Damn straight
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Star Wars Original Trilogy ship models beter than today's CG?
- Thread starter EdReedFan20
- Start date
- Status
ZombieSupaStar
Member
It blew my mind how much green screen they used in the hobbit vs LOTR.
Going 3d really wasn't worth it imo.
Going 3d really wasn't worth it imo.
More certainly is not better. I thought more about the ROTS space battle and the OT space battles, and figure that the simplicity of the originals is part of their appeal.
The battle in ROTS is so goddamn busy. There's a billion details, all of them wasted because they're visible only for so short time and because they are not notable among everything else.
The final scene of ROTS shows a couple of Star Destroyers... frankly, i like that shot better than the whole space battle scene. Less is more.
The smaller scale and focus also give the OT's battles a feel that you're involved. You see less, only the immediate things, not overall scene. You're in the middle of the battle.
Of course, this could be re-created with CGI... but i think it is less likely to be done, because with CGI, the filmmakers can do so much more, even when they probably shouldn't.
The battle in ROTS is so goddamn busy. There's a billion details, all of them wasted because they're visible only for so short time and because they are not notable among everything else.
The final scene of ROTS shows a couple of Star Destroyers... frankly, i like that shot better than the whole space battle scene. Less is more.
The smaller scale and focus also give the OT's battles a feel that you're involved. You see less, only the immediate things, not overall scene. You're in the middle of the battle.
Of course, this could be re-created with CGI... but i think it is less likely to be done, because with CGI, the filmmakers can do so much more, even when they probably shouldn't.
This doesn't necessarily have to do with practical vs. CGI, but re-watching those RotJ scenes, that is some really well-staged and shot action. There's a kinetic excitement that you rarely feel in modern Hollywood action.
I was watching Guardians of the Galaxy recently, and I like the movie, but despite advances in technology, that scene where they're dogfighting in those mining pods just feels so lifeless and dull compared to any Star Wars OT dogfight. There's no impact or weight to the action.
I was watching Guardians of the Galaxy recently, and I like the movie, but despite advances in technology, that scene where they're dogfighting in those mining pods just feels so lifeless and dull compared to any Star Wars OT dogfight. There's no impact or weight to the action.
Real + CG > Real > CG. Jurassic Park is an excellent example.
EdReedFan20
Member
And really the only visual issues are the light effects (which look drawn on and could look so much better today with a touch of CG) and the matte boxes, especially the moment when the three Tie Fighters go into the tunnel. I would imagine that today, both those issues could be lessened or even completely erased.
DOWN
Banned
There's a reason filmmakers like Ridley Scott and Star Wars director JJ Abrams himself emphasize using models and practical effects whenever possible. You are reaching by saying "nonsense." The imbalance of using too much CGI is often more pronounced to viewers than practical effects are.
The reason being that they like to use partical effects as apposed to it being better than CGI.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Ridley Scott and JJ Abrams use both. Frequently. Often in the same shot.
One isn't inherently better than the other. It's all in how you use them.
This is known, and has been known, for decades now. There's almost zero practical reason to push the idea that one form of FX technology is inherently superior to another. They're all just tools. What matters is whether or not the person using those tools knows what the fuck they're doing with them.
Holding up JJ Abrams and Ridley Scott as some sort of paragon of the practical is disingenuous. They're just as interested in using CGI when needed. And they should be. Use the right tool for the specific job. Don't just adhere to some bullshit dogma out of a sense of purism that's questionable at best.
One isn't inherently better than the other. It's all in how you use them.
This is known, and has been known, for decades now. There's almost zero practical reason to push the idea that one form of FX technology is inherently superior to another. They're all just tools. What matters is whether or not the person using those tools knows what the fuck they're doing with them.
Holding up JJ Abrams and Ridley Scott as some sort of paragon of the practical is disingenuous. They're just as interested in using CGI when needed. And they should be. Use the right tool for the specific job. Don't just adhere to some bullshit dogma out of a sense of purism that's questionable at best.
I feel like one thing that makes those RotJ scenes so appealing is they have just the right balance of action. There's enough going on in every shot to make it feel like it's really a massive space battle, but not so much going on that the flow of scenes gets lost in a blur of motion and light.
You could recreate the battle entirely in CGI, and it wouldn't be any less good. Actually, the Super Star Destroyer blowing up would probably be much improved. But I do think the limits of the practical effects may have kept them from falling into the trap of many contemporary action scenes. Like, the action scenes in the Transformer movies are total garbage, but that's not because they're CGI, but because CGI allows Michael Bay to fulfill his creative vision of blurry piles of junk exploding and flying all over the screen.
You could recreate the battle entirely in CGI, and it wouldn't be any less good. Actually, the Super Star Destroyer blowing up would probably be much improved. But I do think the limits of the practical effects may have kept them from falling into the trap of many contemporary action scenes. Like, the action scenes in the Transformer movies are total garbage, but that's not because they're CGI, but because CGI allows Michael Bay to fulfill his creative vision of blurry piles of junk exploding and flying all over the screen.
Thank you.
Pretty much this.
There will be a time when CG is unilaterally superior because it's faster, easier, safer and all-around more malleable than practical - but that time will only come when the technology and artistry is good enough to entirely fool the human eye. That people were surprised to find out that the droid was practical in the Force Awakens trailer shows were at least crawling towards that future.
Until then, you got use the best tool for the job.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Get out of her with your logic. That has no place in here!
a secret-boss
Banned
early lord of the rings did this too.
minitures mix with CG then Peter went Lucas
minitures mix with CG then Peter went Lucas
Gambit 1138
Banned
Honestly the first 2 Jurassic park movies, The mask, and T2 look better than today's CG
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
The bluray special features of Hannibal (TV) blew my mind when they revealed how much of the show was CGI. It's seamless and impressive. So, to echo what others have said, when done right, both CGI and practical effects can look great. It really comes down to the people working on the projects.
I've been thinking about this for months now, since we learned Episode VII is pushing for more practical effects and trying not to rely on CGI as much as the Prequels did... but I hope they use miniatures and models for the space fights in the new trilogy. It really does add a totally better feel to the look of it.
I think back to some of the space fights in Episode III and then you look at what we have in Episode VI... it's not just nostalgia glasses, it's just impressive to look at.
I think back to some of the space fights in Episode III and then you look at what we have in Episode VI... it's not just nostalgia glasses, it's just impressive to look at.
Admiral Woofington
Member
if you really want to talk real vs CG look no further than John Carpenter's 'The Thing'
all of the practical effects and puppets are amazing
all of the practical effects and puppets are amazing
plasmawave
Banned
Does anyone know how they achieve the greebles?
Are they sculpted or do they use parts from random model kits?
Are they sculpted or do they use parts from random model kits?
revolverjgw
Member
I haven't watched an OG Star Wars film since the 90s. What's the situation now, are there good versions of the untouched originals?
StealthGoblin
Banned
This is what I just don't get about Peter Jackson.
He saw the magnificence of the original Star Wars trilogy and how well the ships and their models have held up even to this day. He then got a chance to see Episodes 1-3 and how badly they have aged.
So why on earth did he ditch the models for The Hobbit and go more CGI? The guy basically had a blank chequebook and decided to spend it on CGI, 48fps and 3D, all of which added very little to the overall feel of the films.
Models are the way to go.
He saw the magnificence of the original Star Wars trilogy and how well the ships and their models have held up even to this day. He then got a chance to see Episodes 1-3 and how badly they have aged.
So why on earth did he ditch the models for The Hobbit and go more CGI? The guy basically had a blank chequebook and decided to spend it on CGI, 48fps and 3D, all of which added very little to the overall feel of the films.
Models are the way to go.
XANDER CAGE
Member
There is a ton of CGI in Lord of the Rings. Some of it has aged terribly.
Like, I also vastly prefer the LOTR trilogy to the Hobbit, but those films put just as much stock in then-new technologies.
They definitely had some starfighter models
But I don't know how much of that was used
You can't get anymore real than real. It's why props and models will look superior. I don't get why so many directors are quick to ditch it. Sure, sometimes CG works better but The Hobbit and SW Prequels are the perfect example of how to ruin it. The orcs looked like SHIT in The Hobbit.
Was about to post the same picture. I can't even imagine how they come up with sooooo many little details there. True masters of their art.
Practical effects, like CGI, has to be handled properly. You need to direct knowing your limitations. Modern CGI blurs those lines. It allows too much laziness, while with practical, you're always forced to carefully consider every shot, every frame. That is why it is superior in many situations.
Apparently it's awesome.
http://youtu.be/jZZXZ0mHz7k
Interview with Fon Davis, ILM model maker.
And for people really interested in the craft of Star Wars model making, the 'bible' is the book "Sculpting A Galaxy".
Finally, here's a thread discussing the Phantom Menace miniatures and models, along with the fact that there were more miniature sets and models in The Phantom Menace alone than the entire original trilogy.
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-official-the-phantom-menace-models-and-miniatures-thread.31831106/
freethought
Member
George Lucas in particular shouldn't be allowed near CG because he just ends up filling the frame with garbage.
CadetMahoney
Member
Any of the action in guardians felt lifeless, like watching a cartoon.
Its so dense
Saintguine
Member
The way light bounces off a real-life object will always be more realistic than what a computer thinks is fully realistic lighting.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Nope.
They look like plastic toys in front of a paper backdrop.
The explosions were also pretty awful.
The Millennium Falcon from the 2015 Star Wars teaser trailer is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than anything in the OG trilogy.
They look like plastic toys in front of a paper backdrop.
The explosions were also pretty awful.
The Millennium Falcon from the 2015 Star Wars teaser trailer is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than anything in the OG trilogy.
PdotMichael
Banned
I was watching Starship Troopers again some weeks ago and the movie aged significant better than most sci-fi movies from the 90s.
Well-made practical effects stay well-made, while CG effects just become outdated at some point. And "less is more" should be the most important rule for special effects.
Well-made practical effects stay well-made, while CG effects just become outdated at some point. And "less is more" should be the most important rule for special effects.
POWERSPHERE
Member
OG SW FX are mind boggling. So great.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
Thank you so much for this. Simply beautiful
freethought
Member
You should get your mommy to make them stop.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, it also helped that they gave the original models a dirty and used touch. The models appear way more believable while everything in the prequels look way to clean - not even just talking about the space ships. Coruscant was maybe the most boring city planet in the history of sci-fi movies, a joke compared to Blade Runner or 5th Element.
You are particularly guilty of said kind of drive-by posting. And this post is another gem. And here I am replying to it. I'm part of the cycle now, thanks!
freethought
Member
Why me in particular? I didn't even demonise CG, just George Lucas.
Because he may have brought us some CG that hasn't aged well, but he has always been a practitioner of scale models. As shown above, TPM was filled with practical effects.
freethought
Member
This is not a response to anything I wrote.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
things that are not animated work well with models, I'll say space ships are perfect for it.
Ok. If you say so.
mcz117chief
Member
I really don't care about the whole cgi/practical debate, as long as it looks good, but Hobbit is definitely more guilty of going overboard because they let the lack of physical restrictions of cgi take control of the scene.
That is really the biggest problem to face when using cgi, since at this point quality is pretty much immaculate.
The reason why some of the cgi in the Hobbit looks bad or weird, is that they simply don't use it with a bit of restraint.
More_Badass
Member
The truck is CGI btw. I had always thought it was practical
- Status