Sign In

theprequelsrule

User Group
Members
Join date
2-Jun-2011
Last activity
5-Dec-2019
Posts
671

Post History

Post
#505358
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

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.

Post
#505348
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

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.

Post
#505344
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

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.

Post
#505172
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

Ziz said:

All this talk of CGI being "just a tool" and it in and of itself isn't good or bad and rather that the blame lay with the filmmakers' dependence on it all reminds me of something from that other "star" franchise - Star Trek, The Next Generation, specifically.

There was a "clip show" episode they did during the writer's strike where Riker was in sickbay owing to his wounds from some kind of malicious plant he encountered on the latest away mission.  At one point, Troi asks him if he wishes he wouldn't have gone down there because then he wouldn't be in this predicament.

Riker: "If you drop a hammer on your foot, it's hardly useful to get mad at the hammer."

The irony of the majority of this whole "to CG or not CG" discussion is that most of the arguments for or against are using "obvious" FX sequences as the basis for comparison.  There are tons of examples of CGI mattes in "everyday" shows like House, NCIS, CSI, Law & Order and 24.  And there are plenty of films that have tons of CGI and STILL get it right across the board like District 9.  Here's a demo reel for the effects for an assortment of films.

Just because you can quickly ID the bad ones doesn't mean that good ones don't exist.  The whole theory behind perfect special effects since the beginning of film has been that if you knew it was an effect then it failed.  The best FX are the ones you never knew were there.

Granted, when you get into sci-fi there's a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" that has to be figured into it, but I think the reason people can so quickly identify bad FX are specifically BECAUSE they already know it's an effect by nature of what it's trying to show you in the first place.  That makes the FX maker's job that much harder going in.

I think that because of the wide availability of CGI these days director's have to exercise restraint, whereas in the late 70s and early 80s you had to pick and choose what FX shots you would shoot, due to budget and tech limitations. George Lucas is like a child and CGI is his candy; if you make it available to him he will use it until he pukes (or we puke).

Post
#505168
Topic
More Old Republic
Time

TheBoost said:

The last big TOR trailer had a girl-Boba Fett, a fake Darth Vader, and a thousand generic Darth Maul types, and the fan world gave a similar 'this is what the PT should have been' response... so maybe deep down we hate originality.

A lot of Star Wars fans just want a repeat of the original trilogy. Nothing great ever came from imitation. Remember how much hate the Jedi uniforms in KOTOR got? I actually liked the fact that they weren't wearing the "traditional" robes - which of course were just desert apparel.

Off-topic tangent; I really like the idea of armour for Jedi, as it fits in with the whole "knight" thing. One of the mistakes in ESB was changing the conception of Jedi from adventurous, heroic, galactic special forces to warrior monks - it set the stage for the horrible depiction of Jedi we were subjected to in the prequels.

 

Post
#504995
Topic
kershner directing AOTC
Time

Kersh had skills, but so did Lucas (at one point). Would Kersh still have the mojo going? Did he have any mojo or, like Star Wars, was ESB good because of the collaborative effort involved?

Thinking about it more rationally without being a smart ass I think it could have been better. But would it have been good? I doubt it. There were just too many problems with the film.

Post
#504978
Topic
Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
Time

xhonzi said:

theprequelsrule said:

bkev said:

I think the saying means that when the exception is contrasted with the rule, it makes it all the more apparent. Hence, the saying makes sense.

Yes.

 Huh?

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

  • A truth is all the truer if it is sometimes false.
  • Hmmm. My bad. Move along, move along...

    Post
    #504976
    Topic
    kershner directing AOTC
    Time

    TV's Frink said:

    theprequelsrule said:

    Given Kershner's post-ESB efforts (Robocop 2 anyone?) I say:

    Nooooooooooooooooo!!!

    Coming from "theprequelsrule," a dude who said the prequels suck in another thread....

    ...

    Um...

    ...

    Pass.

    I thought the name was pure genius on my part. Irony for the win and all that.

    I guess things would have turned out better if I collaborated with others on choosing my name. I should have learned from George's mistakes.

    Post
    #504905
    Topic
    More Old Republic
    Time

    TheBoost said:

    Havne't seen it yet (firewall at work) but can I assume it's awesome and badass with lots of stabbings and harsh lighting?

    Yep. And it has a cowboy!

    Like I said, this is the best we can hope for these days. Kind of sad isn't it?

    Somebody needs to tell Bioware that the Star Wars films and The Matrix films are seperate series.

     

    Post
    #504897
    Topic
    Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
    Time

    There is a saying; "the exception proves the rule". Are the prequels the rule (CGI is inherently detrimental to film-making) or the exception (CGI is good). I stand by my belief that nothing is just a tool (read: neutral). Was the wheel just a tool? Is the internet just a tool? Are spell-check programs just a tool? No; they all have an affect on us, good or bad. Maybe CGI is both good and bad and unfortunately, when Lucas gets his hands on it, it is bad. Real bad.

    Anyway, I've probably harped on this point long enough for people to be sick of me so I'll comment on the actual topic! It is awesome that Spielberg is not messing around with Jaws; it has a lot of similarities with Star Wars from a historical perspective (first summer blockbuster, lack of advanced FX technology ends up actually benefiting the film etc.).

     

    Post
    #504675
    Topic
    Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
    Time

    TheBoost said:

    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"

    A tool is never just a tool. If you don't recognize that you end up like Mr. Lucas.

    I don't think CGI has a 'negative effect' in the slightest. Crap is crap. It's always been made. I don't think there's much more of it now than there ever has been. I think we've been "fed" as much garbage since the advent of cinema.

    Perhaps from the vantage of your glorious high-horse you can better define what you mean by "great epics" and "modern garbage." Or is this just another fine example of '...kids today... crap... off my lawn... grrrr.... Jar Jar... grrrrr....' 

    The 1963 classic Jason and the Argonauts is a series of special effects sequences strung together with the slimmest of plots and no ending. Are you counting it as a classic epic? Many do. Perhaps if they hadn't been so obsessed with stop-motion they would have given the story an ending. Or are you comparing Lawrence of Arabia to Attack of the Clones

    Perhaps I am just biased then, but I can't help but feel that CGI and the effect it has had on filmmaking is, in great part, why we have to have a website like OT.com. I know I am assuming that is has had an effect of course.

    It just seems weird that there are people on this forum who are defending CGI as "just another tool" when it seems to me that this "tool" is largely responsible for our current dilemma; no proper release of the OOT. I doubt George would have bothered trying to make 'special editions"without CGI effects. And if he had, they would have in all likelihood looked a lot better since he would have been forced to use traditional effects that would have blended in with the original material more effectively than CGI.

    Post
    #504670
    Topic
    Full video interview between Lucas and Nolan at the DGA in febuary
    Time

    Anchorhead said:

    George - The original film was basically subtitled The Tragedy of Darth Vader

     

    At this point, his delusion is just plain disturbing.  He seems to have absolutely zero understanding of how easy it is to prove that statement is complete bullshit.

    ???

    I'm with you. What the fuck happened to the guy?! What kind of people does he surround himself with to allow him to make such claims?

    Post
    #504668
    Topic
    Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films
    Time

    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"

    A tool is never just a tool. If you don't recognize that you end up like Mr. Lucas.