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?
Comments
-
I’m not (nor was I ever – ‘building’ sequence aside) ‘condemning’ it. I think they are fun sequences and I’m glad they’re in there. My point is simply that they look fake … and in most of Fight Clubs cases (ie the all the abstract ones) that by their very nature is fine by me. To show what I mean if Fincher had filled the film with lots of ‘real world’ sequences that looked equally as ‘genuine’ as the exploding building scene then I WOULD be condemning them – but fortunately he didn’t.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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.
No it’s not awful, just shows you careOriginally posted by ObeyGiant
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.
It's awful that I know this.
.
OK, just now I watched all the Y-wings blown up in the original version and whilst they all blow up in a rather unnatural pattern (which might suggest the presence of wires) you can’t (or at least I can’t) actually see wires. I see some bad optical printing on them during the blast but that’s about all (and that was sonly in slo-mo mind you!).
Just out of interest in regard to wires (cos I’d like to see them if they’re really there) are you referring to the 3rd y-wing that is destroyed (ie not the two in the trenches) ? I ask because on my examination I saw things that looked very like wires but on second glance I realised they were actually part of the ships rear engines.
Yes, you’re right there! Upon review, I’ll accept there’s some bad lines on the speeders.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
The battles on Hoth are the most potent offenders of this.
I counted about five separate sequences involving the tauntaun model and only the last one (the one where it falls over and died) look less than realistic. I know it can look fake because of the creatures bizarre running movement but there are examples in nature of creatures (eg the Basilisk lizard) that have more or less the same movement as a tauntaun.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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.
No, it’s not a joke. Ever since pre-digital days Zemeckis has (especially in his comedies) traded technical and scientific accuracy for the benefit of creating comedic scene or a quick joke. Check out the 2015 scenes in Back to the Future 2 which they look deliberately hokey and unrealistic – and that was no accident. With regard to Gump I’m just hypothesizing (just hypothesizing mind you!) that (because even in 1994 getting lip-syncing correct is relatively easy) Zemeckis once again deliberately did it for a laugh. I got a laugh out of it purely for that reason anyway.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
This is a joke, right? You're not honestly using this as some sort of defence? ...
That said though it doesn’t mean he doesn’t know how to get a scene right when he actually wants to and if you take my example of Contact you will see he knows how to use CG in a real world environment and blend it seamlessly
Why is it ‘no excuse’? It seems it ok for in your mind for someone like Fincher to do CG that looks blatantly fake as long as it fits his purpose - but not for Zemeckis?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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.
I’ll agree with you on the rontosaurus and big-robot bits being out of place but they’re the exception rather than the rule. Sequences like the ones you mention (‘cloud city’ / ‘landspeeder’) and even more-so stuff like the ‘dewbacks’ / ‘jawa transporter’ / ‘x-wings approach’ fit in well into the existing film footage and amazingly don’t even look as unrealistic as some of the stuff in ep 1+2 – Gungan battle for example – despite being 2 years older and tied to movies that had already been made and released theatrically.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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.
Ideally that would be so, but the problem is that whilst it is being used ‘where it’s needed’ it isn’t being used ‘how its needed’. The technology isn’t at the level where I can go ‘WOW that was so realistic that I’m not even sure if it WAS done with a computer or not?’ and until it gets there I personally feel that shouldn’t be used for replicating anything that can be already be done (albeit to a lesser scale) by actors or practical effects because it’ll only come out as a poor runner-up time and again.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I'm saying it should be used where it's needed. When practical effects are.. well.. no longer practical. Which brings me to...
I did Absolutely.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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?
I’m not saying that a filmed version would have the same gigantic scale as the CG version but it could still get the idea of a clone army across and more importantly LOOK BELIEVEABLE at the same time. My point about that scene was there was nothing in it (eg a spaceship traveling 7,000kph or a giant 3 headed alien) that made it completely necessary to do it in CG. Lucas just got carried away … as usual and ruined an important moment.
All I was suggesting was to do it with a limited number of extras (and the maybe CG the background ones who aren’t focal in the shot). To successfully get the idea across the scene just required a bunch of guys in uniforms who were the same height/build etc stomping around - and if they could achieve that with the storm-troopers in 1977 on a limited budget - then I'm sure it wouldn’t be too much of a logistical problem for to ‘super rich’ Lucas in 2002.
Ok, for clarification, there’s cartoonish and then there’s CARTOON. Laurel and Hardy are cartoonish in their behavior but at the same time it doesn’t mean they look like digitally drawn images generated by of a computer.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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?
Stuff like Yoda may be cartoonish to but in the prequels they also literally are CARTOONS. And if (at this point in time) they can’t make it look any as with CG than they did before with puppets than they should just stick with puppets. If the CG can’t match or surpass the level of realism offered in the original films then it has failed.
Compare Yoda puppet with Yoda CG or Jabba puppet with Jabba CG. Sure, one could disregard the puppets because of their limited articulation, but to the naked eye and during that first second it takes to make a first impress ‘WHICH HONESTLY LOOKS MORE REALISTIC? Which when you see in a still photo makes you go ‘yep, that was once something real and had people physically working with it rather then just some nerd sitting in front of his computer for six months just to come up with less realistic looking results anyway’?
That is what I see.0 -
-
-
-
I was just watching Exorcist III (one of my favourite films of all time), and I realised that the tradeoff between scope-of-vision and "realism"-of-vision can best be compared to singing in movies.
When it comes to singing in movies, directors are faced with two options. The first is to hire someone who can actually sing. The benefits of this are obvious - you can tell the person is actually singing, and it's lovely. The drawbacks? Well, I think there's been abundant evidence that singers don't generally make wonderful actors.
But then there's the other option - to overdub. The benefits of this are also obvious - you get your choice of any actor, so you're able to pick the best one for the role. The problem is the lip-sync is hard to get right, and even still, it's usually painfully obvious that the voice isn't coming out of the actor.
This is much the same when faced with the question of whether or not to use CG, and pretty much what has been going on in this thread for far, far too many long-winded posts.
I dunno, I just thought that was a nice analogy, and thought I'd share it with you all 0 -
-
I was about to post this, but then scrolled down and saw that you'd already hit this nut. But I typed it so I'm damn well posting itOriginally posted by weemcd
its still clear that a spacechip is cgi or a model, and i fear it will be some time before we can tell the difference.
Obviously this is going to be the case. If you see a death star in the sky, you know it's not real, because you've never seen anything remotely like it, because nothing remotely like it exists. Your brain says "This isn't real" and you think "This isn't real". Which is why spaceships, walking trees, and jarjar binks don't look real, because they're so foregin from anything we know exists.0 -
-
I've no problem with the underwater city sequence (mainly due to the fact that I've never seen an underwater city) and I think it looks great. My gripe is with shoddy environments that Lucas creates that are supposed to look like ones that you and I see here on earth (eg a rock face or a hill)Originally posted by ObeyGiant
In my mind, they did as much location shooting as they possibly could. The palace in Italy, and the desert in Tunisia were perfect for Naboo and Tatooine. For the rest - well, where do you suggest they go to film an underwater city in a weird air bubble on location?
I guess we'll just have to agree to differ here (do we do anything else?Originally posted by ObeyGiant
This is exactly what I've been saying, all along. Right now, directors are forced to compromise on such things. Either they have something that is EPIC and SWEEPING and COLOSSAL in its scope, or they have something that looks as realistic as possible. One is inversely proportional to the other. But the proportions are getting smaller - WETA's 'Massive' system has enabled them to create a giant battle with realistic, smart computer-controlled characters. This is only in the past year or so. Before then, large battles, such as the Clones ones were largely hand-animated. ). You're happy to trade off realism for grand scale for the time being. I on the other hand am not and would still prefer a more realistic look at the cost of scope. It's just different tastes between the two of us and we'll never convince the other that each is right.
This is NOT about suspension of disbelief. To create a level playing field here between Ep4-6 and Ep1-2 please understand that I don’t believe ANYTHING in the Star Wars universe. What I am talking about here is PHOTO REALISM and in that respect the original trilogy are STILL ahead of the two completed sequels.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
No, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of selectively suspending disbelief.
Cars aren't generally thought of as military weapons likely to come under attack tho. Show me for example a US Navy battleship with a bulls eye painted on it in bright red paint and an inscription under it saying 'aim here' and I'll accept your point.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I'm sure car manufactures are also just having a laugh by putting an 'exhaust port' on the outside of their cars which could cause the car to explode if someone fucked a proton torpedo down it.
I'm not even gonna go there. You should be ashamed of yourself for that one my good manOriginally posted by ObeyGiant
Beside that, they also make a point in the original film that this is the Empire, and that they aren't expecting an assault like the one the rebellion have in mind.
(Holy shit. If anyone I knew saw that I had written that line on the internet, I'd be disowned by my friends)
Ok maybe I'm not being totally clear here. My gripe is NOT that 'oh boo! digital is in a computer, where is the craft and the love man!?' whereas 'hey those Ewoks were played by real people in real environment that are tangible, yeay!' My gripe is that midgets dressed in suits running around a Californian forest 20 years ago STILL to this day (and I don't think even you can deny this?) look more photo-realistic than a 'droid v gungan battle' created on the latest-most-powerful-mega-computer in the modern age. THAT IS MY POINT. It's not really a suspension of disbelief issue at all. It's a pure 'what am I looking at with my own two eyes - irregardless of how it was brought to the screen' issue or how much the trade off between realism and scope is.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
And this is what I'm finding so unusual. Shocking almost. And slightly silly. Because the Ewoks appear on screen, aren't digitally created in any way, you're willing to overlook the fact that they look like midgets dressed in fur, and thus completely unbelievable (if your disbelief isn't being suspended), cheap and.. well.. slightly kinky.
To show I'm not being biased on methods - if and when digital CG technology gets SO good that ILM could actually do those Ewok sequence equally good or BETTER (in terms of photo-realism) on a computer than they were done with actual actors and locations back in 1983 then I'll be head of the queue to tell Warwick Davis and his mates to go collect their p60's and not bother me again. But until then I don't want to have to PUT UP WITH (tho you'd probably call it suspension of disbelief) miserably fake-cartoon looking environments just because George Lucas doesn't care that there's more important things than achieving his 'vision' to the last detail.
Let me make it clear that I've nothing against digital or any other form technology in itself. My primary concern is that what ends up on the screen looks photo-realistic (or at least even 90% photo-realistic). Once that is achieved go hog-wild (or as far as you're now able to) in terms of scope.
Yes, but the little difference there is that you seem to be satisfied with that finished package. I on the other hand am not.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Holy crap. Didn't I say that like five posts ago?
The mighty ObeyGiant resorting to cheap shots? Result!Originally posted by ObeyGiant (cheap shot). 0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I dunno, I just thought that was a nice analogy, and thought I'd share it with you all
Good analogy!
Obeygiant, I have to hand it to you! I think only you could go from Exorcist 3 to Musicals to CG in two steps. You're an odd fellow ... but I like it! 0 -
(almost forgot about this - time for our weekly trip down this road)
You said that "CG in the hands of George Lucas is bad" - all this based on "a few particular scenes"?I'm only picking on a few particular scenes from the prequels not EVERYTHING.
The scene you have been most critical of, the exploding buildings at the end, took almost a year to do, and was comprised of over four million different animated elements. They brought in a special, not-inexpensive camera to film the live-action shots, so they'd look right, and make it easier to merge the live-action and CG images. The guy doing the animation spent almost a month just getting the grime on the inside of the window just right. I'd say, in this case at the very least, the visuals were just as important as the idea.In the majority of FC’s cases I let that go because it’s clear that the director isn’t trying to make photo-realistic effects anyway.
There has been, so far, very little 'overlap' between the styles of the environments in the original trilogy and the new films. This is a conscious storytelling decision, and as we saw in Episode 2, he's beginning to marry the two styles together (the ships starting to look more 'worn', for example). Episode 3 will be the true litmus test of how well he has achieved this. But until then, they're pretty much chalk and cheese.Lucas on the other hand is trying to create environments that look at least as photo-realistic as the ones he created using traditional techniques in the original filmsThe technology isn’t at the level where I can go ‘WOW that was so realistic that I’m not even sure if it WAS done with a computer or not?’
Choose an opinion. Any opinion. Stick with it.I already accept that right now there IS stuff being done today and over the past few years with CG that is so close to authentic that I honestly can't tell whether it is digital or practical effects.
At the time, that was easily the greatest CG effect ever put on screen. And in my opinion, it looked incredible.If indeed it needed CG then it definitely needed BETTER CG than was employed for the movie
God forbid a director should ever take the cheapest, quickest and easiest route to achieving the necessary effect.Well it’s great to know that we’ll always have super-rich directors who’ll still go for the cheapest, quickest, and least problematic way of achieving a shot at the expense of photo-realism.
Do I really have to cover this again? I mean, you're dismissing my (and I mean this with all humility) well-thought-out, concise and fully-researched points with a simple wave of the "Whatever, dude" card. This isn't particularly fair. Oh well, let's go again, just for kicks.
Regardless of how rich Lucas is (he's not that rich), directors have always sacrificed "photo-realism" for the sake of convenience. A prime example of this would be "Rear Window", a film I watched againr ecently. Rather than shoot 'on location', Hitchcock chose to build what turned out to be the largest indoor set at the time for the view from Jeff's apartment. When we look at it now, it's plainly obvious that this is not a set that exists in the 'real world' - the forced-perspective horizon looks fake, and the whole thing has the look of being lit by artificial light. So why did he do it? Because the range of shots he needed meant that it was more convenient for him to build this enormous set over which he had complete control than to find an appropriate location to shoot, and then have to wait for the lighting to be just right for each of the shots. This meant he was able to shoot the film in a relatively painless month, instead of what could have easily amounted to a painful year of shooting.
This was almost fifty years ago.
The only difference between Lucas and Hitchcock in this context is the way in which they're choosing to sacrifice "photo-realism" for the shots they need to achieve.
Logical fallacies shall not be entertained, thank you very much.Tho if the cheap/quick equation is always gonna be the defense for shoddy CG (and it definitely is with Lucas) then how about we take that logic to it’s natural conclusion an why not just do shots with line-drawings?
Nonsense. From the start, we've been told that Yoda is an incredible Jedi, and absolutely amazing with a lightsabre. And what have we seen of Yoda so far? Well, we know that he makes a pretty cool backpack for jedis-in-training. Lucas said, a while ago (I think I have it on the 'Making Magic' cd-rom), that he wanted to show everyone what made Yoda so badass, but has been completely constrained by puppet technology, so he hasn't been able to show it. CGI allowed him to show it.It’s really irrelevant to me because I wouldn’t have done that Yoda-Dooku fight in the first place. Despite looking ridiculous in itself it’s obvious that Lucas just tacked it on at the last minute because someone in the office told him some time after Ep1 that he would be able to do so. If he had planned to do that since the beginning then he would have had complete CG Yoda in Ep1.
And regardless of your opinion of this - I know that at the screening of Episode II I was at (the first show in the Savoy on it's opening day), almost the entire cinema whooped and cheered at this part.
(For the record, I thought the Yoda puppet in Episode I was lousy).
This is one of the most ridiculous comments you have made so far. What has that got to do with the price of beans? The emperor was a real guy, and was able to demonstrate real emotions (pure evil - nothing more badass). There is only so many emotions a puppet can demonstrate when it's fundamentally just a piece of rubber over a hand (hand is open: "Awe", hand is closed: "Intense concentration"). So this in itself is yet another perfectly valid reason for using CGI.As for Yoda being badass without CG. I seem to remember the Emperor in ROTJ being quite ‘bad-ass’ without having an impressive stature, needing to be done in CG or getting involved in LightSabre Duels!
Just.. how many alien space-bars have you visited? For that matter, just how many real-life ones have you visited? A significant amount of real ones don't look a million miles away from what was being represented on screen.I fully accept that it is at its roots a kids movie. At the same time it doesn't mean that a bar has to look like something out of a McDonalds restaurant suffering a neon overdose.
Take a look at this picture :My gripe is with shoddy environments that Lucas creates that are supposed to look like ones that you and I see here on earth
Now, can you tell me with any certainty JUST FROM LOOKING whether this was an all-CG scene, or just CG-Gungans over a 'real' set?
If so - how?
Judging by your acceptance of Ewoks ('real', but looking lousy), I don't think your opinion is really all that different to mine.You're happy to trade off realism for grand scale for the time being. I on the other hand am not and would still prefer a more realistic look at the cost of scope.
But besides this, I'm saying that this is a tradeoff directors have been making for years. That you are getting so uppity about it when it comes to CG is a little silly. And to try and say that directors shouldn't use CG for this reason is a little silly.
No, it is. You just have a misunderstanding of the point I'm driving at with the suspension of disbelief thing. Let me spell it out more clearly:This is NOT about suspension of disbelief
You can see an Ewok in Return of the Jedi, and your suspension of disbelief will allow you to accept this as an alien (and not just a midget in fur). And even though they look infinitely better, more detailed, and more expressive, your suspension of disbelief will not allow you to accept that the CG creatures, sets and props in Episodes I and II are 'real', because they don't interact with the scenery properly, they don't appear to have any 'substance'.
This is what I meant by a selective suspension of disbelief.
This is now wildly off-topic, but I'll roll with it anyway.Show me for example a US Navy battleship with a bulls eye painted on it in bright red paint and an inscription under it saying 'aim here' and I'll accept your point.
Navy battleships (just like every other vehicle that relies on internal combustion) needs to vent its exhaust somewhere. These exhaust pipes are an almost direct tunnel into the most vulnerable parts of that vehicle. This is why they are kept in places that are generally hard-to-reach, well-guarded, or well-hidden. In the case of the Death Star, this was hidden in a place that only thorough examination of stolen blueprints could reveal. It was also heavily guarded, but they weren't expecting an attack from a number of small, fast and ultra-maneuverable ships. This is how they were able to breach the defenses.
They said all this in the first film.
Does the Death Star use internal combustion to move through the Galaxy? Who knows?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well, yes. That's the difference between a sweeping generalisation, and a statement of fact (or even of convincing, reasoned opinion).So it’s only ok for me to say a directors work is ‘bad’ if he has a complete abundance of unintentionally unconvincing CG work in it?
I didn't say no overlap. Hell, you even quoted me where I said "little overlap". But beyond this, what your quoting didn't include was my context, where I was explaining that there was little overlap between the environments of the original trilogy and the new films. And that this was a conscious decision.No overlap? What do you call Yoda?
Oh?Sorry, but you are wrong there.
"The technology isn’t at the level where I can go ‘WOW that was so realistic that I’m not even sure if it WAS done with a computer or not" seems to be directly contradicting "I already accept that right now there IS stuff being done today and over the past few years with CG that is so close to authentic that I honestly can't tell whether it is digital or practical effects", regardless of the "ambition" of the effect in question. This is not a question of nit-picking, this is a question of two statements that are in direct opposition to each other.
Not directly, it isn't. But it can be. This is why I compared it to the Rear Window set.That’s the thing tho. Despite popular belief CG ISN’T CHEAP!
Hitchcock built the largest soundstage set (at the time), with working plumbing, and enough lights to closely simulate real sunlight as possible. Not a cheap option. But it enabled him to slice months off actors and crew's fees, as well as countless wasted takes from some element he had no control over, ruining the shot.
Do you think Samuel L. Jackson, Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor (etc. etc.) come cheap? Having complete control over the set, and recording in stages as much as possible must have saved him millions.. Not only this, but the choice to shoot in digital saved them millions straight away.
My point isn't just that it's cheaper to go with false effects and CGI, but that it's more convenient as well.
Just like I did the Fincher discussion; we were going around in circles.You Now cut the discussion out of the thread completely
But I didn't realise you felt so bad about me not addressing your issues. I'll do so now..
I don't.I just find it strange that you can accept that the Contact scene was fudged deliberately but at the same time that there was absolutely ZERO possibility of the lip-sync in Gump being fudged also
What I can accept is that the story in Contact at least supports an idea of a false-looking environment, but this does not excuse a cheap and amatuerish-looking effect.
But the lip-sync in Forrest Gump is something they worked quite hard to achieve correctly. For example, with the John Lennon scene, they said they spent months scrutinizing John Lennon's idiosyncracies when he speaks, so they'd get it just right. But they didn't, and it's jarring. So I don't accept that this could have been "fudged".
He had to sell off a large amount of assets to raise the money to fund Episode I. This included selling off Industrial Light and Magic for a while. He's funding all of the films out of his own pocket. Not cheap, by any means. And not only that, but he even had money trouble in the late 80s, and was forced to sell off Pixar to Disney (chump).He’s a billionaire!
But even still, as I mentioned in another thread, he's not so rich that he doesn't have to bend to consumer will. The case in point being Star Wars on DVD - he insisted that Star Wars would never appear on DVD, in any form. Less than a year after its initial release, Episode I was out on DVD.
So, he's not that rich.
What I find funniest about this point is that it immediately follows a point about audiences of 49 years ago (and, it follows, 26 years ago - 1977) were less demanding, and were "more readily fooled" by special effects.I’d bet a dollar to a dime if we could hop in a time machine right now you’d find people ‘wow’d’ more at the stuff back then than they did for these two current films.
I dunno, that just made me giggle.
Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?Hey, you brought cost into the argument so you can at least defend your point!
Oh well, I guess they will be entertained.
This has little to do with "Suspension of disbelief" (it's a sci-fi fantasy kid's movie, your belief should be suspended the minute you walk in the door, or more fool you), and everything to do with "Realism" vs "Scope of Vision".
Since it's late, and I can't sleep, and I'm bored, I'm going to spell this out with some maths.sin(CG budget) x (average quality of CG effects) ------------------------------------------------ = "Realism" (people's suspension of disbelief)And"Realism" x "Scope of vision" = "Awesomeness"
Where "People's suspension of disbelief" is a constant (usually
). This means that the higher the average quality of CG effects, the better the overall realism. Also, the higher the CG budget, the better the overall realism. But as the budget gets higher, it's overall effect slows down, until it starts to collapse in on itself. Too high, and it starts to have a negative effect.
How does this tie in with Lucas?
He is trying to achieve a really high "awesome" factor. This means he's trying to have a really high "Scope of vision" value as well as a really high "Realism" value.
So far, his "scope of vision" has remained consistently high, and his "realism" has waned (although overall has increased greatly as "average quality of CG effects" has naturally increased).
I fear my late-night jaunt into frivolity will have only muddied matters, but it'll be funny to see what you take from this.
(skidding off-topic)where exactly were we told yoda was amazing with a lightsabe?
"I'm looking for a great warrior."
"If you spent as much time practicing your saber techniques as you did your wit, you'd rival Master Yoda as a swordsman."
This was the opening show. The audience was filled with the hardest-core of the hard-core fans. I doubt any of them missed out on that spoiler. And I still think it's an incredible scene.got such a big pop on premiere day was because nobody (ie non self-spoiler people) was expecting it.
My, you make a lot of assumptions, don't you.I feel the scene wasn’t needed and perhaps in years to come when this whole saga is resolved more people will see that.
Well, forgive me one of my own. I believe that as well as amplifying the climax of a film largely filled with exposition, the Yoda-Dooku fight may also possibly be laying the ground-work for another, more heated battle in Episode III - perhaps Yoda going head-to-head with Darth Vader. There's a fair amount of evidence to back this up - not just the old rule of editing that you cut everything that doesn't drive the story forward in some way. Since we've got an unknown in the equation, it's hard to say that this doesn't drive the story in Episode III. It's extremely unlikely that Lucas would simply throw it in "because he could".
I like the way you're trying to weasel around the points I'm making, by adding the words "physically" and "body-wise" to your original points, so as to have to avoid agreeing with me outright.My point is that the Emperor character in ROTJ did NOTHING physically (body-wise that is) that couldn’t have been done with a puppet and yet he came off as a dangerous ‘badass’ character in that movie.
True enough, the Emperor didn't do anything particularly spectacular. No fantastic leaps through the air, or anything like that. But as I said before, he had the ability to convey emotion (hatred, anger), and this is what made him so badass. Hell, even the lightning shooting out of his fingers didn't really look all that great, but we didn't care, because he looked so damn mean.
Now let's directly compare this to Yoda's line to Luke in Empire, after Luke says he isn't afraid - "You will be. You.. will be". This is supposed to be a pretty tense moment, foreshadowing all that's going to happen to Luke. And Frank Oz' voice-acting is amazing, and does a really good job of this. But turn the sound off for a while and watch that scene again. What we have is a puppet whose face scrunches, and says the words "Ba ba ba. Ba.. ba ba".
I have no doubt the choice to move to a fully-CG Yoda was motivated by the fact that one of their main characters had an intensely limited range of emotional expresions.
Plus, there's the fact that, as leader of the Jedi Council (he is, right?), he would need to be on the front-line of the Jedi battle, and not just sitting on his ass, and walking behind tables and stuff as he was in his first couple of appearances.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Doesn't this go some way to helping achieve "realism"? For example, to go back to your favourite subject, in the case of the Ewoks, my suspension of disbelief kicks in, and I can say "These don't look wrong, these look like real aliens". I dunno, maybe we should just never speak of Ewoks againIt simply means that you are choosing to ignore those visual elements that your brain is telling you are wrong.
Well, if you really want to take a maths equation whose end result is "awesomeness" (is there such a word) seriously, I should point out that the there is absolutely no way "Realism" can be zero, since the films obviously had a special effects budget, the average quality of which is okay (if, in your estimation, a little low from the "few particular scenes" you don't like), and I've already given that people's suspension of disbelief is a constant (usually).So, as such, you’ve unintentionally summed up my entire case for realism in one line of maths!
How else would you expect a "warrior" to kick ass? I'll come back to this shortly...Note that still doesn’t say anything about light-sabre ability.
So you do know what generalisations look like. So how come you keep trying to pass yours off as something else?With regard to ‘all hard-core’ fans knowing it was coming I think that is a quite a generalisation on your part.
Just kidding. In truth, my original post had a smiley in the sentence, to point out that I was joking. But Firebird crapped out before I got a chance to post it. Oh well.
We are talking about the difference between a two-second distraction, and a three-minute action sequence. And as much as I dislike the scenes in Tatooine, I can understand why they are there - to make Mos Eisley look like a bustling metropolis. Had I not grown up on 'classic' Star Wars, I'd probably have no problem with these scenes, but to someone who's used to the pacing of the original scenes in the movie, they just don't fit.Why not? Don’t you remember the BigDroid-LittleDroid and the Rontosaurus-Speeder Tatooine inserts in Ep4 Special Edition that you disliked so much?
If you're going to call the Yoda-Dooku scene a "cheap laugh", then it would have been the most expensive cheap laugh of them all, considering it required an entire refit of the Yoda character, and a whole lot of extra shooting and effort to achieve. Would have been much cheaper to just leave it out.
This all adds up to why exactly I think this will have played a role establishing something for the next film.
Regardless of all of this, the fact is that this scene was written when they were still planning on using a live-action Yoda for the fighting. You can see confirm this for yourself in one of the doucmentaries on the Episode II DVD.
Please do, I'm all ears.I could equally argue that ‘BigDroid-LittleDroid’ will be pivotal characters in ‘Episode 7’
True, but there is at least some evidence to assert what I said - we know that somewhere in the next film, the Jedi get wiped out. What do you think Yoda will be doing through all this? Hiding? Or sitting behind a table, where noone can see the puppeteer? I think it was important to establish, that Yoda could kick a lot of ass in this film, rather than in the third film. Imagine the shock you felt when you they'd given R2-D2 a jet pack multiplied by a gazillion.Doesn’t make any of what you say any truer though.
Jeez. I ask forgiveness for ONE assumption, considering you've been making them left, right, and centre, and you eat the head off me.
You mean the three he was actually in (two if you don't count the one where he turns up just to die, (one if you don't count the one where he spends half his screen-time pretending not to be himself))?The four films prior to Ep2 didn’t make any direct references to Yoda being a light-sabre expert
Well - we're told he's the ultimate Jedi master. He trained Obi-Wan. He survived the Clone Wars. We're told he's a great warrior. If he wasn't at least kick-ass with a light-saber, then he'd have to be pretty good with something. Do you suggest he just jedi mind-tricks the shit out of everyone instead?
This patently absurd. As a puppet, his range of emotion is extremely limited - he could express mild disappointment (same facial expression as mild anger), and mild surprise. This is not something you even have to see much of to know, the mechanics of the thing just dictate that it has a limited range of emotion.. all the emotion is being conveyed by a hand in a sock of latex - it has the same range of emotions as Kermit the Frog. Seriously. As an experiment, hold your fingers together, and touch your thumb off them. Now try and convey a wide range of emotions with this.The puppet Yoda from the earlier movies DID have the ability to convey his thoughts, power and emotion
This worked fine for Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, when all he was required to do was convey mild disappointment, mild anger and mild surprise. But this was not enough for Episode II (or, I'm going to assume (can I?) III). "Jedi being wiped out, there are. Mildly disappointed am I". Balls to that.
We saw so little of Yoda in Ep1, a full-CG Yoda wouldn't have been necessary. In Episode 2, we have the Jedi going to war - Yoda, as leader of the Jedi council, was definitely going to be needed a lot more.Clearly that wasn’t the reason or a CG Yoda would also have been employed for Ep1.
Interestingly enough, the Yoda puppet in Ep1 took more criticism than the CG Yoda in Ep2. Mainly because they tried too hard to make him look "younger", but even still..0 -
Once again, whose story is it? Yours or Lucas'? Leave the storytelling to Lucas, and the military planning to Sun Tzu. Argue about CGI here.In that respect it wasn’t necessary to have Yoda there either purely from a logical POV either.
The picture was posted because you were complaining that the environments Lucas creates "that are supposed to look like ones that you and I see here on earth" look "shoddy", and I quoted as saying this - I figured a tree (with a stone head) fit this bill perfectly.but that still doesn't invalidate anything I've said so far due to the facts that for one thing I've never said that EVERYTHING CG in the prequels is unsatisfactory to the degree of the BIG 3 and for another thing since the beginning I’ve been focusing on three particular sequences – to which your example does not belong
Well, it in itself doesn't really prove much. But the fact that you said the tree "definitely doesn't look.. 'non-CG'" goes some way to proving my ever-growing theory that you're rocking some kind of luddite vibe.Furthermore, all you’ve done there anyway is prove that an unrealistic looking miniature tree can look like unrealistic CG tree. So what? Does that therefore make it look as REALISTIC as I want it? The answer is NO!
And, strangely enough, I'm a pasty, socially mal-adjusted guy (I prefer 'misanthrope') who works in I.T. In an office, no less. For real.an image of that pasty socially maladjusted I.T. guy from series2 of ‘THE OFFICE’
I'm sorry.. once again, the late night got to me last night. When I said "but in the sense of their stories, this isn't as important as conveying the vision they have in their heads", I actually meant that "this isn't as important (to them) as conveying the vision they have in their heads". I remember that, at some stage in the commentary on Episode II, Lucas praises the CG for being able to give him the dynamic canvas he wanted in order to portray his vision. This is almost a direct quote.I don’t agree that realism should be sacrificed at the expense of vision
Once again, this comparison is wholly unfair, since the CG droids are small, wirey things, and are obviously either real robots (not likely, even to a kid), or CG. Perhaps a better comparison would be to put an Ewok and a Clone Trooper side-by-side and asking the same question.The test is simply to show clips of a CG droid and an Ewok to a little kid (who after all is more likely to NATURALLY believe what he sees compared to you or I) and then ask him which looks more realistic.
Yes. This is exactly what I've been talking about all along. I've been saying it for three (long) pages now. Do I seem like I'm losing it now? I am. I'm losing it now. I've been saying for three pages that Lucas (like so many other directors telling similar epic, fantasy stories (Peter Jackson, I'm looking at you)) is more interested in achieving the vision than achieving an astounding level of realism. This is not to say that, for Lucas, realism is out the window - just that he is willing to accept a lower level of realism, if it means he gets the opportunity to show the film that he's had in his head. He'd rather his pizza 12", thin and crispy than 9" deep pan. I don't know how many more ways to make this clear - three pages and it's still not sunk in.Yes but what your talking about there is mainly concerned with completing the ‘vision’ rather than improving the ‘realism’
I don't think that's particularly fair on Lucas. When he wrote the original Star Wars movie, he (apparently) had everything already planned out, and in his head. When it came time to shoot his original three movies, budget and technology forced him to make some sacrifices to the vision he had in his head.As far as he is concerned it’s all about ‘bang per buck’ and ‘how much stuff can I throw up on the screen there’
Everything we see in Episodes 1 and 2 has already been seen by Lucas in his head. So I don't think there's too much wanton bang-for-bucks going on.
You are talking as if Lucas has completely abandoned the idea of practical effects. He hasn't. He is still using the best practical tech of the day in his films, but now he's combining it with the best CG tech of the day to help him achieve his vision. The perfect example of this is Yoda - he used traditional modelling techniques when it was possible, but when he needed more than the practical could provide (the fight scene with Dooku, actual acting) - he made the switch.and with the best practical tech of the day
So far, your suggestion for how he could have achieved this vision without CG has been to "cut that scene out", and "it needed BETTER CG". This doesn't very much to me like achieving a vision.
And whose movie would I rather see? His, or yours?
It is ridiculous to think that this compromise hasn't already occurred throughout the two prequels.I’d still prefer a shot where the photo-realism of it was 90%+ even if it meant the director could now only maybe achieve 80% of the scope and vision he originally desired.
Absolutely ridiculous.
So far, you've been very reluctant to comment on Peter Jackson, or Lord of the Rings. Personally speaking, I think that for the most part, WETA digital have done a spectacular job on the two films (especially the Battle at Helm's Deep), easily achieving a depth of realism that at least takes them to the magic 90%:90% ratio you mentioned above.When CG can manage a deliver a score of 90%:90% (or 90%:100% of course) for even the most ambitious stuff Lucas (or anyone else) can possibly demand of it then I’ll throw a party but until that day I don’t think CG should be excused for it’s low realism in the more ambitious shots just because it can push the boundaries of scope and vision.
What do you think?
(as a side-note.. I had a dream last night that Draco came along and deleted all of our comments. I remember thinking "That's fair enough, probably deserved it")0
Advertisement