Obviously balance is needed between CGI and practical, they each bring something to the table they either do better or the other can't even really do. Lucas was lost in CGI land on the PTs. Sets are the most important, I remember an interview with the actors in lotr and all said how they were inspired by the Edoras set. Clearly Coruscant's cityscape had to be fx and it was fantastic looking. So it just depends and a director should never be all or nothing in this genre.

a director should never be all or nothing in this genre.

That's it right there: the right tool for the job.

As far as Abrams goes, there was a quote I read a few weeks ago that really made me feel good about Episode VII (paraphrasing):

"I have a cut, but I'm still tweaking. Trying to let it be the movie that it wants to be."

That suggests to me that it's film first, everything else second.

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

For me, the scene that was particular jarring was in Episode III when Dooku vaults off of the balcony on his ship. The CGI just wasn't very convincing.

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

For me, the scene that was particular jarring was in Episode III when Dooku vaults off of the balcony on his ship. The CGI just wasn't very convincing.

I've always felt he should have just floated like a badass, like he did in the Tartakovsky cartoon.

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, this needs to be here!

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable-14333

[EDIT: how on earth do you embed a video here?]

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

Nope, it's decently shot, with enough darkness and shadows to hide the most obvious flaws. The quick cuts, and, despite the upbeat music, a rather dark tone, helps a lot.

Nope, it's decently shot, with enough darkness and shadows to hide the most obvious flaws. The quick cuts, and, despite the upbeat music, a rather dark tone, helps a lot.

You must hate Doctor Who then. . . .

As a long term fan of bad B-Movies, I've built up my tolerance for terrible effects. Godzilla movies? Land of the Lost? Hammer Horror movies? Bring it on! If the movie has enough to otherwise carry the day and be entertaining, I can overlook bad effects.

As far as my tastes go, there's a wide gap between what I find authentic and what I find realistic. The former is generally what I'm looking for. I can accept effects that might not hold up to scrutiny if they're evocative and interesting, which I often find to be the case with practical effects, but the over-reliance a lot of movies have on CGI just takes me out. Whether it's a high fantasy or a high octane action movie, a lot of effects heavy movies just have me feeling like I'm watching a video game.

That said, I think CGI can be a great thing, but it's a tool in the kit, not a flat out replacement for practical effects. I guess I can just stomach a guy in a suit better than a fully formed cartoon creature.

CGI works when it compliments a movie and is used in mixture with real effects. The problem with most CGI people complain about is that you notice it. Like any good magician, you need things that enhance the illusion and make it appear natural or magical. Now, we saw that in the prequels, Lucas built sets and such, because he was probably aware of this. However, people complained about it! This means not only was CGI the norm, rather than the exception, and people were mainly used to seeing it while watching the movies, but also that the set design was off and looked like CGI, which is the exact opposite of what you ideally want to achieve when mixing it up.

Regarding JJ Abrams' quote earlier on with not CGIing up the puppet, frankly, he's a competent craftsman. With practical effects, lighting, placement and many other things come into play, and from the look of the model alone, you can't really tell if it's going to be a good shot or not. IF you need to touch it up with CGI, you can always do that later, but focusing on trying to get a decent shot first to keep things natural and not oversaturate the audience with computer graphics just shows someone has his priorities straight.

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, this needs to be here!

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable-14333

[EDIT: how on earth do you embed a video here?]

HAH! That was brilliant!

(also, you can only embed the video itself, not the page with the video in it)

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

Nope, it's decently shot, with enough darkness and shadows to hide the most obvious flaws. The quick cuts, and, despite the upbeat music, a rather dark tone, helps a lot.

Setting music and tone aside there are quite a few aliens that have that homemade flavor here... Dice Ibegon, Snaggletooth, The Shadrafan, heck... Max Rebo! And there are quite a few more/ My point is that those aren't intricit alien animatronics some are just heads on a stick but in the lighting and atmosphere of that movie you are fine with it.

So there might be a big chance that you won't be taken out of the movie whether or not there are a few not 100% realistic aliens there... At least, I hope you won't be.

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

Nope, it's decently shot, with enough darkness and shadows to hide the most obvious flaws. The quick cuts, and, despite the upbeat music, a rather dark tone, helps a lot.

Setting music and tone aside there are quite a few aliens that have that homemade flavor here... Dice Ibegon, Snaggletooth, The Shadrafan, heck... Max Rebo! And there are quite a few more/ My point is that those aren't intricit alien animatronics some are just heads on a stick but in the lighting and atmosphere of that movie you are fine with it.

So there might be a big chance that you won't be taken out of the movie whether or not there are a few not 100% realistic aliens there... At least, I hope you won't be.

Maby he's only seen the re-edited versions?

I am not trying to be rude towards Whafrog. I was sincerely interested in his opinion... I can see how sometimes things can distract you from a movie. however, I am not sure jumping the gun on Episode 7 is the answer when there are instance of the older movies doing the same things and you did enjoy it.

I share his worries to a certain point but I was listening to the Rebel Force Radio podcast where they made a bit of a stink about the alien that was shown along with Warwick Davis in the behind the scenes footage... And I did not see the big deal since it was totally in keeping with the look of many of the aliens from the OT.

Maby he's only seen the re-edited versions?

Yuck!...

I'm not offended I don't think I'm being clear though. I have no issues with puppets or "practical effects" vs CGI or whatever mix and mash the creators use. It's all in how they're used and how well the creators hide the evidence. OT Yoda was amazing, and so was PT Coruscant. E6 spiders and rubber Gammorean masks were terrible, and so, as noted above, was Dooku's jump down in E3.

All I'm objecting to is marketing "practical effects" as better, or even marketing them at all. I'm not going to see or not see a movie because of that choice, and I'd rather know about the wizardry behind my suspension of disbelief afterwards, not before. Practical effects is not a tick box on my "is it true Star Wars" list. But for some it is and...

The only reason for this marketing is as a sop to that particular breed of fan...and if Abrams shares anything with that particular breed of fan, my hopes dwindle...

Wow, I loved the Gammorean masks... They were some of the better aliens for me.

But I am pretty sure that soon we won't hear that much about those effects anymore... Once the story unfolds.

I do have to say it makes for way better behind the scenes footage and therefor I guess it was repeated a bit too often for some people's liking.

Aliens

Alien

This looks **** awesome to me! And to me, it really capture that Star Wars feeling and makes the world feel like a more interesting, living and real place than the PT aliens and settings ever did (no, not hating on the PT! they had great worldbuilding aspects.)

Bossk really let himself go didn't he?

I'm just going to leave this here: Very OT looking? I think not.

And for the record, I could care lees about Simon Freaking Pegg!

I think it is very OT looking, no need for anyone else to. I don't need general agreement on my feelings

But yeah, if you compare them to Jawa's and the like they would easily fit in the cantina scene as far as I am concerned.

Do think it is nice to see you are a listener of Rebel Force Radio, however I figure those guys could come up with a better nickname than that.

That's Muffit the Daggit toy from the old Battlestar Galactica TV show! So I can't say the look this alien has is Original Trilogy at all! More like a rip off.

Or a tribute.

Which seems more likely... I remember that little guy. I was crazy about him as a kid.

Wasn't there a monkey in that suit???

Edit:

Yes there was: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Evolution

NO IT WAS A REAL ROBOT DOG!!!!!

Quit with your internet lies!

Maby he's only seen the re-edited versions?

Maybe I'm probably the oldest guy here and saw E4 in the theatres in 1977 when I was 14