I'm not afraid to admit it when CGI works and that looks pretty good. Is the background created with CGI, or is it real photos/film inserted using CGI?
zombie84 said:
Worst film ever? Jesus, come on.
I thought Crystal Skull was a very fun film. I thought the last 30 minutes were too ridiculous and too disjointed, but the first hour is I think some of the best Indiana Jones stuff there is. The more I re-watch it the more I like. Again, poor ending and a disappointing last act, but overall a worthwhile addition to the series in my opinion. But then this is coming from a guy who holds Temple of Doom as his favourite.
TOD was my favourite as well, but I thought that CS was awful. When something enters the public consciousness and then you return to the material 20 years later it cannot help but feel like a satire/mockery. It's not fair, but there it is (also see the following series: Terminator, Alien).
I was pleasantly surprised by the new Predator film however, so TEHO.
Bingowings said:
theprequelsrule said:
skyjedi2005 said:
Robocop 2 ? there is only one RoboCop film and its the unrated version.
Truth.
You can't handle the truth.
I don't know about you, but I'm starving.
zombie84 said:
They would have gone the same. Actually, they probably would have been worse, since most producer's aren't as good as McCallum and he actually did contribute more to the films in a subtle way than people give him credit.
Basically, the films would have been the same or worse because Lucas would have replaced McCallum with someone who was willing to do what Lucas wanted if McCallum wasn't doing so. That's what Lucas was looking for in a producer--someone to ensure his wishes were carried out faithfully. Sometimes, that's how producers work. McCallum was smart enough to realise this so he didn't push Lucas inappropriately, although he wasn't totally passive. For instance, he warned Lucas about Jar Jar and tried to dissuade him, but Lucas had made his mind up and McCallum realized that's how it would be. He also snuck in an acting coach for Episode III, which is probably why that film has the best performances of all, probably because he saw how embarassing bad Episode II finally turned out to be.
These are interesting timbits of info. It reminds me of Red Letter Media's review in which McCallum is shown with a look of shock after the initial private screening. Then a discussion follows between Lucas, Burtt, and McCallum in which they mention that they cannot edit out the bad parts because they would not have enough material left over for a movie!
skyjedi2005 said:
Robocop 2 ? there is only one RoboCop film and its the unrated version.
Truth.
Let's not also forget another way in which CGI is detrimental to the film-making process: the fact that acting without any sort of frame of reference (i.e. against a blank green screen instead of on an actual set) does not encourage good performances by your actors. As CGI gets cheaper we can expect less and less use of actual sets.
Also, CGI replaces actual stunts and the danger associated with them. Most people would, of course, see this as a good thing, BUT IT IS NOT SO. The element of real danger adds to the films. This is one of the reasons I enjoy Jackie Chan's classic films; you have to respect a guy willing to die to entertain us! CGI encourages what Nietzsche called the "slave morality" in film-making.
Should we go back on topic or change the thread title to CGI versus Models/Puppets/Suits?
doubleKO said:
...knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive.
Bingo! Immersion is the key. Roger Ebert described Star Wars as an out of body experience. He wasn't watching the movie, it was happening to him.
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.
Bingowings said:
It's a visual representation of the interactions of programs and data in cyberspace that was rendered largely on a computer and it looks timeless.
Probably the best way to use CGI; don't try to be photo-realistic.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
TV's Frink said:
theprequelsrule said:
I love the idea of that thread...alas, it's too late for me.
Ask for your account to be abandoned and make a new one...or ask for a name change, though I don't remember if that is possible or not.
I think at this point I'll stick with it. Thanks for the info though.
I love the idea of that thread...alas, it's too late for me.
TV's Frink said:
If it's your bad, is it bkev's worse?
...
Or is he the exception that proves the rule?
Nope. It's on me Frink.
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...
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.
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.
Given Kershner's post-ESB efforts (Robocop 2 anyone?) I say:
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!
Dear Obsidian,
Fuck you!
Love,
Bioware
Unfortunately.
timdiggerm said:
I'd like to know what you think about the DSII-plans hologram in ROTJ, though!
Damn you, stop pointing out things that go against my argument!
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.
