Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
what are your thoughts of CGI?
-
28-10-2003 6:31am#1
Comments
-
-
Seen as how alot of film are now been shot on DV rather than celluloid it's going to be hard for film makers to get away from CGI. It's cheaper to shoot a scene using CG rather than building up a whole studio. It seems the industry is pushing towards DV now with most if the film courses in Ireland using such equipment
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Difference is Melies was pioneering something that actually impressed people when they first saw it. Whereas as can clearly be seen from this thread a lot of people are ALREADY so unimpressed with the current standard of CG that they are actually wishing model making, animatronics and puppetry would make a return to cinema! That's not a good sign and if we're not even 'wowing' now at what we see in these current blockbusters then what are these films going to look like 5 or 10 years from now - never mind 100?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
In the case of George Lucas and the Wachowskis, it's very easy to point and laugh at them, since they're still pioneers in the field of CG effects, and so they're still making mistakes. This is like giggling at Melies in the 1900s and saying "Give it up, Georges".
I'm all for technological progress in cinema but if Lucas et al want to develop CG then let them do it on their own time and stop making us pay (literally and metaphorically) for his 'experimental' filmmaking. If it doesn't look even remotely real then don't have it in the film. And bear in mind this may only account for 10 effects out of 1,000 in a film but it's enough to sink it completely IMHO.
//
And since I brought Wackowski/Lucas up, for clarification If you want 3 sequences from Matrix / Star Wars movies that really exemplify what I'm talking about when I say 'bad CGI' then here they are :
1) The battle between the droids and the gungans in Ep1
2) The whole insects / jedis / clones battle in ep 2
3) The arrival at Zion in Matrix reloaded.
Coincidentally, these three are all meant to be 'real world' environments but look more like something out of an X-box game not even the biggest CGI fan here could deny that. When you can't even get an environment to look real then you've really lost the battle (pardon the pun) before even fighting the war
On the other hand and btw I'd like to point out that I AM a fan of the Burly Battle sequence and Jar Jar characters. Reasons being - the Burly Battle is set 'inside the matrix' so because of the writing and context it's already given a bit of leeway to go overboard.
JarJar is an impressive character too and gets away with it because we've never seen a gungan character done with puppets previously so we are willing to go with what we see in him as well. Compare it to the Jabba CGI character in the same movie (who we've already formed a mental image of from seeing in ROTJ) who might have looked equally good as JarJar and Watto - but because we had a mental image decided that he looked fake.
Bottom line is CG can get away with creating most things that a human has NEVER seen (eg new aliens, technology etc) but it can't currently reproduce complex things from our own physical world or things we've seen before or have a mental image of (eg Grass, Caves, or even JABBA THE HUTT
) and the sooner directors realise this and deal with it one way or another (either by not including such elements digitally or by improving the tech on their own time until it's good enough) the better. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I liked the CGI in Fight Club but at the same time I don't think much of it looked particularily real. I think I was willing to go with it though because it was so inventive and coupled with an interesting storyline. I reviewed the FightClub DVD just now and out of the dozen or so explained CG shots only the pullaway shot of the 'exploding refrigerator' was one that I didn't twig as CG from the first time I saw it. Don't get me wrong, the Furni scene, the Main title and the Gun Shot scenes are all still amazing - but not exactly realistic. I guess a good storyline can help you to forgive a lotOriginally posted by ObeyGiant
Not really. We're using Star Wars as a point of reference for CG because they use it so heavily, but they're using it to create a cartoonish, fantasy world. So does this mean that all CG is going to look cartoonish? Lord no. As people have mentioned before, Peter Jackson is creating a wonderful dark, fantasy world with CG. Fincher has used CG heavily in Fight Club and Panic Room, and come out with gritty, realistic results (although Panic Room was also a little over-the-top).
My initial point was that some didn't have to learn (eg Zemeckis and Cameron)!. Others are learning and then you have guys like Lucas who clearly already know but don't care what the final product looks like as long as it gets their ideas and visions get to the screen in time and under budget.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Directors are having to learn restraint when it comes to applying this in their films.
Thing is, he has already made 3 older movies so the 'vision' (whether he likes it or not) has already been established as far as I'm concerned. If he wanted to make movies that looked like digital cartoons (and clearly he does) then he should have developed a new line of stories unrelated to his previous work (whether it be Star Wars, Indy or whatever) and then I might have been slightly more forgiving - but not much.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
The only problem here is that you seem to think that Lucas is somehow destroying his movies through over-use of CG, and are unwilling to forgive the mistakes he makes. Personally, I think he's using CG to create the vision of the Star Wars universe he's always had in his head, having gone beyond the boundaries of what practical effects and sets can achieve.
And besides, even if he is deliberately trying to create a cartoony/fantasy look to the prequels then he has already failed at that too because it is undeniable that none of the CG stuff in the prequels even matches the actual filmed interior stuff. Watching a Star Wars prequel is like watching an episode of the old Star Trek tv show where you have these interior scenes filmed on those horrible cardboard sets intercut with fake looking exterior shots. Either one on it own seems bad enough but when you join the two togeter you seem to get something that is even LESS than the sum of its parts.
Hear Hear! Lucas won't be happy until the day he can create the entire movie from the comfort of his editing room chair!Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I just wish he wouldn't live by the mantra of "Let's fix it in post-production".
0 -
Well, the refrigerator scene was one I had in mind. But when I say "realistic", I mean all of these non-cartoon results, in spite of how obviously CG they are (such as the Furni scene, or the sex scene). Fincher is using CG to create some really interesting shots, but they rarely descend into fake-looking CG (even if your mind lets you know they're obviously CG).Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
I reviewed the FightClub DVD just now and out of the dozen or so explained CG shots only the pullaway shot of the 'exploding refrigerator' was one that I didn't twig as CG from the first time I saw it. Don't get me wrong, the Furni scene, the Main title and the Gun Shot scenes are all still amazing - but not exactly realistic.
Then we have the opposite end of the spectrum, such as the swooping camera in Panic Room. At least a quarter of the movie is dedicatd to shots of the camera flying through cup handles, and stuff like that. These are also 'realistic' looking, but over-used to the point where they're meaningless.
Both of those directors have been conspicuously quiet in the past few years, when computer graphics have made leaps and bounds. And their recent projects haven't really required intense CG. A better metric would be to look at the top movies for the past three years on the IMDB, and compare the way they have handled CG effects (url: http://www.imdb.com/Top/). And it definitely looks like we're coming out of the dark days of needless, ugly CGI.Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
My initial point was that some didn't have to learn (eg Zemeckis and Cameron)!.
And he is famously unhappy with the way he was limited by technology and budget with the first three films, and has gone back to 'update' them. And these updates, for the most parts, marry the look of the original films and the new ones. A good example of this is the shots on Corinthian at the end of Return of the Jedi.Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Thing is, he has already made 3 older movies so the 'vision' (whether he likes it or not) has already been established as far as I'm concerned.
But fuck Greedo shooting first.
Now you're being needlessly unfair, considering the original films were plagued with many similar, although old-tech problems, such as shoddy bluescreening, transparent mattes, obvious models/stop-motion, obvious guys-in-suits and so on.Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
And besides, even if he is deliberately trying to create a cartoony/fantasy look to the prequels then he has already failed at that too because it is undeniable that none of the CG stuff in the prequels even matches the actual filmed interior stuff.
On the whole, weighing everything up, I'd say the new films are an improvement 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
You're disagreeing with it, but not denying it as your very next sentences suggests ....Originally posted by Lodgepole
I'll deny that...
Yes, It doesn't always need to be realistic. I've stated that already. But I do find it SHOULD be realistic when it comes to representing elements that the human brain has already seen or has a mental image of. Take this example - If the walking tree in LOTR2 looks less than perfect then I don't mind in the slightest cos I've never seen a walking/talking tree anyway - but on the otherhand if a director is making a film that requires a shot an ordinary EARTH based non-talking/walking forest then I expect him to at least a) if using CG then make the forest look REAL b) just GO FILM A FOREST or c) exclude the shot cos it isn't working.Originally posted by Lodgepole
Why do all effects need to look realistic?
Again you're missing my point. I'm not complaining about 'far out' effects such as a giant gorilla climbing a skyscraper or an army of marching skeletons. Far from it! I can still enjoy films such as King Kong or Jason and the Argonauts as much as (if not more than!) anything made today with the latest technology.Originally posted by Lodgepole
Imagine if Harryhausen had said "well... those skeletons look better than anything we've ever seen previously but they aren't quite perfect are they? Scrap them...". It's not how things work.
My point is that unless you've personally ever seen a walking skeleton attack a man with a sword or seen a 40 foot chimp swat down a bi-plane then you really have no point of reference when it comes to watching such a piece of film . So in such circumstances suspension of disbelief overrides any shortcomings in the actual effect itself. How impressed would you have been with Harryhausen if J.a.t.A. had stop-motion human actors in it too? Not much I'm sure? And why? Because you know what a person is supposed to look like and how their body is supposed to act.
The stuff I'm complaining about is REAL WORLD elements that CG technology cannot yet accurately reproduce such as various elements of nature or a human face for example.
Examples please? I though he used great restraint in that film.Originally posted by Lodgepole
Incidentally, Cameron's last film was Titanic which was very CG heavy. And a lot of the CG was brutal. I'm a fan of the film, but it had some awful CG shots.
Fake is fake. But in Fight Club it works because it's as much comedy as anything else. It also works because it's using CG to create shots that can't be produced any better by other methods.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Well, the refrigerator scene was one I had in mind. But when I say "realistic", I mean all of these non-cartoon results, in spite of how obviously CG they are (such as the Furni scene, or the sex scene). Fincher is using CG to create some really interesting shots, but they rarely descend into fake-looking CG (even if your mind lets you know they're obviously CG).
I found Panic room to be an initally exhilarating movie but on reminiscence found it to be a tedious waste of time that was using CG to cover up it's shortcomings. The usage of CG there was wrong purely from a storytelling POV. Anyway I get the feeling that he was just using that entire project to 'experiement' on new techniques for a future pet project. That's fair enough but in comparison I'm sure George Lucas doesn't want people to look back in 20 years time at Ep1-3 as 'experiements' made purely to progress CG technology!Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Then we have the opposite end of the spectrum, such as the swooping camera in Panic Room. At least a quarter of the movie is dedicatd to shots of the camera flying through cup handles, and stuff like that. These are also 'realistic' looking, but over-used to the point where they're meaningless.
Films like Titanic, Forrest Gump, Contact and Cast Away (to a lesser extent) had abundant CGI them. It's only the fact that it was used so carefully and cleverly that most people think that they weren't CG intence.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Both of those directors have been conspicuously quiet in the past few years, when computer graphics have made leaps and bounds. And their recent projects haven't really required intense CG. A better metric would be to look at the top movies for the past three years on the IMDB, and compare the way they have handled CG effects (url: http://www.imdb.com/Top/). And it definitely looks like we're coming out of the dark days of needless, ugly CGI.
There's no use really comparing them with CG in the last 3 years because neither of them have made a film in 4 years at the very least. It would perhaps be fairer to compare what other directors were doing in 1998 and 1994 compared to Z and C.
It's CoruscantOriginally posted by ObeyGiant
And he is famously unhappy with the way he was limited by technology and budget with the first three films, and has gone back to 'update' them. And these updates, for the most parts, marry the look of the original films and the new ones. A good example of this is the shots on Corinthian at the end of Return of the Jedi. But bizarrly I find the CG update shots the original trilogy to be quite acceptable and better than many of those in the prequels. The only one that doesn't do it for me is the insert of Jabba in the Original Star Wars movie - mainly because it is a marrying of filmed elements and CG (and not because of the famous 'tail' problem).
If the ending of Ep2 proved anything to me it's that you cannot currently plant realworld actors in a CG enviornment and make it look convincing. Thankfully (nearly) all the updated shots in the original trilogy were either predominantly filmed or predominantly CG.
Sure 'technically' they weren't perfect but the sets/models etc still feel and look more REAL than the CG in the prequel trilogy. And you can't tell me the sets in the new movies 'feel' more realistic than the stuff in the original movies either. The interior sets in Ep1 and 2 look more like something from an off-broadway stage production rather than a $100m dollar film.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Now you're being needlessly unfair, considering the original films were plagued with many similar, although old-tech problems, such as shoddy bluescreening, transparent mattes, obvious models/stop-motion, obvious guys-in-suits and so on.
Spoken like a true CorinthianOriginally posted by ObeyGiant
On the whole, weighing everything up, I'd say the new films are an improvement 0 -
-
-
-
Originally posted by Lodgepole
One very noticeable dodgy piece of CG in Titanic was the big sweeping shot over the ship, complete with disgracefully bad CG people wandering the decks.
Those were actual real-life actors motion captured and placed into the scene itself. So if you're finding them fake then I don't know what! 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
First off, apologies in advance for the ‘…(snip)…’s in your comments. They aren’t meant as a snub to your opinions. It’s just that with them present complete in my reply it goes over the maximum allowable length.
Anyway….Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I don't see what your grievance is here. You've already admitted that you were …(snip)…This was the point I was originally making.
Furni is indeed abstract but there's lot's of CG in fight club that is MEANT to look real but still looks 'fake' eg the falling buildings at the end. Throwing the fridge scene back in my face just because I actually applauded F.C. for having one good looking scene doesn't cover the FACT that on the whole nearly all the CG in fight club looks fake. In FC's case I am actually even defending that shortcoming because I think it's not a film that lives or dies depending on its effects – not like in the way for example Star Wars Ep1-2 do.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Again, exactly the point I was trying to make - I was presenting Fincher as an …(snip)…movie and next going Absolutely Hog Wild with it.
I know, I was agreeing with you there. Not everything has to be an argument OG.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Once again, we have to go back to looking at Episodes IV-VI.
…(snip)…will look just as 'quaint'.
I have a pre-Special edition Trilogy and you can't see 'wires' in the space battles. I don’t remember any blue-screen outlines and as for the stop-motion stuff I didn't think that looked jerky either. If you’re referring to the AT-AT / Walkers they were meant to have a jerky movement as they were machines after all. The Rancor / Tauntaun characters had reasonably fluid movements (better than Harryhausens stuff anyway).Originally posted by ObeyGiant
With some awful, VideoToaster-like effects...
Again, every one just pans Titanic’s effects like it’s the fashion. For example Lodgepole there picked out the people on deck during that famous pull-away shot but those were actual actors motion captured and placed into the scene itself. I think it’s in the large part unjustified.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
The explosions in the forest looked good. The crowds looked good. Everything else did not. See the lip-sync on Lyndon B. Johnson for an example.
I can’t defend the LBJ scene as I’ve never read or heard how Zemeckis wanted that scene turn out. But knowing him (as I don’t) I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d deliberately fluffed it to make it look fake. Bare in mind this movie is a comedy with an almost fantasy feel to it where we’re never at any point in the movie asked to accept any of this or take it seriously. Couple this with the fact that lip-syncing isn’t exactly the hardest thing to do anyway and (for me anyway) it all points to creating a jokey effect. Could be wrong of course but Zemeckis has never been adverse to deliberately making a scene look fake if it suits him , as my next section demonstrates…Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Jodie Foster in front of a green-screen, with GenericAlienWorldB.max going on behind her? No.
If that's the major example of CG fakeness you pick out of that film then I think that’s proved my point to some degree that some directors do know how to use it for the result they want.
You see for one thing that scene of Jodie on ‘GenericAlienWorldB’ meant to look deliberately fake (and I know this for a fact). It was designed to look almost cartoonish/dreamlike because as it is explained it is not a real place, just a thought planted into Jodie’s head for the purpose of the scene.
But on the other hand (and just trust me here) there is SO much CG in that film that I
never spotted until it was revealed to me in the Dir Commentaries that I couldn’t actually believe it! I’d say it probably has the most CG in any film outside of your typical sci-fi blockbuster. The only difference is it doesn’t continually demand you to ‘see where the money was spent’ with overblown graphics. It’s the model of how CG should be used in a film IMHO.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Cast Away had some nice nature effects, sure. But to call it "CG-abundant" is stretching it a little.
PerhapsOriginally posted by ObeyGiant
Since the CG in the new films is quantifiably better than the CG in the 'Special Editions',
Note I said the stuff in the SE was more ‘acceptable’ not ‘better’. My point is that the CG in the Special Edition had showed more restraint and was sewn into the existing footage better than the stuff in the prequels.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I'm beginning to believe your problems actually lie in the story of the new movies. It …(snip)…the story of Episodes IV-VI, but not willing to forgive the same of Episodes I-III.
Whilst I've admitted all along that a good story can do a lot to distract you from the shortcomings of a film I'll state now right if Ep IV-VI were done with the same modern 'look' and technique as Ep 1-2 then I can categorically state right now that I wouldn't be a fan of them at all. The look and use of CG alone has ruined those two films for me before a single line of dialogue is spoken.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
This also goes some way to proving my theory above, about the cause of your problems with the new movies, because you are simply not making much sense.
How am I not making sense? If I say a forest in Northern California looks more real than a computer generated field then what's so cryptic about that? If I say the shot of the Empires army in the Death Star hanger in Ep6 looks more realistic than the clone factory scene in Ep2 then likewise how am I not getting my message across? It has nothing to do with the quality of the stories themselves. It’s just a case of me looking at what is in front of my eyes and deciding it looks extremely unrealistic and unsatisfactory.
Your argument is that the CG has given the director the opportunity to fully create his visions and therefore it should be used but if you take that clone factory sequence in Ep2 for example there's nothing in it that probably couldn't have been done with real extras and a camera - and be made to look more realistic at the same time. I don’t think realism should be sacrificed for the sake of size and scope.
The demand on CG has come too far too fast and it’s not up to the task at this point in time. Lucas always stated he held back making the prequels until the technology caught up with his vision but judging by these last two films he’s either has a very abstract cartoonish imagination …. or he should have waited another 10 years.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
As I said before, the sets in Episodes I-III feel like small, claustrophobic, enclosed …(snip)…in the later films with some matte paintings, in which at least 80% of the scene is completely 'still'.
I'm not talking about a set looking small or confined, I'm talking about 'real'. You are repeatedly concerned about scale and grandeur of shots whereas I just want a room to look reasonably like a real room (whatever it’s size). All the interior stuff in the prequels (and I’m not joking here) looks like sets off the old Star Trek tv show. Even Ep4-6 had better sets and use of mattes than the CG/budget carpentry combinations in the prequels. Whatever you think about the value of CG over traditional special effects that sets issue is a step backwards, not forwards IMHO.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
And once again, this is something that Lucas was unhappy with, and tried to address …(snip)…swooping in and around a vast, impressive city in the clouds.
It was no more/less impressive that the LandSpeeder stuff in the Star Wars SE yet you didn’t seem to like that?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Which, thankfully, segues neatly back to the original point that was being made for …(snip)…able to get exactly the vision they have in their mind.
Check out Ep1 filming schedule. They arguably did more traveling for that film than any of the first 3 movies so CGI didn't help them there in the slightest. The only major difference is that they are filling in shots with CGI instead of mattes and doing a bad job in the process.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I still think Lucas was completely right to choose the route he did. Regardless of …(snip)…If he was to do this scene practically, the battle would have been 1 minute long and only 20 people would be in the scene.
No argument there regarding logistics. But if a scene looks unrealistic then it doesn’t matter how big and/or impressive it attempts to be because it just ends up detracting from itself.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
And call me weird or whatever, but I think a CG army of robots looked way better than a bunch of midgets dressed in fur.
I won’t call you anything but at least a midget in fur looks like a midget in fur and not something out of a computer game demanding to be accepted as a real thing.0 -
Well, since there's only a few CG effects in the film, and the majority of them are relatively abstract (sex scene, furni, brain journey, swooping camera down building/through ground), it's a little harsh to condemn nearly all of the CG in fight club as looking fake on the basis of one lacklustre realistic effect.Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Throwing the fridge scene back in my face just because I actually applauded F.C. for having one good looking scene doesn't cover the FACT that on the whole nearly all the CG in fight club looks fake.
I know - I was just making absolutely double-certain we were reading from the same page.
I know, I was agreeing with you there. Not everything has to be an argument OG.
During the Death Star battle in A New Hope, a Y-Wing is destroyed. As it explodes, you can see two parts on strings swing up. And the strings too.I have a pre-Special edition Trilogy and you can't see 'wires' in the space battles.
It's awful that I know this.
The battles on Hoth are the most potent offenders of this.I don’t remember any blue-screen outlines
I was indeed thinking of the Tauntaun. In spite of the new "go-motion" technique, it still looks like a plasticine model being animated one frame at a time.as for the stop-motion stuff I didn't think that looked jerky either ... The Rancor / Tauntaun characters had reasonably fluid movements
I wasn't thinking of that in particular (although I could pick on that particular scene too - ever played an FMV/CGI game such as Gabriel Knight 2, or Phantasmagoria? Ever notice the way although the filmed characters are moving within a CG background, and they don't seem to 'blend' completely seamlessly? Perspective is telling you they're not actually part of that scene? Same deal). No, my problem with the CG in Titanic has to do with the fact that it is slightly above that found in Seaquest.. hence the VideoToaster reference. Only a couple of years later, Young Indiana Jones was producing BETTER effects of the same nature.Again, every one just pans Titanic’s effects like it’s the fashion. For example Lodgepole there picked out the people on deck during that famous pull-away shot but those were actual actors motion captured and placed into the scene itself.
This is my problem with Titanic. It goes beyond simple 'fashion'.
This is a joke, right? You're not honestly using this as some sort of defence? ...I can’t defend the LBJ scene as I’ve never read or heard how Zemeckis wanted that scene turn out. But knowing him I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d deliberately fluffed it to make it look fake.
And again..You see for one thing that scene of Jodie on ‘GenericAlienWorldB’ meant to look deliberately fake (and I know this for a fact). It was designed to look almost cartoonish/dreamlike because as it is explained it is not a real place, just a thought planted into Jodie’s head for the purpose of the scene.
Yes, it's explained in the film that the place she's visiting doesn't really exist. But that's no excuse for just putting Jodie Foster in front of a green screen and letting Terragen run riot in the background. My first thought when I saw this scene was "I could do better than that!".
And, with all humility, I have.
I'm of a completely different view - there was a lot of self-indulgent nonsense thrown into the Special Editions, simply because they thought they could get away with it. For example, Luke's trip into Mos Eisley. Not only did the new CG model of Luke's speeder look ridiculous, we were treated to 'comic' scenes, such as big robot hitting little flying robot. And Jawa falling off big lizard-monster. These weren't thrown into the background, or integrated in any way. They were thrown there simply because they could.My point is that the CG in the Special Edition had showed more restraint and was sewn into the existing footage better than the stuff in the prequels.Whilst I've admitted all along that a good story can do a lot to distract you from the shortcomings of a film I'll state now right if Ep IV-VI were done with the same modern 'look' and technique as Ep 1-2 then I can categorically state right now that I wouldn't be a fan of them at all. The look and use of CG alone has ruined those two films for me before a single line of dialogue is spoken.
You are not making sense because you are accusing the new films of having a look reminiscent of an 'off-broadway production', without applying the same criticisms to the original film. The sets in the original films (the first one mainly) looked flimsy, with cardboard walls, and little bloopy lights.How am I not making sense?
Regardless of the fact that these are 'real things' and give the film a certain tactile 'feel', they looked cheap, and largly unsuitable.
And this isn't even taking into account the lousy Cantina scene! Oh boy!.
But I'll come back to this later.
I'm saying it should be used where it's needed. When practical effects are.. well.. no longer practical. Which brings me to...Your argument is that the CG has given the director the opportunity to fully create his visions and therefore it should be used
Eek!if you take that clone factory sequence in Ep2 for example there's nothing in it that probably couldn't have been done with real extras and a camera
I know George Lucas is super-rich and all that, but wow, that's pushing it a bit.
First, you have the simple problem of location. There is nothing like that set in the world (I hope), so it would have to be built on a sound-stage. That virtual set was bigger than just about any sound-stage in the world. So that's problem no. 1.
Second, you have the problem of cost. To build this set, and hire all the extras.. that's a phenomenal amount of money.
Third, you have the logistics of how to wrangle 1000+ extras. I can only imagine difficult this must be - and I think I need to lie down.
Then of course, you have the fact that these were all clones. So you'd need 1000+ people of the same size, shape and build. For closeups, you'd even need them to look the same!
Now.. did you really think this out?
So.. Yoda isn't cartoonish? Ewoks aren't cartoonish? Admiral Akbar isn't cartoonish? Hell, Chewbacca isn't cartoonish? We've known he has a cartoonish imagination - he's shown it in the original series. Why on Earth can't you see this?judging by these last two films he’s either has a very abstract cartoonish imagination …. or he should have waited another 10 years.
The first counter-example that springs to mind for me is Amidala's palace on Naboo, which you mainly see in Episode One. This is a real set, and looks absolutely phenomenal. The hangar in Episode 1 looks phenomenal too (also a largely "real" set).You are repeatedly concerned about scale and grandeur of shots whereas I just want a room to look reasonably like a real room (whatever it’s size). All the interior stuff in the prequels (and I’m not joking here) looks like sets off the old Star Trek tv show.
The landspeeder looked visibly 'wrong' to my eyes. It moved awkwardly, and the human (and non-human) passengers looked like low-polygon models, and the 'grading' was all off, so it didn't seem to fit into the scene properly. On the other hand, the Millenium Falcon is a large, angular space-ship, so it didn't matter if it was low-poly. They also managed to capture the grace and smoothness of space-flight a lot better than a land-speeder.It was no more/less impressive that the LandSpeeder stuff in the Star Wars SE yet you didn’t seem to like that?
Personally, I thought the battle scene at the end of Episode II looked fantastic, with very few noticably 'unrealistic' effects, but regardless of my opinion of this shot - in these cases, a large-scale effect (with faults) is a more believable epic battle scene than 20 guys in a field.No argument there regarding logistics. But if a scene looks unrealistic then it doesn’t matter how big and/or impressive it attempts to be because it just ends up detracting from itself.
This is just about the last straw. You accept that ewoks _do_ look like midgets in fur, and you're willing to say "Yeah, but that's okay, at least they don't look like...". It doesn't matter what they don't look like, the point is that they look exactly like midgets in fur, and in no way go towards looking like some sort of alien race that could help topple an empire. Accepting one and complaining about the other is just absolute nonsense.I won’t call you anything but at least a midget in fur looks like a midget in fur and not something out of a computer game demanding to be accepted as a real thing.
So, for (hopefully) the last time, will you please extend the same suspension of disbelieve towards the new films as you have for the original trilogy? Please? You'll enjoy them more that way. I promise.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
did anyone mention the fight scene in Blade 2 when Blade first meets bloke and lass from the bloodpack for the first time. lots of stupid CGI based jumping around that really looked stupid.
My friend was telling me that if you listen to the directors commentary he says that they ran out of money and had to use the test CGI for these bits. He even admits himself that the CGI is terrible
0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement