logo Sign In

Lucas and CGI in the Prequels — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Stop motion looks cool on creatures such as undead skeletons or mechanical creations such as the terminator, but other than that I think stop-motion blows. The "guy in the suit" or animatronics/puppets on the other hand can look very cool if they sport enough detail to suspend disbelief. The big plus for cgi is it's flexibility and that's why George Lucas prefers it whenever possible, imho. In the end that's all he is about - no boundaries for the person trying to tell a story.
Author
Time
Post link
What did you think of the stop motion on the original King Kong?
Author
Time
Post link
Well it's the best they had back then, it's film history - that's different. It was enough to scare me as a kid, so I'd say it was very well done. Even in stop-motion you can do good or bad. The old King Kong is great, but I would not have been positively surprised by a stop-motion Kong by Peter Jackson (although it might have been an interesting experiment).

Another kind of stop-motion I like are films with 'clay' figures, like "Wallace & Gromit" and "Nightmare before Christmas".
Author
Time
Post link
Stop-motion was starting to get interesting as a special-effects form in the early 80s, with Phil Tippett's experiments with the Go-Motion technique in E.T. and Return of the Jedi. This was when they began blending motion puppetry with stop-motion to create a more fluid effect. I think this form would still be workable now, and has influenced the work in Tim Burton's stop-motion films, as well as Aardman's output.

CG can be very effective, but artists need to understand its limitations and work within them, rather than pushing the technology to places where it clearly should not go. Pixar excels at this sort of thing with its CG animation, and it looks like Robert Zemeckis' ImageMovers collaboration with Sony Pictures Imageworks is starting to get the point with its upcoming film Monster House. Robert Rodriguez is very good at understanding the limitations of CG, and I'm sure Lucasfilm will get to that point sooner rather than later.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
I think they said that the final film that used stop-motion was The Battle for Endor in 1985.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: battlewars
somehow stop motion still seems better to me


How can you say that?!?
Ok, you like the "look" and the "feel" of stop motion (and it's the same for me!), but you can't tell that stop-motion is "better" than CGI, sorry (or you have to buy (new?) glasses...).
You know, I love Amiga computers, I feel a great nostalgia for these computers, but I'll never tell you that Amiga is "better" than my actual computer, just cause it would be a lie... My actual computer is far more performant than my old Amiga, and I can do things that I've never been able to do with an Amiga...
That's all, and it's the same for visual effects.

Note: if you're not conviced, go watch the JP documentaries. In one, we can see dino animations done in stop-motion (that was the initial technique choosed for JP). And now, compare with CG scenes in the movie. So, question: which one looks better?...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
What did you think of the stop motion on the original King Kong?


well i like it cuz i'm a fan of stop motion stuff like claymation but i have to agree with CO thati do prefer CG only if it real looking. But the SE's have the worst CG i've ever seen. Jurasic park has way better CG and that was made 4-5 years before
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Kaal-Jhyy

Note: if you're not conviced, go watch the JP documentaries. In one, we can see dino animations done in stop-motion (that was the initial technique choosed for JP). And now, compare with CG scenes in the movie. So, question: which one looks better?...
i think it looked cool myself

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
But the SE's have the worst CG i've ever seen. Jurasic park has way better CG and that was made 4-5 years before


That may be true. But then again it may just look so bad to you because it is put in contrast to 70's and 80's technology.
Author
Time
Post link
i dont mind cg i just think lucas over used it
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
But the SE's have the worst CG i've ever seen. Jurasic park has way better CG and that was made 4-5 years before


That may be true. But then again it may just look so bad to you because it is put in contrast to 70's and 80's technology.


well no as long as its on film the cg will turn out fine. Its jsut that ILM did a half ass job
Author
Time
Post link
Well, I must agree on that. I also think that ILM has not made its maximum for the SE (at least in the '97 version). The SE effects are very similar (in terms of quality) to the deleted scenes of the PT...
But it could be explain by the fact that PTM work was already started at that period, and SE sfx were some kind of tests, to see what they could be able to do in the PT.

Anyway, all is not bad in the SE. A lot of effects are pretty well done, or at least sufficient IMO...