logo Sign In

The Other side of the 30th Anniversary — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Windexed
I agree 100% with Tiptup. When watching the new "Kingdom of Heaven" DVD (which is excellent) Ridley Scott, to this day, believes that if there is anyway possible to create a scene NOT using CGI, then it should be done that way.
These are my sentiments exactly. Kudos for Ridley Scott for insisting on taking the hard road for the sake of better moviemaking. I've always said that CGI should be a tool and not a crutch. It should be used only when absolutely necessary, and it should never draw attention to itself. Filmmakers are becoming lazy and relying on CGI for everything these days (including things like floors!). Uncle George seems to have fallen under the notion that "we'll use CGI for everything, because we can!" What a shame.

Two of the only films I can think of I've seen that use tons of CGI for the surrounding sets successfully are "What Dreams May Come" and "Mirrormask". It works well there simply because both films take place in dreamlike environments that aren't meant to be real, and the CGI only adds to that unreal/surreal factor.

--SKot

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Windexed
I agree 100% with Tiptup. When watching the new "Kingdom of Heaven" DVD (which is excellent) Ridley Scott, to this day, believes that if there is anyway possible to create a scene NOT using CGI, then it should be done that way. Yet good old George feels the need to CGI a floor. A fucking floor for crying out loud.


That was an advice given to him by Douglas Trumbull on the shooting of Blade runner; Scott wanted to use SFX for a scene but Trumbull conviced him to do it "real" because real stuff always looks better on screen, just like the interior of the eggs in Alien ; no animatronics, no latex make ups just cows and porks guts!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: SKot

Two of the only films I can think of I've seen that use tons of CGI for the surrounding sets successfully are "What Dreams May Come" and "Mirrormask". It works well there simply because both films take place in dreamlike environments that aren't meant to be real, and the CGI only adds to that unreal/surreal factor.

--SKot


I happen to think that Sky Captain was another film with great CGI. I really enjoyed the atmosphere of that entire film - especially the lighting on the characters. I really should go and buy it sometime soon.

Steve

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: grifter
just like the interior of the eggs in Alien ; no animatronics, no latex make ups just cows and porks guts!


Dude, are you serious?! They used actual animal parts? What kind of health code nightmare do you think that was? Dear, god...
"I am altering the movies. Pray I don't alter them any further." -Darth Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Originally posted by: grifter
just like the interior of the eggs in Alien ; no animatronics, no latex make ups just cows and porks guts!


Dude, are you serious?! They used actual animal parts? What kind of health code nightmare do you think that was? Dear, god...


This is totally serious. And these animal parts are (were?) actually available to the average person in the butcher's shops here in Europe. (Alien was filmed in the UK)

I remember from the making of that they used what in french we call "crépine de porc". Sorry I don't know the english word...

Han: Hey Lando! You kept your promise, right? Not a scratch?
Lando: Well, what’s left of her isn’t scratched. All the scratched parts got knocked off along the way.
Han (exasperated): Knocked off?!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: spaint
Originally posted by: SKot

Two of the only films I can think of I've seen that use tons of CGI for the surrounding sets successfully are "What Dreams May Come" and "Mirrormask". It works well there simply because both films take place in dreamlike environments that aren't meant to be real, and the CGI only adds to that unreal/surreal factor.

--SKot


I happen to think that Sky Captain was another film with great CGI. I really enjoyed the atmosphere of that entire film - especially the lighting on the characters. I really should go and buy it sometime soon.

Steve


Sky Captain was a lot of fun (and it has a few Star Wars nods to it as well). It also had that dreamlike quality unlike Lucas's push for photo-realistic CGI. I think that is the problem. Animating one frame at a time does produce a photo-realistic frame, but once they start moving, they look weird.
Author
Time
Post link
i also enjoyed sky captain quite a bit. like sw, it was an homage to the old 30's serials.

the underworld movies also showed great maturity in their use of cgi. they used as many practical models as possible (like in the golden days of horror SFX ... the 1980's), and used CGI as sparingly as possible and only when absolutely necessary. i really enjoyed watching the making of docs on the DVD. those werewolf suits were so well done.

huzzah for archival THEATRICAL OT!!!
it is our duty to preserve star wars history...

Author
Time
Post link
So... back to the original question, does anyone think there will be a normal (non-3D) release again? I don't think Lucas will actually ever finish the OT long enough to stop and strike new prints.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Originally posted by: grifter
just like the interior of the eggs in Alien ; no animatronics, no latex make ups just cows and porks guts!


Dude, are you serious?! They used actual animal parts? What kind of health code nightmare do you think that was? Dear, god...


yeah totally! they also used that "technique" for the face hugger autopsy it was made with bits of shellfishes and fishes.
Most of the time the most simple things are the most efficients, i've experienced that when i was making a short movie; we needed to have a splash of blood, we tried everything; spray, syringe, sponge with fake blood but it wasn't powerfull enough, so what i did was i had a glass of fake blood and spit it ! the shot was perfect! it's movie magic!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Sluggo
So... back to the original question, does anyone think there will be a normal (non-3D) release again? I don't think Lucas will actually ever finish the OT long enough to stop and strike new prints.
I do. Yeah, he'll do the 3D versions, but I'm sure he'll release the regular ones in the theater again. I just can't say when that will be. Maybe the 50th anniversary...

--SKot

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: grifter just like the interior of the eggs in Alien ; no animatronics, no latex make ups just cows and porks guts!


Heh, I guess animals were hurt in the making of that film.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: mverta
The way the storytelling craft is plummeting, they're going to need more and more tricks to get people in the theaters. Louder, bigger, brighter, in 3D... this is the kind of stuff you have to keep raising the bar on when nobody gives a crap about the story you're telling. This is why little independent movies on shoestring budgets come along and blow big studio films out of the water - they don't have the money for shiny objects; they have to survive on their storytelling. And when they do, they pwn. You can't get around having a story people are drawn into and characters they connect with. But that is a billion times harder to do than turning the volume up, putting everybody in cardboard dork glasses and saying, "How about THAT!" with a big, "repurposed" shit-eating grin on your face.

And Peter Jackson can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. King Kong was 3 seconds of kick-ass monkey eyes and 1,900 "so-so to piss-poor" CG shots. Ditto all those freakin' LotR movies that might as well be surgical anesthetic. I am still stunned that people have had their expectations lowered so much that they actually enjoy watching a digital crowd simulation run for 6 minutes. What's even more sad is that movies are such an important part of our entertainment that people will increasingly watch with their expectations and nostalgia, forgive this stuff or refuse to see it because their eyes and ears and hearts couldn't possibly justify the $10.

_Mike


I know how knowledgable you are, so even pciking a conversation with you is proably a bad idea, but mighn't it be possible that LOTR fans like myself are willing to overlook such things because we simply enjoy the movies? Be gentle .

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Wow, did this sleeping-dog thread just get revived for the sake of that???
Author
Time
Post link
Mike O is a Sith Lord. Occasionally he amuses us by bringing life to dead threads.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Wow, did this sleeping-dog thread just get revived for the sake of that???


I just wanted to talk to mverta.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
PM, dog. PM...

But to answer your question (sortof): you never have to, or should, apologize for what you like. And you don't have to explain yourself either. If you like a movie, that's truly a win-win. But outside of all of our individual likes and dislikes, there really are quantifiable ways to measure ability.

I just recently saw some YouTube clips of the guy who won Season 4 of Last Comic Standing, Josh Blue. He's got cerebal palsy. He's funny; you like watching him, and you want to root for him. But you can easily pick apart his "ability" and say he doesn't have particularly good timing, which is probably true, and that his jokes really aren't as strong as most pro comedians, and that's probably true, too. But so what? You laugh your ass off and you like him. So the sum is greater than the parts. But if all comics were Josh Blue, comedy would be taking a hit. Movies are the same way... there's nothing wrong with having virtually no story and all CG, and if you like it, that's awesome - especially 'cause you just dumped $10 on a ticket. But when most movies offer that stuff up instead of truly compelling stories and the execution of other craft, "moviemaking" takes a similar hit. Which is why you've got the studios talking about 3D, now. All of this, by the way, is part of a long-established Hollywood cycle. Back in the.. 40's I think... people stopped going to movies as much, and the studios had the same idea - gimmicks. That's where we got Cinemascope widescreen and surround sound from! Same situation today - they're trying to stop the bleeding with gimmicks instead of fixing the root of the problem. But it's okay, Hollywood is just in need of another enema and rebirth. We've been here before.

_Mike

View the Restoration and join the discussion at StarWarsLegacy.com!

Author
Time
Post link
What I'm saying is that I don't think that Peter Jackson's films are mindless CGI-over-substance fests. I think that they are reasonably intelligent as well as fun. Perfect? No. But if they're not Citizen Kane, then they're also not Michael Bay either. Spielberg's films may utilize CGI well, but I wouldn't say that the Jurassic Park films are superb storytelling like Chinatown either (I am, by the way, a huge Spielberg fan). I'm simply saying that I think that the LOTR trilogy is a better overall piece of work than Jurassic Park, even if the latter has better effects (of course, LOTR also has 1,000+ pages to draw from...), I find the former superior on the level of storytelling. And I'd defend it on those merits more that I would Titanic. No, perhaps it does fully succeed in achieving what it desires to do. But it aspires to do something. It doesn't reach it like The Last Picture Show does. But it's sure as hell better than Bad Boys II. Sorry, pal, you just kind of intimidate me .

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death