Sadako said:
OBI-WAN37 said:
There are more miniatures and models in each Star Wars prequels than entire OT. The whole "there's too much CGI" is not true. I've seen people comment on TFN saying they prefer the original trilogy but still know there are more models and miniatures in the PT. I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
The number of models and/or miniatures used has no bearing on whether or not there's too much CGI in the prequels. Which there totally is. The sets that they bothered to physically construct were only built up to about head height, with everything above filled in with CGI (Liam Neeson's height alone supposedly cost an extra $150,000 in materials for Episode I). CGI ceilings are silly and unnecessary when you're building physical walls.
As the prequels went on, fewer and fewer sets were physically built, replaced with green screens. Until finally, we ended up with shots like this in Episode 3:
Nothing in this shot is real--Temuera Morrison's head was CGI'd onto that CGI armor, and Ewan McGregor was CGI'd onto the CGI Boga. I'm not talking 'He and Temuera Morrison were on a sound stage draped in green fabric and Ewan McGregor was sitting on a green-draped mechanical bull'--the two actors weren't even in the same room to deliver these lines to one another, let alone on a set which bore any resemblance to this. This entire scene was composed inside a computer. I don't care if a sculptor down at ILM had to sculpt a model of the Boga--the fact that it was then CGI'd cancels it out. We never saw that model. There was no animatronic Boga that was used in close-up shots.
Something else Lucas did in Episode 1 was composite two different takes into one shot--if one actor's best take of a shot with two actors on screen together was take 3, and another's was take 5, he would cut and paste actor 1's take 3 onto actor 2's take 5. This would save the cost of having to shoot a Take 6 and hope that both actors performed well (and is the reason films will have multiple cuts during a scene rather than filming everything in one long take). Natalie Portman remarked on how odd it was to see two completely different takes of the same shot at the same time. This experiment ultimately resulted in pasting real heads on CGI bodies and such that we saw in Episode 3--too much.
Still it is fair to admit that a scene like that is practically impossible to reproduce in non-CGI fashion. I am not defending PT btw, just CGI.
As for combining two takes, as an engineer I think that is a clever optimisation. :)
真実
DuracellEnergizer said:
SilverWook said:
You could always wait until Frink finishes his version. ;)
Oh, I'll definately watch his version the first chance I get.
My new cut is two hours consisting of nothing but that scene looped over and over.
imperialscum said:
Still it is fair to admit that a scene like that is practically impossible to reproduce in non-CGI fashion. I am not defending PT btw, just CGI.
But imagine if Temura and Ewan and that third foreground dude were on a greenscreen set together, in real costumes, with a CGI background, where distance and smoke make the flaws less noticeable.
All the people in the foreground would look like they were in the same movie, and we wouldnt have creepy FAKEHEAD syndrome on the clone.
I agree, the ability to create a perfect 'take 6' digitally is really neat, and would be a great tool for films on shoestring budgets who can't afford to waste film, but I can think of at least three reasons/counterexamples to say that more traditional techniques are better.
One, Fargo was shot on a shoestring budget, and they couldn't afford second takes of anything, so the preproduction phase consisted of meticulously crafting the shooting schedule practically down to the minute, writing every 'um' and 'uh' in the script, making sure the actors had copies of the final shooting script to memorize, rehearsals, etc.--basically, it replicated the live stage experience. And it was brilliant. Pre-planning made it so.
Two, by doing repeated takes and trying to work toward the best possible take for both actors, they tend to get a better working relationship with each other (assuming one of the actors isn't one of the 'top 10 actors who are hard to work with'), they tend to get a better understanding of their characters, the viewers tend to get funny outtakes in the DVD extras, the editors get more material to work with to make a better film, etc. More takes tends to make the film richer. Multiple takes make it so.
Three, by developing that technique, Lucas said 'Hey, now I can create an entire performance in the computer! Why bother having the actors on set at all when I can just paste their heads on this CGI body?' and we got Episode 3. That was terrible.
In all seriousness, though it was an interesting technique. It's reminiscent of voice acting work--VAs aren't in the same room, delivering their character's lines to each other. They deliver them to the sound booth, and then the director tells them how wrong they did it, and makes them do it again, but this time angrier. Then the best takes are edited together, ba-da-bing. It's part of the expectation among voice actors, but not for live film actors because it's an entirely different set of skills (not unlike the difference between film and stage, or stage and opera).
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
SilverWook said:
You could always wait until Frink finishes his version. ;)
Oh, I'll definately watch his version the first chance I get.
My new cut is two hours consisting of nothing but that scene looped over and over.
I'm fed up with this world.
Don't get me wrong. Properly acted scene on the real set is pretty much the best option. But as you said, it may take a lot of takes and time. There are factors, such as poor direction from the director, lack of chemistry between the actors, improvisation etc., which cannot be predicted/solved in pre-production. ESB took 6 months of filming to make it right. Not many can afford that. I guess picking a competent director who can direct cast and crew to make the scene work in a few takes is crucial. Still you never know about the actors, especially if they are inexperienced and have never worked with each other before.
Anyway I don't inherently regard films above CGI based stuff. I am a fan of story based video games. They can have just as great storyline and characters.
真実
Sadako said:
In all seriousness, though it was an interesting technique. It's reminiscent of voice acting work--VAs aren't in the same room, delivering their character's lines to each other. They deliver them to the sound booth, and then the director tells them how wrong they did it, and makes them do it again, but this time angrier. Then the best takes are edited together, ba-da-bing. It's part of the expectation among voice actors, but not for live film actors because it's an entirely different set of skills (not unlike the difference between film and stage, or stage and opera).
All of the best productions make sure to have their cast record at the same time. Ask any voice actor and they'll tell you group sessions are the best. It's a shame they're the exception and not the norm.
^ No kidding. Still, I'm in awe at VA's ability to still produce top notch work when they're all by themselves in a little room.
And I'm not hating on CGI in general (some of my favorite movies were filmed entirely on green screen), but I'm a huge fan of practical effects and costuming and animatronics. And, well, I hate the CGI in the PT. lol
DuracellEnergizer said:
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
SilverWook said:
You could always wait until Frink finishes his version. ;)
Oh, I'll definately watch his version the first chance I get.
My new cut is two hours consisting of nothing but that scene looped over and over.
I'm fed up with this warld.
Fixed.
I think CGI is awesome. I think digitally combining takes is brilliant. Technique is cool, but what I care about is the movie I'm watching.
If those takes in AOTC were the digitally combined best takes, I'd hate to see the worst takes.
And as that screenshot shows, if CGI is a distraction, making something that should look real (a man in armor) into something that looks fake, then it's dumb.
I'm informed that Episode III had a limited 35mm release at some point. Whether it's true or not I don't know, but would it disguise it a bit?
Ol’ George has the GOUT, I see.
I saw Episode III at three different theaters, and they were all 35mm. (The first venue had terrible sound, but I would have had to climb over people to complain, the auditorium was packed!) Digital projection was not that widespread in 2005. The prints looked good, but being on film can't conceal dodgy CGI and digital composites.
Only saw Episode II once in a theater, and the print was a washed out mess.
Where were you in '77?
Wikipedia:
By mid 2006, about 400 theaters were equipped with 2K digital projectors with the number increasing every month.
So, considering that ROTS was released in 2005, I wouldn't exactly call its 35mm release limited :-)
SilverWook said:
I saw Episode III at three different theaters
Hang your head in shame ;-)
Speaking of bad CGI being over-used, I'm watching the Hobbit 2 on Blu-Ray just now and some of the effects are incredibly bad - like early 90s bad. When I saw it in theater, I saw it in 3D, which makes bad CGI look a lot better, because it adds realism but in 2D, it looks totally horrible. And even some of the green-screen effects are just mindbogglingly bad - I even noticed a clear black matteline-like outline around Bilbo in one shot and it's good 3-pixels-wide in 1080p.
And the whole film just looks somehow unrealistic - I think the frame-rate conversion from 48 to 24fps may be at fault there, or maybe it's the fact that the film's been shot digitally, I don't know - either way, it is a visual disaster, as well as a storytelling one.
I was going through a difficult time, and I like Wookiees. Cut me some slack? ;)
The second and third time were at the dollar theater. The third time I discovered they were showing Raiders later that evening, so I stuck around for that.
Where were you in '77?
SilverWook said:
I was going through a difficult time, and I like Wookiees. Cut me some slack? ;)
The second and third time were at the dollar theater. The third time I discovered they were showing Raiders later that evening, so I stuck around for that.
RotLA on 35mm?!
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
Harmy said:
Speaking of bad CGI being over-used, I'm watching the Hobbit 2 on Blu-Ray just now and some of the effects are incredibly bad - like early 90s bad. When I saw it in theater, I saw it in 3D, which makes bad CGI look a lot better, because it adds realism but in 2D, it looks totally horrible. And even some of the green-screen effects are just mindbogglingly bad - I even noticed a clear black matteline-like outline around Bilbo in one shot and it's good 3-pixels-wide in 1080p.
And the whole film just looks somehow unrealistic - I think the frame-rate conversion from 48 to 24fps may be at fault there, or maybe it's the fact that the film's been shot digitally, I don't know - either way, it is a visual disaster, as a storytelling one.
That's a shame. Regardless, I'm holding out for the extended BD release that they usually do around Christmastime.
I really love this movie as well as the one before it; much more than the LotR trilogy.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
AntcuFaalb said:
That's a shame. Regardless, I'm holding out for the extended BD release that they usually do around Christmastime.
Yeah, I really don't understand why anyone would buy the two pack they just released. A year from now they'll have the whole Hobbit trilogy available.
I really love this movie as well as the one before it; much more than the LotR trilogy.
Tobar said:
I really love this movie as well as the one before it; much more than the LotR trilogy.
LOL! Gotta love Dwight! :-)
I also enjoy The Hobbit (the book) much more than any of the LotR books. The LotR story just doesn't appeal to me very much.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
Harmy said:
Speaking of bad CGI being over-used, I'm watching the Hobbit 2 on Blu-Ray just now and some of the effects are incredibly bad - like early 90s bad. When I saw it in theater, I saw it in 3D, which makes bad CGI look a lot better, because it adds realism but in 2D, it looks totally horrible. And even some of the green-screen effects are just mindbogglingly bad - I even noticed a clear black matteline-like outline around Bilbo in one shot and it's good 3-pixels-wide in 1080p.
And the whole film just looks somehow unrealistic - I think the frame-rate conversion from 48 to 24fps may be at fault there, or maybe it's the fact that the film's been shot digitally, I don't know - either way, it is a visual disaster, as well as a storytelling one.
All the more reason for me to never bother with these movies.
AntcuFaalb said:
SilverWook said:
I was going through a difficult time, and I like Wookiees. Cut me some slack? ;)
The second and third time were at the dollar theater. The third time I discovered they were showing Raiders later that evening, so I stuck around for that.
RotLA on 35mm?!
Yes, and it was a really nice print too. It's a private entity that has an arrangement with the theater to bring back the classics a couple times a month, (part of the box office goes to a local charity) and I've seen quite a few old favorites since then. They've gotten many requests for the OT, but can't even get the SE's, apparently.
Where were you in '77?
Sadako said:
I agree, the ability to create a perfect 'take 6' digitally is really neat, and would be a great tool for films on shoestring budgets who can't afford to waste film, but I can think of at least three reasons/counterexamples to say that more traditional techniques are better...
Of course, in this era of digital, wasting film is quickly becoming a thing of the past. But even if it were still an issue, turning a character shot into an effects shot might end up costing more than simply reshooting.
Looking at the benefit of traditional techniques from a different angle, the idea of creating a shot that takes the best elements from multiple different takes is appealing, but like any other tool it's not suited for all situations. For instance, if actors have to come into physical contact with each other or they interact with an object in the scene, trying to composite multiple takes may be difficult or impossible. Even in cases where the actors keep enough distance, it may turn out that creating a composite shot from the best takes might yield a flawed result due to differences in timing between the multiple takes. What's worse is that by the time the problem is discovered, a reshoot might be much more difficult/expensive to do.
I threw some 35mm film grain over my prequel fan edits in the hopes it would help everything look a little more like they're part of the same space. It might help a small amount, and mostly subliminally.
The Hobbit: DoS looked bad to me as well. I didn't bother with the 48fps or 3D this time around, and I was really dismayed at what I saw onscreen. It looks like videogame cutscenes at times. I'm holding out for a decent fan edit of the trilogy when all this is over. And some film grain will certainly be in order.
Harmy said:
And the whole film just looks somehow unrealistic - I think the frame-rate conversion from 48 to 24fps may be at fault there, or maybe it's the fact that the film's been shot digitally, I don't know - either way, it is a visual disaster, as well as a storytelling one.
The big problem with shooting at double the normal framerate is that it necessitated an increase in the shutter speed, which results in a somewhat more choppy image than we're used to from the original lotr trilogy (and most movies in general, for that matter). They split the difference and instead of keeping a 180-degree shutter angle, which would've made the 24p version look ultra-choppy and unwatchable, they made it 270-degree. This results in a shutter speed of roughly 1/64 of a second. It's faster than the pleasant, 1/48 shutter speed we're used to, but not as harsh as the 1/96 we would've gotten with a 180-degree shutter.
There were reports that the 24p version had the motion blur digitally added back in, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. Either way, I think it's a plain fact that the movie wouldn't look the way it does if Jackson had just stuck to shooting in 24p. Shooting on Arri Alexa would've also given the movie a more filmlike texture. I think the big reason they went with RED was its ability to shoot 48fps in 3D (Jackson said the company had only just released the firmware upgrade for it as The Hobbit was about to start shooting).
This grand experiment with shooting in 48p has essentially resulted in a compromised 24p version of the movie. I saw both movies in the theater in 48-frame 3D because that's how they were actually shot and intended to be seen. It's just that they happen to be prequels to a movie that wasn't shot that way at all.
