The same reason you don't just storyboard, shoot and then edit live action as it is in the boards, even though you can. Instead, Kubrick shot "coverage" of the VFX the way you do with live action, letting him cut together all these different takes and angles as he wished in the editing room. It's a more organic and less rigid way of doing it, but obviously many times more expensive.
Yes, I do get that. I agree it would make it easier to edit, or to give them more room to edit. It just seems, unlike with live action, is an unnecessary luxury that, in terms of the final product, wouldn't necessarily yield any better results. Hell, it's not even necessary in live action. Didn't Hitchcock plan and shoot only exactly what footage he would need in order to make it impossible for the studio to come in and cut it any other way than how he intended?
Anyway, to sum up, I think it's an interesting way to do it, but it seems like the costs far outweigh the benefits, and I can certainly understand why it never caught on as a method of doing special effects.
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.
It helps, so they might as well do it. I mean, they're set up, the camera is there, the models are lit, so why not. Even now they still often ask for "handles" (extra footage at both ends of a shot) when an effects shot is being done.
Director's only storyboard VFX scenes because they basically have to. Many directors don't storyboard their live action because it's not an intuitive way to work for them. You also cannot possible forsee every single cut--it's inevitable that you would want extra takes and coverage when you get to post production for ideas or realities that you didn't anticipate in pre-production; even when you storyboard live action you still have all the dailies from the coverage. But it's too cost-prohibited to make visual effects the same way you film live-action. Kubrick was helped in that a lot of the visual effects were in camera, and thus needed no expensive optical composites et cetera and could simply be re-lit and re-filmed, and also by the fact that he had tons of money at his disposal. It's a way I am sure every director wished he could work. The way CG is going now, this is actually starting to become a bit of reality--for instance the virtual camera device that filmmakers like James Cameron and Peter Jackson are using.
Gaffer Tape said:
Forgive me for my ignorance (as I've never seen 2001)
Holy crap. Stop everything & go get the bluray NOW (last time i was in Target they had it for $10, IIRC). No self respecting geek can really call themselves self respecting & not see 2001. It's fantastic. & the bluray is spectacular. Seriously. Go get it!
And buy the Pink Floyd album "Echoes" to go with it. ;)
Where were you in '77?
And then buy 'Dark side of the moon'
And 'The Wizard of Oz'
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
canofhumdingers said:
Gaffer Tape said:
Forgive me for my ignorance (as I've never seen 2001)
Holy crap. Stop everything & go get the bluray NOW (last time i was in Target they had it for $10, IIRC). No self respecting geek can really call themselves self respecting & not see 2001. It's fantastic. & the bluray is spectacular. Seriously. Go get it!
Agreed!
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
theprequelsrule said:
The medium is the message. If you don't think that CGI have a negative effect on how filmmakers approach the creation of a film you have your head up your ass. Does anyone here think that the great epic blockbusters of the pre-CGI era are not superior in nearly every way to the modern garbage we are fed? Yes, I am including overrated mediocrities like LOTR and Avatar as "modern garbage"
Except Lord of the Rings used a ton of miniatures, forced perspective and elaborate makeup and saved the CG for the things that were less feasible to do as practical effects. Hell, even Treebeard they used both animatronics and CG.
Agreed, LOTR is an awesome example of using CGI well in combination with other techniques where they work better - the make up work is incredible (orcs and such) and so is the miniature work (Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith etc.).
But one thing is true, the CGI effects in LOTR are the ones that age the worst. Even Golum, although a great achievment at the time, doesn't actually look that great.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
canofhumdingers said:
Gaffer Tape said:
Forgive me for my ignorance (as I've never seen 2001)
Holy crap. Stop everything & go get the bluray NOW (last time i was in Target they had it for $10, IIRC). No self respecting geek can really call themselves self respecting & not see 2001. It's fantastic. & the bluray is spectacular. Seriously. Go get it!
Agreed!
Make that three. It's one of my top ten. Be aware, it's a long film and it's probably as cerebral a film as there has ever been. Watch it when you have the time to really get into it. Oh, and don't be surprised if you feel a bit of deja vu now and again...
Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do. I'm half crazy, all for the love of you.
I'd rent 2001, Gaff. It's worth watching if only to avoid situations like this. But I wouldn't buy it.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
doubleofive said:
I'd rent 2001, Gaff. It's worth watching if only to avoid situations like this. But I wouldn't buy it.
This.
Harmy said:
But one thing is true, the CGI effects in LOTR are the ones that age the worst. Even Golum, although a great achievment at the time, doesn't actually look that great.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think Gollum is one of the great SFX achievements of all time, still looks better than movies coming out a decade later, and accomplished what would have been impossible with any other effect technique.
Well, I think that he would look more realistic, if they made the body digital but superimposed a real human face on him. That should be possible, shouldn't it?
Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake. This is my point when it comes to CGI - it is not real. A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.
Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
theprequelsrule said:
Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake.
Gollum didn't look fake to me. Maybe once or twice? Maybe? He looked really real, other than the fact that I know in my head that there's no one who looks like that.
A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.
No. The Gammorean Guards do not look real. They look like real rubber, yes, but they do not look like real living creatures. Looking like a physical object is not enough - Creatures need to look like creatures, not rubber.
Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033.
Most of the time. Occasionally I think he looks a little stiff.
Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033.
At worst he'll be considered a great example of the best that could be done at the time.
THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY.
Define 100% photorealistic. How will you know when we've reached it? You can't make this kind of demand without a satisfiable goal defined.
Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.
So you want filmmakers to intentionally display the shortcomings of available technologies instead of using what they have to create the illusions they think are best suited for their stories? Why would they do that?
I guess I'm just not properly conveying my issues with CGI. I suppose I just have bias towards models and suits. I just find them more aesthetically pleasing and am sad to see that CGI is replacing all that. I mean, I don't even want to see blockbuster FX movies anymore, even if they are well acted, written, etc., because I find the look of CGI repellent. Don't even get me started on all this 3D crap. My favourite parts of Iron Man were the character moments - by far.
To continue ranting, but off-topic this time, I am just so pissed off that Titanic and Avatar are so highly regarded compared to Cameron's genuinely great films (Terminator, Aliens).
I think I'm an old curmudgeon.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
theprequelsrule said:
Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.
I agree. I prefer classic films, where the FX are subtle and don't draw attention to themselves, like King King (1933), The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad (1958), or Pete's Dragon (1977).
If you haven't seen them, go rent Hellboy 2 or Pan's Labrynth. Take a look at how far men-in-costumes and puppetry FX has advanced, and compare it to Jabba or the mutant from This Island Earth (1955) and you might reevalute how flawlessly those effects have aged just because they're physically real.
theprequelsrule said:
Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake. This is my point when it comes to CGI - it is not real. A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.
Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.
Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does. I do disagree about Gollum, but I think they should mainly stick to spaceships and dinosaurs (which they keep the f*** out of our Star Wars).
TheBoost said:
There's only one 'tool' I blame for not having a OOT.
^ Second this :)
doubleKO said:
Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does.
I suspect this has something to do with the puppet never crawling around. I don't think it's the only issue, as the Jabba puppet really is pretty amazing, but I think it's part of the problem.
timdiggerm said:
doubleKO said:
Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does.
I suspect this has something to do with the puppet never crawling around. I don't think it's the only issue, as the Jabba puppet really is pretty amazing, but I think it's part of the problem.
Yes, but that is the point. Jabba is fucking fat! We don't expect him to move. It becomes part of the character, part of the storytelling. Jabba is a decadent, self-indulgent, lecherous crimelord so it makes sense that he is huge and can't move - a result of his disgusting lifestyle (insert cheap George Lucas joke here). Jabba should never have been depicted as moving; EVER.
It achieves Suspension Of Disbelief. You know, the opposite of that iguana-thing that Kenobi rides in ROTS.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
Yes, limitations in technology forced George to go with a format that would remain believable. I personally find Jabba more realistic as a creature that can't move. It seems if you take away the limitations, certain people get the idea that everything should be moving everywhere, all the time.
doubleKO said:
...knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive.
Bingo! Immersion is the key. Roger Ebert described Star Wars as an out of body experience. He wasn't watching the movie, it was happening to him.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
