- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
did lucas ruin cgi, or were there films before the prequels that made you question cgi?
Lucas and CGI in the Prequels
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
What is clearly obvious is that cgi is far from looking photorealistic, which gives scenes that have a lot of it in them a 'cartoony' or 'computer gamy' touch that can be contra-productive for the atmosphere of the scene/movie. On the other hand, if you look at the prequels there is also non-cgi stuff that was done very badly (Palpatine's make-up or Episode I Yoda anyone?), which proves that the special fx guys need to know their stuff and they need enough time to get it right - some or all of that was certainly not the case in the prequels.
I think it was Zebonka who pointed out that almost any feature film of the past year that heavily relied on cgi doesn't withhold a second closer look - so yeh, there are many rush jobs in terms of special fx out there - it's not the cgi thing itself, imho.
- Time
- Post link
Personaly, I don't care if it's not perfect (perfection is really impossible for now, and maybe forever...), it's the design which is the most important for me. Take Watto or Sebulba for example, their designs are real awesome IMO. I like their look, the way they move,... and were not possible to create before CGI. After all, it's good to see aliens who are not just "humans-with-costumes", CGI offer a real liberty in the imagination.
On the other hand, we can talk about abusing use of CGI, but it's another debate...
And about the "'cartoony' or 'computer gamy' touch", it doesn't bother me in SW, just cause Star Wars is space opera, referring to all those "retro space operas", and isn't a scientific documentary (see the sound in space, all the planets which have pretty much the same gravity for people living on it,...).
IMO, CGI are real great in the PT, even if it's not perfect. It's sure, we could talk about the "indispensability" of all those CGI creations, even the indispensability of the PT. But IMO, SW is just fun and entertainment, the whole saga isn't indispensable... but, hey, it's fun and real cool, as well as CGI!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Kaal-Jhyy
CGI is just a modern technique, as well as the models and optical compositing at their times.
Personaly, I don't care if it's not perfect (perfection is really impossible for now, and maybe forever...), it's the design which is the most important for me. Take Watto or Sebulba for example, their designs are real awesome IMO. I like their look, the way they move,... and were not possible to create before CGI. After all, it's good to see aliens who are not just "humans-with-costumes", CGI offer a real liberty in the imagination.
On the other hand, we can talk about abusing use of CGI, but it's another debate...
And about the "'cartoony' or 'computer gamy' touch", it doesn't bother me in SW, just cause Star Wars is space opera, referring to all those "retro space operas", and isn't a scientific documentary (see the sound in space, all the planets which have pretty much the same gravity for people living on it,...).
IMO, CGI are real great in the PT, even if it's not perfect. It's sure, we could talk about the "indispensability" of all those CGI creations, even the indispensability of the PT. But IMO, SW is just fun and entertainment, the whole saga isn't indispensable... but, hey, it's fun and real cool, as well as CGI!
CGI is just a modern technique, as well as the models and optical compositing at their times.
Personaly, I don't care if it's not perfect (perfection is really impossible for now, and maybe forever...), it's the design which is the most important for me. Take Watto or Sebulba for example, their designs are real awesome IMO. I like their look, the way they move,... and were not possible to create before CGI. After all, it's good to see aliens who are not just "humans-with-costumes", CGI offer a real liberty in the imagination.
On the other hand, we can talk about abusing use of CGI, but it's another debate...
And about the "'cartoony' or 'computer gamy' touch", it doesn't bother me in SW, just cause Star Wars is space opera, referring to all those "retro space operas", and isn't a scientific documentary (see the sound in space, all the planets which have pretty much the same gravity for people living on it,...).
IMO, CGI are real great in the PT, even if it's not perfect. It's sure, we could talk about the "indispensability" of all those CGI creations, even the indispensability of the PT. But IMO, SW is just fun and entertainment, the whole saga isn't indispensable... but, hey, it's fun and real cool, as well as CGI!
Yeah, that's my feelings toward it as well.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Master Sifo-Dyas
In the case of the old StarWars movies the special fx are a crucial part of film history - it doesn't matter if they are outdated or not, since they represent the bleeding edge of special fx at that time. It was the best you could get then. If you simply replace them instead of releasing a seperate director's cut while at the same time making the original cut available again, you violate an artists ethical obligation towards culture and society. That's what bothers me the most.
In the case of the old StarWars movies the special fx are a crucial part of film history - it doesn't matter if they are outdated or not, since they represent the bleeding edge of special fx at that time. It was the best you could get then. If you simply replace them instead of releasing a seperate director's cut while at the same time making the original cut available again, you violate an artists ethical obligation towards culture and society. That's what bothers me the most.
And with that, I tip my hat to you good sir. I agree whole heartedly.
- Time
- Post link
I've said before that I think ships and landscapes do quite well in CG, but organic "living" things never get pulled off believably. Be they Brachiosauruses, Gungans, Gollums, Wargs, or 25-foot Gorillas. They look real only up to a point, and then they just look fake after that. The human brain is amazingly adept at picking out what has crossed that barrier.
I'm amazed at how good the T-1000 looks 15 years later, but he was liquid metal .... adhering to very specific physical properties that a computer could handle. We constantly push CG beyond its limits and it breaks the fourth wall every time.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Secondly, a major criticism I point at CG characters and creatures in movies is that they move too fluidly to be real creatures with real skeletons. In many ways, living creatures are like machines in that we are skeletal frames covered with skin. Our skin stretches and moves around our skeleton, but it is not completely fluid. Our movement, which is made possible by our brain and then our muscles, is limited to our skeletons. Humans and animals do not move with complete fluidity, they move like pieces of machinery moving in perfect unison. That is to say that there is a machine-like 'jerky' quality to it. THAT is why I believe animatronics looks more realistic than CG alone.
http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
- Time
- Post link
You're talking about the lack of realism in living characters, but take a look to Obi-Wan during his fight with Jango, just the shot when he's using force to pull back his lightsaber and Jango just grab him with his "whip".
When I've saw, in the documentary, that Obi-Wan, in this shot, was entirely in CGI, well, I was very impressed! And I follow the evolution of CGI since a long time, with high interest so, I think I have a good eye for visual effects (without wanting to be pretentious).
Ok, when you know it, you can see this is CGI but, I find that really well done IMO!
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
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.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Yeah, I think that is pretty well done, but it has a few things going for it. It's rainy, and it's only visible for a split second. Too fast for anyone to really catch. I had no idea it was CG until I watched the documentary.
Yeah, I think that is pretty well done, but it has a few things going for it. It's rainy, and it's only visible for a split second. Too fast for anyone to really catch. I had no idea it was CG until I watched the documentary.
Well, ok, it's a fast shot, but if it was not well done, a split second would suffice to notice it IMO.
And it's sur that rain helps for hiding the details, like for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, but in this particular shot, it doesn't help that much. Wet clothes is a real nightmare in CGI! But they did it very well.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Because your theatre's version was most likely a film copy while the DVD was taken straight from the digital source, which makes all the CG stand out like a sore thumb in comparison to Phantom Menace, which was shot on film.
yeah youre right whenever i think of tpm i always think of it having the best fxBecause your theatre's version was most likely a film copy while the DVD was taken straight from the digital source, which makes all the CG stand out like a sore thumb in comparison to Phantom Menace, which was shot on film.
- Time
- Post link
But because I basically watch that movie once a week these days starting a year or so ago (long story....and weird but...whatever) and am currently in school for film i've started to notice things tho I still say that JP has the best CG ever in a movie.
The brachiosaurus in the day shot on the island still looks incredibly good IMO. I mean, you can look close and see some things wrong but you can't point out shot after shot of poorly done CG upon casual veiwing like in parts of the PT.
Now granted it was in rain, at night, the T-Rex scenes with the cars (both the tour and chase) was absolutely hands down perfect. You can pause thos scens and study them all you want and depending on how badly you really want to see a fault, you'll come out with the same thought. When he walks in front of the car with the headlights and everything, you don't have to suspend belief....because you almost can't.
The Gallimimus chase was gorgeous. Now granted they were running at full speed and zooming past the camera, you almost can't help but think they share the same space as the actors. Unlike for example the arena battle in AOTC. I think even the grass movs by the feet, which I wouldn't have even expected in 92/93.
There wasn't much CG raptor in JP and the daylight shots of the T-Rex look almost as good as the Rex's in King Kong (best CG of the year).
So, for it being 1993....and it being the first shot of a CG dino in the movie...the filmakers were being pretty bold with the brachio shot and came outt still better than many shots of the present.
Conclusion.....JP = damn near best movie ever....in so many ways.
Hey look, a bear!
- Time
- Post link
And I agree, JarHead413, this film has some of the best CG scenes ever done. The Gallimimus chase is also one of my favourite scenes.
And a particular aspect is really enjoying: the fact that CGI costed so much at this time, that there are, finally, only few CG scenes in the film (and in the book, the characters see a lot more dinosaurs!), but they have found a really good explanation; just the fact that dinos are wild animals and don't show them to visitors, just like that. Genius! And I really find that it helps a lot the story, cause there are not too many action scenes.
See "The Lost World", it was the exact contrary: a LOT of dinos, and unbelievable scenes, like the guy riding his bike just between the legs of a giant dino (that looks more a Disneyland's ride...).
Anyway, JP is, and will forever be a reference in visual effects IMO. And many films, between '93 and now, just don't get the half of the quality of JP vfx...
Sorry for talking so much about JP, but I love this film and all that remembers me really good memories...
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
But otherwse we consider it in the highest regard of filmaking. Just like Lucas, Spielberg paid attention to all the small details.....but he didn;t forget the human element hich makes all films.....acting.....good acting.
Hey look, a bear!
- Time
- Post link
I just showed the wife Clash of the Titans. For those you that don't know (all 1 of you, I'd assume) it was Ray Harryhausen's magnum opus. It has as much stop motion SFX work as Attack of the Clones has CG. And for the most part, aside from the impressive footnot to movie SFX history, it's unwatchable. On one hand, it's impressive what they actually could do without computers... on the other... you can't believe that people actually think they would prefer this to CG in movies today. There seems to be a lack in education (or extreme nostalgia) in people wishing that they could go back to before CG. Well folks, this is it! Was it great for the time? YES! Is it great today? NO! Please, if you will, compare the 1933 with the 2005 King Kong. (The less said about 1976 the better) You can't honestly tell me that the CG in the new one left you longing for the more realistic stop motion of 1933. I think, as Kong well demonstrates, that one of the actual "drawbacks" to CG is its inconsistency. That is to say, one minute it will totally fool you into thinking it's real and then the next it doesn't. You are shaken and the 4th wall is broken (to quote ADM). I think earlier SFX techniques didn't have this problem only because they were never convincing enough to fool you long enough for the change in perception to occur. I think it's the change that's bothersome more than the actual quality in SFX. The 2001 Final Fantasy movie was this way for me. Never claiming to be totally photo-realistic, it was jarring that some scenes would appear to be right before it would drop back into that quasi-cartoon look.
Having said all that... A lot of movies do push the technology way beyond the limits. But the ones that don't (Jurassic Park, Abyss, Titanic, Matrix, T2, etc..(IMO)) are getting perfection out of a tool that could never be replaced in their movies. The additions to the OT in the SE for the most part are worthless distractions and are a good example of bad CG. And I would not trade muppet Yoda or Jabba for anything.
In summary, there will always be good SFX and bad SFX. There will always be new techniques. CG is the way forward and I hope like the rest of you that it continually gets better and better. But it is the best SFX technology that there has ever been.
FLAME ON!
Matt
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
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.