Jump to content

Question for Starwars fans (modeling related)


Recommended Posts

This may be an older issue since I think the last NEW star wars film came out in 2006, but does anyone feel that the newer Starwars lost their charm that the originals had by going with CGI instead of models for their action scenes?

The CGI scenes look obviously fake, where it was much harder to tell with the Models. I also feel the puppets and midget or children actors did a lot better jobs of creating likeable characters, than the Jar Jar Binks character made entirely of CGI and was downright cartoonish. Leia's first meeting with an Ewok was the same midget actor that did Willow and Leprechaun.

The edited scene where greedo first shoots at Han Solo was uncalled for and the original scene was better. ANyone with half a brain should shoot first if the oppurtunity arises when a gun is pointed at them. I feel the actor in this good the bad and the ugly scene could not have said it better for why you should shoot instead of talk and wait to be shot at before you shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I...feature=related

Iin the original 3 starwars that George Lucas redid in 1997 with CGI, the newer CGI scenes clash with the older scenes done with props and models. They dont blend well at all and you can totally tell when a scene is added to the original. When I rent starwars, I hate getting the newer 1997 ones, I always look for the digitally remastered pre-1997 Starwars with no editing.

I hate to see hollywood modelers go the way of the DoDo, but I just dont see nearly as many movies with models in them, compared to CGI today. One looks real, and one is obviously done with a computer.

Edited by Superjew
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to say, but the days of the Hollywood master modeler are done.........................................CGI is much cheaper.

IMHO, CGI can't hold a candle to a well built, well shot model with high production values. ILM really nailed this back in the day.

CGI looks like a cartoon to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100%..but there are a few things in the way for a modeler. As stated...the CGI is much cheaper to do than build a model...and production companies want to make money. Another thing is that there is so much more you can do with CGI. A model is limited to the physics of our world and the abilities of the builder and the camera guy. you can do pretty much whatver you want with a CGI character/vehivle.

the final, and I think most important part, is that most of todays generation...anyone younger than about 16, has only ever really seen the CGI and thinks that it is what things are suposed to look like. a young person will see a model and think"that looks so fake" because they are USED to seeing CGI.. its just opposite for you and me.

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you 100%..but there are a few things in the way for a modeler. As stated...the CGI is much cheaper to do than build a model...and production companies want to make money. Another thing is that there is so much more you can do with CGI. A model is limited to the physics of our world and the abilities of the builder and the camera guy. you can do pretty much whatver you want with a CGI character/vehivle.

Also, with the CGI models, it is possible to take said model, and with a few deft file format conversions, dump it to a CNC router to make model kits from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with computer graphics are not the looks (there are lots of problems with models, like movement and explosions and correctly portraying distance) but the freedom it gives directors to do what they want. Directors are not just generally uneducated in and unknowledgeable of physics and dynamics and science in general, they are thoroughly steeped in the incorrect assumptions of directors before them.

But you'd probably be shocked at how much computer graphics and manipulation are used. Pretty much every hour long TV show uses at least some green screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing is that there is so much more you can do with CGI.

Unfortunately, this includes defying the laws of aerodynamics. That's why the P-40 vs. Zero dogfights in 'Pearl Harbor' were so awful. They flew more like TIE fighters than airplanes.

A model is limited to the physics of our world...

This is a good thing, for the reason listed above. It's not just the physics of our world, it's the physics of all known worlds.

In all fairness, CGI does more stuff right than wrong. The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park come to mind. I just saw the Sorcerer's Apprentice and it was outstanding. The use of CGI for everything from Sorcerer combat to the dragon scaling the wall, to the car rolling in and out of mirrors, was fantastic.

I think CGI's major limitation is with aviation. They could probably solve this (Or at least improve.) by collaborating with the manufacturers of video games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think CGI's major limitation is with aviation. They could probably solve this (Or at least improve.) by collaborating with the manufacturers of video games.

or by jsut actually giving a d*mn when it came to aviation. there are so many movies where the aircraft was the leakest link/ worst aspect of the movie. People just think they can throw a plane in doing some awesome manouver, even if there is no way it can be done in real life, and they assume that it will be accepted..and the sad thing it is accepted most of the time.

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
The edited scene where greedo first shoots at Han Solo was uncalled for and the original scene was better.

Allright, embracing my inner seven year old here...

My main beef with the "Greedo shoots first" revisionism is that it totally tampers with the character of Solo. In the original cut, he was initially portrayed as ruthless, totally selfish and calculating, which makes his sudden appearance in the Falcon at the climax of the Death Star battle that more surprising. But noooo, we have to tamper with it, because, of course, a real hero will never shoot first..!

It's like the watered down anniversary cut of "ET" where guns are digitally changed into walkietalkies. What's next - "Saving Private Ryan" where the landing beaches are stormed with walkietalkies in hand while the Germans shoot lollipops?

It may have been primitive, but for my money one of the most efective scenes of all Star Wars movies is still the Hoth battle with its lumbering stopmotion AT-AT's. You can tell that they are real objects, with real heft and volume, and the fact that their movements are a bit jerky and not 100% smooth just adds realism in my view.

Then again, I'm a sucker for all that Willis O'Brien / Ray Harryhausen work. Oh well, at least I have the original cuts of the original trilogy and "ET" on dvd...

Cheers,

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the best CGI work will have the best artists. I at one time took CGI classes and have studied the older techniques. I had plans to work in the industry, but never got as far with it as I wanted to. As such, here is my take on the whole debate:

Indeed Jurassic Park and the Star Wars AT-ATs have already been mentioned and they are more alike then not. Phil Tippet was a stop motion puppeteer who started working for ILM on ESB and he lended his hand to the taun taun and AT-AT sequences. Fast forward years later to JP and ILM had two teams working the dinosaur movement from different angles. There was a stop motion team and a CGI team. When the CGI team got good fluid movement on the dinos, Phil knew the days of stop motion were numbered. BUT, he and his team didn't stand in the way and indeed they helped. They came up with a motion capture puppet that they could animate the stop motion way and used it to help program the movements in the CGI work. Reason being is the CG rendering work could do continuous movements well, but not transition from one set to another with fluidity. If you look at the final scene where the T-rex is attacking the raptors, that HAD to be Tippett's work based on how fluid the motion was.

In terms of ILM's work on SW, a lot of people dismiss the prequels for their CGI work when in fact there was a lot more model work used then they are given credit for. The space scenes over Naboo were done with old school model work using all the tricks of the trade that ILM had learned during two decades. The areas on the ground were shot in minature and live action and CGI work was digitally composited in. Talking to a couple people who worked in ILM's model shop, one way it evolved around that time was the motion control models were getting bigger and more massive since the details read better in the camera (the NSEA Protector studio model from Galaxy Quest was HUGE). The CG work was best utilized for the distance and fast cut shots. AOTC, which featured the air speeder chase had some MASSIVE miniature sets built for the landscape of Corescant. It was some of ILMs best miniature work to date. But they never advertised that. When it got to ROTS, the CG work began to dominate more as computing power had gone up and the artists were well versed in the technology, having worked with it for many years. The time was simply right. But I believe some minor model work was used.

When the Special Editions were done circa 1995-96, they couldn't do as much. As such, the stuff looks a little cartoony compared to today. ANH made use of the most of it since George was never completely happy with the motion control work in the first film. But considering it was the first time anyone had done computer motion control, the answers weren't there already. As such, the strengths of CGI were in the fast cuts. Indeed the motions of the fighters over the Death Star are more in keeping with what was seen in ROTJ's model work, although some of the movements didn't seem as fluid. For ESB, only one major new scene involving space was added and that was Vader's shuttle leaving Bespin. The rest of the shots were model work. Where the CG was used involved the digital matte backgrounds. It seemed to work better as the effects were more subtle and not overt and "in your face". ROTJ did more digital character experimentation, which of course led to Jar Jar, but others as well.

It looked to me like George was testing the waters with those special editions to see what was possible. Indeed he backed off a bit on some things that didn't seem to work right or went a little sideways. As such, the fighter scenes in PM were model based again and miniature work was used for sets. The pod race scene of course was all digital (although the start finish arena was a miniature set again). But with the speeds involved and the quick cuts, they worked VERY well. The digital character experiment seemed to work better, so the team went with it.

Getting back to ANH, indeed I prefer the original to the special edition, but not necessarily for the reasons cited (although the Greedo bit ticked me off as well). Another bit that bothered me was the sound editing in spots. While CG work added some flash to the production, it didn't correct some of the basic flaws in the original work and those flaws were still there. There was one blooper on Tatooine where you see the camera cut from the red R5 unit blowing up back to R2 and red is still next to him. There are a couple other bloopers out there. Plus, it sort of violated George's own coda, which is that the story should drive the effects and effects should not drive the story. There are scenes in all the SE versions of the film that were gratuitous at best. The drive into Mos Eisley with the droid getting smacked was one of them. Then you had Jabba visiting Han and at the end of the scene, Boba Fett looks at the camera. I was expecting him to hold up a sign saying "hi mom!"

At the same time, ANH SE introduced many of its own flaws. Watching the original film, it was clear that the ILM model makers took great care to help identify the different X-Wings and use them in scenes as they applied to specific characters. So when you got a shot of Red Leader, it was the Red 1 studio model. Red 2's ship was always Wedge, Red 3 was always Biggs and Red 5 was always Luke. Some of the other cannon fodder pilots had ship scenes that recycled the other models. For the CGI X-Wing versions, it is clear that the CG team really only had the Red 2 model to work with in their digital shots. So when you see the pull in to Luke in the cockpit and R2 in the back, the ship has a solid red side stripe and two stripes on the wings (probably because it also matched the paintjob of the full size set piece). Even some of the model shots were digitally edited, putting different X-Wing studio models in places they weren't before. They sort of destroyed that sense of care the original model team had back in 1976-77. As such, what I would have liked to see was a bit more care taken with those sequences to try and match the models better. They could have applied some of the digital pasting work (which had been around for a couple years with Apollo 13 and Forrest Gump) to fix background stuff. It is correction of the little things that would have helped.

To use a modeling analogy, I liken Star Wars ANH SE as like taking an old model built in 1977 (a good model, albeit with some construction flaws) and trying to revamp it with photo-etch just because it looks cool. When done, it doesn't look better. It just looks like the same 1977 model with OBVIOUS photo-etch on it while no attempt was made to really blend the additions into the work and the paintjob, or fix some of the previous shortcomings. But I still like to watch the current DVD version once in awhile anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Tuesday I had the distinct pleasure of watching Star Trek 2 on the big screen at a local movie theater. As I and my fellow Trek buddy were walking out and discussing what we had just seen, I said "You know what....give me practical special effects and real model work over CGI any day." He agreed. The shots of the Enterprise and Reliant blasting away at each other had more depth, warmth and texture than any CGI shot Lucas ever attempted in the prequels. Being able to work with a bigger FX pallet DOES NOT translate well into story and excitement.

Take a look at the mess that the last Indiana Jones story became. Lucas was trying to tell the story with FX, but the effects were never what those movies were about. They served the story, not the other way around. I was hearing some grumbling about ANOTHER Indiana Jones films and they were actually talking about doing the majority of the work with practical effects and only going to CGI when absolutely necessary. BRAVO!!!! I think they may finally be getting it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then again, I'm a sucker for all that Willis O'Brien / Ray Harryhausen work. Oh well, at least I have the original cuts of the original trilogy and "ET" on dvd...

Cheers,

Andre

Harryhausen was the best. I loved his dino work in Gwangi and One Million Years BC.

I have seen some episodes of ST:TOS with the new CGI work and I have to agree that "economy" CGI doesn't look as good as a model. ST:TNG is another example of early CGI work that doesn't hold up compared to an well built and photographed ILM model.

There are lots of other examples. Discovery/BBC's "Walking with Dinosaurs" and the various offshoots of that are some "acceptable but not realistic" CGI. Some stuff you see on SyFy channel, the creatures in "Starship Troopers" are also examples of just "OK" CGI.

However, the newest CGI work is almost photorealistic. The technology is still maturing and as an analogy might compare what ILM or Douglas Trumbull(Silent Running, 2001, Close Encounters) were able to do with models in the 70's and later to the model work we were getting in the 50's and early 60s to the progression of CGI. High end CGI is very good...still not as good as a well built and well photograped model, but it is getting there.

BTW, I thought some shots of the original JP CGI dinos looked fake, but they got better in JP2 and 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up as a kid it was my ambition to be a master model builder for movies like Star Wars, and Star Trek.

The USS Enterprise Refit model in the Motion Picture is still, to me, the high water mark for motion picture models. And yes, more so than the Falcon.

Over time I realized that CGI was going to replace physical models. After leaving the Navy and over the course of various accidents, I found myself working in the digital world (I design video games for a living). There are a few things that make CGI the choice of producers/directors.

  1. Cheaper. A master modeller is simply more expensive than some kid coming out of school that can use Maya.
  2. Training. Maya and all the other tools needed are taught in school. Try as I might, I never found a school that taught me how to make X-Wing physical models.
  3. No Camera limitations. You can move a 3D camera around a 3D object however you want.
  4. Faster iteration. A director can sit with an animator and and tweak a shot over and over and over again until it's what the direct wants. That's very difficult, and insanely expensive for physical models.
  5. Better effects. With rare exception (the Enterprise mentioned above) a physical model looks like a physical model. Especially when you have other elements like fire and water. CGI can easily be made to look real.
  6. Mass Production. How long did it take the model makers at ILM to make all those X-Wings? Or all those BSG Vipers? In the new BSG all those Vipers were slight modifications of a single mesh (they used a script to apply different textures for call signs and weathering) that was simply copied over and over.
  7. Probably the most important, there are a gazillion people that can do it. There are more students in school learning how to do CGI visual effects now than there are people actually doing CGI visual effects. These people are literally, a dime a dozen. Physical Model Makers are hard to find and so very expensive.
  8. Low on the list of importance but something to consider is storage. Lucas has a gigantic warehouse full of physical models. The vast majority of studios can't do that. So either these expensive models are auctioned off (again, the Enterprise) or they crumble to dust in the back lot somewhere. CG Models end up on a CD on a shelf....and they can be easily brought back for sequels. The Enterprise had to undergo a complete paint job between STIII and STIV.

There are a ton of other reasons too. That's not nearly a comprehensive list but with rare exception I think the day's of physical models on screen are done. Which is a shame because that's my childhood goal up in smoke.

Edited by RiderFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this includes defying the laws of aerodynamics. That's why the P-40 vs. Zero dogfights in 'Pearl Harbor' were so awful.

[/quotte]

If I am to believe this premise, then do you actually expect me to believe the dogfight scenes in "The Red Baron" where unrealistic because they were CGI! I find your arguement to be totally unbelievable and without any substance! :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, this includes defying the laws of aerodynamics. That's why the P-40 vs. Zero dogfights in 'Pearl Harbor' were so awful. They flew more like TIE fighters than airplanes.

{snip}

Those fighters being CGI have nothing to do with the way they move. You can defy the laws of Aerodynamics just as easily with a physical model on a stick as you can with a CGI model. Had the CGI animators been directed properly, those fighter scenes would have been indistinguishable from film footage of the real event.

At the end of the day it's the director that wanted the aircraft to move that way, not the animators. And as with the rest of the film, the director made a mess of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit OT, but hopefully makes you feel better:

Apparently that "look at me, look at your man, now back at me" Old Spice commercial was all real. From the bathroom to the boat to the horse, it was all taken in one shot.

Terry

One of the greatest commercials of all time, also taken in one long shot:

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you'd probably be shocked at how much computer graphics and manipulation are used. Pretty much every hour long TV show uses at least some green screen.

For example:

Agreed with the general consensus that aviation CGI in general is pretty weak (although admittedly when it is done right we tend not to notice. NatGeo's Aircrash investigation (I think, it is one of that genre anyway) gets it pretty right. In addition to the physics already discussed, one of the things I have noticed often on CG aircraft in TV/Movies and Games alike is that dihedral is often wrong. Anyone know why this might be a particular problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
{snip}

If I am to believe your premise, than do you actually expect me to believe that I can't tell the difference between the real P-40 & Zero flight scenes and the CGI ones? Because I can. In the real flight scenes, the planes obey the laws of aerodynamics, in the CGI ones, they fly like spaceships from a sci-fi movie.

As I said in my original post, CGI gets more things right than wrong but they do fall short in aviation. I never said I was anti-CGI.

Well, I couldn't really understand some of your reply, but yes, a properly done CG clip of a dog fight would be indistinguishable from the real thing. The fact that this particular film messed up is beside the point. A physical model is subject to the same ability to break the laws of physics just like a CG one...if you let them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those fighters being CGI have nothing to do with the way they move. You can defy the laws of Aerodynamics just as easily with a physical model on a stick as you can with a CGI model. Had the CGI animators been directed properly, those fighter scenes would have been indistinguishable from film footage of the real event.

CGI has everything to do with the way objects move, that's why their called CGI animators but I do agree with the rest of your point.

At the end of the day it's the director that wanted the aircraft to move that way, not the animators. And as with the rest of the film, the director made a mess of it.

Well, now you're getting into Michael Bay's directorial style and if we go into that, he'll come here and blow up the thread. :monkeydance:

Well, I couldn't really understand some of your reply, but yes, a properly done CG clip of a dog fight would be indistinguishable from the real thing. The fact that this particular film messed up is beside the point. A physical model is subject to the same ability to break the laws of physics just like a CG one...if you let them.

Agreed. I never implied otherwise, but, the problem with CGI is that the mistake can be done quickly and repeated over a 90 minute span. While I was never a fan of models on a stick (Though I thought it was pretty well-done in Thirty Seconds over Tokyo.) it has the advantage of being a slow process which gives the director time to stop and say: "Hey! Airplanes don't fly like that!" Whereas, when you have CGI movies coming out where spacecraft, dragons, P-40s, stealth fighters, Ironman and the Transformers (In robot and airplane form.) all fly the same way, surely, you can see where I'm coming from?

There is a peculiarity to CGI and the way that it's being used in films with flying sequences that some of the viewing public finds annoying and would like to see it fixed. Though, I'm not holding my breath. I guess what I want is for the CGI guys to have some buttons that say things like:

[Fly like airplane, PRESS HERE.]

[Fly like robot, PRESS HERE.]

[Fly like cyborg, PRESS HERE.]

[Fly like spaceship, PRESS HERE.]

[Fly like Purple People Eater/Dragon/Big Metal Eagle, PRESS HERE.]

Is that too much for us to ask for? Michael Bay? Are you listening?

BTW, Riderfan, that last reply (Post #19) was actually to someone else.

Edited by Pirata
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've really been enjoying this thread, many good points. I'm an old school 1977 Star Wars fan myself ;)

I've always believed that the best special effect is the one you don't notice.

To nitpck one particular CGI mment: Star Wars Episode 2 Attack of the Clones- when both R2 and 3PO are in the Geonosis droid factory.... AWFUL! It is instantly apparent neither Kenny Baker or Anthony Daniels are acting in costume and these are very poor CGI animations. Man, those droids have personality and it was totally lost with CGI there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CG flight scenes in "Stealth" were done pretty well ...

The CG Eagles flying in "The Return of the King" looked quite nice ...

And some of the more realistic portrayal of spaceship movements were done in CGI on the "Babylon 5" series ....

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Star Wars Episode 2 Attack of the Clones- when both R2 and 3PO are in the Geonosis droid factory.... AWFUL!

Agreed. According to the commentary on the DVD, Lucas came up with the idea for that entire factory sequence after principal photography had wrapped, and shot the actors in "pickups" against a green screen, with everything else CGI. I absolutely cringe at the whole C3PO/soldier droid head-swap thing..it totally wrecks the "flow" of what is supposed to be an intense battle sequence. It's painful enough when Lucas tries to write dialogue..when he attempts to throw in "comic relief" it's downright torturous. Woops..got off topic there.

I can't comment in much detail about the dogfight scenes in PH. I only saw the film once (which was two or three times too many) and by the time it got to that point I was so disgusted I wasn't paying much attention. I do remember actually saying "aw c'mon!" out loud when the P-40s and Zekes reenacted the Death Star trench battle between the hangars. If I'd known how badly Bay was going to butcher the Doolittle Raid (not to mention the Gen himself) I would have walked out then and there.

The CG Eagles flying in "The Return of the King" looked quite nice ...

As did the Fell Beasts. Weta Digital also did a pretty decent job with the biplanes "King Kong." I personally loved Jackson's remake, and don't quite understand why it gets dumped on so much. I'm definitely more optimistic about Jackson's upcoming "Dam Busters" remake than I am about Lucas's "Red Tails."

SN

Edited by Steve N
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always prefer to use a real vehicle when possible during a shoot, but I do understand the need for CGI when necessary. Too many 'creatives' just don't understand lighting (reflections, etc) and the need to have an established light source (so things tend to look fake). CGI and Scale Models are all tools to achieve the desired effect and tell the story.

Take the "Dogfights" series on the History Channel for instance. Although the scenes are clearly CGI, they have all been directed well and dramatically help to illustrate the story and convey the urgency of the combat. More respect should be paid to photographers and cinematographers. Quality is quality as far as direction is involved. Bad direction = crap. My 2¢.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...