Should we go back on topic or change the thread title to CGI versus Models/Puppets/Suits?
“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
Well we've been waiting for Spielberg to comment, and...
Puppets!
timdiggerm said:
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.
I agree 100%. The moment that guard showed up on the screen, I felt a huge let down. It was comical. At least I assumed it was meant to be. That rubber suit is so fake & silly looking that you know immediately our heroes are in no danger what so ever. Same with Jabba. Both looked like Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. I half expected 3PO to say "Hey, big daddy".
theprequelsrule said:
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.
Oh, I agree the Iguana-Thing is pretty awful. However, I maintain that just because CGI enables bad decisions doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Just because Jabba shouldn't move doesn't mean that he can't be CGI. Perhaps Lucas, the concept artists and the animators need to learn what is believable. That's not the same as not using CGI.
Anchorhead said:
I agree 100%. The moment that guard showed up on the screen, I felt a huge let down. It was comical. At least I assumed it was meant to be. That rubber suit is so fake & silly looking that you know immediately our heroes are in no danger what so ever. Same with Jabba. Both looked like Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. I half expected 3PO to say "Hey, big daddy".
Weird that you would feel a "huge" let down after seeing the creatures in the cantina. Jabba looked great. But if you think CGI looks more real...I guess we just have different perceptions of reality.
timdiggerm said:
Oh, I agree the Iguana-Thing is pretty awful. However, I maintain that just because CGI enables bad decisions doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Just because Jabba shouldn't move doesn't mean that he can't be CGI. Perhaps Lucas, the concept artists and the animators need to learn what is believable. That's not the same as not using CGI.
Jabba shouldn't be CGI because CGI Jabba looks awful. The revamped CGI Jabba was better, but still pales in comparison to puppet Jabba. The picture perfectly captures the problem with CGI. Why in the world did Lucas use that CGI Jabba? Because he could.
CGI is a good tool in my view. But I think the debate over whether CGI is inherently good or bad is a red herring. What people actually object to (even when they inartfully declare CGI "bad") is the use of CGI when it doesn't work...which is becoming more frequent.
The blue elephant in the room.
Mrebo wrote: Why in the world did Lucas use that CGI Jabba?
Because they wanted Jabba to move. And CGI Jabba cost a lot less. and the computer model could be recycled for future projects, it was also a 'could it be done' kind of pushing the envelope test. They weren't satisfied with the 1997 SE results as the 2004 set shows. and 2011 might bring another one.
On the successful CGI side, Watto and Sebulba for me show how hand animated computer characters can be pulled off and be a part of the creation of a believable synthetic character creation. Gollum's use of on set animation techniques added a lot to the believability. Jar-Jar and Yoda might have been improved using this technique. But the technology wasn't their until Avatar to have it as part of the on set integration.
Mrebo said:
CGI is a good tool in my view. But I think the debate over whether CGI is inherently good or bad is a red herring. What people actually object to (even when they inartfully declare CGI "bad") is the use of CGI when it doesn't work...which is becoming more frequent.
More frequent compared to what? Is there really any moe bad-CGI in movies comparable to badly done suits, or puppets, or models in any previous era?
Is the Syfy channel original SS Doomtrooper...
...really somehow worse than the Giant Claw (1957)??!
In fact, I'd argue the opposite, that really BAD CGI is becoming less and less frequent as the costs go down.
Anchorhead said:
timdiggerm said:
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.
I agree 100%. The moment that guard showed up on the screen, I felt a huge let down. It was comical. At least I assumed it was meant to be. That rubber suit is so fake & silly looking that you know immediately our heroes are in no danger what so ever. Same with Jabba. Both looked like Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. I half expected 3PO to say "Hey, big daddy".
I'll agree to disagree with you guys on that then. I can see how the Gamorreans look a bit rubbish now, but I bought into them as a kid; the way their masks moved with animatronics kept them from looking just rubber I think. Their hands were terrible...
But Jabba holds up for me as a believable and menacing character today. (Plot notwithstanding). You two might mention how you think puppet Jabba compares to the CG versions in Star Wars or Phantom Menace if you've seen them, as that would be more in the context of digital alteration.
Back to Spielberg and tools; is there anyone who disapproves of the CG in Jurassic Park? For me this proves it is a valuable tool. Didn't they kind of invent CGI in order to make Jurassic Park in the first place?
doubleKO said:
Back to Spielberg and tools; is there anyone who disapproves of the CG in Jurassic Park? For me this proves it is a valuable tool. Didn't they kind of invent CGI in order to make Jurassic Park in the first place?
IIRC they were going with go-motion models before some early CGI tests totally blew Spielberg away, and he said "let's do this."
Mrebo said:
Weird that you would feel a "huge" let down after seeing the creatures in the cantina.
The puppet characters in the cantina look equally fake. The let down for me was when the fake puppets went from background characters in a scene - to main characters in the story.
Jabba looked great.
I disagree. He looked like a giant puppet being used to portray a character that was so immobile that he would have been easily killed by his own people. The way Leia did.
But if you think CGI looks more real...I guess we just have different perceptions of reality.
As much as I appreciate you trying to speak for me, let me clarify. As I've said a few times before, I think CGI looks as good as, or better, than Matte paintings - when used as a background enhancement, the way matte paintings were in decades past.
However, CGI characters, objects, and entire scenes - Gollum, Jar Jar, droids, & nearly every scene I've viewed a screengrab of from the prequels - do not look more real.
Have you seen the CG versions of Jabba that were added to Star Wars Anchorhead? I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I accept your opinion of the puppet and the character, but aren't the CGI versions much worse?
I prefer CG Yoda in the prequels because he looks truer to the OT character. The puppet in Phantom Menace is a bad joke.
doubleKO said:
Have you seen the CG versions of Jabba that were added to Star Wars Anchorhead?
Only a few screengrabs.
I accept your opinion of the puppet and the character, but aren't the CGI versions much worse?
Yes, which is exactly why I posted this...
"CGI characters, objects, and entire scenes - Gollum, Jar Jar, droids, & nearly every scene I've viewed a screengrab of from the prequels - do not look more real."
Yeah, I think CGI can be a great tool when in right hands. Jurassic Park is a great example of that, because they used it with moderation and more importantly in combination with animatronics, where that worked better. The same goes for LOTR but then when you look at PJ's King Kong, where they relied entirely on CGI, it looks totally fake. I hope PJ learned from that and will go back to make up and animatronics and miniatures in Hobit.
Anchorhead said:
doubleKO said:
Have you seen the CG versions of Jabba that were added to Star Wars Anchorhead?
Only a few screengrabs.
I accept your opinion of the puppet and the character, but aren't the CGI versions much worse?
Yes, which is exactly why I posted this...
"CGI characters, objects, and entire scenes - Gollum, Jar Jar, droids, & nearly every scene I've viewed a screengrab of from the prequels - do not look more real."
I read that. Carefully. But you didn't say they looked less real either which was why I followed it up. As I said I was not looking to pick a fight and thankyou for your reply.
Anchorhead said:
Mrebo said:
Weird that you would feel a "huge" let down after seeing the creatures in the cantina.
The puppet characters in the cantina look equally fake. The let down for me was when the fake puppets went from background characters in a scene - to main characters in the story.
Jabba looked great.
I disagree. He looked like a giant puppet being used to portray a character that was so immobile that he would have been easily killed by his own people. The way Leia did.
One of the documentaries mentioned Jabba being styled after a "fat sultan" sort of villian. He isn't as much a physical threat as the power he still wields and the loyalty he commands.
I also heard the Hutts have a great dental plan...
Where were you in '77?
Some of the scum they employ do!
Hutt Care actually provides a wide range of services to it's members. It even paid for Yarna D'al Gargan's boob enhancement surgery!
Where were you in '77?
We can never forget it was Spielberg's idea to add Walkies Talkies to E.T., Just like Lucas had greedo shoot at Han and miss.
Spielberg also altered the dialog from E.T.
See the south park commentary free hat.
I think that made more sense than the star wars and indy rape analogy in that later episode.
Even though fans of both original trilogy find the idea to be true that the films were desecrated by Lucas and Spielberg.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
I paid good cash for that special edition but it came with the original.
I watched the special edition once as a curio.
However there were many a long year when one couldn't see the theatrical version of CE3K but to his credit he relented on that too in the end.
But if you think CGI looks more real...I guess we just have different perceptions of reality.
As much as I appreciate you trying to speak for me, let me clarify. As I've said a few times before, I think CGI looks as good as, or better, than Matte paintings - when used as a background enhancement, the way matte paintings were in decades past.
However, CGI characters, objects, and entire scenes - Gollum, Jar Jar, droids, & nearly every scene I've viewed a screengrab of from the prequels - do not look more real.
Appreciation noted. Though I was obviously drawing a possible conclusion from what you wrote ("But if..."). But thank you for the clarification.
I'm with SilverWook in appreciating the non-mobile concept. We appear to agree that CGI isn't better anyhow.
I agree with everything doubleKO wrote in his posts - his view of Jabba and the guards, the non-relevance of merely criticizing the puppets/masks in a thread about CGI, etc. Puppets can be poorly done (as you observe about Gamorreans, doubleKO points out about PT Yoda and TheBoost points out about the Syfy and 50's movies) but that doesn't speak to the overuse of CGI when latex can be more realistic.
The blue elephant in the room.
Harmy said:
Yeah, I think CGI can be a great tool when in right hands. Jurassic Park is a great example of that, because they used it with moderation and more importantly in combination with animatronics, where that worked better.
Except the damn CATG shadows on the raptors in that one scene. Super-distracting.
CATG?
canofhumdingers said:
CATG?
canofhumdingers said:
CATG?
It never bothered me. I always thought it was kinda cool.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
