Mads Mikkelsen Says ‘Rogue One’ Uses Old-Fashioned Storytelling Instead Of Relying On CGI

rogue-one-04

In the wake of the recent trailer release for “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” actor Mads Mikkelsen spoke a little about the film’s use of storytelling instead of relying on CGI, while also revealing several other interesting bits about the film. Read on for more details…

 

 

In just a few short weeks,’Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ will become the first Star Wars film that features new cast members, a whole new story, and an entirely new adventure.

 

Recently, actor Mads Mikkelsen, who stars as Galen Erso in ‘Rogue One’ spoke with Gamesradar.com about the film’s balance of CGI with storytelling, how an actor can help their director’s vision and how it’s surreal to be part of a Star Wars film.

“A stand-alone Star Wars film that fans out to the other ones. Also, the film is going a little back to the beginning in a sense of that we got CGI but it’s not used in an extended (excessive) way. It’s back to the storytelling, back to the characters.”

 

gareth

 

Mikkelsen says that part of an actor’s job is to help directors fulfill their dream:

“Like any other film, you have to fulfill the directors dream. He said.”That is what we are trying to achieve.”

 

rogue-one-16

 

He also mentions that working on the film was something very dreamlike:

“Passing a table with 100 Stormtrooper helmets on the way to lunch and you go Oh!, I’m in that film, it’s surreal”

 

 

You can check out the entire interview with Mads below.

 

 

 

“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” opens in cinemas in mid-December.

 

 

+ posts

100 thoughts on “Mads Mikkelsen Says ‘Rogue One’ Uses Old-Fashioned Storytelling Instead Of Relying On CGI

  • October 29, 2016 at 5:14 am
    Permalink

    GOOD STORY + SOLID CHARACTERES + PRACTICAL FX + a DASH of CGI to make things perfect = RECIPE FOR A GREAT SW FILM !

    • October 29, 2016 at 5:28 am
      Permalink

      YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT LITERALLY EVER SINGLE EFFECT SHOT IN THIS FILM IS GOING TO BE CGI, RIGHT? ILM HAS NOT HAD A MODEL SHOP FOR YEARS. WE ALREADY HAVE FAIRLY AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THERE’S GOING TO BE EXTENSIVE CG SEQUENCES.

      • October 29, 2016 at 5:51 am
        Permalink

        Yes, there is a lot of CG, but these new films have shown us that not EVERYTHING has to be CG and it looks phenominal:
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lnXaBf5Voxk/Vk3fK0bvHsI/AAAAAAAAOUE/Cph9954WKpc/s1600/EP7_IA_92566.jpg

        http://static.wixstatic.com/media/c0ebe0_83cf3454822f4d03a8ad211eebf1a3cf.jpg

        https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/5745d6b27c65e4c17df473ae/1464194746277/detailed-set-photos-of-the-millennium-falcon-from-star-wars-episode-viii?format=750w

        • October 29, 2016 at 3:58 pm
          Permalink

          I love how what Mads is referring to is how the effetcs dont take over the story as opposed to the story being used to help show special effects. So many blockbusters thay I’ve seen nowadays rely exclusively on their effects in order to justify the lack of a good narrativr completion (Something that I appreciated with TFA)

        • October 30, 2016 at 8:57 am
          Permalink

          “Not EVERYTHING has to be CG.” Yet you fail to understand how far certain technologies have come in 10 years.

          • October 31, 2016 at 12:30 am
            Permalink

            I think I certainly did acknowledge that it has advanced in the last 10 years. But as good as it is, it still cannot beat real objects photographed on a set or real locations. It can only be an imitation of what’s real. So, its best use is with things that cannot possibly created on a set due to budget and logistics.

          • October 31, 2016 at 11:02 pm
            Permalink

            Its the reason why Christopher Nolan’s films look so spectacular. Interstellar is maybe the most stunning sci-fi film I’ve seen in a long time. All photographed on beautiful 15/70 mm Imax stock. No amount of green screen work, however impressive may be, will ever be as awe inspiring and as memorable as knowing that some of the most dazzling imagery ever created on screen is about as tangible as the paper you read this morning. Thats not nostalgia, thats art.

          • November 1, 2016 at 6:21 am
            Permalink

            You have Roge one and a New Hope to compare directly, And if you think about it, you may be wrong. CGI looks way better than the “real objects” in ANH, better and acurate, lighting, textures, details. just take a look the deathstar.

          • November 1, 2016 at 7:06 am
            Permalink

            I couldn’t disagree more. CG is only an imitation of something real. Nothing artificial is better than the real thing. A stormtrooper played by a real person, photographed on a real set with real light shining on them will always look better than one created on a computer. A real desert or forest photographed on location will always look better than one generated on a computer. CG should only be used when the cost and logistics of making something become too impractical and expensive to accomplish practically.

          • November 1, 2016 at 8:02 am
            Permalink

            You are forgetting something, the deathstar in ANH is not a real deathstar, it is a model that fits in my room, yes it has a lot of details, and have “real lighting” but it is light from a lamp, not a real sun in space.. (I know you are not forgetting that, but see my point?)

            The point of CGI in this cases is to simulate and recreate real conditions, in a more realistic way, the light of a sun in a space conditions, lighting, reflections, details, same with the star destroyers. In this case CGI have way more posibilities to look more like the “real” thing than a phisical model lighted with a lamp inside a room.

            Think this, in both cases they are simulating a “real” thing, that none of those are. there is no real thing here. In this case CGI wins.

            Talking about a place like a desert, agree, there is no discussion in what is better, the real desert wins, still cgi can do a really great job simulating it (TFA), but real desert wins.

          • November 1, 2016 at 7:51 pm
            Permalink

            Yes, there are things that CG certainly does better, and models like the Death Star would be an example. But I was talking about real sets vs. synthetic ones, real costumed actors vs. CG generated ones, all with real light shining on them, casting real shadows, as well as real locations vs. synthetic terrains. There are so many movies that overdo CG these days, they end up looking like giant video games, and often throw all the rules of physics and realism out the window. That’s what I was referring to.

          • November 1, 2016 at 8:39 pm
            Permalink

            I get your point, but i think is good to risk and experiment, that is one of the best achievements of Lucas, making new things. Its better to have it than don’t.

            Special effects always look a litle dated over the years, the same with OT, you can see a lot of things that look totally fake, but it is a fastastic piece of art, the same as the PT. and Maybe someday Visual effects will not date much over the years, hopefully not because its possible Visual effects in movies may begin to feel borring.

            I want to comment about what you say about the “big videogame” because I had read it several times, and that is a big example of how technology had advanced. but not a good comparison.

            Dont take this to literal, but, back then in the PT time, videogames didn’t look that good, didnt loook like today’s videogames, CG was really advanced then for movies, but videogames are looking that good this days, but not before. I think that is not a fair comparison, because there are at least 10 years between. Remember GTAIII or Vice city? did those looked that good? i dont think so. but is a good example .

            If videogame graphics are that good now, imagine how advanced is CGI for movies now.

      • October 29, 2016 at 6:05 am
        Permalink

        Yeah, I think the fact that TFA had more CG shots than any pf the prequels says everything.

        However, there’s still a lot to be said for giving the illusion of practicality. When things look too cartoon-like, that’s when you lose people (which is why Snoke was a bad for me as Jar Jar).

        • October 29, 2016 at 4:24 pm
          Permalink

          He was a hologram.

          • October 29, 2016 at 4:58 pm
            Permalink

            Which has nothing to do with why I think it is cartoony. It’s the movement and animation that is the problem, not the hologram flicker.

          • October 30, 2016 at 1:32 pm
            Permalink

            Pablo Hidalgo hasn’t wrote the book on hologram technology in the GFFA yet. There are quantum physical rules that the hologram industry hasn’t figured out yet.

      • October 29, 2016 at 6:24 am
        Permalink

        Exactly. not a single scale model was built for TFA, ever, at any part of the film. Is that a problem? No. The CGI they used was quite good.

      • October 29, 2016 at 6:57 am
        Permalink

        Yes, we all know there is CGI in every shot.

        They still built sets. By III, Lucas didn’t shoot on location anywhere. He didn’t build sets. He didn’t have one set of clone trooper armor fabricated to dress up an extra.

        There may be more CGI in Episode VII, but they filmed on location, built sets, props, and whole Star ships. The movie looks better than any of the three prequels combined.

        Nice caps, by the way.

        • October 29, 2016 at 8:26 am
          Permalink

          Erg, Some of the distant shots, backgrounds and so on where models in Ep. III. Even mustafar implemented shots from an Etna eruption. There’s also to consider that – this movie doesn’t have a Lava planet, or other similar huge structures.

          • October 29, 2016 at 8:16 pm
            Permalink

            Models aren’t on location shoots.

          • October 31, 2016 at 12:54 pm
            Permalink

            No, but they implemented both a Mustafar model and lava footage from the Etna in the film; Etna is even listed as a location in the ending titles.

          • October 31, 2016 at 7:39 pm
            Permalink

            Stock footage isn’t an on location shoot.

          • October 31, 2016 at 9:08 pm
            Permalink

            That wasn’t “stock footage”. They went filming the volcano eruption directly for the film.

          • November 1, 2016 at 5:07 am
            Permalink

            We’re the actors on location filming? No. They recorded hours of eruption to get…drum roll please…stock footage.

        • October 29, 2016 at 11:25 pm
          Permalink

          Ha ha, you know nothing Jon Snow.

          • October 30, 2016 at 4:38 am
            Permalink

            More than you, Hodor.

          • November 1, 2016 at 8:10 am
            Permalink

            There were a lot on location shots, real sets, people size, take a look on the web.

          • November 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm
            Permalink

            All indoors. On a sound stage. Minimal sets built. Take a look at Pablo Hidalgo’s twitter account. Or, you know, the extras that come with the film on DVD or Bluray.

          • November 2, 2016 at 6:35 am
            Permalink

            Ok, lets get that for granted, no outdoors… Now, is there anything wrong with indoors? No. And even less if the 90% of the movie scenes are Indoors/nightlight, and not earth-like light planets.

            I will not try to convince you, but I will tell you something: Be happy, don’t hate, Star Wars is amazing, enjoy it.

            I,II & III are amazing, I respect every one’s opinion but it is not nice to try to diminish the work of lots of artists who made Star Wars possible and amazing for us, may the force be with you :).

            And really, indoors is not as bad as you think. and if you read more you will find that ROTS is one of the the SW movies with more “real” stuff in it.

            A really good reading: https://goo.gl/Fj1SLo

            And some bts imagery: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/filming-techniques-and-technologies-for-the-st.50014589/page-127

          • November 3, 2016 at 7:10 pm
            Permalink

            I respect your politely worded reasoning backed up with appropriate facts. But you’re shifting the argument from not location shoots to indoors is okay!

            The rendering done was very good but indoors is awful when using so much CGI. The problem is lighting. Always has been. Still a problem in sequences in VII. See Snoke.

            Abrams to his credit films heavy scenes with CGI outside to get natural lighting on the actors. Works better than indoors.

          • November 7, 2016 at 8:36 pm
            Permalink

            I see your point, but I dont see that as a bad thing, its true that technology have flaws, but I’m in favor of pushing the limits and inventing things, that’s when things become interesting, when PT was made they were inventing those tools, thanks to George and the team, that’s one of the credits for George Lucas, you can see flaws in the OT, you can see flaws in PT, And sure we will se that again, but may be less, computer effects are a lot better now, than 15 year ago, but the really important thing are the stories they are telling, and the amazing stuff they put in this films.

          • November 9, 2016 at 1:26 am
            Permalink

            This is a good post. I agree with the stories being told (I for one liked the Warcraft movie. I know it’s crap, but being a huge Warcraft fan since the age of 13 when I owned the original game on floppy disk, it was exciting to see the story from that game be put into film.) being the most important thing, but I disagree a good story happened in the prequels.

            But that’s opinion for you and myself to have. I won’t fart on you for liking the prequels. Just don’t try to argue they’re good films. I will rebut.

          • November 11, 2016 at 5:47 pm
            Permalink

            Ok, its just that i find funny to se people critizice every bit from a movie. It remainds me some “critics” about SW Original Trilogy back then when movies came, and it was exactly the same, just change he CGI word for whatever you want.

            It is funny to see the same repeating, again and again, some people don’t really know star wars and they think they do but don’t now what it is about.

            Im not saying you fit this descripcion of people, just saying this reminded me to that.

            I wont fart on you either for dislike them, but for me those PT films are really amazing in a lot of aspects, I know those have flaws, but OT have them too, and that doesn’t really mathers to me. The only movie I can complain about a lot of stuff is TFA, and I spitted some toughts about it, but its over a year from that, it is what it is. I instead would see the good stuff from that movie, bucause it has a lot of good stuff too.

            In the other hand sometimes as fans we are hard on critics and we start to shift from fans to haters, the line is too thin haha.

            Btw, RO looks really amazing, and new, and it is to close to ANH and at the same time so different, that’s crazy, just like a SW has to be I think.

          • November 11, 2016 at 6:26 pm
            Permalink

            It is slick.

  • October 29, 2016 at 5:17 am
    Permalink

    What the heck is ‘Rouge One’ – A Lipstick Story?!?

    • October 29, 2016 at 7:20 am
      Permalink

      prequel to moulin rouge? 😉

    • October 29, 2016 at 7:38 am
      Permalink

      I suppose the Red squadron in A New Hope becomes “Rouge” squadron in the French dub.

      • October 29, 2016 at 1:05 pm
        Permalink

        Actually it doesn’t. It remains “Red.” And in ESB, the Rogue squadron also remains “Rogue.”

  • October 29, 2016 at 6:23 am
    Permalink

    I hope we get to see some bounty hunters in Rogue One. Maybe one or some will be paid to help the rebellion in some way.

  • October 29, 2016 at 6:24 am
    Permalink

    Real sets, practical effects.

    • October 29, 2016 at 11:26 pm
      Permalink

      Real space, real aliens and real space battles of course 🙂

  • October 29, 2016 at 7:18 am
    Permalink

    CGI is a necessary evil and will always be with us, but i’m so glad they brought back the real armor for the stormtroopers. the clone troopers despite ILM’s best efforts just looked too fake.

  • October 29, 2016 at 7:29 am
    Permalink

    It’s fun to hear when they say they’re making sets and using real effects, but my only joy out of that is the actors on set can more realistically act with their surroundings instead of a floor panel and some green screen. Past that I don’t care what kind of CG they include because they have a vision and CG is just one of the tools in the box to get there

    • October 29, 2016 at 4:23 pm
      Permalink

      What does it matter if the floor panel is green or brown stone tiles? How would you act any different? Stage actors have little to act to and do it all the time.

      • October 30, 2016 at 5:42 am
        Permalink

        Yeah, but those stage performances are just that. No one takes that actor’s performance and surrounds it with artificial backgrounds and CG characters. Often a film character seems like they aren’t looking directly at the thing or person they are supposed to be interacting with.

        • October 31, 2016 at 11:47 pm
          Permalink

          With the floor I fail to see the difference. Padme’s Veranda was fully built in ROTS, but the opening was to the Skyscrapers of Coruscant. Kinda hard to do that other ways.

  • October 29, 2016 at 8:23 am
    Permalink

    That’s simply not true. Jedha, The Death Star, the U-wung, the huge structures – It’s all cgi, and good cgi. This whole considering of cgi as something wrong should really stop…

    • October 29, 2016 at 8:43 am
      Permalink

      I think people just compare it to how excessively it was used on the prequels to the point of absurdity. CG has certainly improved since then, and the models in Rogue One, such as the Star Destroyers, look damn near perfect. There is no doubt that CG plays an essential role in fantasy film making in 2016. But it’s best used in tandem with real sets, real costumed actors, and real creatures as best as they can and as the budget allows. The perfect example of this is still The Lord of The Rings trilogy, and the perfect example of excessive CG is the Hobbit trilogy.

      • October 30, 2016 at 8:55 am
        Permalink

        Lol, I don’t think you know how much practical models and sets were really used in the PT.

        • October 31, 2016 at 12:31 am
          Permalink

          Yes, I know a lot about them. I also know how much CG was used to the point of absurdity.

      • October 30, 2016 at 5:34 pm
        Permalink

        the star destroyers in rogue one are definitely CGI. Nobody today uses models anymore.

        • October 31, 2016 at 12:27 am
          Permalink

          That’s exactly what I said.

          • October 31, 2016 at 12:53 pm
            Permalink

            my bad.

  • October 29, 2016 at 9:57 am
    Permalink

    they said the same about the force awakens this trained actors just don’t feel embarrassment

    • October 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm
      Permalink

      What was wrong with the Force Awaken’s story telling?

      • October 30, 2016 at 12:28 am
        Permalink

        The second two-thirds of the movie.

        • October 30, 2016 at 12:31 am
          Permalink

          specifically?(just curious)

          • October 30, 2016 at 1:26 am
            Permalink

            Really? At this point we know the general complaints. Does anybody need to list them and have yet another reply listing why those are wrong and on and on we go. I loved the movie, it has loads of issues in the second two-thirds of the movie one could easily focus on if they so desire.

          • October 30, 2016 at 1:35 am
            Permalink

            A. I was just curious. B. I wasn’t asking you. C. This isn’t a college safe space.

          • October 30, 2016 at 1:38 am
            Permalink

            A. We engage on a Star Wars fan site, we already know the answer. B. Its a message board anybody can reply. C. I’m well aware.

            Anyways, I think my reply came off a little more dickish than I wanted.

          • October 30, 2016 at 1:42 am
            Permalink

            It’s all cool. I only asked because we some times see things differently or have new insights. I may not agree with these opinions but I always enjoy reading them.

  • October 29, 2016 at 6:05 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, it’s a cliché and it will be in every SW movie. Man, but i love when they say it.
    I wish more movies went like this, lots of blockbusters have really great premises but most of them are unwatchable. The sensation of watching a movie has already gone in those cases. Just my opinion.

  • October 29, 2016 at 9:49 pm
    Permalink

    Still hammering the CGI talking point at any opportunity. At this points its funny to me.

    • October 29, 2016 at 11:48 pm
      Permalink

      It has relevance imo. Not just because of the PT, but because almost all the recent blockbusters are CGI festivals. Its nice to see Lucasarts going back (or at least trying) to practical filmmaking. Sets and props had huge role in shaping Star Wars to be as iconic as it is.

      • October 30, 2016 at 1:23 am
        Permalink

        Ya sure, its cool. But at this point its all marketing. They fit in a CGI comment every single interview it seems. Its funny to me.

        • October 30, 2016 at 2:30 pm
          Permalink

          Yes it is and I dont see the problem with it. The movie offers you some variety from the recent blockbusters and they market it.

          • October 31, 2016 at 12:13 am
            Permalink

            I don’t have a problem with it. I just find it funny how in almost every interview over the last several years somebody mentions the CGI talking points.

          • October 31, 2016 at 7:48 pm
            Permalink

            Because they’re very valid and define the prequel trilogy.

          • November 1, 2016 at 5:55 am
            Permalink

            CGI doesn’t define the prequel trilogy for me. Bad writing, bad directing and bad acting define it. More practical effects, less of a focus on CGI and less trying to push the technological envelope as Lucas did don’t fix his poor writing and directing skills. Force Awakens wasn’t great because it didn’t follow the prequels in how it was made. It was great because of the characters of Finn, Rey, Poe, Kylo and more. In my mind anyway.

      • October 30, 2016 at 8:54 am
        Permalink

        “Not just because of the PT.” Sigh, learn to do some basic research on how much CG was used in both the PT and OT.

        Spoiler alert: PT has less than you think, OT has more than you think.

        • October 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm
          Permalink

          Bud, you’re just getting things mixed up here.
          It isn’t how much CGI is actually used, it’s how it is used and how believable it is. One film can use lots of CGI with almost nothing standing out, and another film can have far less CGI but have a lot of things stand out as odd, or just plain bad.

          • October 31, 2016 at 12:25 am
            Permalink

            Yes; even in a moderne film like TFA there is funky CGI; but it is not odd or bad, unlike the Abomination of the Clones

        • October 30, 2016 at 2:32 pm
          Permalink

          Its not a question of how much, but rather how. TFA had more CGI than the PT yet it was way more realistic than any of those.

          • November 1, 2016 at 7:33 am
            Permalink

            11 years of advances in CGI tells you something? PT risked and went further in that sense, TFA not that much.

            If TFA had been filmed just 1 year after ROTS, the results would better too, and very noticeable, that is obvious. CGI evolves every day. That is not a point of comparison.

          • November 1, 2016 at 11:47 am
            Permalink

            Disagree. Its not about the quality of the CGI, but the usage of it.
            The perfect example for that is Lotr vs Hobbit trilogy. 10 years difference, but Lotr is infinitely more realistic than the Hobbit movies.
            Lotr trilogy is also uncomparably better looking than the PT, even though its the same era.

          • November 1, 2016 at 8:15 pm
            Permalink

            The Hobbit was made that way intentionaly, they wanted the movie to look more “fantastic”, than LOTR.

            PT was never intended to look like the OT either, CG is much less anvanced that today, but was the best that time, and i think is awesome what coul be achieved back then, there was nothing like that then. And It’s different from LOTR because, LOTR is focused on earthlike enviroments, and unless PT have earthlike eviroments is more focused in non-earth enviroments. It is easier to copy/simulate a real thing than creating something new.

            Lot of scenes in OT were filmed indoors too, with bluescrees, not just PT, the technology was very new and chalenging in both cases.

            If you think about it, Jar Jar is the father of Gollum, Jar Jar first appereance was in 99, and Gollums (full appereance) in 02, CGI had 3 more years to improve. Jar Jar was the first main character that was full CGI, and no one complained about if he looked fake or real the complains were about his personality, that is a win for me regarding CGI.

          • November 2, 2016 at 8:51 am
            Permalink

            Most of episode 3’s worlds were very diverse and unrealistic. It would have been a pain and expensive for the more realistic locations to travel throughout the whole world just for specific locations that would only exist for approximately 5-10 minutes onscreen.

        • October 30, 2016 at 3:29 pm
          Permalink

          Sigh, that is very patronizing for someone getting their facts completely wrong.

          Spoiler alert: there is ZERO CG in the OT (unless you count those funky computer wire-frame read-outs). It didn’t exist back then as we know it now.

          and how can the PT have less than you think when we know full well it is wall-to-wall in practically every shot? Rick McCallum said it himself!

          • October 30, 2016 at 7:44 pm
            Permalink

            Re: “Spoiler alert: there is ZERO CG in the OT (unless you count those funky computer wire-frame read-outs)”

            Unless you count the Special Editions ?

          • October 31, 2016 at 12:00 am
            Permalink

            I never count the Special Editions 😉 😀

          • November 2, 2016 at 8:49 am
            Permalink

            Have you ever watched any BTS footage? There is plenty of blue screen used, ESB especially e.g. literally every scene you see with a matte painting is blue screen and computer graphics.

          • November 2, 2016 at 10:54 am
            Permalink

            i have been a fan since even before the first movie came out so yes I have seen BTS footage 😉 😀 I doubt there is a single Star Wars fan who hasn’t or who doesn’t know that the spaceships and planets aren’t real 😀

            Firstly, blue screen is not CG. There is NO CG in the OT. It is all done in a PHYSICAL process with optical effects and models. There are no computer graphics used in any effects or matte scenes. Computer graphics didn’t exist at anything like that level. the only computer graphics you see in Star Wars is the likes of that Death Star plan read-out in the rebel briefing room.

          • November 2, 2016 at 11:14 am
            Permalink

            1. Point taken. I mean VFX.
            2. So, you raise the point that blue and green screen aren’t CGI. Well then, you can rest easy knowing that the majority of the PT’s environments are actual locations, practical sets, and practical models. I can watch the PT films and easily notice the models and sets.

            This 113 page thread covers tonnes of them from all 3 prequel films: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/.

          • November 2, 2016 at 11:28 am
            Permalink

            I have never claimed there are no models or locations in the PT. only that there is no CG in the OT. there is nothing in the OT to compare with the extended fakeness of, for instance, the Gungan battle, the climactic battle of AOTC or the lava fight of ROTS, among others.

            I CAN’T watch the PT 😀

          • November 3, 2016 at 11:06 am
            Permalink

            I won’t disagree with the Gungans and Clone Troopers. They do look really fake and awful.

            The lava fight however is primarily practical models and practical sets mixed with CGI. The shielded towers, the lavabank, the interior and exterior of the hq especially. The only pure CGI in those scenes are the droids, pipes, and lava landscape.

          • November 3, 2016 at 3:57 pm
            Permalink

            but the fight ON the lava is quite one of the worst things I have ever seen. ludicrous and totally unconvincing.

  • October 30, 2016 at 12:07 am
    Permalink

    Who cares? Why they even metion that, it doesn’t mather if its CGI or Muppets, computer o potatoes, but the story telling.

    I know that this is not the case, I hope, but they don’t need to repeat the speach about “real”suff like in TFA ( wich has more CG than any other btw)

    In ANH asterorois were made with potatoes, and in AOTC with cgi, it doesn’t mather how they made stuff, but the story itself.

    • October 30, 2016 at 12:28 am
      Permalink

      it does help actors to have an actual person to act opposite of but yeah we got their point about the CG by now(even though they still use a whole bunch).

      • November 1, 2016 at 7:19 am
        Permalink

        You are right, that helps, Im not against that, but the really interesting thing is the final product.

        My point is that they don’t say “We got to use a plastic alien, but not in an extended way..”, or “We got a fantasy story but not in an extended way.., or “we got advance prostetics that looks so real, but…” you get the point. It is obvious there will be a lot of CGI, lots and lots, what is the purpose to say “its just a little” ?

        It is a main tool now in filmaking, more in SW, there were mate paintings and latex back then, now its CGI. K-2 is CGI!

        I got enough with TFA, next movies don’t need that ridiculous speach.

    • October 31, 2016 at 7:46 pm
      Permalink

      More CGI.

      More actual location shoots. Stormtroopers in armor instead of rendered characters. We even had a cantina full of silly looking aliens that weren’t cgi.

      • November 2, 2016 at 7:43 am
        Permalink

        We can have a mix, rendered and practical characters and locations, anything that serves the story.

  • October 30, 2016 at 2:58 am
    Permalink

    I don’t get too involved in the CGI debate in the SW films, but I will say this:. TFA and Rogue One look visually like the OT movies, whereas the PT movies look like they are from a different franchise.

    • October 30, 2016 at 7:55 pm
      Permalink

      Re: Practical Effects – PT

      What I find interesting is that many people assume that the PT had way less practical effects. As I understand it, actuality The Phantom Menance alone had more practical effects in it than the entire 3x OT films combined.

      Additionally, a great many people assumed much as CGI that wasn’t – it was practical effects that more-frequent than not blended very well with the CGI elements/actors/scene. For every elements someone points out that’s CGI that doesn’t blend/fit a scene, there are probably nearly a dozen elements that blended seamlessly. The enveloped was pushed, or brand new technologies/methods/processes developed – just as innovative as with the OT, using more modern tools.

      Lucas also went for a very different *stylistic* aesthetic, which has further convinced people that the movies were “all CGI” (again-more practical effects than OT) – that whole “when much of the galaxy still looked *shiny* at its height”.

      • October 31, 2016 at 12:20 am
        Permalink

        I was waiting for this one. Yes, TPM may have had a lot of practical effects and props, indeed more so than AotC and RotS. Yet it also has a copious amount of CGI that just doesn’t hold up, in addition to the “invisible” (i.e., well used) CGI. Anyway I believe Mikkelsen just wanted to say R1 is heavy on characterization, more so than we usually get in SW (excepting Boss Nass, brilliant and deep, complex char)

    • October 31, 2016 at 12:18 am
      Permalink

      As they should based on the period Lucas was trying to show. One thing Lucas actively did was try to separate them from the OT as a different look into the same Universe. They were supposed to look visually different than the OT. The quality of the work is besides the point. It just wasn’t supposed to have the same look. Edit: It makes sense that the new films, especially Rogue One would look visually similar to the OT movies.

  • October 31, 2016 at 1:49 pm
    Permalink

    Curious: Do we look at this image from Jurassic Park and say WOW that was great for the time, or do we complain that the dinosaur doesn’t look real enough? There were a lot of practical puppets for the dinos as well as CGI in this film. For the record, I enjoyed this movie a lot. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87054b6ffb9911bcb8c8a458e77c672bce63c7f37cf92ee3e7b49f792776e8ad.png

    Other aspects of the PT aside, why don’t we apply this VFX logic to them? The CGI in ’99, ’03 had grown since Jurassic Park (ILM in 1993) but was still a growing/changing art form.

    Also, side note, TV and films have taken a darker more realistic look since the early 2000’s. All you have to do is compare directorial visions for Batman over the years. Compare the look and vision for Superman Returns (2006) and Man of Steel (2013). Not only do the VFX look MUCH better (because of the time for tech growth) but the overall industry has taken a grittier and darker tone. The Prequels reflect the tone and color of the film industry at the time, and they reflect the director’s desire to push new tech further than it had gone before.

  • October 31, 2016 at 8:40 pm
    Permalink

    I prefer George LUCAS aesthetics and of course CGI like in episode 3!!! The characters from TFA and Rogue One look like they dont have money to buy clothes! They look like nasty roaches from a third world country!!! I want to see characters like General Grivious or Big MOnsters like in episode 1 and 2. And of course cool places!

    • October 31, 2016 at 9:35 pm
      Permalink

      you do realise that Jakku is pretty much 3rd world and the rebels are in the middle of a…. rebellion. Fashionable clothing isn’t as big of a concern as… umm…. surviving

      • October 31, 2016 at 10:36 pm
        Permalink

        Star Wars is fantasy! Is like viewing a painting! You want to see interesting stuff and beautiful stuff inside that canvas! You dont want to appreciate ugly and mediocree drawing inside a painting!!!! George Lucas always did futuristic stuff inside his mind canvas!!! Thas why he got mad by seeing a stupid retro movie in Episode 7!!!

Comments are closed.

LATEST POSTS ON MOVIE NEWS NET