Academy Awards Nomination and Reaction

Yes, they had been placed on digital matte backgrounds, but not totally encased in a 3-D enviroment to the extent of AOTC. It has ben very a very under-rated part of its VFX.

AOTC was not the first movie to do this well. Neither was TPM.

Again, done before by ILM and others setting up the work done by WETA.

I'll say it again in case you keep saying this. It's been done before.

I never said it hadn't been done before. I said it was more difficult than putting actors into CG environments.

Like all technology is developed before it is utilised. Motion capture technology was developed earlier but not used on a main character in a motion picture until TPM - FACT!

Batman Forever (1995) was the first film to use motion capture technology on a main character. FACT

 

Darth_Insidious: "AOTC was not the first movie to do this well. Neither was TPM."

Ok, tell me another live-action movie where 3-D digital enviroments were taken to the level of AOTC?

Darth_Insidious: "I said it was more difficult than putting actors into CG environments."

Again, you will find that it is no longer a difficult thing to place CG actors into real enviroments. It can take time yes. But the challenge is no longer there. To succesfully blend the characters in AOTC into there digital enviroments was a very challenging task in order to pull it off properly.

Darth_Insidious: "Batman Forever (1995) was the first film to use motion capture technology on a main character. FACT"

When I say main character, I mean the entire CG character, not THREE shots. Star Wars/ILM's John Dykstra ultilised motion-capture technology to create a digital stunt double for the Batman character in only a few shots in Batman Forever. Like all technology this marks part of the work in progress.

However, the true pioneer of motion-capture technology was ILM's Jeff Light who developed the motion-capture technology ulitilised on both Star Wars prequels. He is the true genius behind motion-capture technology and it was first succesfully employed on a main, totally CG, interacting character in TPM

Taken from LimaNews.com:

"Motion capture know-how for "The Two Towers" has been provided by Weta Ltd. of New Zealand and Giant Studios of Atlanta. But the techniques are the same employed by Light and his colleagues at ILM."

Regarding the character of Golum:
"He did have Jeff Light to help breathe life into him"

I still admit that Golum was brilliant. However, it has caused other effects in both TTT and AOTC to be unfairly ignored.

 

[edited]

YJ edit: That wasn't necessary

 

Ok, tell me another live-action movie where 3-D digital enviroments were taken to the level of AOTC?

Show me where a CG character was taken to the level of Gollum.

Again, you will find that it is no longer a difficult thing to place CG actors into real enviroments. It can take time yes. But the challenge is no longer there. To succesfully blend the characters in AOTC into there digital enviroments was a very challenging task in order to pull it off properly.

Difficult to do? No. Difficult to do well? Yes. Mostly because of the lighting. Look at ILM's CG character work in real places. Most of it has an artificial look to it, the "shiny" effect, where it looks the like the CG has its own light source. The battle droids in TPM during the Gungan/Droid battle are a perfect example of this. It was a problem in TTT too, in particular, those huge things that open the Black Gate of Mordor. But Gollum did not have this problem.

When I say main character, I mean the entire CG character, not THREE shots. Star Wars/ILM's John Dykstra ultilised motion-capture technology to create a digital stunt double for the Batman character in only a few shots in Batman Forever. Like all technology this marks part of the work in progress.

However, the true pioneer of motion-capture technology was ILM's Jeff Light who developed the motion-capture technology ulitilised on both Star Wars prequels. He is the true genius behind motion-capture technology and it was first succesfully employed on a main, totally CG, interacting character in TPM

The true pioneers of motion-capture were in the videogame field, using it as far back as 1990 on games like Mortal Kombat.

Clonetrooper, I wouldn't waste my breathe (or.. uh' fingers) on bashers.

Considering TTT to be a better movie, both on the whole and in the visual effects category, does not make me a "basher". I enjoyed AOTC. TTT smoked it in just about every way, except for music.

 

Darth_Insidious: "Show me where a CG character was taken to the level of Gollum."

I never said this was the case. I agree Gollum is probably the best all CG character yet, however, he does not mark the true point where motion-capture has seen its biggest success. However, you actually said "AOTC was not the first movie to do this well. Neither was TPM." , so why don't you stop avoiding questions.

Darth_Insidious: "It was a problem in TTT too, in particular, those huge things that open the Black Gate of Mordor"

You are referring to the mountain trolls. Well, the reason you see Gollum as so photo-realistic is because of the partly human look he is given. We can actually see the actors face expressions behind the CG and it is done very well.

Darth_Insidious: "The true pioneers of motion-capture were in the videogame field, using it as far back as 1990 on games like Mortal Kombat."

Sidetracking again. The same you could say of CG characters all the way back to early on. However, I am not like you and I don't constantly change the point of argument because you find it hard to accept some truths.

Jeff Light was the spearhead that developed a motion-capture system that could truly be utilised to the extent that it was in TPM and AOTC and obviously TTT. Gollum owes so much to this guy. Why can't you see that, DI??? Why do you defend your opinions like this??? The problem is that you know who is stating facts and who is just is creating things to protect his opinion!

Jeff Light: "On Episode I, it was an experiment. Now, many of our films, not just Episode II, will use motion capture."

And a succesful experiment at that.

 

I never said this was the case. I agree Gollum is probably the best all CG character yet, however, he does not mark the true point where motion-capture has seen its biggest success. However, you actually said "AOTC was not the first movie to do this well. Neither was TPM." , so why don't you stop avoiding questions.

Biggest success? *recovers from laughing* Jar Jar was a success? I suppose if by "success" you mean a fake looking, fake moving character who is also one of the most hated in recent film history, then yes.

The first movie to make good use of CG backrounds was Under Siege 2.

You are referring to the mountain trolls. Well, the reason you see Gollum as so photo-realistic is because of the partly human look he is given. We can actually see the actors face expressions behind the CG and it is done very well.

Wrong. I see Yoda in some shots as photo realistic, and he isn't human-like at all. It isn't about being human-like, it's about body and facial movement looking real. Yoda was done without painting over an actors face, yet he still looks real in some scenes.

Sidetracking again. The same you could say of CG characters all the way back to early on. However, I am not like you and I don't constantly change the point of argument because you find it hard to accept some truths.

Jeff Light was the spearhead that developed a motion-capture system that could truly be utilised to the extent that it was in TPM and AOTC and obviously TTT. Gollum owes so much to this guy. Why can't you see that, DI??? Why do you defend your opinions like this??? The problem is that you know who is stating facts and who is just is creating things to protect his opinion

Taking something pioneered in one medium and applying it to another isn't innovative. Years before Jar Jar, Acclaim (among other game developers) was using motion-captue technology in fighting and sports games. Applying that technology to movies doesn't make the first one to do so original in the slightest.

 

DI wrote:
Jar Jar was a success

I agree.

 

[Han Solo] This is ridiculous....[/Han Solo]

 

Darth_I that is great you aren't a basher but look at how many posts you have been going back and forth on why you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong!

I think Attack of the Clones had better sfx, period. Both in quanity and most definetly quality. I also would pick AotC as the better movie as it was all fun and TTT was great yet drawn out.

Now I think you've had ample time to express your feelings, lets just leave it be. You are in a Star Wars forum, posting in an Attack of the Clones section. Don't expcet everyone to take your TTT gushing blabber.

On topic: I think AotC should have won, but it lost to TTT. Not the end of the world but a small dissapointment.

 

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/swtcg_soh.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/aotc_dvd016.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/4061.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/promo9.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/dexter.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/del21.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/slave1_geonosis_sm.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/guards.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/11.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/orders4.jpg]

SFX

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/g-62.jpg]

SFX


'nuff said

 

The Flying Dutchman, those are some gonzo pictures!
I keep staring at the clonetroopers in the foreground, and I can´t understand that they´re not really there with Mace!

Regarding TTT, my experience with it was quite sad, I sat through the first half, coming to a point where I said to myself: -Oh, God, this, combined with FOTR, is much better then AOTC, maybe I was wrong after all, maybe Star Wars is dead, LOTR seems so much more mature and dignified, it´s more epic and serious, it´s...

...and then Gimli did a stupid joke for the nth time. And then plotlines that didn´t exist in the book came about, that made no sense and only served to halt the plot, sacrificing plotlines from the book itself. And then the big battle began (which the film was obviously building up to, like any "good" blockbuster should). And then the big battle went on...

...and on and on and on and on...

It´s quite incredible, the first on-screen battle that ever bored me!

And then I realised that when compared to this, Star Wars wasn´t so bad after all. Hope Tolkien comes back to haunt the scriptwriters, throwing Frodo-action figures and TTT "official" videogames at them! (Btw. how are the games official? Did the gamemakers use a medium to reach Tolkien and get him to bless the gamepackages personally? )

 

"plotlines that didn´t exist in the book "

I read the book 11 times yet I fail to see what plotline in the film didn't exist in the book.

There are changes of DETAILS but not of a whole plotline

 

Forgive me if I´m mistaken, it´s been a while since I´ve read the book, but wasn´t Faramir a completely different person in the book? Didn´t a "rabid forest" kill of large parts of Saruman´s army at Helm´s Deep?
To me, these are more or less changes/removals in the plot. Maybe not entire plotlines by themselves, but still, these things and many more count for something.
I´m just saying I love the books, not the films. Like I´ve said before, FOTR was a great film with some parts that were only "good", while TTT was only a good film that had some great scenes. If ROTK keeps this trend up, it´ll just be a good film with good scenes, not great, and I´ll once again turn towards Ep.III.

And don´t tell me you weren´t offended by the way they made Gimli into a Jar-Jar clone? Why is it that filmmakers think they need a funny sidekick in every, single movie? First it´s Merry and Pippin in FOTR, then Gimli in TTT, what´s next, Sauron materializing in ROTK and accidently falling out of his tower?

 

"The first movie to make good use of CG backrounds was Under Siege 2."

Where do you get all this information? What are your sources? Not that I'm doubting your facts.

I think we can just all agree to disagree with AOTC v.s TTT debate. Visual effects like anything in movies is more subjective than objective. I think Peter Fonda said it best when interviewed in 1998 after losing the Best Actor Oscar to Jack Nicholson when he said, "It's not like Jack and I were both playing Hamlet..." The same can be said for TTT winning over AOTC at the Oscars, it's not like they were both doing the exact same movie working on the character of Gollum. I bet you a million bucks Lucas and his ILM staff saw TTT and probably said or thought, "That's great work, but we could've done that just as good or better."

If you ask me, the Visual effects award should've gone to Minority Report which wasn't even nominated. IMO, that movie used its effects very seamlessly and the effects served the story without being concerned about a "ooh" and "aahhh" campaign.

In the end the true winners of any effects award are us, as viewers who get treated to a great display of eye candy thanks to the competitiveness of studios like ILM, Digital Domain and our friends at WETA.