Models Vs. CGI

Perhaps you're misunderstanding my comments. Believe me, I know a ton of stuff on the prequels featured miniatures and some physical effects work -- hell, I wrote a huge hunk of THE PHANTOM MENACE issue of CINEFEX, I should!

The shots in the prequels often do run longer, or maybe they just seem to (and if that is the case, then that is just as bad or worse.) There are filmmakers who put images up on screen that sustain extended scrutiny, but I don't think GL has ever been one of them. He ain't Kubrick, that's for sure.

As far as that goes, most of the shots in the end of CE3K -- which was in production at the same time as SW, but relied on Doug Trumbull's superior team -- stay on screen for a very long time, but they still work wonderfully well, if you excuse the moments when the double-exposed elements show through. So it isn't just a matter of me invoking Kubrick because he is an 'artiste' or something, because I think of Spielberg as only a very good director, and yet still he could use extended shots in an EFFECTIVE way that GL seems to fail to be able to do (for me.)

But in addition to what I see as OVERreliance on CG (stormtroopers in ep2 is a good example, there are shots near the end that I thought weren't good enough to be in a children's video game), a lot of the massaging of elements -- even real elements -- during compositing can take the 'realness' out of a shot, and distract from the scene.

The example I always give is the hangar interior for X-MEN. Matte World built a really good miniature plane model for this shot (the flying scenes feature a CG plane done by DD, that is a whole separate issue), but in the final composite, when the miniature plane is comped with the live-action element of the actors, the plane LOOKS like it is CG, because qualities of its 'presence' seem to have been squashed, IMO. I think alot of digital sweetening of shots makes them more homogenous, so one flows into the next, but at the sacrifice of credibility.

Sweetening works wonderfully well in some instances, like the atmospheric elements added to the saturn 5 miniature in APOLLO 13 or the ability to paint out oversized water drops in model tank shots from PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, but I think the fact most CG and comp work is done at 2K (when film resolution is considered to be between 4K and 8K, depending on who you argue with) causes the lessening of dynamic range -- you lose the deep blacks or the bright end, you don't get the full range of the image, so you throw away the point of shooting a real object.

I'm not slighting the ILM effort at all, I'm just saying it isn't anywhere near as successful in convincing me (of certain aspects) as it once was.

The same thing happened with the MATRIX sequel ... the bullet-time stuff that looked very convincing in the first film all of a sudden lost all credibility in the second, because they were using different, mostly-synthetic techniques ... techniques that afforded them greater flexibility in perspective and the ability to do more in less time, but lost visual credibility, as they were no longer based in reality, or even photographic origination.

The drop in visual credibility (and other areas) for MATRIX bothers me more than it does for SW, because I think there were a number of good ideas to be explored in MATRIX, whereas with SW, it was a much lighter form of entertainment, and so the loss is not so much because I wasn't expecting much in the first lace. The SW issue is further reaching though, because other films will doubtless jump on the SW digital bandwagon, which for me is a wagon riding in the wrong direction.

 

Kirkout - Since you have written for Cinefex and have the knowledge of FX for film (or any film for that matter) I was wondering about a shot in Reloaded. In the Trinity Falls sequence, I had heard that a shot in the sequence was entirely CG. The one in particular is the second shot where Trinity jumps out the window and starts blasting away in slow-mo, the one where the camera goes towards her and pulls away, or at least gives the viewer that effect. Was that the real actress or a digital double?

 

This is just opinion, because I saw M2 only once and disliked it so much that I skipped M3 altogether (pretty incredible reversal given how much I admire the first one.) Also, although I tried to set up interviews with the ESC folk I knew from the first movie, they didn't get authorization to talk till AFTER the film was out, which was months too late for CFQ, the mag I was gonna cover it for.

Anyway, I would think that close shot with her going past camera you mention would HAVE to be the actual actress on a rig ... if it wasn't her, if it was mocap or laserscan of her mapped onto a cg double, then why did the rest of the stuff using that process (the Neo/Smiths fights) look so horrible?

I imagine if you read the Cinefex on the film the question would be answered (I haven't read the mag in the last three years, so I can't look it up.)

 

*yawn*

Same old double standards. CGI is the devil when it's used in the prequels, but proof of divinity in any other movie.

Same old refusal to see that the prequels in fact used a lot of different FX methods, including models and miniatures, no matter how many times it's pointed out.

Same old dismissal of the hard work that ILM put into the prequels, while demanding that we sit there in slack-jawed awe at the work (insert so-called "underdog" FX company here) did.

 

Same old dismissal of the hard work that ILM put into the prequels

The lack of respect some STAR WARS fans show for those involved in creating STAR WARS and the results of their efforts is surprising and disappointing.

 

Yep. Which makes me ever more grateful for posters like SkottASkywalker, jedi_master_ousley, Durwood, Go-Mer-Tonic, Ultimate, DarthBreezy, PadmeLeiaJaina, anakin_girl...the list could go on and on.

I sometimes lose sight of that, amidst all the bashing and the negativity and the gloating over SW's supposed "death" and the lack of respect for everyone who worked on the prequels. I daresay that's what the anti-SW crowd wants. But there are a whole lot of people here (and everywhere) who do like the prequels, who do appreciate what ILM and Lucas have done, who may have their quibbles with a few things but don't focus on them and act as if they know Lucas's story better than he does.

I don't care how the effects are realized, be it CGI, models, miniatures, rubber masks and suits, stop motion, or any combination thereof. SW is lucky to have such talented and dedicated people, and it always has been. They use different tools now (some of the time), but they are still every bit as talented and creative as their predecessors.

 

I don't question that the number of positive, respectful STAR WARS fans far out number all other STAR WARS fans.

I don't care how the effects are realized, be it CGI, models, miniatures, rubber masks and suits, stop motion, or any combination thereof. SW is lucky to have such talented and dedicated people, and it always has been. They use different tools now (some of the time), but they are still every bit as talented and creative as their predecessors.

Lucas used the best then and he uses the best now.

 

SHELLEY, your response:
Shelley
Registered: Sep 01
Date Posted: 1/18 5:30pm Subject: RE: Models Vs. CGI
*yawn*

Same old double standards. CGI is the devil when it's used in the prequels, but proof of divinity in any other movie.

Same old refusal to see that the prequels in fact used a lot of different FX methods, including models and miniatures, no matter how many times it's pointed out.

Same old dismissal of the hard work that ILM put into the prequels, while demanding that we sit there in slack-jawed awe at the work (insert so-called "underdog" FX company here) did.


ME AGAIN
Your post makes no sense. I'm complaining about how bad the cg is in the neo/smiths fight here, not praising it.

If you can't actually comprehend what somebody else takes the time to write, maybe you shouldn't be commenting upon it. But to give you some stuff you CAN respond to, since no doubt you will have a differing view ...

I saw SW and CE3K on opening days in 77. My opinion has NEVER changed, CE was the better movie in every way, ESPECIALLY in the fx (and that has nothing to do with CG or trendiness, just QUALITY -- imo.) So I'm not jumping on any bandwagen -- I don't think the SW VFX stuff was great to start with (though I give them lots of credit for producing so much quantity without the quality being abyssmal), but I did like the miniature-driven look of some of it better than the stylized artistic/cartoon way they do it now. I consider SW beating CE for the fx oscar to be one of the biggest goofs in that category ever, right up there with APOLLO 13 losing to BABE.

The only 'same old' I see is you jumping in and sniping anybody with a differing view, even if they take the time to express it with supporting info.

Guess the typical SW fan hasn't changed much in a quarter-century ... and I say g'bye to yet another board.

 

The thing with ILM which Durwood showed me a week ago is that they do such a good job using both models and CGI that if your not really looking you will never know which is which.

 

The best blend is the pod racing scene. No?


I dislike the creatures in the AOTC arena. I think they look too "clean" and goofy.

Tantans upclose looked good - the distance shot is a bit jerky and animation could have smoothed it out.

The Imperial Walkers are awesome....

The big fish in Naboo's pond looked very good....

And, of course, Jar Jar, who is a blend himself. Well, he's better than Sly Snoodles or whatever his name was. But I get nauscious every time he does his Greg Lougainus 12 foot standing high jump dive into the pond. I keep wishing he'd break his neck upon entering the water...

 

It doens't matter to me if they use CGI or models. All five films look great, and are great, and whether or not models or CGI are used, I'm still gonna like the films.

As long as you enjoy the film, why should it matter which is used? Heck, I can't even tell if CGI or models were used for most of the scenes in the prequels.

Then again, I don't really pay attention. I sit back and enjoy the films for what they are: good entertainment. It doesn't matter to me which is which while I'm watching. Just enjoy the films and don't get caught up in the models vs CGI battle.

Of course I still know that whether models or CGI was used, there was a great amount of time and work that went into the films and their production, and they wouldn't exist without the model workers and CGI workers, and that they were very important in the putting together of the films that a lot of us love and enjoy.

 

I watched a lot of the 2nd DVD of AOTC today. They used a lot of models, minitures, and even CGI. They used everthing they could use and more. Just all the stuff they used was just well...it showed how much work they really put into the PT so far. Which is a lot.

 

Well, he's better than Sly Snoodles or whatever his name was.

It's Sy Snootles. And he is a she.

It doens't matter to me if they use CGI or models. All five films look great, and are great, and whether or not models or CGI are used, I'm still gonna like the films.

I agree.

Just all the stuff they used was just well...it showed how much work they really put into the PT so far. Which is a lot.

Yep.