• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Star Wars Original Trilogy ship models beter than today's CG?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EdReedFan20

Member
Does anyone think that the look of the ship models in Star Wars (Original Trilogy) are utterly fantastic? To me there are moments when they look better than CG. I think the best they ever looked was in Return of the Jedi. There are moments when it almost looks like they used CG, even though CG was in its infancy. With today's technology and improved compositing, ugliness such as matte lines and moments where (due to the compositing tech of the day) you can see that the models are almost ghost like, allowing you to see clean through.

To me, these moments from the space battle of Return of the Jedi epitomize how great the models looked in action: http://youtu.be/xPZigWFyK2o?t=2m25s http://youtu.be/xPZigWFyK2o?t=5m12s

Edit- DiipuSurotu posted some wonderful GIFs of the Return of the Jedi space battle.

DiipuSurotu said:
Hell yeah!

ge2i6Px.gif


tumblr_m9p8quCuCO1rw5vklo3_400.gif


VDjtBTu.gif


gAt2ymV.gif


msjVoWb.gif


G2yjGlV.gif


M1LCknF.gif


SkuExUw.gif


eWQ5M0J.gif
Click to expand...
 
Anth0ny said:
Real > CG
Click to expand...

And with today's tech, I don't see why they can't give it a shot again. CGI could then instead be used for explosions. For instance, that scene where the Star Destroyer Excecutor crashes into the Death Star would benefit from CG. Man, that is ugly today. Actually, any moment when a ship explodes could be CG, but any other moment it would be real. Something like planets or even the Death Star II probably should be CG.
 
Tons of stuff you think is CG in the prequels is model work. Episode 1 alone has more practical effects shots than the entire original trilogy combined. Almost no one can tell the difference.
 
Amir0x said:
Man that that Death Star model is incredible. I never was a fan of the SW movies, but it's hard to argue with its use of practical effects. Some of it is still a marvel of artistry.
Click to expand...

It is incredible, but I think it's wasted in ROTJ due to the compositing capabilites of 1983. Whenever it needs to rotate with the movement of the camera to stay in place, it lacks any of the depth that those pictures show. It looks a bad flat matte. With today's tech, I think that model would retain it's detail and depth.

MattKeil said:
Tons of stuff you think is CG in the prequels is model work. Episode 1 alone has more practical effects shots than the entire original trilogy combined. Almost no one can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I know. I remember hearing how much Revenge of the Sith used.
 
Amir0x said:
Man that that Death Star model is incredible. I never was a fan of the SW movies, but it's hard to argue with its use of practical effects. Some of it is still a marvel of artistry.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's probably the most impressive of the bunch. I don't care about Star Wars at all but just as an object it's aesthetically pleasing.
 
It's the same reason that 2001's model work puts most modern cgi to shame. Real models with precise camera work will always trump computer effects.
 
I would give anything to see the return on miniature work in modern blockbusters. Alas, most producers are too lazy.

CGI is supposed to be a tool, NOT a crutch...
 
disappeared said:
It's the same reason that 2001's model work puts most modern cgi to shame. Real models with precise camera work will always trump computer effects.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

ACESmkII said:
Battle of Endor from ROTJ, is still hands the best all out space battle to ever hit film. CG or other wise.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the shot in RotJ of the Falcon swooping toward the camera away from the Death Star II still holds the all-time record for the most non-CG assisted composited elements in a single shot. ILM had really mastered the motion control methods by the third film and some of the stuff they pulled off in it are just insane by any metric.

ezekial45 said:
Beautiful. Modern CG still can't touch this.
Click to expand...

Again, nonsense. Why are people so silly about CG vs practical like this? It's impressive model work but it doesn't look like anything except a scale model. Without the proper lighting and shot choices, none of those shots look like real ships, they look like plastic toys. CG and model work are tools, and each has an appropriate time to be used. Neither is inherently superior to the other. It's all about how a filmmaker uses the tools and when. A hammer isn't a shitty tool just because some people tried to use it to saw a piece of wood in half.
 
disappeared said:
It's the same reason that 2001's model work puts most modern cgi to shame. Real models with precise camera work will always trump computer effects.
Click to expand...

If I were in charge of doing effects in Star Wars, I'd use the models, but still use CG for certain visual effects. In that second video I linked, the (what I can only assume is supposed to be) exhaust seems to almost be hand drawn. Today, with CG, those lights could be improved. The CG would be used to augment, not overwhelm the models.
 
I like the original models because they weathered them and made them look used. Same with the sets. It's been said so much, especially in Plinkett's reviews, but the CGI sets and models were way too new. Because they were created to be new. And I don't care if the ship is brand new, it needs to look used unless it being brand new is part of the plot.
 
They look great. Space battles or ground battles (AT-ATs, AT-STs), Star Wars has many, many timeless things. Sure, there are some that haven't aged well (the Executor's destruction being one) but overall, it looks great even now, it looks better than many modern effects.

Something in them feels so real.

I cannot recall any CGI that feels and looks as good. There's always something in CGI that says "This isn't real". (Seriously, i cannot think of any single example (done with CGI) that i'd regard as better, or even as good as Star Wars OT space battles.)

A big worry for me about The Force Awakens actually. I fear they will mess up any space battles it may have, somehow, due to probable reliance on CGI. The big opening battle of Revenge of the Sith never felt that great for me, i do not know if it is was how busy the scene was or what.
 
MattKeil said:
Again, nonsense. Why are people so silly about CG vs practical like this?
Click to expand...

It's a talking point, and like most talking points, you regurgitate them because you think they make you sound more sophisticated about a specific subject without actually having to gain the experience needed to acquire that sophistication.

rubber hammer meet kneecap.
 
MattKeil said:
Tons of stuff you think is CG in the prequels is model work. Episode 1 alone has more practical effects shots than the entire original trilogy combined. Almost no one can tell the difference.
Click to expand...
But if you're going to the effort of doing model work and nobody can tell that it's not CGI why bother? And why has that started happening?
 
Woorloog said:
They look great. Space battles or ground battles (AT-ATs, AT-STs), Star Wars has many, many timeless things. Sure, there are some that haven't aged well (the Executor's destruction being one) but overall, it looks great even now, it looks better than many modern effects.

Something in them feels so real.

I cannot recall any CGI that feels and looks as good. There's always something in CGI that says "This isn't real".
A big worry for me about The Force Awakens actually. I fear they will mess up any space battles it may have, somehow, due to probable reliance on CGI. The big opening battle of Revenge of the Sith never felt that great for me, i do not know if it is was how busy the scene was or what.
Click to expand...

I think the reason the ROTS battle was not as good was because it was limited in scope. It only focused on Anakin and Obi-Wan and some clones. There seemed to be more dialogue than action. The ROTJ battle was way more kinectic and intense and intercut between more people involved in the battle.
 
MattKeil said:
DBZ2zH4.jpg
Click to expand...

Eh.
I can't recall how long it has been since i saw Jurassic Park. Probably closer to 15 years at least.
Also never liked film.

(And the dinosaurs don't have feathers. Yes yes, it wasn't known back then...)

EDIT And i was talking about space battles. I can think of a few examples of CGI elsewhere that's okay.

EdReedFan20 said:
I think the reason the ROTS battle was not as good was because it was limited in scope. It only focused on Anakin and Obi-Wan and some clones. There seemed to be more dialogue than action. The ROTJ battle was way more kinectic and intense and intercut between more people involved in the battle.
Click to expand...

Hmm, good point. I would have preferred more focus on the battle overall rather than the boring antics of Obi-Wan and Anakin.
 
Dryk said:
But if you're going to the effort of doing model work and nobody can tell that it's not CGI why bother?
Click to expand...

It's not really evidence of subpar model work, it's evidence of people who don't know the difference and don't have the eye to spot it, popping off at length on the internet.

It has nothing to do with accurately assessing the quality of work.
 
Woorloog said:
Eh.
I can't recall how long it has been since i saw Jurassic Park. Probably closer to 15 years at least.
Also never liked film.

(And the dinosaurs don't have feathers. Yes yes, it wasn't known back then...)



Hmm, good point. I would have preferred more focus on the battle overall rather than the boring antics of Obi-Wan and Anakin.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the dialogue in that scene (and the resulting performances) were not very great.
 
EdReedFan20 said:
I think the reason the ROTS battle was not as good was because it was limited in scope. It only focused on Anakin and Obi-Wan and some clones. There seemed to be more dialogue than action. The ROTJ battle was way more kinectic and intense and intercut between more people involved in the battle.
Click to expand...

It was also different because the space battle in ROTS was more of a setup/background shot to show you, "so, this is happening right now". Whereas in ROTJ, it was basically the final battle after a culmination of everything that had happened in the movies up until then.
 
I think a combination of both, with great thought into the advantages/disadvantages of either technology tends to work best. I mean, you can't really deny how good something like Gravity looks which uses mostly CG, these technologies are a tool and it really depends on whether they're in capable hands or not.

You would also think that with stuff like 3d printers that the amount of detail on the models and the time requirements could make models more viable from a budget point of view.

But yeah, there was so much talent working on the original trilogies from a practical effect point of view. The amount of care and detail is simply astonishing.
 
Gravidee said:
It was also different because the space battle in ROTS was more of a setup/background shot to show you, "so, this is happening right now". Whereas in ROTJ, it was basically the final battle after a culmination of everything that had happened in the movies up until then.
Click to expand...

True and not to mention that you also had the battle on the ground that it would cut to, as well as Luke's confrontations with Vader and Palpatine on the Death Star.
 
Dryk said:
But if you're going to the effort of doing model work and nobody can tell that it's not CGI why bother? And why has that started happening?
Click to expand...

Because everyone thinks they're some kind of visual effects expert with the advent of CG for some reason. All these armchair CG experts are looking at greenscreen work constantly in films and have no idea what they're seeing, but the instant something that very obviously isn't possible in real life, like a starfighter or an alien, pops onscreen, suddenly it's "OMG FAAAAAKE BAD CG" from here to the back wall.

Even if people could tell what they were looking at, there are thousands and thousands of terrible practical effects in film. Stop watching the masters of the practical craft at the height of their creative power and start watching the more run of the mill sci-fi and fantasy of the era and none of that shit is any better than bad CG, and much of it is worse. It's a pure coin flip for me between a terrible CG alien and a terrible stop-motion one. Or worse, a guy in a gorilla suit wearing a space helmet, which was done in more than one movie, believe it or not.

Woorloog said:
Eh.
I can't recall how long it has been since i saw Jurassic Park. Probably closer to 15 years at least.
Also never liked film.

(And the dinosaurs don't have feathers. Yes yes, it wasn't known back then...)
Click to expand...

All irrelevant, especially considering the Jeep in that shot is also CG.
 
EdReedFan20 said:
Not to mention the dialogue in that scene (and the resulting performances) were not very great.
Click to expand...

Anyone recall how Obi-Wan's head set doesn't stay in place but keeps being worn properly to almost falling off and then going back to being properly? I presume that was because of the cockpit set moving during shooting.
 
I haven't seen it, but wasn't the tiger in Life of Pi mostly (all?) CG? That looked impressive, iirc.
 
disappeared said:
Having just re-watched 2001 a couple months back, I stand by my point. I felt more engaged with the practical effects that they used with that film than any modern cgi-focused sci-fi film I've seen in recent years.
Click to expand...

That's more about the movie than the effects.
 
MattKeil said:
DBZ2zH4.jpg
Click to expand...

Yep. It wasn't until last year I learned the damn truck was CGI, too. Blew my mind.

BobbyRoberts said:
It's a talking point, and like most talking points, you regurgitate them because you think they make you sound more sophisticated about a specific subject without actually having to gain the experience needed to acquire that sophistication.

rubber hammer meet kneecap.
Click to expand...

This. CGI when done right is awesome. And so are practical effects (...when done right).
 
disappeared said:
I stand by my point. I felt more engaged with the practical effects that they used with that film than any modern cgi-focused sci-fi film I've seen in recent years.
Click to expand...

You don't think that might have something to do with the fact 2001 is considered one of the best films ever made?

I'm not sure what "i felt more engaged with the practical effects" is even supposed to mean, really.
 
MattKeil said:
Tons of stuff you think is CG in the prequels is model work. Episode 1 alone has more practical effects shots than the entire original trilogy combined. Almost no one can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I think the prequel model work lost of lot of its tangibility through the digital composition, especially with episodes II and III when they dropped 35mm entirely.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
You don't think that might have something to do with the fact 2001 is considered one of the best films ever made?

I'm not sure what "i felt more engaged with the practical effects" is even supposed to mean, really.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I suppose it does have to do with the film's overall quality.
 
Jaeger said:
Did you guys know that not one Clone Trooper had real armor on? All CGI.
Click to expand...

Certainly for EP3, though my friend claims some helmets were physical props.
(Can't recall how things were in EP2. All i recall the CGI in the final scene looks pretty bad.)
They look mostly realistic (EDIT The full armor that is, though there were exceptions...)... until you notice how they re-use the same animations and there are mirrored trooper models (note how they hold their guns left handed, with the gun model itself mirrored as well) around at times as well.

By the way, was the final space battle in The Phantom Menace made mostly with CGI or models?
I think i've read it was made using models. Yet my mind insists it looks like CGI, there are some shots in the battle that look like bad CGI to me at times.
 
MattKeil said:
Again, nonsense. Why are people so silly about CG vs practical like this? It's impressive model work but it doesn't look like anything except a scale model. Without the proper lighting and shot choices, none of those shots look like real ships, they look like plastic toys. CG and model work are tools, and each has an appropriate time to be used. Neither is inherently superior to the other. It's all about how a filmmaker uses the tools and when. A hammer isn't a shitty tool just because some people tried to use it to saw a piece of wood in half.
Click to expand...

Chill out. The biggest reason why I think it's better because it actually looks like a tangible object, and not some digital model cooked up on out of date technology (thinking of the prequel trilogy). Yes, they are tools that are used effectively. But for the case of the models you mentioned about lighting and positioning, that's a process that is dependent on natural and organic situations. What's good for lighting and blocking for models then in 1978, is still good today.

CGI unfortunately does not age well. Yes, you can give me examples like JP, but for the most part they just don't. The effects in Episode I were cutting edge at the time, and now they look hokey and stiff. The original Star Wars still looks impressive because of the real models and sets designs, a lot of the effects in the original trilogy are still immensely impressive, moreso than anything Lucas did in the prequel trilogy.

Jaeger said:
Did you guys know that not one Clone Trooper had real armor on? All CGI.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they all looked fake. The contrast between the actors head and the CGI armor was incredibly stark. It was weird.
 
ezekial45 said:
Chill out. The biggest reason why I think it's better because it actually looks like a tangible object, and not some digital model cooked up on out of date technology (thinking of the prequel trilogy). Yes, they are tools that are used effectively. But for the case of the models you mentioned about lighting and positioning, that's a process that is dependent on natural and organic situations. What's good for lighting and blocking for models then in 1978, is still good today.

CGI unfortunately does not age well. Yes, you can give me examples like JP, but for the most part they just don't. The effects in Episode I were cutting edge at the time, and now they look hokey and stiff. The original Star Wars still looks impressive because of the real models and sets designs, a lot of the effects in the original trilogy are still immensely impressive, moreso than anything Lucas did in the prequel trilogy.

Yeah, and they all looked fake. The contrast between the actors head and the CGI armor was incredibly stark. It was weird.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm just going to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion though, as I am mine.
 
For me, older models tend to look more real in that they look like models. They appear to be real objects, yes, but in most cases not really that realistic. By comparison good CG creates more detailed things that aren't restricted by the small scale of models or limitations of mechanical design, and often functions better in the world of the film.

Obviously, if you're looking for a sense of tangibility above all else, a model is going to appeal especially combined with the modern psychological bias of "I know it's CG, something that elaborate can't be real."

Having said that, one advantage of practical sets as opposed to CG sets is that the practical set imposes restrictions which can in fact lead to better scenes composition, more believable action, and greater ingenuity. Something that a lot of people don't get about technology is that more = better isn't always true. Limitations breed creativity and craftsmanship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Original trilogy characters are coming to Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge
10
134
Fbh replied
Star Wars Original Trilogy Theatrical Version restoration in the works
2
75
1K
mitch1971 replied
Disney Galaxy’s Edge acknowledges the original trilogy, introduces Darth Vader, Luke, Leia, Han
47
440
PhineasC replied
Star Wars: Eyes Like Stars announced
2
75
1K
AJUMP23 replied
Star Wars: Visions Volume 3
5
333
RagnarokIV replied
Top Bottom