what are your thoughts of CGI?

Crash

one of the things you have to remember when taking LOTR as an example is that a lot of CGI was expected, as its a fantasy world that wasnt going to be possible without it. people knew this and people are much readier to accept it. I dont mean to say they didnt do amazing work (they did) but the thing with other films such as Reloaded was after the original matrix they would have hit a creative barrier. they brought Bullet time to the big screen to such an extent that people were amazed, but where to go from there? and their only choice was CGI.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
If Lucas wants to spend the next decade getting the look of a grassy field or a desert cavern right then let him do it in private. He didn't have to go ruin two potentially good looking film sequences in his quest to be a pioneer.

Personally, I thought that the landscapes in the two new Star Wars films were beautiful examples of CG done well, and it was the characters that let it down slightly (but certainly didn't 'ruin' the sequences, no more than the dodgy character animation in the Mines of Moria ruined that sequence in Fellowship of the Rings).

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
So by that we should put up with inferior looking cartoonish movies for the next decade until they eventually get it right? I guess as far as George Lucas is concerned the answer is a resounding YES!

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).

I guess we're both basically reading from the same page. I've been saying all along that, like any new technology, CG is being used wantonly, especially now that we're reaching the stage where anything is possible with CG. Directors are having to learn restraint when it comes to applying this in their films. 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.

I just wish he wouldn't live by the mantra of "Let's fix it in post-production".

Oswald Osbourne

Originally 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).

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 lot

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Directors are having to learn restraint when it comes to applying this in their films.

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
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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I just wish he wouldn't live by the mantra of "Let's fix it in post-production".

Hear Hear! Lucas won't be happy until the day he can create the entire movie from the comfort of his editing room chair!

ObeyGiant

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.

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).

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.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
My initial point was that some didn't have to learn (eg Zemeckis and Cameron)!.

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
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.

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 **** Greedo shooting first.

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.

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.

On the whole, weighing everything up, I'd say the new films are an improvement

lodgepole

it is undeniable that none of the CG stuff in the prequels even matches the actual filmed interior stuff

I'll deny that...

Why do all effects need to look realistic? Especially in the realm of science fiction... The effects in both Star Wars prequels are amazing. The films have also brought forward film making technology leaps and bounds, all out of George Lucas's own pocket.

I'm glad there are people out there pushing effects... They might not always work but without them, the art of special effects couldn't move forward.

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.

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.

Oswald Osbourne

Originally posted by Lodgepole
I'll deny that...

You're disagreeing with it, but not denying it as your very next sentences suggests ....

Originally posted by Lodgepole
Why do all effects need to look realistic?

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

Examples please? I though he used great restraint in that film.

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).

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
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.

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
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.

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.

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.

Originally 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.

It's Coruscant 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.

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.

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
On the whole, weighing everything up, I'd say the new films are an improvement

Spoken like a true Corinthian

lodgepole

I get your point a lot better now...

But... My comment on effects not having to look realistic didn't refer to my first statement at all. I'll stand by my opinion that the CG sets in the Star Wars prequels are technically flawless.

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.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
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.

I don't see what your grievance is here. You've already admitted that you were completely fooled by the refrigerator scene, so 'fake' is not always 'fake'. The CG in the furni scene is pretty much flawless, it's just being used to present such an abstract image that it's obviously a computer effect. Same with the sex scene in Fight Club. This was the point I was originally making.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
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.

Again, exactly the point I was trying to make - I was presenting Fincher as an example of a director who had once wielded CG effects as a tool to help enhance his movie and next going Absolutely Hog Wild with it.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
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!

Once again, we have to go back to looking at Episodes IV-VI.
At the time they were being made, the majority of the effects were the result of experimentation, since there was absolutely no technique available to realistically create, for example, a realistic space dogfight sequence. Looking back on them now after twenty-odd years, we can see the wires, we can see the outlines from the blue screen, we can see the jerky stop-motion animation. But to most people, these faults don't matter. I'm sure that in twenty years time, the computer effects in episodes I-III will look just as 'quaint'.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Films like Titanic

With some awful, VideoToaster-like effects...

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Forrest Gump

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.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Contact

Jodie Foster in front of a green-screen, with GenericAlienWorldB.max going on behind her? No.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Cast Away

Cast Away had some nice nature effects, sure. But to call it "CG-abundant" is stretching it a little.

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
But bizarrly I find the CG update shots the original trilogy to be quite acceptable and better than many of those in the prequels.

Since the CG in the new films is quantifiably better than the CG in the 'Special Editions', I'm beginning to believe your problems actually lie in the story of the new movies. It seems you are willing to overlook the shortcomings in the updates because you love the story of Episodes IV-VI, but not willing to forgive the same of Episodes I-III.

But personally, I don't like much of the CG in the 'Special Editions', even though it does a good job of mixing the wide-open expanses of the new films with the budget-confined stage-sets of the original movies. I think that a lot of the actual computer graphics in them are very hokey (such as the extra shots of Luke's landspeeder).

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
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.

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.

As I said before, the sets in Episodes I-III feel like small, claustrophobic, enclosed sound-stages. Think about what we see of the Death Star in Episode IV - a few corridors (which are actually the same corridor, redressed), a garbage disposal room, and a portion of what is hinted at to be a reasonably large hangar. This goes, in no way, to properly representing the 'small moon' it's supposed to be. This was addressed in the later films with some matte paintings, in which at least 80% of the scene is completely 'still'.

And once again, this is something that Lucas was unhappy with, and tried to address with CG in the Special Editions - now, instead of "Hey, we're going to cloud city. Hey, we're in Cloud city - Hi Lando!", we get five minutes of the Millenium Falcon swooping in and around a vast, impressive city in the clouds.

Which, thankfully, segues neatly back to the original point that was being made for the case of CG - it allows the director a greater 'scope' for their vision. They're no longer limited by what shots they can grab from around them (location scouting, arranging the set, and shooting the scene - these are all expensive). Instead, they're able to get exactly the vision they have in their mind.

I still think Lucas was completely right to choose the route he did. Regardless of whether or not the CG at the end of Episode II 'feels' less realistic to you (it 'feels' just fine to me), I think it's a fair tradeoff between the depth and width of what is on show. 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.

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.

angelofdeath

cg works well when you can forget that it is cg ie gollum is obviously cg but its so amazingly lifelike (in a small psychotic monster type way) that you can just sit back and forget that its computer generated, but 99percent of the time you notice cg it looks fake and it leaves a bitter taste after seeing the film, ie neo in the last two matrix films(in the first one the cg is barely noticably)

Oswald Osbourne

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!

CyberGhost

Oswald lol!

Oswald Osbourne

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.

Perhaps

Originally 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.

ObeyGiant

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.

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.

I know, I was agreeing with you there. Not everything has to be an argument OG.

I know - I was just making absolutely double-certain we were reading from the same page.

I have a pre-Special edition Trilogy and you can't see 'wires' in the space battles.

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.

I don’t remember any blue-screen outlines

The battles on Hoth are the most potent offenders of this.

as for the stop-motion stuff I didn't think that looked jerky either ... The Rancor / Tauntaun characters had reasonably fluid movements

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.

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 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.
This is my problem with Titanic. It goes beyond simple 'fashion'.

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.

This is a joke, right? You're not honestly using this as some sort of defence? ...

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.

And again..
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.

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.

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.

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.

How am I not making sense?

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.

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.

Your argument is that the CG has given the director the opportunity to fully create his visions and therefore it should be used

I'm saying it should be used where it's needed. When practical effects are.. well.. no longer practical. Which brings me to...

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

Eek!
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?

judging by these last two films he’s either has a very abstract cartoonish imagination …. or he should have waited another 10 years.

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?

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 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).

It was no more/less impressive that the LandSpeeder stuff in the Star Wars SE yet you didn’t seem to like that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

vibe666

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.

the Pixar stuff is great though. hours of entertainment.

to reiterate a point earlier though, I think it doesn't matter too much when you are looking at something you have no point of reference for such as dinosaurs, monsters, aliens, orc's etc. but you know exactly what people look like, and exactly how they move, and if a CGI company is trying to make you believe something is real that isn't, if it's something you have no real point of reference for, then it's (most likely) going to come off looking better.

Also, I seemt o remember from a 'making of' of Ep.1 that there was actually a guy in a Jar Jar suit for a lot of the shots so the other actors had a point of reference during his scenes. If I remember rightly, it was actually the guy who did the voice in the suit anyway just saying his lines as normal, and they just CGI'd Jar Jar over the top of him for all the shots.

sad really, because personally, I think he would have come off a lot better if they'd just scrubbed the guys face out and animated those big rubbery lips it would have come off a lot better than it did. again, George taking CGI waay too far than it should have been. the old 'we'll fix it in post production' excuse as was mentioned earlier.

hope he's learning from his mistakes and listening to the fans rather than his bank manager who's probably saying 'you're making money, just keep doing it the way you are!'.

for a good low budget star wars fan movie, that was done a few years back (most of you have probably seen it, but it's well worth a second look) is TROOPS. a piss take of Cops, from the perspective of Storm Troopers. I always knew those Storm Troopers got a bad rap!

lodgepole

Originally posted by vibe666
Also, I seemt o remember from a 'making of' of Ep.1 that there was actually a guy in a Jar Jar suit for a lot of the shots so the other actors had a point of reference during his scenes. If I remember rightly, it was actually the guy who did the voice in the suit anyway just saying his lines as normal, and they just CGI'd Jar Jar over the top of him for all the shots.

sad really, because personally, I think he would have come off a lot better if they'd just scrubbed the guys face out and animated those big rubbery lips it would have come off a lot better than it did. again, George taking CGI waay too far than it should have been. the old 'we'll fix it in post production' excuse as was mentioned earlier.

There were two reasons for him to be there, one was as a reference point for both the actors and the animators and the other was because nobody was sure if they could pull of a completely CG character and sustain it for a full film. It was always the intention of Lucas to do him completely digitally, but he needed to have a fall back if it didn't work.

The DVD has footage where they just replaced the head and it doesn't look as good as the fully CG version.

Tazzle

The dog in there's something about mary was cg, apparently ben stiller was terrified of doing it with a trained one, i'd never have noticed.

Venom

Originally posted by CyberGhost
do you like it?

i personally think that it made movies look like 3D cartoons, and i don't really like it much, like in Die another day, when Bond is surfing on the waves with a parachute, you can clearly see that it's a CGI and it makes movie look bad! in T3 the terminators are CGI and they look bad!

CGI is great when used correctly and bad when used just for the sake of it. The surfing scene in Die Another Day tho, was the worst CGI sequence I think Iv ever seen. It was dreadful and didnt stick out like a sore tumb more like a headbutt to the face of the viewer in how it leapt out. The interview with the artist who did the sequence is unreal as she really thinks its an amazing CGI effect!

Fence

I think the problem with CGI is when it is overused at the expense of the film. The story and characters are more important than whether or not the effects are perfect imo, and you can have a very enjoyable film with poor CGI but great plot and charcter development. It is very rare that anyone will love a film that has a going nowhere story and characters no one cares about, despite how great it all looks.

That said for a really great film you need everything to be almost perfect. Characters, story, actors, CGI, scenery, camera-work, editing direction. After all a film is a mixture of all these different elements.

Cya
Fence

Retr0gamer

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

CyberGhost

she really thinks its an amazing CGI effect!

wait!, a woman did that?(CGI work)

Oswald Osbourne

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.

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
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.

No it’s not awful, just shows you care .

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.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
The battles on Hoth are the most potent offenders of this.

Yes, you’re right there! Upon review, I’ll accept there’s some bad lines on the speeders.

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.

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
This is a joke, right? You're not honestly using this as some sort of defence? ...

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.

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

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.

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
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.

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 saying it should be used where it's needed. When practical effects are.. well.. no longer practical. Which brings me to...

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 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 did Absolutely.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Oswald Osbourne

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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.

I am applying the same standards to the originals. Ok we could go case by case comparisons on this until the end of time but just for argument compare the interiors of the Millenium Falcon to that of Neubian ship or Compare the ice-station in ESB to Amidala’s Coruscant apartment in Ep2. If you honestly believe that the latter(s) looks more or even equally realistic then I just give up.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Regardless of the fact that these are 'real things' and give the film a certain tactile 'feel', they looked cheap, and largly unsuitable.

Well it’s a bad day when people are disregarding things in films (even in sci-fi) that actually mirror reality.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
And this isn't even taking into account the lousy Cantina scene! Oh boy!.

Well it beat that pathetic rehash they did in the nightclub scene in Ep2. That was just embarrassing! Despite looking like something out of ‘bladerunner-for-kids’ the environment created absolutely tone or atmosphere for the scene. At least the canteen in Ep4 looked like it could possibly be a real desert pub with a sense of impending danger.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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).

First off the reason Amidala’s palace look so good because to start off with (and like you said already) it wasn’t a set (or at least wasn’t my definition of a set i.e. something constructed on a sound stage rather than just a dressed up real world location). Therefore Lucas doesn’t get much credit for that. Perhaps if they had done more location filming then it all mightn’t have been so bad but the palace stuff was exception rather than the rule.

For REALLY bad examples of the kind I’m referring to check out in Ep1
1) The interior areas of the silver Neubian (sp?) ship - especially the room where Amidala is introduced to R2D2
2) The Jedi Council Room

These sets are just terrible and if one were given a still photo of them (never mind video footage) you’d already have marked them as less realistic than ANYTHING staged in the original movies.

Anyway, I think we can let this sets stuff go because it’s not really related to the thread subject anyway and is just sidetracking everything. You think the new sets are ok, I don’t. End of story.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant 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.

I’m not for a second denying it looked ‘fantastic’. What I’m saying is that it didn’t look even slightly realistic. As for a ‘very few’ unrealistic effects I found EVERYTHING from the location itself, to those three wild beasts to the clone army to be completely unconvincing. And as it that wasn’t bad it enough just to make it even worse they decided to interact real life actors with the cartoon environment into just to further highlight its shortcomings. The whole sequence was like watching ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit Part II’ only I wasn’t amused this time round.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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.

Now it’s you who are taking it too seriously. Bare in mind this is the ‘empire’ that previously built a 100 mile wide space-station that could disintegrate an entire planet ….. and then just for a laugh put an target on it’s surface that when shot at will destroy the entire construction in a second!

Is that any less ridiculous than a bunch of furry cavemen with spears beating a group of inept soldiers? I certainly don’t think so, and even if it is then that not what’s at issue anyway. You see I’m not bothered in the slightest with how plausible situations or characters are in the SW movies are. All I care about is ‘visually does what I am seeing look even remotely real to me?’ In the case of a lot (not all mind you!) of the CG in the prequels the answer is ‘NO’.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Accepting one and complaining about the other is just absolute nonsense.

First off you’re taking it out of context. I never compared Droid soldiers and Ewoks from the point of view of being believable characters or acting in a believable ways. What I am saying is that an Ewok (despite just being a guy in a suit) LOOKS more realistic than a droid army soldier created on a computer. Simple as that.

Here's the only way I can demonstrate it to you that you might understand

Q) Do I know and accept that an Ewok is really a just guy in a suit? A) YES.

Q) Likewise, do I know that the Droid Army is really CG? A) Yes

Q) Does an Ewok (despite 'just' being a guy in a suit) still look like something real and tangible that I as a human being with two eyes and a brain can connect to on even the most basic physical level? A) Yes.

Q) Likewise, does the Droid Army done with the latest CG and placed in a completely artificial environment look like something real and tangible? A) NO, not even for 1/24th of a second.

So that what I meant when I said ‘at least a midget in fur looks like a midget in fur’. It’s nothing to do with excusing one thing and being intolerant to the other. If you can make an Ewok with CG that looks as real as ‘a guy in a suit’ then I’ll be all for it, but until you can then don’t bother with CG.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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?

I do give all the SW movies a wide berth when it comes to realism, but that’s only from a storyline point of view! I still expect a tree to look like a real tree and a rock to look like a rock in that respect I just find that with the new movies that they just look ‘too fake’ to be forgiven purely on a technical level.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You'll enjoy them more that way. I promise.

Trust me, I won’t. And I know that because I’ve tried it.

Ep1+2 (on a storyline level) are just two empty shells of films filled with charm-less characters, boring villains and absolutely no reason to care about what happens to anyone or anything in them. So despite what I’ve said on this thread the CGI action sequences in Ep1+2 are actually the ONLY redeeming features of the prequels possess. So in that respect I commend them.

That said my problem with the sequences is that they have traded realism for IMPACT and then when it comes time to hear from Obi-wan and the others again nothing ‘visually’ matches. It’s like Kill Bill where they go from the real life sequence to the animated chapter and back again – only less drastic, more often and completely unintentional. Even the original trilogy (using its archaic techniques of the day) didn’t suffer this problem as badly as the prequels do!

Perhaps I'm am indeed judging the SW prequels unfairly because of the existence of the original trilogy but at the same time I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected that the 3 new films should have looked at least AS believable as the first 3 movies (which are after all all over 20 years old at this point). The fact that they do not even achieve this is unforgivable as far as I’m concerned.

ObeyGiant

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)

These are things I have been aware of since a pretty early age. I guess you could say that I've been a pedant since birth, but I'd say you were being unfair. I haven't seen the original Star Wars in a couple of years, and I don't even know if I've still got a copy of the original trilogy lying around (no point checking the 'special editions'). If I find it, I'll hunt it out. I'm pretty sure the one I was referring to was a Y-Wing whose main chassis swings up, and the engines follow in an arc. When they are just reaching the peak of this arc, you can see the wires. Like I said, I'll find the details of this.

But in the meantime, there's also the shot of the Millenium Falcon entering the Death Star Hangar. If you take a look just below the Falcon as it's passing through the glow ring, you can see that there's a hard shadow in the glow right under the Falcon. Right where the rod holding the model up was. Not quite a wire, but close enough.

Yes, you’re right there! Upon review, I’ll accept there’s some bad lines on the speeders

And of course, the see-through cockpit of the speeder. Nasty.

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.

You've rejected the new films for less...

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.

You're saying that god-knows-how-many people worked god-knows-how-many man-hours for an effect to look deliberately lousy and jarring?

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?

I think you've got my opinion of the CG in Fight Club mixed up. I think that almost all of the CG in Fight Club is incredible. Even the buildings blowing up at the end. The problem is that they're mostly used to present abstract ideas (such as the idea of Edward Norton walking through a furniture catalogue), which automatically convinces your mind you aren't seeing something real.

Although the scene at the end of Contact was certainly 'abstract', and could be excused with a wave of the "that cheap look is intentional, it suits the ideas being portrayed", my point still stands that it looks like dated, cheap CG.

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.

I like the x-wing approach sequence. I was blown away by the fact you could make out some of the pilots working away at the controls on their cockpits. But I'd go easy on the "amazingly", since you're comparing a shot of a bunch of space ships (easy to model, animate and make look realistic), to a large battle sequence featuring a large number of animated humanoid creatures (hard to model, animate and make look realistic).

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?’

It is.
You said earlier that you didn't know the Fight Club refrigerator scene was CG.
Q.E.D.

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

Indulge me, and look at this from Lucas' point of view.
He has had an epic story in mind for.. over 30 years now. When it finally came time to film this vision, he had to compromise at every turn. Famously, the crappy cantina sequence. Or Sy Snootles (A singer with 2, count 'em, TWO lip positions). I think he's had enough of compromising the scale of his vision, and is instead willing to sacrifice a little realism (although, being a fantasy adventure, you could argue this isn't a major thing) to achieve it.

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.

There were 10,000 people.

Exactly the same build, size and characteristic movements.

In one shot.

Yes, CG was needed.

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

Roughly how many stormtroopers did we see at one time in Episode IV? Twenty? Maybe. The only time we saw more than this was when we saw rows and rows of static stormtroopers. Which looked.. well.. uninspiring.

There is more to conveying the idea of 10,000+ characters in a scene at one time than just simple trick photography. CG was easily the cheapest, quickest, and least problematic way of achieving 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.

For the sake of clarity, let's remind ourselves of the fact that in Episode 1, Yoda was still a puppet.
Which would bring us onto Episode 2.
Can you remind me again how you would film a shot of Yoda in a light-sabre battle without resorting to computer graphics? Bear in mind that this means you would either not have to show Yoda's bottom half, or have anything go above him (depending if you went for the traditional muppet yoda, or string puppet).

Bonus points if you can do this and successfully convince me that he's the badass little jedi we've been told about for three films.

Well it beat that pathetic rehash they did in the nightclub scene in Ep2. That was just embarrassing! Despite looking like something out of ‘bladerunner-for-kids’ the environment created absolutely tone or atmosphere for the scene. At least the canteen in Ep4 looked like it could possibly be a real desert pub with a sense of impending danger.

You sound indignant that Lucas dared to target this bar for kids. I'm sorry, I thought I was watching a kid's film.

Regardless of the 'tone' or 'atmosphere' (or lack of it), there was little actual CG inside the club. Most of the 'aliens' were models.

quote:Originally posted by ObeyGiant
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).

Therefore Lucas doesn’t get much credit for that.

He just can't win with you, can he? He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he don't.

Perhaps if they had done more location filming then it all mightn’t have been so bad but the palace stuff was exception rather than the rule.

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’m not for a second denying it looked ‘fantastic’. What I’m saying is that it didn’t look even slightly realistic. As for a ‘very few’ unrealistic effects I found EVERYTHING from the location itself, to those three wild beasts to the clone army to be completely unconvincing.

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.

ObeyGiant

Now it’s you who are taking it too seriously.

No, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of selectively suspending disbelief.

Bare in mind this is the ‘empire’ that previously built a 100 mile wide space-station that could disintegrate an entire planet ….. and then just for a laugh put an target on it’s surface that when shot at will destroy the entire construction in a second!

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.

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 ****. If anyone I knew saw that I had written that line on the internet, I'd be disowned by my friends)

Is that any less ridiculous than a bunch of furry cavemen with spears beating a group of inept soldiers?

Once again, I have absolutely no problem with the Ewok sequence. I was just demonstrating what selectively suspending disbelief can lead to.

All I care about is ‘visually does what I am seeing look even remotely real to me?’

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.

But the fact that you're willing to suspend this disbelief for one, and not the other is appalling, bordering on negative bias.

Although you talk about the difference between "plausibility" and "tangibility", these are both moot when we're talking about suspension of disbelief.

Did you have as much trouble with the battle at Helm's Deep in Two Towers? If so, why? If not, why not?

I still expect a tree to look like a real tree and a rock to look like a rock

.. and a guy in a cheap costume to look like a guy in a cheap costume ...

(cheap shot).

Ep1+2 (on a storyline level) are just two empty shells of films filled with charm-less characters, boring villains and absolutely no reason to care about what happens to anyone or anything in them. So despite what I’ve said on this thread the CGI action sequences in Ep1+2 are actually the ONLY redeeming features of the prequels possess. So in that respect I commend them.

Holy crap. Didn't I say that like five posts ago?

ObeyGiant

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

pauldeehan

I don't mind CGI so long as it's there as a tool to further the story. Even noticeably bad CGI will not ruin a film for me as long as the film itself is good (eg Army Of Darkness).

I think there's a balance to be struck. If I see endless shiny surfaces and loads of people with no shadows I start to get bored.

BTW, best Werewolves I ever saw, in Dog Soldiers, were men in rubber suits.

Civilian_Target

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 it

---

Originally 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.

Oswald Osbourne

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You've rejected the new films for less...

No, I rejected the ‘films’ because they are boring and lifeless. The CG I reject purely on a case-by-case basis (just like I would any scene in the original movies that displease me technically) and in fairness from the start I've made the point that I'm only picking on a few particular scenes from the prequels not EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I think you've got my opinion of the CG in Fight Club mixed up. I think that almost all of the CG in Fight Club is incredible. Even the buildings blowing up at the end. The problem is that they're mostly used to present abstract ideas (such as the idea of Edward Norton walking through a furniture catalogue), which automatically convinces your mind you aren't seeing something real.

Ok, fair enough but that's a difference I'm trying to highlight. The abstract stuff in FC amazes me also .... but at the same I don't think it looks real. 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. The idea is more important than the visuals.

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 films and in that respect he has failed to match even the (already less than 100%) realism in the originals.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You're saying that god-knows-how-many people worked god-knows-how-many man-hours for an effect to look deliberately lousy and jarring?

Although the scene at the end of Contact was certainly 'abstract', and could be excused with a wave of the "that cheap look is intentional, it suits the ideas being portrayed", my point still stands that it looks like dated, cheap CG.

Hey that's fair enough. I never said it was spectacular or anything. 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 even tho it was by the same director? After all for Contact (just like in Gump where 'god-knows-how-many people worked god-knows-how-many man-hours for an effect') some guy(s) had to sit in a room in front of a computer for weeks on end in order to create that alien landscape - just for Zemeckis to eventually come out and say on the DVD that 'oh well we always wanted that to look crap' (or words to that effect).

Whilst I'm sure the effects artist who did the shot itself won't be telling that story to his grandchildren it doesn't mean that it never happened on that occasion (or before or since to people working under Zemeckis on different projects).

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You said earlier that you didn't know the Fight Club refrigerator scene was CG.
Q.E.D.

Actually it's Q.E.Don't! That 'WOW that was so realistic' comment was aimed purely at George Lucas's use of CG in the SW prequels, not at ALL CG in general. As the Fridge scene from Fight Club and lots of stuff by other directors demonstrates (eg my example of Cameron / Zemeckis) 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. My point here is that a good portion of Lucas's work doesn't fall under that umbrella of achievement. If you go back to my first post on this thread you will see I have nothing against CG, merely against those who use it badly.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Indulge me, and look at this from Lucas' point of view.
He has had an epic story in mind for.. over 30 years now. When it finally came time to film this vision, he had to compromise at every turn. Famously, the crappy cantina sequence. Or Sy Snootles (A singer with 2, count 'em, TWO lip positions). I think he's had enough of compromising the scale of his vision, and is instead willing to sacrifice a little realism (although, being a fantasy adventure, you could argue this isn't a major thing) to achieve it.

Hey, let him do whatever he likes. It's his money and his movie. Doesn't mean I have to like it, respect him for it or, accept his work as being anything other than what it is.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
There were 10,000 people.
Exactly the same build, size and characteristic movements.
In one shot.
Yes, CG was needed.

If indeed it needed CG then it definitely needed BETTER CG than was employed for the movie. Perhaps in 20 years when he releases Attack of the Clones Special Edition and you'll see what I mean.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Roughly how many stormtroopers did we see at one time in Episode IV? Twenty? Maybe. The only time we saw more than this was when we saw rows and rows of static stormtroopers. Which looked.. well.. uninspiring.

There is more to conveying the idea of 10,000+ characters in a scene at one time than just simple trick photography. CG was easily the cheapest, quickest, and least problematic way of achieving this.

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.

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? After all they’re even cheaper, quicker and less problematic than CG and you can draw anything with a pencil just like you can with a computer - so while where already sitting here ‘suspending our disbelief’ at the cartoon graphics it shouldn’t make any difference, right?

And you don’t agree with that analogy then you must hold some value on photo-realism in films and finally see where I’m coming from?

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
For the sake of clarity, let's remind ourselves of the fact that in Episode 1, Yoda was still a puppet.

Which would bring us onto Episode 2.
Can you remind me again how you would film a shot of Yoda in a light-sabre battle without resorting to computer graphics? Bear in mind that this means you would either not have to show Yoda's bottom half, or have anything go above him (depending if you went for the traditional muppet yoda, or string puppet).

Bonus points if you can do this and successfully convince me that he's the badass little jedi we've been told about for three films.

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. The guy is a flake.

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!

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
You sound indignant that Lucas dared to target this bar for kids. I'm sorry, I thought I was watching a kid's film.

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.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Regardless of the 'tone' or 'atmosphere' (or lack of it), there was little actual CG inside the club. Most of the 'aliens' were models.

My comments there had nothing to do with the CG. That was purely a set complaint.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
He just can't win with you, can he? He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he don't.

He can win. I'm only picking at the stuff I didn't like in the movies and this argument is only amplifying to make out like I respect nothing he does. There's a lot of stuff in the prequels that I like. But there are 3 main sequences (which I’ve mentioned – and which unfortunately are pivotal sequences) that I don't. That was the initial point here before it all got turned into this discussion.

Oswald Osbourne

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'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
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.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ here (do we do anything else? ). 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.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
No, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of selectively suspending disbelief.

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
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.

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
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 ****. If anyone I knew saw that I had written that line on the internet, I'd be disowned by my friends)

I'm not even gonna go there. You should be ashamed of yourself for that one my good man

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Holy crap. Didn't I say that like five posts ago?

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 (cheap shot).

The mighty ObeyGiant resorting to cheap shots? Result!

Oswald Osbourne

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!