Winterfang
Banned
They always looked like toys to me. I prefer the CGI.
-
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
I actually got to see some of the Star Wars models a few years ago while I was on vacation in Minnesota, the was an exhibit with a buch of Star Wars props. It was really amazing seeing the ship models in real life, they were really beautiful.
That being said, for things like spaceships CGI these days is pretty much always cheaper and allow for more complex shots then models do.
That being said, for things like spaceships CGI these days is pretty much always cheaper and allow for more complex shots then models do.
So wise for your years.
Well, yeah. Animating humans is pretty much the hardest. I don't know how this adds to a GC/models discussion.
StealthGoblin
Banned
That backs up my point.
The models used for Helms Deep, Minas Tirith etc look incredible. The CGI on the other hand looks dated. So why more and more of the environments for the Hobbit were CGI annoys me.
did any of those scenes with model had no cgi at all?
and some of the models here are just unbelievable: http://imgur.com/a/Zt9Y4
all those tiny details.
how??
BSG was great, for it's time. It's already showing it's age and reeks of mid-2000's TV cgi. The Star Wars OT is timeless. Not even close to being comparable.
Oppo
Member
I know the trench run scene from the first movie was basically repurposed battleship model kits.
Every time this discussion comes up I think of this clip from the ILM documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl2Ip_zfjGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl2Ip_zfjGk
SDCowboy
Member
This. CG has it's place, but I can't stand it in large doses.
SDCowboy
Member
Isn't Episode VII supposed to be a return to practical effects?
Heh, not the best of examples. I generally agree though that effects from the earlier days were absolutely amazing in contrast to much of the stuff we're seeing today. From the mix of CGI and practical effects that Jurassic Park in the early 90s had, to Rob Bottin's work in "The Thing" (that was all pratical) that were mesmerizing to watch.
As for Star Wars, I agree with op.
to be fair, it is kinda easy to make robots and other machines look real with cgi.
Sapiens
Member
Isn't that the whole point of the thread?
Blargonaut
Banned
Godlike.
freethought
Member
So I am particularly guilty of drive by posting because George Lucas has used scale models and practical effects? Or George Lucas doesn't use CG to fill the frame with garbage because he used to make films before CG?
See how what you wrote has no relevance to anything I wrote?
That is, as Sapiens said, the entire point of the thread.
Whenever you see CG criticised it is bad CG that is used as an example: never the good stuff. The really good stuff you don't even realise is CG.
Conversely when miniature or practical work is held up as better it is always the very best examples (2001 and the Jedi space battle to use the examples cited) chosen to demonstrate this: never the piss poor stuff. There was just as much bad practical work in the '80s as good, but we choose to ignore it and only remember the good.
At their best both practical effects and CG effects can look amazing and can deceive the viewer into believing what they are looking at is real.
Aside from that many critics have no idea what is and isn't CG.
The creature in Alien 3 is often, in discussions of this kind, held up to be an example of bad CG and contrasted with the practical suits and puppets used in Alien and Aliens. However it was almost entirely practical (I think there are 2 or 3 shots with a CG alien in the entire film) so what they are really criticising is a bad practical effect.
Lucky Forward
Member
A lot of people throw around the term "practical effect" when they talk about filming models, but for the record, if green screen is involved it's not a practical effect. Practical effects are captured "in-camera" when they are filmed and you're done.
Models and green screen with composited backgrounds and other elements are considered visual effects.
Models and green screen with composited backgrounds and other elements are considered visual effects.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Star wars has had so many special editions that it's hard to tell what's a model, what's CG, and what scenes have models but have been heavily retouched with CG.
crazy monkey
Banned
real >>>>>>>>>>>>CG. Whole avatar movie I was so aware of the animation and shiny ness. I hated it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I got a lot of years.
SaganIsGOAT
Junior Member
Holy cow!
I might be in the minority here but I really loved the CGI ships of the prequel trilogy. Their sleekness and business really suggested a Republic at its full height and power, and was a great contrast to the dingier and smaller-scale fights by the Rebels.
Sectorseven
Member
What were these guys working on prior to Star Wars? I don't recall any model work with the same level of detail.
Once again, it's time to trot out this thread from TheForce.Net...
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/
I would say I prefer the RotJ space battle over RotS's but that's because RotS's isn't supposed to be the pinnacle of everything like RotJ's. The Battle of Coruscant is mostly just stuff happening in the background to provide scenery for the focus of the scene, which is Anakin and Obi-Wan's mission. The Battle of Endor is the culmination of the Rebel Alliance's attempts to destroy the Empire. That said, the Battle of Coruscant is undeniably more beautiful even if it's less intense. That opening tracking shot is the best opening shot in any Star Wars movie.
edit: Somewhat unrelated, but I'll never understand people who say the OT looks better because it's dirtier, as if the prequels somehow "missed the point". There are plenty of used-universe elements in the PT, like the podracers. Things just look sleeker in general because of the thematic need to be that way, since the prequels focus on high society and not the rank and file. If Lucas was still doing Episode 7 like he originally intended, I'm sure he would have gone back to everything looking more used anyway.
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/
I would say I prefer the RotJ space battle over RotS's but that's because RotS's isn't supposed to be the pinnacle of everything like RotJ's. The Battle of Coruscant is mostly just stuff happening in the background to provide scenery for the focus of the scene, which is Anakin and Obi-Wan's mission. The Battle of Endor is the culmination of the Rebel Alliance's attempts to destroy the Empire. That said, the Battle of Coruscant is undeniably more beautiful even if it's less intense. That opening tracking shot is the best opening shot in any Star Wars movie.
edit: Somewhat unrelated, but I'll never understand people who say the OT looks better because it's dirtier, as if the prequels somehow "missed the point". There are plenty of used-universe elements in the PT, like the podracers. Things just look sleeker in general because of the thematic need to be that way, since the prequels focus on high society and not the rank and file. If Lucas was still doing Episode 7 like he originally intended, I'm sure he would have gone back to everything looking more used anyway.
chronos4590
Member
Thanks for Posting this. Mother of god O_O
Episode 1 was the biggest practical effects movie at the time of release (and may still be?), it's use of models dwarfs the older movies.
This thread has a good collection.
So many people talk trash about the CGI and blue screens in the Prequels, but don't realize that they were usually used to put actors into miniature sets and have miniature models interact with other practical builds and effects.
Lucky Forward
Member
I guess you didn't see my post above -- If it uses green or blue screen, it's not a practical effect.
If you insist. However, this topic was all about models. The OT doesn't have much practical effects either this way.
The prequels suffer from absolutely terrible lighting which makes the (superb) models look like cheap CG.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Not just Star Wars. Star Trek models have aged far better than the CGI in Enterprise. In fact, I feel like the Enterprise itself is more convincing in the TOS films rather than the remakes.
professor_t
Member
Yeah, that's amazing. You think of how many kids saw this between the ages of 5 and 12 and it's no wonder that there are so many Star Wars fans.
I mean, people are comparing that sequence to what we've been able to accomplish up to the modern day, but look at it in its own time frame and you can truly get a sense of how it unequivocally surpassed the competition.
Only AotC falls prey to this, really.
Lucky Forward
Member
And your point about the wealth of model work in the PT is valid, it's just that I've heard so many people use "models" synonymously with "practical" when they're really not the same thing.
The space battle in TPM looks terrible to me. As i noted earlier, it always looked like bad CGI to me.
I still remember when i first saw film, in a film theater in '99 (i was nine years old). This one early shot in the space battle and i think... This looks like it is CGI. No scene before that made me think that. EDIT The probabilities are it was made with models. But something in the shot just looked so off.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This is kinda what people have been trying to get at throughout the thread though: So many complaints about effects techniques and the merits of CGI vs Models (again, it doesn't NEED to be a versus situation) are being made by people who invariably have to admit they don't really know what they're talking about and can't really tell what's what with consistent reliability.
So these discussions just end up being snob-offs, with fake-purists racing to see how righteous they can sound about the good ol-days they were never a part of.
It's kinda like the film fan equivalent of people who argue that vaccuum tube amplifiers shit all over modern recievers, or vinyl always beats CD.
I just rewatched it and I would assume the shot you're talking about is when the Naboo starfighters are heading towards the droid mothership and they pass a moon. The moon looks iffy but everything else in the sequence looks really good. And yeah it's pretty obvious that there was a ton of model work in that battle.
Also I noticed how much more realistic battle droids look in TPM than AotC due to the lighting.
It shot was a close up of a Naboo Fighter, toward front with R2 visible. They were going toward the Trade Federation ship.
The starfighter just looks wrong. It might be because of the shiny paint job... whatever the reason is, i don't particularly like how the space battle looks in that film.
Spiritreaver
Member
Just had to give your post more props. I say this just about every trilogy thread.
Battle of Endor is the entire reason why ROTJ is my favorite of the OT.
Fuck where is my current gen Rogue Squadron game?
cj_iwakura
Member
While I agree, I think the opening of First Contact is pretty close.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
OriginofHysteria
Banned
I was actually thinking while watching the Star Wars trilogy a few weeks ago that the movies have actually aged pretty well. And I think that's due to the lack of CGI in the films.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
He did raise a good problem that I commonly have with CG, when it's used too much everything starts to look fake and it's hard to tell what's real and what's not.
Presumably the job of special effects is to make fake things look real, but I feel like there are a lot of movies lately (and the Prequels are guilty of this) where the CG actually makes real things look fake. That seems to me like an utter failure.
I obviously have no idea how to make a movie, but I say that as a casual moviegoer that it's noticeable and it tends to take me out of the film.
- Status