logo Sign In

Tiptup

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
26-Apr-2012
Posts
1,696

Post History

Post
#319347
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319347/action/topic#319347
Time
canofhumdingers said:


Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.


Peter Jackson used that a lot for the Lord of the Rings. You can notice a lot of little details changing from one view to another here and there. The worst is when Boromir dies in fellowship since the location of their hands changes back and forth (it ruins the drama for me).
Post
#319233
Topic
Crystall Skull has GL's fingerprints all over it
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319233/action/topic#319233
Time
Johnboy3434 said:

Tiptup said:

What happened to the painstaking care that used to look at each shot and scene for excellent visual details? I preferred it when people did real work to make sure that a particular image was as good as it could be. Though, I suppose that Guillermo Del Toro does a fantastic job in his movies. I can't wait for Hellboy 2 and he gives me hope for a good translation of the Hobbit.


A lot of visual effects artists would find that offensive. Using computer-generated effects is incredibly painstaking, regardless of what the public at large may think.


I don't care what they take offense at. Most visual effects artists in the movie industry are either lazy or they have no skill. :P

A bunch of time and money spent on a CG model is worthless if the final result in a given movie looks like crap. In other words, what I care about is the end result we're given in the actual movie's frames (not the relatively unseen details put on some CG leaf). I'll enjoy the real puppet we had for Yoda in Empire more than the shitty, CG Yoda we got in AotC any day (on the basis of the realistic textures, flexibility, and lighting). In comparison to Farscape quality puppets, or a CG character of Gollum quality, the CGI of Yoda was a joke.

Most movies, though, are filled with shit CGI that's even worse than what we got from Lucas in AotC. (I'm not sure why this is, but hopefully movie studios are at least getting more bang for their bucks or something to justify it.) You'll get an occasional movie with fantastic CGI use (like Episode I, Lord of the Rings, AI, Hellboy, and many others), but the capacity of CGI elements to look terrible is more often realized than its capacity to look good. I'd guess between old directors, who have trouble spotting bad CGI, and new directors, who think they're making video game cut scenes, and the fact that everyone tries to stuff too much crap into their movies in general (just because they can) is the primary culprit of this. Oh well.

Anyways, you dumped on some of the special effects in Temple of Doom (which I'm certainly not fond of by any means either), but I can honestly say that I'd take some of its worst models and matte shots over an emotionless, flat-looking, digital blob filling my screen. Essentially, I expect more from CGI because I know what it's capable of. Being a huge animation fan and someone who knows quite a bit about digital art, I'm not going to let a movie get off easy when it's budget is twice as high as Temple of Doom's budget (adjusted for inflation).

My biggest problems with CGI (using my own silly terms and in no particular order):

1. Movement flicker; when a moving CG object is hard to follow in a smooth way as it moves on the screen and seems to jump from position to position with a mess of blurry crap offered in between. (This problem has been intermittent since the first uses of CGI in movies and it's still around today. It ruined the insect fairy from Pan's Labyrinth for me since I know what a real insect movement caught on film should look like.)

2. Poor texture; shiny, rubber balloon surfaces are generally gone now (. . . generally), but we're still often left with internal surfaces that clearly appear to have no real depth in relation to other, nearby surfaces on the model. (Gollum suffered from this flatness at places on his model despite having an excellent design for the coloring and shape of his skin texture in general.)

3. Poor lighting; this is when things like contrasts and highlights present on a model don't look soft enough, hard enough, or generally complex enough to be real. (This looks the worst when a model is placed within a filmed image since fake lighting doesn't merge well with what we see on real objects.)

4. Hover; when CGI seems to not look solidly connected or in a fixed position within a filmed image but instead seems to look like it's closer or further away than the real objects it is supposed to be aligned with. (Gollum's arm looks like this when wrapped around Frodo's neck.)

5. Flatness; this is a general, flat look that CGI will almost always seem to have due to something I'm not quite sure of (whether it's the focus of different depths or it's the way light would wrap around a real surface, the logical shapes of a CG object just don't seem as pronounced as a real-world object that's put on film would be).

6. No sense of subtlety; considering how the positional nature of CGI can be tweaked to the finest of small degrees, I'm far too often surprised at the absurd extremes that are used when animating the expressions of CG characters or the movement of an entire object in relation to the physics involved. (Gollum was a masterpiece in this regard, and even Jar Jar looked great, but the CG Yoda looked like he had liquid skin on his forehead.)


The problems I have with CGI would be avoidable or at least properly minimized if directors and technicians were looking for these things and using every appropriate technique in the industry to get the best results (instead of throwing pure CGI at every problem). This is what I mean by the lack of care involved. CGI can do a lot of amazing stuff when coming from the most skilled of artists, but money and time spent on computers does not automatically equal a good special effect and CGI still has its limits no matter how skilled an artist is.
Post
#319111
Topic
Crystall Skull has GL's fingerprints all over it
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319111/action/topic#319111
Time
Number20 said:

Unfortunately, they changed their minds. Read this article below. Spielberg says he was going to, but decided on CGI instead. I would of liked to have seen less CGI. Too bad...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_en_mo/film_indy_effects;_ylt=AmMezSOCEptAVZcDo5S_G0i2GL8C


That is really sad for someone as visually oriented as myself. Why don't they just have computers make the entire movie nowadays? Just because a computer can do something doesn't mean it should. Imagine if they had used computers to make the effects as flawless and unnoticeable as possible. Imagine if, instead of 3D rendered plants to create a fake, over-the-top jungle they instead used their computers to create flawless "matte shots" with real, animated foliage. Oh well.

What happened to the painstaking care that used to look at each shot and scene for excellent visual details? I preferred it when people did real work to make sure that a particular image was as good as it could be. Though, I suppose that Guillermo Del Toro does a fantastic job in his movies. I can't wait for Hellboy 2 and he gives me hope for a good translation of the Hobbit.
Post
#319109
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319109/action/topic#319109
Time
zombie84 said:

I can understand some people being less than enthused, but what UTTERLY perplexes me is the people that HATE it, like personally harbor hatred towards it, when they liked the sequels.


I haven't seen the film yet, but I trust the opinions of the people on this forum who are expressing dislike enough to where I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. My brother sort of liked the movie, but he said it was like a cartoon at too many points for him to treat it as seriously as he treated the others. So, ending my consideration with the fact that I'm not a gigantic Indy fan, I think I'll be waiting for home video.
Post
#318613
Topic
70mm screening
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318613/action/topic#318613
Time
Knightmessenger said:

I know that any company that could do a proper scan likely wouldn't touch a Star Wars print because of copyright infringment. However, in the US, there is an exception to legally back up a copy of something if the current copyright holder does not have the material, or is otherwise unable to. It would still be illegal to publicaly screen such a video but then again, so were the dvd's made from the laserdiscs.


I wonder if every quote from George Lucas saying something to the effect of "the original film was destroyed and cannot be recovered" would be a good defense in court.
Post
#318610
Topic
"At midnight I will kill George Lucas with a shovel"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318610/action/topic#318610
Time
There's a big "HELP" button in the top corner of the page that takes you to this page:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/help.cfm


Otherwise, that's generally a good description of what's wrong with the prequels in the eyes of your average movie-goers. Hilariously expressed though.

For me, I could have accepted all the lame stuff (even Jar Jar) so long as the prequels hadn't simultaneously worked so hard to lessen the enjoyment I already had for the first three movies.
Post
#318002
Topic
Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318002/action/topic#318002
Time
George Lucas' definition of entertainment: "Paying nine bucks and over 2 hours of your life to watch meaningless, incoherent plot elements involving characters and themes that you have no desire to care about."

The quality in a given work of art is not "inherently subjective." I cannot stand it when people mindlessly repeat that bullshit line. Aesthetics, as a science, has existed for over 2,000 years (it was formulated by Aristotle)! You can't go around fucking with the most basic understanding of how things fit together and what people like and then expect people to somehow enjoy themselves with what you've made. Pragmatically, it just doesn't work, plain and simple.

Now, the prequels faults aren't terrible along the lines of anything major, but the sheer number of smaller faults is overwhelming (particularly with regard to the "saga" elements that George thinks he's a genius with). Also, George Lucas seems incapable of capturing accurate portrayals of emotion and that is PARAMOUNT in a story where character drama is a major focus (he had help on this end in the first three films). The prequels are filled to the brim with objective, aesthetic faults and most people expect better results for their hard-earned money.
Post
#317999
Topic
Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317999/action/topic#317999
Time
Cable-X1 said:


Lucas says he’s not concerned about early mixed buzz on "Crystal Skull."

"This movie is the exact same experience as the other three were. The difference is, the novelty of discovery is gone. I get worried when I hear fans say they’re expecting something different that will change their lives. This is 'Indiana Jones' just as you remember him."

But that’s exactly the gamble Spielberg and Lucas took with reviving their icon. Expectation grows into a frenzy and then no one in that frame of mind can be satisfied.

Lucas has been here before, when he revived and extended the "Star Wars" series. The build-up to the release of the fourth installment (aka now Chapter 1), "Phantom Menace," was huge until it reached a fever pitch. Then, almost before it could be absorbed, "Phantom Menace" became the target of scorn from fanatics. Computer-generated character Jar Jar Binks was public enemy No. 1.


This part annoys me the most. Anyone who didn't like the prequels is just a "fanatic" who wanted George to "change their lives"? Seriously?

People like great art, something that betters our lives. It's why we pay money and the prequels are barely entertaining. If they had at least lived up to the level of quality in Return of the Jedi and not stepped on everything good in the series, there would not be a problem here.
Post
#317950
Topic
Robert Harris Godfather Restoration WHY cannot lucas restore the oot ?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317950/action/topic#317950
Time
DarkGryphon2048 said:


What? The Nazis had a huge hard-on for all that occultish shit.


I didn't mean to say that I don't like the Nazis as a story element. I just find that the movie starts taking on a more sensational style as Indy battles the Nazis at the end. It doesn't seem to match the more sentimental nature of the action in the earlier scenes of the film. Thankfully its still good and my immense like for the characters carries me through to the end of the story.
Post
#317555
Topic
Wow, maybe we're not as alone as we think?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317555/action/topic#317555
Time
Hehe, I liked what he had to say. I don't really agree with him on all of it, but he makes decent judgments all around.

I like his opening comments about the blockbuster. We do seem to be in a period where the quality of the film is less important than the mass appeal. But even with smaller budgets and modest ad campaigns, you can't really argue that this is a new phenomenon. There have been plenty of crappy movies made in the past. In fact, I get the vague feeling that quality standards move up and down in cycles of some sort.

We thought George Lucas was an infallible genius (because of his own marketing) and now, with the prequels, he's shown himself to be as flawed as most movie makers. He is just as capable of getting caught up in crap and bad ideas as the rest of Hollywood. Now that I'm trying to move beyond the general feeling that I was lied to, I can appreciate what he did as an artist in his lifetime. While I still can't enjoy the prequels enough to watch them multiple times, the originals are easily that good. Also, it's fun to use the prequels as a good case study of what not to do in art (since I'm passionate about the original trilogy's universe).


Hmm. . . otherwise, he seems to be more than a bit harsh with E.T. That film is a classic in my mind. Not that I've ever really enjoyed it all that much myself, but I understand why other people enjoy it and I can't really think of any huge flaws in it. To me it's a movie that helps remind me that the universe isn't always super serious all of the time and that sometimes it's okay for us to get lost in hokey emotions. Basically I like any story which can decently merge lighthearted realism with serious realism and E.T. is fun in that way.

To briefly touch on Spider-Man as well, I'd just like to say that I firmly believe the worst thing about the recent movies were the scenes with Spidey himself. Every scene where he jumps around (and we get more cg eye candy) bores the hell out of me. Those scenes feel disconnected and separate from the rest of the films. It is because of this that I actually think Spider-Man 2 is the best film of the bunch: if I'm going to be bored to death by cg bullshit, I might as well try to enjoy the non-super-heroic parts of the film and Spider-Man 2 is pretty darn good there. The first is almost as good (in my mind) since the Spidey parts are watchable (by comparison) and the pedestrian scenes are also okay. (Spider-Man 3 is easily the worst because it threw out any plausibility or likability for the characters in their normal lives and the hero scenes were also fairly unlikable.)

Hmm, this also makes me think about special effects. I think the neatest part about special effects in older movies were the real thought and work that went into fabricating them. Of course special effects are designed to fool our senses and heighten the drama of a story, but in and of themselves, when they were made out of something real they were much more impressive. I know cg is expensive, but it seems to totally lack that endearing quality where you wonder "how did they do that?" There aren't any physical constraints anymore. They just have a guy sit in front of a screen and tell a computer what to render for him. I can't be wowed by that and can't understand someone who would.
Post
#317400
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317400/action/topic#317400
Time
I know it will be fun to see Indiana Jones in the theater again after all these years. I know I'll greatly enjoy this movie on that level. However, I let myself get my hopes up for Revenge of the Sith and actually convinced myself that it was good for a while there. This time I'm going into the theater with a mental condom.
Post
#317334
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317334/action/topic#317334
Time
Getting George to care about film preservation would be to practically set our hopes in the realm of impossibility. Preserving a version of Star Wars that best represents the original film would certainly be the right thing to do, but George has shown that he actually has antipathy towards such an effort. If he comes around it will be to earn more money or to gain acceptance from Star Wars fans, but I doubt that either are a huge concern for him right now.
Post
#317105
Topic
The Empire Strikes Barack
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317105/action/topic#317105
Time
I liked the video up until the very end. Mocking the Clinton's behavior is very funny, but making Barack look like some great hope for politics is ridiculous. In some ways I think he actually is worse than Clinton (though on the whole he is better) and I wouldn't blame the Democrat party for having trouble deciding which candidate to go with.
Post
#317034
Topic
Princess Leia fucked Han Solo
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317034/action/topic#317034
Time
Darth Chaltab said:

Rob said:

Darth Chaltab said:

Around here, f**k means oral sex.


What the fuck are you talking about?


In my town, I've never heard it used in any other context ('cept as a general expletive). If it's different elsewhere, I was unawares. I just assumed (wrongly) that it was the same everywhere.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck

I like this part:

"The word fuck has cognates in other Germanic languages, such as German ficken (to copulate), Dutch fokken (to breed), dialectical Norwegian fukka (to copulate), and dialectical Swedish fucka (to strike, copulate) and fuck (penis)."

In Sweden you have two words to work with.

Anyways, I'm not sure I'd classify fuck as merely meaning "to have sexual intercourse." I'd probably add some words to say "particularly in a crass, uncomfortable, or perhaps even threatening manner."