logo Sign In

Episode I Digital Yoda Images!!!! — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr Bungle
Quote
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Now, if only he would do the same for the ESB and ROTJ Yoda!


Please tell me that was sarcasm.


No, that was not sarcasm. Is it a crime on these boards to feel that way? It seems in every major board on the net, you have to meet certain conditions to be considered a star wars fan:

1. You have to constantly bash the prequels.
2. You have to constantly bash Lucas, not to mention put an $ at the end of his name.
3. You can only give good remarks to the OT.
4. You must hate CG
5. You must think only episodes 4 and 5 are the two only good movies, you must call them "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back." You can't say "A New Hope" or "episode 4 or 5."



1. I like Sith and praised didnt mind Clones, think Menace is trash
2. praised Lucas filmaking skills. and his business sense, never ever used the $ dont hate the man(makes questionable decsions about the franchise, which the fans have a right to critise and have an opinion)
3. Ewoks are crap
4. like Sith CGI some of SE CGI when it is not a cut and paste job and blends
5. Doesnt matter use both ROTJ is a good movie as is Sith.


Do I fit the criteria to be a STAR WARS fan


Generally, though, you are looked down on for not following what I listed. I FEEL PERSECUTED!!!


Quote
Originally posted by: JackLucas
SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry... couldn't help myself... all better now...


I am sorry for speaking the blatant truth. The truth hurts doesn't it? I will shut up now.


Somehow I doubt that, but I thank you for the effort.

A long time ago in the faraway galaxy...

Star War: The Third Gathers
Backstroke Of The West

Author
Time
Post link
About the comment that Oz would be pissed, he was actually a bit dismayed that they tried to capture all his ticks and mistakes when working with the puppet. I think he appreciates the possibilities of CGI, if done right.

That said, I don't necessarily want them to do this. It would just be a neat bonus feature to see on the DVD, that's all.
The Jedi are all but extinct.......
Author
Time
Post link
I still want a CG Yoda in ESB and ROTJ to tie the two trilogies together and make Yoda look consistant, no matter what order they were made in. CG looks better, pure and simple. CG will always rule over a puppet! It's not as static! I want the old Yoda out!!
Author
Time
Post link
I think you're retarted. The old muppet Yoda from the OT is way better and actually is better than so called "computer technology". Stuart Freeborn did some excellent work carving and making it and Frank Oz brought it to life. Why spit on their work?
"Yub Knub" by Warrick Davis
Author
Time
Post link
Adam, You really are a rank-and-file TFN crybaby.

Whats next, using CGI to make the Executor 5 Miles long? Give me a break.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Author
Time
Post link
Well, the CGI might help the ships, but... CG might look good, you haven't seen it yet.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: skyman8081
Adam, You really are a rank-and-file TFN crybaby.

Whats next, using CGI to make the Executor 5 Miles long? Give me a break.



The rank and file TFN crybys make me wish I gave Star Wars in 83 or before the SE, latest one they want the Obi Wan and Vader duel updated to prequel standards with new stunt doubles and the TFN mods agree, there is so many budding Lucas and McCallums out there I am frightened. in 5-10 years will ANH be unreconisible from the movie i saw in 77, I am starting to have nightmares Lucas and McCallum go there and read what these people want.

I am seriously not touching the big boxset because the films i loved may be destroyed by the wants of these people who werent even born in 77.
Author
Time
Post link
"budding Lucas and McCallums"

Now that, I have never heard before. Typing those words scare me.

WTF?!? Stunt doubles in ANH! Now I've heard it al! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!
Author
Time
Post link
Dude, you flip flop more than a dying fish on dry land.

T




F





.









N.....

A long time ago in the faraway galaxy...

Star War: The Third Gathers
Backstroke Of The West

Author
Time
Post link
How about this one: I flip-flip more than John Kerry during an election.

Honestly, though, I have a love/hate relationship with TF.N. They can be insane at times, but helpful as well. A cool place to interact with people.
Author
Time
Post link
"I have little real power elsewhere. "

[Yoda] "That...is why you fail" [/Yoda]



(Sorry, couldn't resist )

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
CG looks better, pure and simple. CG will always rule over a puppet! It's not as static!


That's kind of funny, considering that many CG shots in movies today look like awful, unrelealistic, bad Playstation reject effects.

When CG is done right (seemlessly integrated with real footage), it's a great filmmaking tool. Terminator 2 is one example of wonderful CGI. But when CG is used as a crutch, like it largely was in the SW flicks, and doesn't even look that good (i.e. Jabba), the end product is quite "static." What was accomplished in the OT with sets, matte paintings, costumes, and models is timeless, and is one of the many reasons why those movies are beloved, and still hold up (along with many sci-fi/fantasy flicks of the '80's). Bad CG is instantly dated, rips you out of the movie (LOOK, BAD CG!), and is just as poor as '50's sci-fi movies where you can see the wires.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Bad CG is instantly dated, rips you out of the movie (LOOK, BAD CG!), and is just as poor as '50's sci-fi movies where you can see the wires.


Yeah, I can't wait to see how my grandchildren will someday react when they see some of the movies from today, especially Star Wars. It will probably be something simular to how I used to laugh at the old wires on ships. Even look at movies like the Spawn, if you watch that movie today the CG looks horrible! The '97 SEs were starting to get that way already, I am sure that is why Lucas decided to up date them. So what then? Update your films every couple of years before there CG expires? Look at the old SW trilogy, to me even today it looks fantastic. If you look you might find a few evidences of outdated techniques, but really I think they still look great. Because a model is a real objects, and it will always be a real object. But CG is completley intangible, and as new CG comes out, old CG is going to look awful.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Maybe this reply of mine is unneeded but I agree with booah's point, and the example of T2 as a film with great CGI. Even though that movie is relatively old now (relative to the advancement of CGI) it holds up surprisingly well. I only wish there were more films like that - where, if CGI is used, it is done properly so that the experience is not sacrificed for a digital creature.

To contact me outside the forum, for trades and such my email address is my OT.com username @gmail.com

Author
Time
Post link
CGI is a mixed bag Lord of the rings used good CGI and looked good but I feel George went to extremes for the SE and the Prequels for eg I like the Yoda(fan of) The Kamonians etc in the P.T but some of it looked cartoony eg Two Headed the racer announcer the guy with the big head an no body Jar Jar Geonesions etc and some of the scenes looked like a video game level eg The droid factory in clones. and as you can do anything with CGI i feel Lucas sometimes crossed the line of believeablity even for Star Wars in the prequels

You cant the beat the gritty feel of natural locations still rather complete greenscreen work it look to polished, clean and sometime unatural at times and the actors prefer working in locations rather than screen work.

the same with SE the X Wings taking off from Yavin look cool and I prefer that to the 77 version and the re-done battle sequence I like(though maybe very slightly less than the models not sure) but Jabba looks like a cartoon and nothing like the ROTJ puppet as does the new musical number in ROTJ, you can tell in 70s and 80s film what is a CGI additon and what is not.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
What was accomplished in the OT with sets, matte paintings, costumes, and models is timeless, and is one of the many reasons why those movies are beloved,


I want to add this--it wasn't so much that the stuff was all models and mattes, it was that THE WAY they filmed it was so new. Motion control cameras and optical printing techniques. The NEWNESS of it is what really carried it over the top. The newness and the ambition of it. The next closest comparison would be Jurassic Park, and then probably Toy Story.

Thing is you go back to those movies now, with the newness wore off, and you can see the seams. Not just some of the time--ALL of the time.

BAD EFFECTS rip you out of the movie, period. DATED EFFECTS as well. There's plenty of effects that are pulled off well, they're just old as crap. Hell, King Kong's stop motion was pulled off astoundingly in 33, so much so that people glossed over the mostly horrid acting and pacing (honestly) but you look at it now, and you REALLY have to distance yourself from the movie to appreciate it less as a flick and more as a historical document. That's not to say I want King Kong remade with a bunch of CG effects and Animatronic models (although that's what we're getting) but dated effects DO get in the way.

The original trilogy has a LOT of dated effects. And they're just as jarring for people watching it the first time as people watching King Kong for the first time. They dont' jar to us because we spend unholy amounts of time watching them over and over and over.

The anti-CG bias has always been interesting, because half the time, people don't really know what's CG and what isn't. Not just in the Star Wars movies, but in a lot of effects heavy shows. It depends on whether you carry this bias into the theater and have trained yourself to look for it. I can spot it, but I try to recognize that these are the tools the director has chosen to use, and then go from there. That doesn't mean CG gets a pass, just like crappy matte-work and modeling and cheese costumes didn't get a pass in the mid-80's. Just because it's tangible doesn't mean it's automatically better. And to say that the Original Trilogy is loved because they used models is fallacious. The Original Trilogy is loved because it was a right time/right place kind of movie that was so NEW at the time that it really impacted people. The marketing genius is what kept these movies fresh, the repackaging and ancillary markets and merchandising and reselling and reselling, so that effectively, you never LEFT the time period the movies originally came out. The marketing always trapped you there.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
Post link
The thing is though, to quote Howard Kazanjian from "Empire of Dreams," he said: "George knew what he wanted, and he got what he wanted."
Author
Time
Post link
I think the original models of the trilogy have aged really well. I can still watch the Star Destroyer chasing the Tantive IV at the very beginning of Star Wars and still be in complete disbelief. When Vader's Imperial Shuttle approaches the Death Star II in Jedi, I am completely in that world. REAL models hold up better than CG models. I'm not saying that every special effect in the OT was completely flawless (eg. the rancor and the translucent snowspeeder cockpit*). But in the PT, I'll more likely be thinking, "Oh, look at that nice-looking computer ship." CG is a very very important tool in today's film making. I will not deny that. But in moderation! Don't drown it in computer animation. I feel that it should only be used when it is impossible or infeasible to accomplish a special effect any other way. And that's not the way that Lucas used it in the prequels. So using a CG Yoda, Adam, when a perfectly good puppet Yoda already exists is just completely inane.

*I still prefer the rancor with the matte lines and the translucent cockpit to the cleaned-up versions. Has anybody with pan-and-scan (forgive me, I was young and didn't know better at the time!) ever noticed that, in the original version, the edge of the cockpit isn't even in the frame? But in the special edition, they made sure to pan the camera a wee bit farther to the left just to make sure you noticed that they fixed that sucker!!!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
My reply to this wonderful discussion that's never happened before is that I hope ILM remembers that they're not just Industrial Cgi Light and Cgi Magic all the time. They've done some really impressive things with Yoda in RotS, but they're still having trouble with human doubles coming off too weightless or inhuman. Anything that's not a human, they've done almost perfect with in my opinion. So do what's necessary to create the illusion, not just put a cgi band-aid on it for convience -sake.

Oh and, still not buying this. Keep releasing new versions of cgi jabba and yoda for the rest of your life, Lucas. I don't care.
He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
Post link
While I think its pointless to go and update the old imagery with new stuff, I've always had a firm perception (as a film WATCHER) on what works in CG and what doesn't. Simply put: Inanimate objects, such as machinery, look great in CG. Animate objects, such as creatures and characters, do not look believable. I will take every rubber-masked creature in the O-OT Cantina or Jabba's palace before I'll accept a single Gungan or Dexter or any CG character.

Two stronger cases-in-point:


  1. I actually am a fan of the scene involving Jabba in the SE-ANH. But the CG does not look convincing. It doesn't now, and it was less so in 1997. I like the scene. I like the notion of going back and putting in this deleted scene. However, to this day, I feel as though Lucas should have dusted off the old latex model of Jabba from ROTJ and retrofitted him for motion, then filmed the puppet against a blue screen to match the motion of the existing scene. ILM did this in 1994 making us believe that Tom Hanks really was shaking hands with President Kennedy, Mooning President Johnson, and getting whispered to by President Nixon. Why they didn't use the same technique for Jabba escapes me.[/li]
  2. Digital Yoda vs Puppet Yoda: ESB still convinces me more than ROTS. Why bother updating Episode 1 with a CG representation when you could just get out the old puppet from the O-OT and use him again. They (mistakenly) tried to make a "younger-looking" puppet for Episode I, which is why Yoda looked so bad. When the reaction was so negative, Lucas' solution wasn't to start using the old puppet again, but make a complete digital recreation of the old puppet. This way he'd be more nuanced and more expressive. And less believable, most of us agree.


It's been said before in this thread and I'll agree with it ... real objects that are filmed simply are more believable than digital creations. To my original point, non-organic objects behave with the physical world with much-less subtlety. We know how light will reflect off of a hard surface based on its elemental makeup and its angle. Clone Trooper armor works great this way too just as ships and rocks do.

Organic forms have way much more going on. A computer cannot handle it because there is more nuance than the programmer has the time to program in. Fluidity of motion, number of bones, placement of muscles, translucence of the skin ... these are about all that has been accounted for thus far by programmers, and it doesn't come close to all the detail. Add to this the sheer randomness of all things organic, and you just can't account for it.

Think of the difference between an analog sound wave and a digital representation. Analog is a true wave. Digital takes slices of that wave, leaving gaps in between. CD's sound so good because they take so many samples (44,100 per second) that we can't comprehend the gaps. But anybody who's listened to a sound sample even at 11,000 (only 1/4 CD quality) knows exactly how bad a representation of the sound wave it is.

I'm using this as an analogy and not a direct comparison to CG. When there is so much nuance to what we see organically, and so much of that nuance is unaccounted for when the same image is recreated digitally, you get the same effect: an unbelievable result. I would say that CG programmers currently can account for maybe the equivalent of a sound wave sampled around 500hz. Maybe. And with all the time and energy spent trying to get to just that level, doesn't it make more sense just to use latex in the first place? Save the CG for the ships and alien landscapes. Leave the characters in the real world. They'll be much more believable as a result.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Save the CG for the ships and alien landscapes. Leave the characters in the real world. They'll be much more believable as a result.


So true, that goes for me, straight to the heart of problem with the CG in the SEs and in parts of the Prequels.
Author
Time
Post link
They would of done an even better job with Jar Jar if he had been cut out of the script.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr Bungle
Quote
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Save the CG for the ships and alien landscapes. Leave the characters in the real world. They'll be much more believable as a result.


So true, that goes for me straight the heart of problem with the CG in the SEs and in parts of the Prequels.


I mostly agree with this. I think a big problem that never is looked at is the compositing. Puppets infront of a blue screen usually look just as phony as the CGI charactures composited into the plates.

I guess it is whether you prefer boring, limited movement puppets that are obviously there on set, or more dynamic, articulate CGI models that are obviously matted in later.

I usually just take off my glasses and they all look the same anyway.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: The Bizzle
The original trilogy has a LOT of dated effects. And they're just as jarring for people watching it the first time as people watching King Kong for the first time. They dont' jar to us because we spend unholy amounts of time watching them over and over and over.


Exactly!

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie