams brushed it off, believing that there should be something janky and lovably homemade about some of the SW effects.

I'm inclined to agree with him, but I can see where people would disagree, particularly fans of the prequels.

I whipped this up the other day... needs some fine tweaking in the edit and sound mix. I'll get around to a Special Edition soon:

PS I could give a **** what Simon Pegg thinks, and I've never understood the fascination with his opinion.

JJ's Star Trek movies may have had mixed reviews, but I think they made better Star Wars movies.

I'm uncertain what you're trying to accomplish with that trailer mash-up. The only thing it shows is that Lucas put actual work into making a subpar movie. We already knew that. So...I don't quite see the point?

JJ's Star Trek movies may have had mixed reviews, but I think they made better Star Wars movies.

That's actually one of the biggest and most common complaints he got in the Star Trek communities about the new Star Trek movie(s).

"It's too much like a Star Wars movie!"

And that just fills me up with confidence

Okay, to be fair Super 8 is one I've not seen yet.

The kid actors make it pretty good, but it's got that overwrought Spielberg touch that I despise. The initial train crash has train cars flying around like a 4 year old throwing Lego bricks...it's just ludicrous. After that it's "what if ET was bigger?"

I'm not that impressed with Abrams either. I did like the first Star Trek reboot, but both movies succumb to a stupid fist-fight at the end, and I've had quite enough of those.

One of his special effects people suggested it looked a bit unrealistic and maybe they should smooth it over with CG. Abrams brushed it off, believing that there should be something janky and lovably homemade about some of the SW effects.

O brother, Nooooooo! When I'm watching a movie, I don't want to be reminded I'm watching a movie.

I whipped this up the other day... needs some fine tweaking in the edit and sound mix. I'll get around to a Special Edition soon:

PS I could give a **** what Simon Pegg thinks, and I've never understood the fascination with his opinion.

****... all that effort and money and they still turned out to be crap.

It's sad, really.

Oh well, what was the point of that mix again? To prove that GL used practical effects in the prequels?

We all knew that. The CGI of the time wasn't good enough to do everything, he still had to do some stuff for real.

It's just that he relied too heavily on CGI (especially in the second and third movies of the prequels) when he should have put more effort and focus into refining the script, cutting the movie and directing the actors (things he is woefully underskilled at, himself, btw).

One of his special effects people suggested it looked a bit unrealistic and maybe they should smooth it over with CG. Abrams brushed it off, believing that there should be something janky and lovably homemade about some of the SW effects.

O brother, Nooooooo! When I'm watching a movie, I don't want to be reminded I'm watching a movie.

Oh YES! Love it!

Whafrog, when you watch A New Hope are you taken out of the movie in the cantina scene as well?

CGI takes me out of a movie far more often than practical effects.