Case Study and Calculator
One of galaxy’s most recognisable droids, an aluminium Artoo first appeared onscreen in 1977. He has since turned up in fibreglass and CGI, and is now the subject of 3D modelling. But what are the environmental impacts of different Artoo units? This case study investigates physical and digital builds to find out.
Discover the environmental impact of both practical and CGI Artoo units. You can also use the interactive calculator tool to estimate the carbon footprint of materials in your own prop and costume making.
A full write up of this study and its data will be available under EIF Resources. Click here to jump to the interactive calculator tool.
Introduction
With his mischievous demeanour and comical beeps, Artoo Detoo is one of the most well-loved characters in Star Wars. One of only two characters appearing in every film of the Skywalker Saga, the droid gained what the Reading Evening Post called ‘cult-like status’ within months of A New Hope’s 1977 release.[i] In August that year, Artoo’s footprint was memorialised on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.[ii] But what does his carbon footprint look like, and what can he tell us about changing approaches to prop and sustainable film costume making?
The answer depends on which version of Artoo you study. There were around 21 Artoos made by Star Wars production company Lucasfilm between 1976 (during the first Star Wars production) and 1998 (for the 1999 film The Phantom Menace).[iii] There are also numerous fan-built units, some of which have appeared onscreen.
In our study, we’re examining an aluminium costume, which was made for actor Kenny Baker to wear in A New Hope (1977), and the CGI version of Artoo that appears in Attack of the Clones (2002). Comparing practical and special effects has inspired our interactive calculator tool, which you can find at the bottom of the page and use to compare the carbon footprints of different commonly used materials in prop and film costume making.
Why are these the droids we’re looking for?
The 1977 Artoo costume was made primarily from sheet aluminium. He had fibreglass legs, and featured a number of found parts (such as flexible ducting, a child’s car seat, and a leather harness) as well as electronic light displays. In the image on the left, it’s clear that practical Artoo has a beaten up, lived in look that results from the crew’s design choices.
The 2002 Artoo was made from thousands of digital frames that were played at 30 frames per second to create the illusion of movement. We’re working on the basis that there were three image layers per frame, and that each image was stored on red, green, and blue colour channels.[iv] In the image on the right, you can see how Billy Brooks’s CGI Artoo has a cleaner and more technologically advanced aesthetic.
[Insert image of 1976 Artoo and image of 2002 Artoo. Image captions: Detail of Artoo’s beaten-up, practical appearance in A New Hope. A still of Artoo’s more contemporary CGI aesthetic in Attack of the Clones. Images: Lucasfilm]
Star Wars was central to the digital revolution that transformed the film production industry in the 90s, with artists at Lucasfilm and special effects studio Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) developing techniques that have influenced filmmakers ever since.[v]
This makes Artoo’s transition from practical to digital effect especially interesting. By working with practical and digital examples we can test people’s commonly held assumptions about them, such as the notion that digital filmmaking is greener because it produces less visible material waste.
How we conducted the study
Drawing on archival research in trade magazines like Cinefex, droid builder sites such as OpenR2,[vi] and interviews with filmmakers such as Roger Christian and Don Bies, we’ve reverse-engineered our two chosen droids in four stages.
First, we’ve created parts lists that break items down into constituent materials. Second, we’ve considered machining and fabrication techniques. Third, we’ve estimated the amount of energy required to make each droid in terms of lighting and heating. We’ve also accounted for differences in energy consumption between locations (practical Artoo was made in the UK; CGI Artoo in the US) and period (the former was created in 1976; the latter in 2001).
Finally, we’ve calculated likely carbon emission factors – or put simply, carbon footprints – by conducting life cycle assessments (LCAs) on each droid (to learn more about LCAs, you can read this EIF blog post).
It goes without saying that the process has been challenging. There are gaps in information related to the found parts used in the 1977 unit and the size of data files in 2002. Even minor details can affect the outcomes of LCAs, so our calculations are approximate. To ensure the greatest accuracy possible, our LCA data is sourced from eco-invent, an internationally recognised database used by numerous industries.
Results
Our initial findings are based on research into the materials and fabrication techniques that filmmakers used to create an aluminium costume and CGI version of Artoo Detoo. You can download our calculations data here:
By undertaking lifecycle assessments of the two droids, we’ve determined that making the 1977 Artoo likely produced carbon emissions equivalent to 686.08 kgCO2 , which included parts (sheet metal, found objects), energy use from machines during construction, and transport from factory to set.
Meanwhile, when accounting for machine energy use and data file sizes at the time, we estimate that the 2002 Artoo produced carbon emissions of around 4248.15 kgCO2.
The 2002 figure is based on the number of seconds that the CGI Artoo appears on screen (1 minute 09 seconds in Attack of the Clones). To create equivalent data for the 1977 Artoo, we can divide the costume’s screen time (10 minutes 56 seconds in A New Hope) by the total emissions for the asset (because it’s a single unit being used repeatedly in each shot). When we do so, carbon emissions for the 1977 Artoo costume fall to 1.04 kgCO2.[vii]
To give you a better sense of the environmental impact of the two fabrication techniques, it would take a full-grown tree nearly 33 years to capture the carbon emissions created by the Artoo costume. It would take 202 years for the same tree to capture the emissions produced in the making of the digital version.[viii]
This means that – noting differences in energy consumption between 1976 in the UK and 2001 in the US – the practical version of Artoo probably had a lower environmental impact in terms of carbon emissions than its CGI counterpart.
Conclusion
In the early 2000s, filmmakers like Don Bies noted that ‘CG[I] was the talk of the town […] the old analogue world, like myself, were all of a sudden forgotten.’[ix] However, in 2023, CGI artists often feel like their efforts are overlooked owing to the publicity that emphasises the importance of practical effects.[x]
In reality, many blockbuster films rely on a mix of practical and digital assets – although the balance between practical and special effects changes from production to production.
Star Wars productions, for instance, tend to work with practical assets that act as placeholders for movement, lighting, and interactions with other characters on set. In post-production, artists digitally augment or animate the assets. Some other productions rely more heavily on digital-only assets, which can result in higher energy use because more data is needed to create more CGI drafts, and these require more servers for storage. Even when using today’s more energy efficient machines, our initial findings suggest that processing and storing digital data can have a far greater environmental impact than some practical effects.
Carefully planned and responsibly maintained CGI assets can ensure that film production sustainably by filmmakers who work as possible with digital assets.
Practical assets nevertheless bring their own challenges. They require the extraction of raw materials such as oil for plastic, or cotton bolls for textiles. Raw and fabricated materials have to be transported to set. Costume departments often buy duplicate shop-bought items in case there are delivery problems; waste products are often sent to landfill rather than recycled.[xi]
It’s vital that filmmakers use renewable, reused, or recycled materials, and that studios properly resource responsible waste management when their productions wrap.
Whether you chose to make assets practically or digitally depends on your production’s budget, style, and needs. We hope that our Artoo case study encourages you to challenge assumptions about the environmental impacts of different techniques.
Now, you can test a variety of materials using our interactive calculator below. You can also find more insights into good working practices under EIF or Further Resources.
While you’re here…
If this case study/calculator changes how you think or feel about the industry’s impact on the environment, or if you use any EIF project resources in your work, please let us know by taking a minute to complete this short survey. Your feedback will help us develop further resources and apply for funding that supports our ongoing work.
Practical/Digital Calculator
The practical/digital calculator tool is designed to help you consider the environmental impacts of prop and costume making by comparing the likely carbon emissions of different materials and fabrication techniques.
Step one: enter the number of seconds your chosen asset is scripted to appear for onscreen.
Step two: select your preferred material.
Step three: estimate the weight of the material you would need.
The calculator assumes you’ll be working on the asset for five working days and using a relevant machine (e.g., a sewing machine or computer) for six hours per day. It will reveal whether practical or digital making is likely to be more environmentally friendly based on the data you provide.
Please note that the result is indicative only and does not account for all possible environmental impacts when working with these materials. You should contact eco friendly sustainable film production consultant to discuss your bespoke production needs before deciding how best to proceed with your project.
Notes
[i] Albert Watson, “Star Wars,” Reading Evening Post, July 23, 1977, p.12.
[ii] “Star Trek Robots,” Belfast Telegraph, August 5, 1977, p.9.
[iii] Don Bies, interview by Rebecca Harrison, March 11, 2023.
[iv] Thanks to Prof Nicolas Poteet for sharing insights into 3D animation design and storage processes in the early 2000s. Nicolas Poteet, emails with Rebecca Harrison, July 13, 2023.
[v] For details about Lucasfilm and ILM’s work in special effects, see, Don Shay, “Return of the Jedi,” Cinefex no.78, June 22, 1999,pp.15-18, 23-34, 31-32.
[vi] Open R2, “1976 on the Outside. 2023 on the Inside,” Open R2, 2023. Online at: https://www.openr2.org/.
[vii] We calculated the likely screen time per asset based on text-based and visual descriptions of the asset and our filmmaker interviews.
[viii] Beth Howell, “What is Carbon Capture and Does It Actually Work?,” Eco Experts, May 5, 2022. Online at: https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk
/blog/does-carbon-capture-work.
[ix] Don Bies, interview by Rebecca Harrison, March 11, 2023.
[x] CGI artists, discussion with Rebecca Harrison, February 2, 2023.
[xi] Costume co-ordinator, interview by Rebecca Harrison, February 6, 2023.