so, you know how all that new star wars stuff looks fake?

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
Would kids who now, are introduced to sci-fi movies through cgi, think that everything that's older and made out of models, look fake?

In other words, is it just what we're conditioned to that makes us not like something new? Or is the something new really inferior to the old?
 
I don't know but I will say that the original Star Trek sets REALLY look cheesy now. Back when it was originally on TV I was starting high school and it was SO cutting edge. :thumbsup: Now I have a hard time sitting through it. :beer:
 
Interesting question. But, I think if you showed any kid the ships in Silent Running, he would appreciate the realism of the models in that movie.
 
I think kids will still realize that the original star wars in most respects are much more realistic. All except the lightsabers and the blasters.

The starships, setttings, characters, all looked real, which was mainly because they were in fact tangible objects.
 
c.g._eads said:
...Or is the something new really inferior to the old?
Click to expand...
I think you nailed it with this thought.

What we grew up on was truly revolutionary.

It's like I always say about music...
and I quote myself,
"Every generation tells their children that the children's music sucks...
this time, however, the older generation happens to be right."
 
I think Blade Runner and 2001/2010 are good examples of fx that have stood the test of time...
 
I hate the cg Yoda! I liked knowing somewhere there was a real Yoda. It felt more organic. Like the werewolves in Underworld. Or the Alien. Or the Predator. CG is too slick. It's like watching a cartoon no matter how good it is. Give me puppets any day of the week.
 
My first impression of the Jurassic Park big reveal was that it was like a beautiful painting - but something was noticeably wrong with the dinosaurs. They almost look transparent, like cartoons painted on glass over the background plate. I saw this film opening night at the AVCO, so I know that it was a "perfect storm" viewing environment - rumors came out that Spielberg stood at the back of the theater during this midnight screening.

It isn't just new era stuff that doesn't hold up though. My primary complaints with many digital effects are: impossibly elaborate camera moves; the myriad silly, cartoon-like CG creatures in just about everything since JP1.

Conversely, take a look at Star Wars Episode 4 and you'll still find rough garbage mattes around tie fighters during the sequence when they "escape" from the death star. Lucas went in and "enhanced" the show, but left these artifacts behind - what the?!

I haven't seen King Kong, but my reaction to the SD trailers on TV and the HD trailers online is that they have that same, lush digital painting look to them. I know that PJ is very concerned about his effects, using extensive model sets where others would go completely digital, so perhaps I just need to see this thing on the big screen.

e
 
All i will say is that i am an artist. The matte painting, model building and camera work in Blade runner, was art. Plain and simple. i couldwatch that movie re-editied out of order and with no sound, and i think i could still sit through it. Its that beautiful. an the natural look of the models, is increadible. I HATE Cgi lately. i seriously think it peaked in Jurassic park. after that, it all just looks... off.

I am trying to find one movie where it looks really real. and i cant find one.
 
The CGI in Jurassic Park was, indeed, very well done. The closeups using Stan Winston physical effects helped to sell the wide shots even more. Stan is the man.
 
I think it's pretty clear that none of us like CGI. But the question is, is that because we grew up on something different? Imagine if Star Wars Episode 1 was the first movie you ever saw. You would just assume that that's how movies were. Then seeing 'practical' effects onscreen might feel weird and off to you. I mean as tangible as models are, they're still models, toys, not the real thing. We're partial to them but that doesn't mean everybody else is.

Making jokes about Star Wars Episode 1 being someone's first film is expected.
 
I actually like CGI, but mostly when it's combined with practical effects. Both have their limitations, but when both are used to function the story it can be very effective. My favorite use of CGI right now is in the new Battlestar Galactica. It works so well with the show that I'm unaware of the presence of it.
 
I agree with Isaac on CGI. Well done it can help create a story that might otherwise be "unmakeable", at least in a believable way. It's poorly done CGI that bothers me.(Or CGI for the sake of CGI)
 
Do you guys remember the Scorpion King from the end part of the second Mummy movie?

I think that's the best case for when CGI goes wrong.
 
The whole Idea of film (sci-fi, fantasy, some horror) is the suspension of disbelief. So I think when you see something you know you could touch, (ie the face hugger in Alien) it's easier for your mind to accept it. I could never wrap my head around Yoda and the sabre dance. A friend of mine put it this way. The more realistic a cg effect, the more difficult it is for the mind to accept, so the more realistic it has to appear. I think you get to a point where the effect or the character becomes more important than the story. The openning scene in the last Star Wars was so over the top. It was fun to watch, but the whole time I was thinking, what a neat computer generated scene.
I love the rough, grainy, tie-fighter scenes from the Empire Strikes Back. (I always thought it was funny how they flew at the wrong angles)
CG is great, but I think it has become so heavily relied upon as to have alienated some of us. When I want to watch cartoons I will.
I do think they did a really good job of blending it into the film in I Robot. (let the beat down commence)
 
CGI is one of the more abused tools in filmmaking.

Compare some orginal FX work:

Nothing compares with a real set and real Yoda; Lucas is a *****.

Yodalukedagobah.jpg


yoda5qd.jpg


A Real Jabba

jabba.jpg


Crap Fake Jabba

4-08-1997.jpg
 
Forgot about Jabba. What a great piece of work. Best part about Jabba was seeing Carrie Fisher's reaction to being chained to him. You can't fake that piece of acting with CG. You know she was probably actually repulsed at being chained to that for weeks on end.

leiajabba6eb.jpg


Peter Jackson has done a decent job of combining CG characters and actors, but I only think he's succeeded because of Andy Serkis. Without a character or actual environement to play off of an actors performance can fall flat.
 
I agree. Jackson has pretty much used CG only when CG was necessary. Not to mention, he still had props and whatnot (I recall him and his team building the wall in miniature size in a video, once). The action scenes and the dinos and kong are necessary CG, but even at times during closeups of kong i wondered if it was in fact a model instead of CG.

Lucas, in contrast, feels no need to have any thing real anymore. The actors stick out like sore thumbs in the much more lush and colorful environment. I can't even watch Episode II anymore just because the actors look like they're lighter and grainier than anything in the background.
 
I think CG is a great tool. ie, compare the original and the CG jabba's... wait a minute... John are you sure about the Jabbas? I am confused... I feel emberrassed.

anyway, I like cg when it has a limit. ie I hate, the Ep. 3 because it looks like a big cartoon. there is too much cg...

I see, that might be a cg jabba from 1997, but I think technologie has already have the power to build something like a real Jabba
 
"Full" cgi sucks.

It always looks like a painting. Maybe a very good painting, but a painting nonetheless.

So, unless you story is about someone who find themselves stuck on a museum wall somewhere, it's never good. (And that was already done with Richard Kiley)

As additions to a scene...fine. Often very good. Often indispensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top