To be fair, the anti-GL vitriol around here does get ridiculous. But only sometimes.
As for the RP boards, it's because this site is full of old fogeys, and that collides poorly with innocent youths with fandom aspirations.
Fate Foretold said:
.
Incredible.
Ohmygodmycursor
And in the past, people used whale-oil lamps. Things change.
I'd say it's a mix. I'd say the one that really got me was when the lady walks into the bus-stop panel. I would have never guessed that it was entirely greenscreen.
This quote is undeniably true
theprequelsrule said:
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.
but I wonder if actors aren't getting better and better at it? Or directors?
You're going to hate this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
kilik64 said:
Who is tim and why are his "bits" interesting?
I am not sure what to say.
Tobar said:
Er...I thought that was an animatronic raptor and the CATG was imprinted in the ceiling tiles....
I think you just defeated theprequelsrule.
canofhumdingers said:
CATG?
Harmy said:
Yeah, I think CGI can be a great tool when in right hands. Jurassic Park is a great example of that, because they used it with moderation and more importantly in combination with animatronics, where that worked better.
Except the damn CATG shadows on the raptors in that one scene. Super-distracting.
theprequelsrule said:
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.
Oh, I agree the Iguana-Thing is pretty awful. However, I maintain that just because CGI enables bad decisions doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Just because Jabba shouldn't move doesn't mean that he can't be CGI. Perhaps Lucas, the concept artists and the animators need to learn what is believable. That's not the same as not using CGI.
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.
theprequelsrule said:
Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake.
Gollum didn't look fake to me. Maybe once or twice? Maybe? He looked really real, other than the fact that I know in my head that there's no one who looks like that.
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.
No. The Gammorean Guards do not look real. They look like real rubber, yes, but they do not look like real living creatures. Looking like a physical object is not enough - Creatures need to look like creatures, not rubber.
Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033.
Most of the time. Occasionally I think he looks a little stiff.
Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033.
At worst he'll be considered a great example of the best that could be done at the time.
THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY.
Define 100% photorealistic. How will you know when we've reached it? You can't make this kind of demand without a satisfiable goal defined.
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.
So you want filmmakers to intentionally display the shortcomings of available technologies instead of using what they have to create the illusions they think are best suited for their stories? Why would they do that?
Until you can provide me with a case in which the exception does not prove the rule, I will not believe that "the exception proves the rule" is a rule.
I'd like to know what you think about the DSII-plans hologram in ROTJ, though!
theprequelsrule said:
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.
Just because a tool has had some negative effects doesn't mean it's inherently bad, or a bad tool.
[Insert Gun Control debate here]
I would contribute, but I've never seen TOD... and I really enjoyed KOTCS.
Disclaimer: I think ROTLA is the best, so I'm not entirely crazy.
TV's Frink said:
I'll take a look at it in audacity and see what is available.
The Equalization plugin has a preset called "AM Radio" or something that works really well.
theprequelsrule said:
I respectfully disagree. CGI do not exist as real things. Matte paintings (and models) are real - they can be touched. They have unintentional flaws that add to their reality.
Flaws like brushstrokes? Let me know the next time you see brushstrokes IRL.
CGI are only bits of data. The human mind revolts at CGI as something intrinsically unreal.
Revolts? Revolts? The fact that people enjoyed Avatar is a great counterexample. People "revolt" (still too strong a word) when CGI is unrealistic, when something is off. But things like Avatar and Gollum have done a great job of showing that it can be done well.
Between CGI and 3D garbage, I have found myself completely disinterested in every "blockbuster" film that comes down the pipes these days. When the acting and story are good, it actually makes things worse.
I'm not convinced you're an unbiased observer.
doubleofive said:
msycamore said:
Where do we draw the line?
Right here.
But this is an example, not a principle. It's not very useful in discussion.
I'm gonna have to agree. It's not funny and the sound is super muddled/confusing.
New Republic and contemporaneous to the OT are the two I think you'd like, although obviously not everything within those.
I have no idea how you'd feel about New Jedi Order (a loooong storyline during New Republic times). It sure isn't World Shrinkage.
If better and worse are opposite directions on a line, you're going off on a different direction.
Do believe this may help push you towards his Thrawn Trilogy, huh?
Tobar is, indeed, the voice of reason.
And theprequelsrule has made some of the greatest posts ever to grace these boards.
And that "indeed" in my first sentence was pretentious and superfluous.