Guest madddox Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I like the concept of her character, but I think it wasn't executed as well as they hoped. I get that they wanted a Yoda-esque character, but while they paid "homage" to the OT in many ways, this is one of the things where I would have liked to see them try something different. If I want to see Yoda I'll watch Yoda. There is definitely a place for the wise sagely old character (especially in the SW universe), but trying to recreate a character like Yoda kind of backfired on them I think. With what we saw of Maz in TFA, she seems like a competent character; not as annoying as Jar Jar, and good enough CGI to let you look at it as a character. But there just doesn't seem to be anything that remarkable or impressionable about her. Hopefully, they give her more to do in Episode VIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's funny to me that Maz ands Snoke get the most hate and are so 'obviously' or 'bad' CG. In some ways I wish JJ had been more secretive about the stuff that wasn't CG and made real. I'd have bet that most people would have said that BB8 was too much CGI if they didn't know he was real. In fact I'm surprised by how much people haven't complained about the scenes where BB8 was done with CG as I felt they were more obvious. Half the trouble is that people knew that Nyong'o and Serkis were playing motion capture characters and were looking for it before they went to see the movie. People's belief systems won't let them see a good performance if it's done in CG. And their reactions to CG can be negative before they even see it. As for quality... there were no issues at all. In fact I don't think people actually noticed half of the CG in this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I don't get the CGI complaints on Snoke or Maz. I thought compared to the CGI from the PT (IE Jar JAr, Dex, CHI C-3P0 in the doid factory), it is far better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Maz was great-- I didn't think Snoke looked good-- but I think the hologram effect didn't do the FX any favors. When we see him in person I expect him to be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madddox Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's funny to me that Maz ands Snoke get the most hate and are so 'obviously' or 'bad' CG. In some ways I wish JJ had been more secretive about the stuff that wasn't CG and made real. I'd have bet that most people would have said that BB8 was too much CGI if they didn't know he was real. In fact I'm surprised by how much people haven't complained about the scenes where BB8 was done with CG as I felt they were more obvious. Half the trouble is that people knew that Nyong'o and Serkis were playing motion capture characters and were looking for it before they went to see the movie. People's belief systems won't let them see a good performance if it's done in CG. And their reactions to CG can be negative before they even see it. As for quality... there were no issues at all. In fact I don't think people actually noticed half of the CG in this movie.I think CG is still at a point where skin, clothing, and organic textures are harder to recreate and make look authentic and real, as opposed to metallic and hard surfaces. That's why BB8 worked in his CG scenes. Also, he was a mix of practical and CG effects and the seams just weren't very visible at all which was fantastic. Snoke and Maz, on the other hand, are all CG effects. We know this. The CGI was really good for Maz and maybe a little overdone for Snoke, but we could tell it was a CG effect as opposed to BB8, so that explains why people are harsher on Maz and Snoke as CG effects. People's belief systems are fine as long as they're presented with something that acts like a real character with real motivations (see: Gollum). Gollum clearly looked like a CG effect in a fair amount of scenes, but we were sold on him as a character. Snoke is fairly one-note, which makes people look toward to the CG to air their grievances. Maz had a bit more to her character, but still lacked something to really make a lasting impression, hence some of the comments about the CGI. I still contend that, in most cases, CGI mixed with practical effects is by far the most effective method in selling fantastical characters. Davey Jones comes to mind. That CG still holds up as some of the best use of practical and CG effects to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Key being the mix of practical. CG enhanced puppetry and masks works so much better. But Maz was to inhuman for that to work. I'm actually surprised they didn't try to do her as a puppet if she's Yoda 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madddox Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 thing is, im not knocking their decision to go full CG for her. but they have to realise that in doing so it will stand out very overtly to the audience and human eyes. to counter that they really needed to make her more impressionable as a character, not a CG effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I think CG is still at a point where skin, clothing, and organic textures are harder to recreate and make look authentic and real, as opposed to metallic and hard surfaces. That's why BB8 worked in his CG scenes. Also, he was a mix of practical and CG effects and the seams just weren't very visible at all which was fantastic. Funnily enough, the effects with the Millennium Falcon were some of the least successful to me. They had that ship bouncing around way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's funny to me that Maz ands Snoke get the most hate and are so 'obviously' or 'bad' CG. In some ways I wish JJ had been more secretive about the stuff that wasn't CG and made real. I'd have bet that most people would have said that BB8 was too much CGI if they didn't know he was real. In fact I'm surprised by how much people haven't complained about the scenes where BB8 was done with CG as I felt they were more obvious. Half the trouble is that people knew that Nyong'o and Serkis were playing motion capture characters and were looking for it before they went to see the movie. People's belief systems won't let them see a good performance if it's done in CG. And their reactions to CG can be negative before they even see it. As for quality... there were no issues at all. In fact I don't think people actually noticed half of the CG in this movie.I agree so much. I'm so sick of people bitching about CGI just to bitch about CGI. I think a lot of it is because they go into it knowing it's CGI so they're "pre-bitching" in their mind before they even see it. Puppets have almost always looked fake to me for 80 years of movies but you almost never saw people bitching that puppets were too puppet. Yoda was puppet as a mofo if we're being real. Did ANY of us recoil in shock at how real Yoda looked? Of course not. Just because he was physically there in the scene doesn't make him "more real looking". Even as a kid I never forgot for a second there was a hand up his ass moving him around. But we went with it. The effects in The Thing, considered one of the best practical effects in history, didn't look 100% real. Did any of us really believe Spider Head Thing was real? Of course not. But we went with it. Etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madddox Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's funny to me that Maz ands Snoke get the most hate and are so 'obviously' or 'bad' CG. In some ways I wish JJ had been more secretive about the stuff that wasn't CG and made real. I'd have bet that most people would have said that BB8 was too much CGI if they didn't know he was real. In fact I'm surprised by how much people haven't complained about the scenes where BB8 was done with CG as I felt they were more obvious. Half the trouble is that people knew that Nyong'o and Serkis were playing motion capture characters and were looking for it before they went to see the movie. People's belief systems won't let them see a good performance if it's done in CG. And their reactions to CG can be negative before they even see it. As for quality... there were no issues at all. In fact I don't think people actually noticed half of the CG in this movie.... Even as a kid I never forgot for a second there was a hand up his ass moving him around. But we went with it. The effects in The Thing, considered one of the best practical effects in history, didn't look 100% real. Did any of us really believe Spider Head Thing was real? Of course not. But we went with it. Etc etc. Why do you think we went for it? Because these characters were inbued with a sense of character and personality, despite being puppets. We all knew they weren't real. There were bad puppets in movies, of course, and they made us laugh at them. But the ones that were done with heart and good craftsmanship were the ones we remember; Yoda, The Thing, etc. There's also an element of nostalgia, sure, but for the most part they worked because of their character and personality. I guess practical effects and CG is similar in the respect. When done well it can really bring characters and personalities to life. When done poorly it just looks shoddy and laughable. Practical effects maybe have an edge over CG because no matter how poor it is it's still there in the in the scene interacting with actors. CG, on the other hand, can look really awkward and out of place in a scene, which really breaks our immersion as an audience. Though it can be argued that CG allows you to do far more than practical effects can. There are pros and cons to both, and being able to merge the pros of each effect should be goal of film makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madddox Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I think CG is still at a point where skin, clothing, and organic textures are harder to recreate and make look authentic and real, as opposed to metallic and hard surfaces. That's why BB8 worked in his CG scenes. Also, he was a mix of practical and CG effects and the seams just weren't very visible at all which was fantastic. Funnily enough, the effects with the Millennium Falcon were some of the least successful to me. They had that ship bouncing around way too much. The ship itself looked fine, but the physics applied to it were what you seem to have a problem with. Maybe because there's no real world example to compare it to, so anything which seems off (gravity and physics-wise) will jump out at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Some people only see the CG. They miss the Oscar Winning actress beneath giving a tremendous performance I might add. Motion capture has come a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Yeah her vocal performance was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Jade Skywalker Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Key being the mix of practical. CG enhanced puppetry and masks works so much better. But Maz was to inhuman for that to work. I'm actually surprised they didn't try to do her as a puppet if she's Yoda 2.0I read somewhere that they initially wanted to do a puppet but it didn't look good enough. Yeah her vocal performance was awesome.I was so surprised by how good she was, although I really shouldn't have. She sounded so much older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madddox Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Some people only see the CG. They miss the Oscar Winning actress beneath giving a tremendous performance I might add. Motion capture has come a long way. I'm not sure exactly why maz needed to be motion captured... she didnt have any unique or interesting body movements, and her face could have been animated. i feel like she didnt bring much more than a voice, really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Some people only see the CG. They miss the Oscar Winning actress beneath giving a tremendous performance I might add. Motion capture has come a long way. I suspect CGI characters would be a lot better off if they didn't rely so heavily on motion capture and trusted animators to do their thing. There's a reason why animators are leery of rotoscoping and have largely avoided it since the 30s. But, because people liked Gollum a dozen years ago, the downsides of that shortcut are ignored in CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 what r u even talking about everybody agrees bakshis lotr is perfect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Not sure why Lupita Nyong'o couldn't play her live action, though.Because then she wouldn't be Yoda 2.0 ^ There you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HantheMann Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I wonder if the guy who was dying of brain cancer and Lucasfilm allowed him to view the movie before the opening was overly critical of CGI Maz? Or for that matter, Starkiller Base being a rehash of the deathstar? It puts things into perspective. I have seen the movie 4 times in the theater and unlike Phantom Menace, each time its more entertaining as I look for the little things and enjoy the ride. Maybe having grown up in the late 70s and 80s, with all the cheesey special effects and stop motion animation, I am not overly critical of putting a CGI Maz in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I wonder if kids dying of hunger care about a guy wanting to see Star Wars before he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good God a Bear Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 For the price of a cup of coffee a day you can help the kids dying of hunger care about a guy wanting to see Star Wars before he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trumpet player 2 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Reminded me of Guinan a bit. Didn't like her to be honest, seems more suited to an episode of Clone Wars or Rebels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I wonder if the guy who was dying of brain cancer and Lucasfilm allowed him to view the movie before the opening was overly critical of CGI Maz? Or for that matter, Starkiller Base being a rehash of the deathstar? It puts things into perspective. I have seen the movie 4 times in the theater and unlike Phantom Menace, each time its more entertaining as I look for the little things and enjoy the ride. Maybe having grown up in the late 70s and 80s, with all the cheesey special effects and stop motion animation, I am not overly critical of putting a CGI Maz in there.I'm pretty sure that little rant is why this thread exists in the first place even though no one here seems to hate Maz. Also, if I'm dying of brain cancer, I doubt I'd care if someone stole my car. Doesn't mean I should leave my keys in the ignition while in full health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Reminded me of Guinan a bit.It doesn't detract from me liking her but I think this is valid. I had the same thought in the theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trumpet player 2 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 She also reminded me more of the Alien in Abrams first Trek film, the one with Scotty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts