Why doe Jurassic Park look better than any movie released today?
- Thread starter Xeke
- Start date
- Status
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Real stunts can look pretty off. Like Not Arnold Schwarzenegger and Not Edward Furlong here.Xeke said:
brandonh83 said:
Fixed that for ya. Seriously, the special effects in JP hold up well because Winston knew when you use CG, when to use models, when to use robots, guys in suits, big mechanical props, puppets, etc. It wasn't just "CGI it all in and call it done."
It all depends on the scenes and what you want to do in them, how you want them to look. Having a physical object on a set is also invaluable to having a target for your CGI to match.
Another good example is Aliens. The entire Alien Queen sequences use a variety of special effects, from CGI to models to puppets. But it all blends together because Stan Winston was a fucking special effects GOD and since he's died things have steadily gotten worse since the next generation of special effects people are all committed to CGI.
DonMigs85 said:
Jabba totally looks like he's trying to say "Kill me... please" with his eyes in that picture.
Zombie James
Banned
A couple of reasons:
- Stan Winston.
- CG was used sparingly and only when needed, something modern film makers know nothing about.
- Attention to detail.
Retro said:
I agree, CGI isn't the answer for everything, all of the time. I especially dislike CGI stunts and explosions.
One thing I like about WETA is how well they blend CG with miniatures, real sets, makeup etc. They have a really holistic approach to FX and all the departments interact and co-operate to achieve the end result.
How About No
Member
I watched it on BluRay on a 19" HDTV with a friend. We both noticed it and had to rewind and pause it. Laughed for like a minute. We then agreed we had to watch rest of the movie and play "spot the doubles" :lolFurret said:
Zombie James said:
All you people trying to attribute Jurassic Park's success to just one person are just being silly.
As has already been pointed out the reason the film succeeded is because it had so many talented people working on it: Spielberg, Lucas, Winston, Tippett - it wouldn't have been the same if any of those had been removed.
This is also the reason why Star Wars started to take a nose dive after Empire Strikes Back - Lucas took more central control and it became much less an ensemble piece behind the scenes.
JoshuaJSlone said:
I watched it last night for the first time in a decade (Netflix streaming!) and didn't notice. Of course, I don't pause scenes in the middle either. The CG is sometimes jarring, but the other effects look out standing. Yes, including the infamous pie plates. Plus, it really is a great action movie. All the hyperbola is warranted.
MyEpitomeCliché
Member
The scene where the T-Rex comes through the electric fence is iconic and still looks great today. JP will always be a classic in my eyes.
Jurassic Park is an awesome looking movie, and it has aged very well. My love for the look of Jurassic Park is not a result of the CG or animatronics; instead, it's a product of the design of the creatures. They don't look like cartoons, which is what modern creature design is all about.
Furret said:
What specifically? That Jurassic Park / Aliens used different effect types for different shots that were cut together to great effect?
The Alien Queen was a full scale model, "operated using a mixture of puppeteers, control rods, hydraulics, cables, and a crane above to support it. Two puppeteers were inside the suit operating its arms, and sixteen were required to move it. All sequences involving the queen were filmed in-camera with no post-production manipulation."
In Jurassic Park, I know the T-Rex foot was it's own robot, there was a full scale head/torso of the T-rex, and then there was CGI-Rex. There was stop-motion dinosaurs for long distance shots, puppets for some of the Raptor shots and almost all of the Spitter shots. It's been a while since I watched it with the commentary on, but I'm pretty sure Spielberg or Winston mentions that CGI is only exclusively used in scenes where you can see below a dinosaurs knee, everything else was traditional effects or effects touched up with CGI.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Furret said:
holy shit, condescending much? the only reason i remembered it was a brachiosaurus is cause i spent some time reading up on it as a kid.
Retro said:
No, I meant specifically the CGI for the Alien Queen (I tried to bold the word but it doesn't really show up very well).
I know it was a mixture of large scale puppets and models but I have a hard time believing there was any CGI, as we understand it today, in there. Especially in 1986 for a fairly low budget film.
MyEpitomeCliché said:
There are a number of iconic shots in JP and T2. That's one of my issues with Avatar. It certainly looks good, but it lacks an artistic touch. It doesn't have one thing that jumps out and stays in your brain later. There isn't anything as memorable as Arnold dropping the box of flowers and pulling out a shotgun or something as innocuous as a glass of water shaking.
I can't remember a single, specific shot now and I've seen the movie twice.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Imo, that helicopter going over the waterfall in avatar fits that bill.
Furret said:
Ah, didn't notice your bolding until just now. Yeah, there wasn't anything approaching modern CGI in Aliens, I think that statement wasn't specifically concerned with Aliens when I started it and that got left in.
Yeah, no CGI in Aliens, obviously. Completely a fuckup on my part :lol
Gigglepoo said:
Interesting fact; that effect is done by resting a glass of water on a guitar and plucking the strings. Nowadays it'd probably be CGI.
Interesting but completely unrelated fact: Godzilla's roar is actually a gloved finger ran over the loosened strings of a contrabass.
Retro said:
S'alright. It's not like you mixed up an apatosaurus with a brachiosaurus.
There's a screen test for the puppet of the Queen on the Aliens DVD boxed set and even when it's two guys playing around in a car park it still look freakishly scary.
CGI is such a wasted tool in most filmakers' hands.
PetriP-TNT
Member
I was channel surfing just now and SW: Episode 2 was on and holy crap it looks hideous. Was the GCI praised back in the days, can't remember? But I am sure that neither 1 or 3 look this horrible.
Zombie James
Banned
Absolutely not.PetriP-TNT said:
PetriP-TNT
Member
Good.Zombie James said:
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Not quite - the use of subsurface scattering for Yoda was enough to win a technical achievement Oscar. But overall it wasn't up there in quality with something like LOTR at the time.Zombie James said:
Another interesting bit to note was that Ep II was the point where ILM made a major transition in terms of hardware and software. It was their first show after the big SGI -> Linux studio transition, and the first time a lot of their in-house proprietary tech was used for a major project including facial animation, mocap, and digital doubles. It was also the first movie that was shot all-digital, so there was a lot of pipeline stuff that had to be figured out as well. The tech would eventually mature and become what you see used for stuff like the Pirates films and characters like Davey Jones.
Zombie James
Banned
That's nice and all, but Ep.2 still looked like shit even at the time of release.XiaNaphryz said:
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I was refuting the statement that it wasn't praised at all. It was, albeit just for one specific item. ;PZombie James said:
Marty Chinn
Member
PetriP-TNT said:
There are two points in the CGI that fooled me at the time.
1) Every shot of Yoda was CGI. I was sure there were some puppet in there but they did a nice job on things like how his ears would bounce like rubber.
2) Every clone trooper was CG. Not a single suit of armor was built. There are shots where I just assumed it was a guy in a suit.
So there are moments in Episode 2 that I think hold up well as far as CG effects go.
Zombie James
Banned
Heh, fair enough. The CG fruit in Ep.2 still pisses me off every time I see it.XiaNaphryz said:
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
That pretty much set the baseline for hard surface material work which would eventually lead to the Iron Man suit.Marty Chinn said:
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Solo said:
Depends on what you mean, the clone facility in EpII was pretty bad. But in terms of actual art design I recommend you look at the art books themselves, the talent involved and work produced was really, really impressive. The benchmark in concept/production design by far.
The clean look was done on purpose and was to convey the shift in technology production in the SW universe from single hand designed ships (the yellow/chrome Naboo ships) to mass-produced, angular X-wing/TIEs designed to be bashed out quickly for the lowest cost. Similar to the revolution of mass production on design at the beginning of the 20th century.
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Solo said:
It was interesting to see the evolution of the technology within the universe, but in a lot of respects some things just look too good, too futuristic - even for SW. For example the energy reactors during the final duel in EpI. I do like the visuals of EpI though, EpII and III just don't look as good visually.
It wasn't just that though, it felt like half way through EpII Lucas or whoever decided to change the actual camera technique, deciding to film the cgi battle through a zoom lens. A complete clash to the other films.
The people who are complaining about the CG in the prequels... the movie is a space opera based on the old sci-fi serials, the CG is meant to look a little off and cartoony, it was not meant to be ultra realistic like other movies that blend into the background it is to be a big spectacle, bright, colorful, explosive, that jumps off the screen... ILM is capable of more realistic grittier CG but this is a sci-fi adventure that demanded flair than hiding the fact.
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Medalion said:
Well I wouldn't describe the intention as cartoony but I get what you mean. You cite the early 20th century science fiction as a influence and I agree. I liked the visual style of Ep I because of this, and I would describe the visual style of that film as grandiose to the very extreme, very much like 20's and 30's cinema. Coruscant is Metropolis.
But I think the lack of realism took me out of the world a bit, I mean the opening shot of Star Trek XI shits on EpIII's opening shot visual wise, whilst retaining that semi real essence.
Something real will always look better than something CG. Even if it's a model. It's going to be sad in 20 years when movies like Empire Strikes Back will look good and Episode 1, 2 and 3 will look like a pile of puke. Hell, they look worse already. Even Avatar looks like shit next to a Xenomorph or a T-Rex.
thechemist
Member
Cannot wait for the blu-ray one of my favourite films if not the best.
curls said:
That's because it's 4 years later, and with different art styles. J.J. Abrams' Star Trek was meant how the bright future would look from today's cameras, complete with dust on lens, huge lens flares, and a grainy and dirty look.
The Battle of Coruscant was meant to be as if you were really there, with no camera in-between you, so it was all sterile and clean.
Conrad Link
Member
JP is still my most fav movie ever. 
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Willy105 said:
The opening shot, there was nothing effects wise that couldn't be done by ILM back then. There were 2 ships and a lot of debris, opposed to several hundred capital ships. EpIII does not look sterile at all, it looks like it was rendered with the grain filter set to max.
GDGF said:
Men in suits and state of the art animatronics.
curls said:
Yeah, but it's impressive considering it's all CGI. It's a big leap over what Episode 3 achieved.
- Status