PDA

View Full Version : CG Effects: Still Not Right



Jek Porky 2002
07-01-2002, 05:42 PM
Who agrees, the effects on The Phantom Menace where diobolical, the space battle effects where O.K, but stuff like Otah Gunga and the naboo battle just looked to cartoonie, Boss Nas for example, just didn't look real at all, the way he moved was wierd, and his clothes didn't have texture to them at all they just looked like a big blob of brown that moved wenever he did. So I thought oh well, maybe they'll look real by the time Episode II comes along, so Episode II comes along and guess what? The Effects still don't look real, they wern't as bad but still had that smoothness to them, for example C-3PO in the droid factory, so obvious it was a CG version, he just didn't shine like he does in real life, and looked really smooth, there where a few other bits aswell that I can't think of at the moment.

What do you think, can you believe that they are in certain settings when you watch, or can you not watch without thinking that there not really there?

scruffziller
07-01-2002, 08:29 PM
Oh most definately alot of the Podracer charachters looked that way. But strangely enough there are some points where things do not look that way, then again that is most likely someting actually real like models or something. I thought I seen something where they were able to take visual shots of the droid soldiers and actually animate that image rather than create one.
I don't know why they didn't do that with everything. GL should have waited longer but us fan boys kept pushing him. In 20 years he will make a EPS 1,2,3 SE. Fixing everything.

DeadEye
07-01-2002, 08:31 PM
Very true. One thing that sucks about the PT is that they are so completely sterile and artificial-looking. Most of the CG is disgusting...the only real good jobs they did in AOTC were Yoda, Jango, and the clonetroopers.

JediTricks
07-02-2002, 04:13 AM
IMO, Ep 1's effects were in a way more convincing than Ep 2's, but both were too "unreal" for my tastes. I thought CG Yoda and Jango were both pretty bad in Ep 2, they had a certain "fakeness" to them in CG modes (Yoda was always CG, Jango was only CG sometimes) where light and textures never seemed realistic, solid, or naturally flawed. Jango was even worse for me because his armor dind't gleam like the "real" version, so his CG stood out like a sore thumb at me.

When I saw LOTR recently, I was amazed at how many effects and sets were "real", it had been so long since a modern movie epic had used "real" stuff that I was absolutely enthralled. I felt immediately drawn into its real stuff, and the focus on real environments, characters, and elements made the occasional CG elements a little less harsh to accept.

Beast
07-02-2002, 04:21 AM
Well, the CGI may not be perfect, but neither was the special effects, puppets, etc. from the OT. You have to accept some amount of suspension of belief, and not nit-pick everything to actually really enjoy these movies. Especially Star Wars, somthing that you grow up with and you have placed on a pedastal and cannot see the flaws.

And JT, you would be suprised how much CGI was actually used in LOTR's. Of course it's not as obvious, because they are using it mostly to alter and add to actual charecters, locations, and sets. It's a little harder for a sci-fi type movie, with charecters and sets that are much more alien to actual be done looking 100% real.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DeadEye
07-02-2002, 09:59 AM
It'll probably be a while before CGI is indistinguishable from real life.

stillakid
07-02-2002, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Well, the CGI may not be perfect, but neither was the special effects, puppets, etc. from the OT.


Such as?

I continual hear about the substandard dialogue and fx in the OT as a way to prop up the Prequels but rarely see any lists of the numerous supposed problems. Here's the chance! I'll start...

1) Rancor matte lines, although for the purposes of this thread, the Rancor actually "looked" pretty real to me.

2) Cloud City matte paintings.

3) Asteroid monster. Sock puppet for sure, but didn't look "fake" at all.

4) Hmm? er, uh....hmm?

Let's see, what looked REAL?

Vader
Stormtroopers
Jabba
ALL the creatures and aliens
spaceships
planets
costumes
droids
sets
props
Should I keep going? :)

You're right! The OT did suck. So much of it was awful! :rolleyes:

LTBasker
07-02-2002, 11:16 AM
Actually I prefer the matte painting backgrounds over the CGI backgrounds. In ROTJ you can truly tell the background of the Han & Lando dialouge scenes is a matte painting rather than a full-size hangar, but that just makes it seem more real than a CGI toon.

darthvyn
07-02-2002, 11:20 AM
no one is saying the OT sucks... i don't think any of us would be here if it did...

if you look back, there are things that stick out, but with a little SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF it turns real. if you look at AOC and try to find the worst CG, then you may have wasted your $9, or whatever it costs you where you are... when you watched OT, did you think it was actually real, or did you know it was fake? you probably knew these things didn't really exist, but you accepted them as part of the movie, because it wouldn't be fun if you didn't. if the popular media had been buzzing about the "advances in puppet technology" i'm sure a lot of people would've all of a sudden been like, "oooooh, that's a puppet, look, it's mouth doesn't move like it's words!" the fact is there was no behind the scenes stuff done on the OT until after ROJ. now with behind the scenes stuff out even BEFORE the movie, you know everything they are doing before it's done...

i don't know if it's the knowledge of the extensive CG, or a lack of suspension of disbelief, but so far the prequels have suffered from a lot of "well, that doesn't look real because..." know what? REAL kids love jar jar... they have a healthy dose of suspension of disbelief. they probably know deep down that he doesn't really exist, but they don't go around saying, "well, his ears wouldn't move like that in real life..."

and if vader looks real in OT, then i think obi-wan looks real in AOC...

Jonna
07-02-2002, 11:24 AM
I have to say that I agree. I was watching TPM last night on DVD with the comentaries on and I really realized how bad some of the CGI shots are. You would think that with all of the time and effort that people put in that it would look better. I guess that every baby falls down from time to time.

conli olper
07-02-2002, 12:47 PM
i think CGI was completely overused and abused in both the prequels. lucas uses it when he doesnt need to. the best CGI is when its use doesnt make you think 'wow, its amazing what they can do with computers these days', because as soon as youve got that in your head it completely detracts from your immersion in the film. like people have said, a great example of how to use CGI and blend it convincingly with live action stuff is LOTR:FOTR. when will lucas realise that we dont like being beaten over the head with CGI. i mean, how many times do we want to see the f**king pod race or the zam wesell chase. style over substance gets old real quick. oh, and in keeping on topic, yeah, alot of the effects looked dodgey.

Lobito
07-02-2002, 04:08 PM
Advantages and disadvantages...the way Yoda looked in Ep I and II was not as good as he looked in the OT. (Thats my opinion) It even looks that he has more hair in Ep II than in Ep I!! But...without the CGI we would not have seen that awesome scene where Yoda almost kicks Dooku's butt.

anarky
07-02-2002, 04:13 PM
the only thing that really bothered me about the cgi in aotc was that freak san hill--oh, and shu mai, too

everything else was good--i won't quite say perfect, but good--especially the reek

JediTricks
07-03-2002, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Well, the CGI may not be perfect, but neither was the special effects, puppets, etc. from the OT. You have to accept some amount of suspension of belief, and not nit-pick everything to actually really enjoy these movies. Especially Star Wars, somthing that you grow up with and you have placed on a pedastal and cannot see the flaws.

And JT, you would be suprised how much CGI was actually used in LOTR's. Of course it's not as obvious, because they are using it mostly to alter and add to actual charecters, locations, and sets. It's a little harder for a sci-fi type movie, with charecters and sets that are much more alien to actual be done looking 100% real.First off, I'm not "nit-picking everything" and I do work my arse off to "suspend belief" with most films or else I wouldn't have enjoyed The Matrix, LOTR, or the Star Wars films at all.

Second, you missed my point entirely, I'm not talking about recognizing flaws or pointing out effects, I was talking about CG doesn't have the same natural quality that "real" effects do. It was quite obvious that the AT-ATs and AT-STs of ESB were special effects miniatures, but IMO it was easier to "suspend belief" seeing the real AT-ATs than the CG AT-TEs; the latter's surfaces and movements were too unnatural, it felt more cartoony in a way than "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" because at least with WFRR, you were given elements that you were supposed to accept as animated whereas with the AT-TE, it's trying to pass itself off as realistic.


Stilla, there's already a thread in the Classic Trilogy section pointing out CT effects flaws. :D


Basker, I personally feel some of the CG backgrounds were more effective than matte paintings of the OT, but some were just trying too hard or had too much haloing such as Ep 1's Jedi Council chamber.



Originally posted by darthvyn
if you look back, there are things that stick out, but with a little SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF it turns real. if you look at AOC and try to find the worst CG, then you may have wasted your $9, or whatever it costs you where you are... when you watched OT, did you think it was actually real, or did you know it was fake? I tried to suspend disbelief during both Ep 1 and Ep 2, I tried really hard NOT to find CG uses in them - good or bad - but some of these effects felt like they were slapping me upside the head saying "look, I'm different and special!" or something.


REAL kids love jar jar... they have a healthy dose of suspension of disbelief. they probably know deep down that he doesn't really exist, but they don't go around saying, "well, his ears wouldn't move like that in real life..."Interestingly, after I had seen the Making of Ep 1 stuff where Ahmed Best was rehearsing scenes with the cast in a Jar Jar costume with a Jar Jar hat, subconciously something felt "alive" there and when I thought it over, I realized that I "bought" Jar Jar being real much more so than I ever had when he was CG.

Beast
07-03-2002, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Basker, I personally feel some of the CG backgrounds were more effective than matte paintings of the OT, but some were just trying too hard or had too much haloing such as Ep 1's Jedi Council chamber.
That haloing that you may notice on some shots of the E1 Jedi council is due to a small problem they had with the council room set. It's explained in the Audio Commentary on the DVD. After the scenes were filmed, Lucas thought they looked to claustrophobic, because the windows were built smaller, and higher up behind the charecters. So, they had to digitally extend the windows lower to the floor, behind the charecters. That occassionally caused a haloing effect to be visible around the charecters, from the editing of the scene. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DeadEye
07-03-2002, 09:08 AM
The prequels do have some of the worst editing I've ever seen. In Episode I, they changed and switched between scenes so rapidly it almost made me want to puke. AOTC might not have been bad if they didn't cut so damn much out of the movie! There are several instances when you can tell a character had more to say but their dialogue was cut. A perfect example was when Padme met Obi-Wan after the assassination attempt...then there's Anakin's notorious "M" lip synch as he says the "G" in "changeling"...I, too, noticed that. And the lightsaber fights, especially the one with Obi-Wan Kenobi and Hertius Dooku, have so much cut out that they appear to be poorly choreographed, although supposedly Gillard did a better job on AOTC.

Yeah, some of the CG is lousy. :p

darthvyn
07-03-2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by DeadEye
And the lightsaber fights, especially the one with Obi-Wan Kenobi and Hertius Dooku, have so much cut out that they appear to be poorly choreographed, although supposedly Gillard did a better job on AOTC.

yeah, i can see where you're coming from, however, i thought that the stylization of the fight, the close-ups after anakin cuts the power cord and the only illumination is the lightsabers, was incredible! i found it a lot more visually stimulating than almost any other duel, save for ROJ, which it reminded me of...

of course, we always want more...

LTBasker
07-03-2002, 10:43 AM
I wonder how much more awesome the Asteroid scene would've been if they had done with models and stuff instead of a full CGI thing. ESB's asteroid scene was great with the way they did it.

DeadEye
07-03-2002, 11:54 AM
Probably not as good. You could make many more CG asteroids than you could make model asteroids. There's really no good way to make an asteroid field in a movie: in ESB they looked like cheap styrofoam, and in AOTC they looked like CG cartoons. :p

stillakid
07-03-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
Probably not as good. You could make many more CG asteroids than you could make model asteroids. There's really no good way to make an asteroid field in a movie: in ESB they looked like cheap styrofoam, and in AOTC they looked like CG cartoons. :p

I was in an asteroid field just last week, and I can tell you from experience that....;)

billfremore
07-03-2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by stillakid


I was in an asteroid field just last week, and I can tell you from experience that....;)

No way! :eek:
Which asteroid field?
We might have been in the same one...
...small world;)

stillakid
07-03-2002, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by billfremore



...small world;)

Based on the amount of debris, it looks like it was. :)

billfremore
07-03-2002, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by stillakid


Based on the amount of debris, it looks like it was. :)

and it only took the entire starfleet to blow it up. It took
a thousand ships with more fire power than I've...

Wait there's another post coming in...

Jonna
07-03-2002, 01:49 PM
...from Ducky who was in the movie Pretty In Pink, but now flyes an interstellar cargo ship and weights in at Hutt statis.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I have no self control these days.:rolleyes:

I do think that the CGI was a hugh improvement from TPM though.

pthfnder89
07-03-2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
I wonder how much more awesome the Asteroid scene would've been if they had done with models and stuff instead of a full CGI thing. ESB's asteroid scene was great with the way they did it.

I completely agree. I know a lot of people loved the Asteroid scene in AOTC but it just didn't seem real to me. The way the ships moved, the closeups of the rockets; it just wasn't real.

I think they could have made it much better with more physical models. They could still have used CGI to "fill in" asteroids in the background to make the field seem denser, and they wouldn't be close enough for the details on them to seem cartoony.

Really the only shot in the AOTC chase that I loved was the final reveal of Obi Wan hiding on the asteroid. Probably because it's the only one that wouldn't send a person into an epleptic seizure...:D;)

DeadEye
07-03-2002, 02:07 PM
That's what I hate about the PT. Everything is so artificial. In the OT all the ships were models and looked real and gritty, like they were really in a war.

LTBasker
07-03-2002, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
Probably not as good. You could make many more CG asteroids than you could make model asteroids. There's really no good way to make an asteroid field in a movie: in ESB they looked like cheap styrofoam, and in AOTC they looked like CG cartoons. :p

Actually at least one was a potato. ;)

CGI would be needed overall afterwards, but the main chase and stuff through the asteroids they could've done using models. Worked great for the ESB, if they used the technology for it now, they could make it much better instead of making it a toon.

Beast
07-03-2002, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Actually at least one was a potato. ;)
One was also a tennis shoe. Thanks, I will take the CGI Asteroids. They looked much cooler. Alot more particle effects, and small chunks flying about. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

LTBasker
07-03-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks

One was also a tennis shoe. Thanks, I will take the CGI Asteroids. They looked much cooler. Alot more particle effects, and small chunks flying about. :)


And with CGI asteroids you get big bug-like Naboo animals for asteroids... ;)

pthfnder89
07-03-2002, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks

One was also a tennis shoe.

In AOTC or ESB?

I remember the tennis shoe as a space ship in the ROTJ space battle but I didn't know there was one in the asteroids scenes. Nike must have a lot of fans at ILM;):D

billfremore
07-03-2002, 02:31 PM
This does raise the interesting question of now that Yoda has been done in CGI (looking rather impressive) will the puppet Yoda seem less real now or will people begin clamouring for the DGI Yoda to be inserted instead of the puppet.

Hmmm...?

DeadEye
07-03-2002, 05:42 PM
Could you point out where the shaaks are in AOTC's asteroid scene, the potato in ESB, and the shoe in ROTJ? I have never seen such things. :eek:

And I'm sure Lucas will put the digital Yoda into the OT. Maybe give him a sparring duel with Luke. :D

Beast
07-03-2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
Could you point out where the shaaks are in AOTC's asteroid scene, the potato in ESB, and the shoe in ROTJ? I have never seen such things. :eek:
They are not easily spotted, they are hidden in the background of the shots. I know that it's mentioned on the Laserdisc Audio Commentary of ESB though. Another fun fact, that the ships far in the background in ROTJ during the Death Star battle, are pieces of gum on sticks. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DeadEye
07-03-2002, 05:58 PM
I always thought that...

During the podrace, in some long-distance shots of the spectators, the audience was made of Q-tips. :D

darthvyn
07-03-2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by billfremore
This does raise the interesting question of now that Yoda has been done in CGI (looking rather impressive) will the puppet Yoda seem less real now or will people begin clamouring for the DGI Yoda to be inserted instead of the puppet.

Hmmm...?

i don't think that he should be completely redone, but i do think for the sake of bringing the whole saga together they should tweak him a bit. definitely give him more of the facial features and movements, and some of his hand movements, too. if they just super-imposed the new version of his mug, i think it would be a great bridge...

DeadEye
07-03-2002, 08:03 PM
I think so too. :)

LTBasker
07-03-2002, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
I always thought that...

During the podrace, in some long-distance shots of the spectators, the audience was made of Q-tips. :D

The Jedi communicators were made from Gillette Women's razors. :D

JediTricks
07-04-2002, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks

That haloing that you may notice on some shots of the E1 Jedi council is due to a small problem they had with the council room set. It's explained in the Audio Commentary on the DVD. After the scenes were filmed, Lucas thought they looked to claustrophobic, because the windows were built smaller, and higher up behind the charecters. So, they had to digitally extend the windows lower to the floor, behind the charecters. That occassionally caused a haloing effect to be visible around the charecters, from the editing of the scene."occassionally"? It was constant, looked like sloppy edges from computers using editing tools to clean up compositing lines.


Originally posted by LTBasker
I wonder how much more awesome the Asteroid scene would've been if they had done with models and stuff instead of a full CGI thing. ESB's asteroid scene was great with the way they did it. THANK YOU! That's the other thing I wanted to mention here but forgot about! Not only do I totally agree with you about what you're saying with the "real" rocks of ESB, but it reminds me of another thing I really hate about CGI in movies, impossible camera movements! I hate this! The camera moves around more than a music video on MTV with this movement style that's supposed to be rapid and smooth but comes off blurry and cheap or totally impossible. So not only do most elements have this false sense of motion, but then the camera has a different false feeling - that bugs me so much! Following rockets, zipping through 180 corkscrew turns to view a vehicle pulling a turn, moving unnaturally over or even THROUGH an object to view something else, all that has bothered me for years. Even in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan during the Genesis simulation it bugged me a little, but that was supposed to be a simulation. These days, it feels more like watching a video game than a movie - just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you MUST do that thing.



Originally posted by DeadEye
During the podrace, in some long-distance shots of the spectators, the audience was made of Q-tips. :D Sadly not, in that set, there were also some Action Fleet figures, but the whole thing was scrapped for CG at the last minute. As an AF fan, I was a bit crushed when we learned that.

DeadEye
07-04-2002, 09:58 AM
Oh. I read in the book "The Making of Episode I" that they used Q-Tips. :)

chewie
07-04-2002, 04:46 PM
I for one thought that all the space battle scenes, including the asteroid chase, looked pretty realistic in the prequel trilogy. Non-organic, stiff material, such as a ship hull, apparently can be rendered without looking too out of place. The PT space battles, as short as they are, seem as real looking as the OT ones to me. Perhaps because the entire scenes are rendered instead of having to matte in the shots into real-life footage.

As for alien lifeform CG, it doesn't look nearly as real to my eyes as does a puppet. They just look fake up against the real life footage. They move far more smoothy or out of synch with how real lifeforms move as well. I'm not sure how to put it to words, but seeing a CG alien certainly seems less realistic than puppets.

For some reason, I didn't feel this way about the movie, Jurassic Park. The dinosaurs just looked more real to me. Maybe its because they move so quickly in the film that its hard to keep a keen eye on them.

DeadEye
07-04-2002, 04:57 PM
I'd say so. The dinosaurs in the other 2 JP films were mostly CG and didn't seem as real.

stillakid
07-04-2002, 06:54 PM
The one thing that pops out most to me in AOTC is Yoda in any one of his extreme closeups. His forehead looks much more like an oil painting than it should. I can suspend disbelief everytime I see him, until those shots that blow the whole thing. That and his frog on a hotplate performance at the end of the show. :)

DeadEye
07-04-2002, 08:15 PM
Imagine how the puppet would look like in a duel! Probably as bad as Sy Snootles looked in her pre-SE incarnation...

darthvyn
07-05-2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
I'd say so. The dinosaurs in the other 2 JP films were mostly CG and didn't seem as real.

the problem with JP is that it was the first thing to really use cg effectively, and brilliantly even, and since then everything that has used cg (including it's own sequels...) has had to measure up to that somehow...

in jaws, we feel that the shark is real, because we only see very small bits of it, or fast shots of it. as the movies progress, we see more and more of the shark, we feel less and less like it's real, until it's jumping out of the water onto the boat in "the revenge" and we almost see the gears moving it's tail...

i do feel that cg isn't all the way there, but i also feel that it's a big advancement from puppets alone. i agree with you chewie, organic matter isn't perfected yet... just as it wasn't with puppets, either. i'm not saying that the cg is perfect, i'm just saying that it is a big improvement in FX tech.

tricks, you don't enjoy the new abilities of our "camera?" did you enjoy the opening credits of Fight Club? what about the whole scene that explains what happened to our narrator's apartment, where we can get inside the refrigerator, and see the compressor "kick on..." i think this ability greatly adds to the palatte of any story teller...

i don't know. i think maybe everyone's a little too jaded these days. everyone seems to want to be the first to not believe.

DeadEye
07-05-2002, 08:08 PM
I've never seen Fight Club.

darthvyn
07-05-2002, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
I've never seen Fight Club.

you gotta see it... it's amazing. also go read all of chuck palhaniuk's other books, he is this generation's kurt vonnegut! absurdity, social commentary and hope for the future of the failed experiment that is humanity... it's in dere! seriously. go now. buy them. or steal them. read them. love them.

also read kurt vonnegut's "slaughterhouse 5" and "sirens of titan." sirens actually gives life a meaning!

JediTricks
07-06-2002, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by DeadEye
I've never seen Fight Club.
Ditto.

Nebulaz
07-06-2002, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by DeadEye
It'll probably be a while before CGI is indistinguishable from real life.

i hope it will never be that way. b/c then they'll get rid of actors for animators.

DeadEye
07-06-2002, 09:41 AM
I'd say there will always be actors--but the visual effects will eventually become better and better.

Nebulaz
07-06-2002, 03:21 PM
The grass in the Naboo battle was pretty awesome tho.

Exhaust Port
07-06-2002, 03:54 PM
With the exit of actors in movies we would see the exit of those outrageous paychecks for someone to repeat some memoried lines. Not all types of movies would benefit or be improved by CG so I doubt all movies would get to that point. No more days of pretty boys/girls that suck at acting wasting a good script. Either the studio gets some great actors or they just insert a CG version.

Most likely it will be just a tool that will be inseperable from the movie industry like "talkies." Similar concerns were echoed with the first generation of talking movies. Ever seen those movies from the 20's-30's showing a future where we all are traveling around in our airplane/helicopter. Wave of the future? Not exactly but the technology is here to stay and we couldn't live without it.

darthvyn
07-06-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks

Ditto.

oh, man, seriously, you gotta see it...

Jek Porky 2002
07-06-2002, 06:31 PM
I can't wait for the day when you can't tell the difference, you've only got to see The Phantom Menace to agree!

Jedi Knightrider
07-10-2002, 10:57 AM
I don't think that CG is best used to create live-looking characters. It's definitely helpful for backgrounds and such, but as for animated characters, I think they should use the tech to the best of their ability. Some of the best CG has come out of not caring whether the characters look "real." Monster's, Inc. was an incredible example of this. It's like the debate of photorealism or stylization in the art world. It's impressive when photorealism actually looks real, but it comes of worse than something that's really stylized when it doesn't look real. Whereas, if you start out stylized, people won't be looking at it saying, "Well, that doesn't look real!"

At least, not all of them. There are always some people that want a painting to look just like a photograph. I just say to them, "Go get the photograph blown up to poster size, then.";)

DeadEye
07-10-2002, 11:23 AM
I think CG does add a lot to large-scale battles.

Nebulaz
07-10-2002, 02:13 PM
Well look at the battle of Naboo, there is no way you could get that many people to march in order like that. com'on

pthfnder89
07-10-2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by darthvyn


oh, man, seriously, you gotta see it...

Eh... I've seen it and I never thought it was as good of a movie as so many other people seem to think it is. It had it's highlites but watching it seemed too much liked listening to some angsty teenager drone on about how sucky the whole world is and how there's no point to anything.

On the other hand I love practically everyone involved in it especially Fincher and Norton, two of my favs in Hollywood and it was certainly stylish. I think I would like the book more but I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Nebulaz
07-11-2002, 01:07 AM
Also tho, alot of backgrounds in movies are CG at all, alot of them are just stills just added in later.

FKA Broke Collector
07-11-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Nebulaz
Well look at the battle of Naboo, there is no way you could get that many people to march in order like that. com'on

Shoot, I know this is true. I was in marching band in high school.

Here's my take on all of this. I'm going to loosely quote the big man about all of this. In one of my videos ("From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga" I think) Lucas says something about how most sci-fi movies focus too much on all the pretty sets they've spent a lot of money on and they forget about the story. I respected the man so much for making that statement. He was basically saying story is important above all else.

Someone once criticized how CG doesn't look real compared to "real" sets. And his response to that was those sets are still fake. Those buildings you see in the background are made of wood and paint and there's nothing behind them. Even those sets are fake. But I think he missed the point to the person's comment. They weren't arguing that the "real" sets are fake... they were arguing that "real" sets don't look fake. The sets after all are made of REAL wood and REAL paint, and reflect light and cast shadows just like a real building would. Why does CG stuff look fake? Because it doesn't actually reflect light and it doesn't really cast shadows. It's all simulated. Sometimes it's believeable, sometimes it's not.

Now the moral to this story... IMO ole Georgey forgot about the story in Ep1, and he relied too heavily on the nice pretty "set" that he spent a lot of money building, and the digital filming project got in the way too. He did a better job on Ep2, but you can still tell he's trying a bit too hard with the CG. He should just write a good story and let the rest fall into place. It's not just the CG I pay good money to go see. It's story I go primarily to see though. I could care less about digital filming and projection... just give me a good story, and I can suspend disbelief on anything, real or fake.

JediTricks
07-11-2002, 02:40 AM
And that's what bugs me about the CG effects not integrating into the prequels very well and that being a bother to me. It's not that I couldn't tell "real" models and sets weren't just movie props and such, but the "real" props don't have as much of this "I'm different! Something's not right with me!" subliminal effect as CGI. So instead of the effects being a tool for the storytelling, they end up detracting from the moviegoing experience for me.

Nebulaz
07-11-2002, 04:25 AM
FKA said what needed to be said, perfectly.

stillakid
07-11-2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by FKA Broke Collector


Shoot, I know this is true. I was in marching band in high school.

Here's my take on all of this. I'm going to loosely quote the big man about all of this. In one of my videos ("From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga" I think) Lucas says something about how most sci-fi movies focus too much on all the pretty sets they've spent a lot of money on and they forget about the story. I respected the man so much for making that statement. He was basically saying story is important above all else.

Someone once criticized how CG doesn't look real compared to "real" sets. And his response to that was those sets are still fake. Those buildings you see in the background are made of wood and paint and there's nothing behind them. Even those sets are fake. But I think he missed the point to the person's comment. They weren't arguing that the "real" sets are fake... they were arguing that "real" sets don't look fake. The sets after all are made of REAL wood and REAL paint, and reflect light and cast shadows just like a real building would. Why does CG stuff look fake? Because it doesn't actually reflect light and it doesn't really cast shadows. It's all simulated. Sometimes it's believeable, sometimes it's not.

Now the moral to this story... IMO ole Georgey forgot about the story in Ep1, and he relied too heavily on the nice pretty "set" that he spent a lot of money building, and the digital filming project got in the way too. He did a better job on Ep2, but you can still tell he's trying a bit too hard with the CG. He should just write a good story and let the rest fall into place. It's not just the CG I pay good money to go see. It's story I go primarily to see though. I could care less about digital filming and projection... just give me a good story, and I can suspend disbelief on anything, real or fake.

Thank you. I've been trying to say the same thing for quite some time now and have met with resistance every step of the way. Some people are content with giving Lucas the benefit of the doubt regardless of what is really up there on the screen. I don't know, I can't explain it either. ;)

Jedi Clint
07-11-2002, 12:38 PM
The effects don't bother me, and I'm not "content with giving Lucas the benefit of the doubt regardless of what is really up there on the screen". Wow......ya know....I think it might be a matter of OPINION!

Jedi Knightrider
07-11-2002, 01:08 PM
Actually, I am a mindless drone. One nation under Lucas.

Really, though, yes it does sound like a lot of opinion as fact going on here. To me, the backgrounds in CG look just as real, or fake (depending on how full or empty the glass of water is) as the matte paintings.

billfremore
07-11-2002, 01:16 PM
Personally I think that CG looks better than matte paintings.

Matte paintings always looked really flat to me whereas the CG has real depth to it.

That rebel hangar scene in Jedi always irks me because it really looks like a matte painting, it looks too fake.

oh yeah:
Lucas Drones of the world unite! :D

DeadEye
07-11-2002, 02:29 PM
I shall unite into this Drone Empire...or Drone-pire. :D

Nebulaz
07-11-2002, 05:53 PM
i feel the same way with the scene where Qui-Gon deflects the bolts in Naboo while Obi-Wan is running right after he saved Jar Jar. It just does have much to it.

stillakid
07-11-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by billfremore
Personally I think that CG looks better than matte paintings.

Matte paintings always looked really flat to me whereas the CG has real depth to it.

That rebel hangar scene in Jedi always irks me because it really looks like a matte painting, it looks too fake.

oh yeah:
Lucas Drones of the world unite! :D

Take a look at the matte paintings in the movie "DAVE" to see the full potential of the effect.

FKA Broke Collector
07-11-2002, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
The effects don't bother me, and I'm not "content with giving Lucas the benefit of the doubt regardless of what is really up there on the screen". Wow......ya know....I think it might be a matter of OPINION!

Of course it's a matter of opinion. I would hope that would have meen implied in my post. That's what these forums are here for after all.

I'm really surprised I got as much of a positive response off of my last post. I expected more of a negative response.

A lot of people keep saying that TPM could never have lived up to the hype and people's expectations of another SW film and I agree, but what I find disappointing is the director's failure (IMO) to live up to his own standard. He totally bought into showing the scenery and lost focus on the story.

I understand that some people see SW as just an action flick, and that is fine, those people will be happy with Ep1 and 2. But I think there are quite a bit of us out there that are fans of the OT because of the great story that it contained. The reason said fans were so disapponted is because of the lack of story in Ep1. You can't suspend belief because the story isn't up to snuff and that's when you notice all of the flaws in the effects... when you don't believe in the story.

Don't get me wrong, I love the stories of SW and I always will, I just think Ep1 could have been much better. Ep2 was a great improvement, but still with some room for better story.

I've really wanted to spout off about this for a while, hence the novel sized posts. Sorry.

Jedi Clint
07-11-2002, 07:41 PM
FKA B.C.,

Please go through all the posts between your most recent and the one you posted before it and decide whether I directed my previous remarks toward you.

FKA Broke Collector
07-11-2002, 08:17 PM
Ah! Gotcha.

Nebulaz
07-12-2002, 05:21 AM
How quickly things get personal, how quickly things get off topic. =0)

JediTricks
07-12-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
FKA B.C.,

Please go through all the posts between your most recent and the one you posted before it and decide whether I directed my previous remarks toward you. And this is why we use the QUOTE system on these forums so as not to confuse anybody over which post we are responding to. :D ;)

2-1B
07-12-2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by DeadEye
I've never seen Fight Club.


Originally posted by JediTricks
Ditto.

I wish I hadn't seen it.




CG effects? Yeah, I think GL is guilty of retreating into his digital worlds.
Example? Well, we've talked at length in other threads about the AOTC fruit eating scene . . . while I don't think it's that bad, I still wonder why they didn't film her eating a real piece of fruit?
People can relate to something like eating on such a basic level, like Luke pouting and playing with that big spoon.

We hear so much about how things had to have "that lived in look", and with some digital sets, I think there's a real risk of losing that.

:)

DeadEye
07-12-2002, 09:09 PM
I don't think the CG matters. Each prequel sets new ground for CG, so...

Lucas, and one of his big goals with the Star Wars movies, is that in each film he totally revolutionizes and changes the way we look at movies. The OT did just that; Episode I had unprecedented CG (Jar Jar, and the battle droids were all CG except for one in the hangar); Episode II was filmed completely digitally and almost every set was all digital. What will Episode III have? :D

stillakid
07-13-2002, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by DeadEye
What will Episode III have? :D

A plot that doesn't contradict the OT! :D

DeadEye
07-13-2002, 12:14 AM
We'd be lucky if that were the case--because the other two prequels have had their share of contradictions. :)

FKA Broke Collector
07-13-2002, 12:14 AM
A plot that doesn't contradict the OT!

We can only hope.