Star Wars Blu Ray is out!

Waifu · 15987

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Flame

  • The obsessive
  • RPM Soldier
  • ****
    • Posts: 16013
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #75 on: September 20, 2011, 09:13:59 AM
Related- I recall the actors from the Willy Wonka remake expecting to have to walk past green screens pretending to see amazing things, and were actually quite surprised when they made a legit chocolate waterfall and legit environment. And it looks all the better for it. (no matter what you may think of the movie itself)

The thing about CG vs real props/sets is that the Human eye can tell the difference.

The Human eye can pick up the small details when something is CG. And its something which can become distracting, because you know it's fake, its not really there. Its just a trick.

However, with real props and sets, you cant really tell the difference. They look real, because as previously said, they ARE real. You dont have to fake the lighting on it to match the scene, you just shine the lamp on it with the rest of the actors, you dont have to fake the interaction either. You interact with it like any other actor, and you see the finished product as a little green alien as actually being a real alien.

Ships and space stations in the original trilogy looked so cool because they were props. Miniatures shot and edited to look full scale. Therefore, what you see, is a real spaceship made of real materials which really works. In the prequels however, its not as interesting due to just being able to work because its CGI.

If I recall, the CGI in the prequels wasnt exactly the best either. It was way too easy to tell what was real and what wasnt. In fact, I think that its one of the reasons why the movies are so uninteresting. Theres SO much CGI used, thats its like, an overload. Like when you have too many Twinkies or eat too much. Its an overindulgence of something so uncanny as CG sets environments and characters that you sort of get turned off by it all. I cant really explain what I mean... But its just that something about having SO much CGI, CGI which wasnt exactly the best either. But then again, they came out from 99 to 05, so I cant exactly judge them with comparison to today's CGI.

...When Larry the reploid accountant goes maverick of his own accord, he's certainly formidable during tax season, but he isn't going to provide X the challenge needed to make him grow as a warrior and reach his potential.


Offline Quickman

  • Crystal Clod and
  • RPM Sorcerer
  • ****
    • Posts: 29820
    • Gender: Female
  • Classy clod
    • View Profile
    • B. Roth Arts
Reply #76 on: September 20, 2011, 09:17:08 AM
Today's CGI really isn't much better.  I haven't noticed an improvement at all.

CGI is fine for animation and an entirely-animated movie.  That said, Avatar was a very pretty cartoon.  A very pretty Ferngully remake.   But CGI has become a crutch when it comes to special effects, producers trying to save money, and directors who would rather sit in their chair with their coffee as their giant neck continues to suck their brain matter.


Offline Flame

  • The obsessive
  • RPM Soldier
  • ****
    • Posts: 16013
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #77 on: September 20, 2011, 09:25:07 AM
I would say CG as far as environments go, is definitely better than it was back then, or at least I think so. Its far less distracting. But I guess it all really boils down to what it is. what its supposed to be. A castle spire on Hogwarts? A corridor on the Death Star? a Waterfall? And depending on what it is, it is easier or harder to hide and conceal. Lighting also plays a key there as thats what usually gives it away. When the lighting comes off as uncanny. its perfect, but you can just tell.

OR,

All that really matters is if the movie itself is actually any good. Harry Potter uses its fair share of CG, but the movie itself is still a good movie, and the CG is used appropriately. As much as possible is prop. Especially indoors inside the castle,and even a fair bit outside, all of that is set. Unlike Lucas, who would rather make the simplest whitewashed corridor with no details- out of CG rather than making a set for it.

I was reading some magazine that discussed the final HP movie, and they talked about how the destruction of segments of the castle wasnt as simple as simply breaking sets, they had to make completely new sets that were purposely broken. That kind of effort really says something, and makes the end result much more personal, than CG.

...When Larry the reploid accountant goes maverick of his own accord, he's certainly formidable during tax season, but he isn't going to provide X the challenge needed to make him grow as a warrior and reach his potential.


Offline Quickman

  • Crystal Clod and
  • RPM Sorcerer
  • ****
    • Posts: 29820
    • Gender: Female
  • Classy clod
    • View Profile
    • B. Roth Arts
Reply #78 on: September 20, 2011, 10:16:40 AM
Indeed.  And actors on a tangible set act far better than those on a greenscreen.  Honestly, a number of sets in the Prequels could have been made without CG.  Just get creative, people!  It doesn't need to be on-location or constructed from extravagant and expensive materials, so long as effort is put into it and it looks good.

In ESB, Cloud City, not counting the carbon freezing chamber, control stations, etc, was a series of a couple rooms and a couple corridors.  To make it seem bigger, some walls were moved, doors added or removed, lighting changed, shot angle changed, some set dressing here or there and viola!  You have an entire segment of Cloud City!  Did people notice or care?  No!  The audience still believed that the same hallway was actually five or six.  All without the aid of CG, blue screen, and a treadmill.

And it still holds more water than the Jedi Temple.


Offline Bueno Excelente

  • Diddlyboodlyzoodly
  • Master's Unit
  • *
    • Posts: 3839
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #79 on: September 20, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
To give an example, they coulda made Tron: Legacy entirely in CG. It was even what was expected. But quite alot of those sceneries were built, even if it seems otherwise. It honestly shows.



Offline Mirby

  • RPM's Krillin
  • Legendary Hero
  • *
    • Posts: 14047
    • Gender: Female
  • KINGDOM HEARTS IS WAAAAAAA
    • View Profile
    • Mirby Studios
Reply #80 on: September 20, 2011, 01:21:59 PM
Another good example is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Particularly this scene with the table. None of it is digital editing at all; all that is one actual set. Everything in the movie is, actually.

It's not green screen, it's not CG, it's real. And the movie is much better for it.

OH [parasitic bomb] IM USING LINK AND I ACCIDENTALLY FINAL SMASHED A CUCCO OH GOD HELP
Just enjoy yourself, don't complain about everything


Offline Protoman Blues

  • Green Lantern of Sector 1337
  • RPM Knight
  • ****
    • Posts: 31343
    • Gender: Male
  • Searching for Wanda
    • View Profile
Reply #81 on: September 20, 2011, 02:57:48 PM
CG can be a great tool, when it's done properly. A great example of this is in The Two Towers, when Theoden is freed from Sarumon's control. That transition was beautiful.

But with the prequels, everything is CG & Blue Screen'd. Everything. There's no feeling of wonder, no amazement at the beauty of the scenery because nothing is real. You talk about wonder, look at The Asteroid Field scene from ESB. I can't imagine seeing that scene for the first time in a movie theater. It's downright awe inspiring, as there had never been that fast paced a space chase seen ever seen before that. That kind of wonder leads to amazement and also suspense. Meanwhile, the beginning of ROTS looks and feels phony. There's no suspense at all. It's quite a feat to make a space battle feel that boring, but they managed to accomplish it.



Offline Bueno Excelente

  • Diddlyboodlyzoodly
  • Master's Unit
  • *
    • Posts: 3839
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #82 on: September 20, 2011, 03:41:35 PM
CG can be a great tool, when it's done properly. A great example of this is in The Two Towers, when Theoden is freed from Sarumon's control. That transition was beautiful.
Yeah, but the LOTR movies are naturally FILLED with amazingly-built sceneries. WETA must've worked for years and years in order to achieve that. Some of the Minas Tirith streets were built by hand and took quite alot of time for just seconds of footage. It's not weird for CG to look good in a movie which doesn't overuse it.



Offline Protoman Blues

  • Green Lantern of Sector 1337
  • RPM Knight
  • ****
    • Posts: 31343
    • Gender: Male
  • Searching for Wanda
    • View Profile
Reply #83 on: September 20, 2011, 03:48:33 PM
Yeah, but the LOTR movies are naturally FILLED with amazingly-built sceneries. WETA must've worked for years and years in order to achieve that. Some of the Minas Tirith streets were built by hand and took quite alot of time for just seconds of footage.

Oh, absolutely. That's the point. LOTR was an example of CG used well, intermixed with incredible scenery, fully constructed sets, so that it still felt real. You could really believe that you were in Middle Earth. That's the goal of movies like that, to try to take you someplace you imagine in your fantasies, to transport you to new worlds.

The prequels accomplish nothing of the sort because it's all fake. There's no substance. If you watch the behind the scenes footage, all you see is just blue screen after blue screen, and soon you look at the actual movie and see nothing but blue screen after blue screen.



Offline Flame

  • The obsessive
  • RPM Soldier
  • ****
    • Posts: 16013
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #84 on: September 20, 2011, 05:14:18 PM
Moral of the story: Dont overuse CG, and it will be a great way to complement the real parts of a movie.

...When Larry the reploid accountant goes maverick of his own accord, he's certainly formidable during tax season, but he isn't going to provide X the challenge needed to make him grow as a warrior and reach his potential.


Offline Protoman Blues

  • Green Lantern of Sector 1337
  • RPM Knight
  • ****
    • Posts: 31343
    • Gender: Male
  • Searching for Wanda
    • View Profile
Reply #85 on: September 20, 2011, 05:27:14 PM
Well in terms of the prequels, the overuse of CG is just one of the many, many problems the films had. If the story was better, if the writing was better, if the characters were better, if the editing was better, if it was shot better, and so on, then the overuse of CG would probably not have been as big of a deal as it was.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes has a lot of CG, but it's still a very good movie.



Offline Bueno Excelente

  • Diddlyboodlyzoodly
  • Master's Unit
  • *
    • Posts: 3839
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #86 on: September 20, 2011, 10:03:27 PM
Well in terms of the prequels, the overuse of CG is just one of the many, many problems the films had. If the story was better, if the writing was better, if the characters were better, if the editing was better, if it was shot better, and so on, then the overuse of CG would probably not have been as big of a deal as it was.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes has a lot of CG, but it's still a very good movie.
Sin City was another movie in which almost everything was CG. But as it was meant not to look real, it complemented it.



Offline Quickman

  • Crystal Clod and
  • RPM Sorcerer
  • ****
    • Posts: 29820
    • Gender: Female
  • Classy clod
    • View Profile
    • B. Roth Arts
Reply #87 on: September 21, 2011, 05:50:10 AM
Indeed.  And as I said, Avatar was a very pretty animated movie. 

Of the Prequels, TPM had an okay balance of CG, puppetry, and real sets.  If Lucas stayed that route, I probably would have been okay with it.  There were a number of scenes in which Jar Jar was not CG, or at least not entirely CG.  There were some scenes where Sebulba was a puppet.  The shots were done on location, the wide shots were actual tangible miniatures built by ILM.  The podrace arena?  A full set.  The audience were Q-Tips.  The Theed palace on Naboo?  Shot on location in Italy.  The waterfalls in the Theed wide shot?  Salt being poured over the set and filmed in slow-motion.  There was a nice balance with the real objects and the CG.

I won't say much about the plot, but in terms of special effects and CG usage, TPM was the lesser of the three evils.  It was in AotC and RotS where things got worse and sets were entirely digital and utterly fake.  I've seen the production shots from RotS.  Obi-Wan astride a blue blob, dueling with a stuntman in a blue unitard, against a blue background.  Obi-Wan facing off against Blue Unitard Man against a green background with a wireframe overlay for the animators to mo-cap it.  It's very, very, VERY limiting.


Offline Flame

  • The obsessive
  • RPM Soldier
  • ****
    • Posts: 16013
    • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Reply #88 on: September 21, 2011, 06:18:45 AM
Relevant to the topic...

...When Larry the reploid accountant goes maverick of his own accord, he's certainly formidable during tax season, but he isn't going to provide X the challenge needed to make him grow as a warrior and reach his potential.


Offline Quickman

  • Crystal Clod and
  • RPM Sorcerer
  • ****
    • Posts: 29820
    • Gender: Female
  • Classy clod
    • View Profile
    • B. Roth Arts
Reply #89 on: September 21, 2011, 06:27:32 AM
XD

I love you, Deadpool.