|
lelandjs posted:It’s not just the CGI, the cameras Lucas used on eps 2&3 had garbage sensors so the live action footage looks terrible. It’s especially hilarious on the blu-rays because you’ve got low-detail badly lit Ewan McGregor comped in to a room that looks like it belongs in a mid-00’s video game. Ewan McGregor walking around that clone factory was the absolute worst. lelandjs posted:There are some comp issues in LotR as well—go back and watch the opening battle in FotR. Elrond looks green in comparison to the CGI people fighting “beside” him and there’s obvious haloing. Thankfully there’s not a ton of stuff like that, but there’s some if you look closely enough. Yeah, but you have to look for it in LOTR for the most part. It's not in-your-face all the time like the prequels. lelandjs posted:Almost special effects fall apart, though, given enough time. The only notable example I can think of where it still stands up is Jurassic Park. The stop motion puppet at the end of Terminator is more funny than terrifying these days. I’m not a huge fan of revisionism in film but I would be OK if Cameron went back and replaced the puppet with a CGI terminator exoskeleton. BTTF 2&3 have held up pretty well, but there are some places in 1 that could benefit from some cleanup, too—changing the lightning around the DeLorean from hand drawn to the CGI they used in 2&3 would help the movies look a little more consistent, if nothing else. Cameron has said he'll never indulge in the Lucas revisionism thing, and even referenced Lucas when he said it. He said he never wants to second-guess himself; which I thought was a good answer. I also think some of the dodgy exoskeleton shots at the end of The Terminator make it more memorable in a good way.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Attack of the Clones might not look totally real but it looks loving dope https://i.imgur.com/DhtgidF.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/w4D2BTe.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/S47Jq9g.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/8Zgaamt.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Those asteroids should have been puppets, lucas you idiot
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Thanks to Auralnauts, I can't see this shot and not hear this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DD45wBDLNs
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/200cyp/til_no_physical_clone_trooper_armor_was_ever/ They look pretty real, dude. If you're caught up in the story instead of scoffing and cynically analyzing everything on screen it's totally believable that you wouldn't notice. You would naturally assume that all the clones are men in costumes, and they're real-enough looking that your brain convinces you they are. I was ten at the time but I didn't realize it either. It's basically the same reason you never noticed stuff like this (except the clone troopers aren't nearly as janky looking):     (I eagerly await the stampede of posters who will come and try to convince me that none of these shots are easily identifiable as composited models moving comically slowly through space.) But honestly, speaking of these shots above, when Lucas replaced them the primary motivation wasn't even in terms of improving the effects themselves per se--it was in terms of just plain making the shots way better on a basic level. Just look at the original version of the sequence where Biggs is being pursued by a TIE fighter:  You basically have shots of Luke and Biggs in their cockpits frantically maneuvering, with the background outside their window rocking wildly in either direction, the TIE visible behind Biggs's head flitting swiftly back and forth...and this is all intercut with anemic, slow-moving images of creaky models traveling on rails in shots that aren't even composed in a very visually appealing or creative way. I mean just compare them:   Completely ignoring the quality of the effects, the first one is just static and ugly on a pure compositional level. The second one is far more exciting and dynamic--and I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure those are the kinds of adjectives you want when you're trying to depict a frantic dogfight in the midst of a tense space battle. Now look at the revised version of the sequence:  The energy of the starfighter shots now matches the energy of the cockpit shots, instead of the former discordantly interfering with and undermining the latter; the physical reality of the starfighter movements now matches what is seen in the cockpit shots; it now actually looks like Biggs's X-wing is performing desperate evasive maneuvers, the TIE fighter relentlessly keeping pace while coming closer and closer to a hit, until finally Luke dramatically swoops in for a rescue--instead of all three slowly moving in a straight line one in front of the other in shot after shot. Not only is it simply better on a cinematic level, it's obviously much closer to what the sequence was supposed to look and feel like originally:  That's the main reason he updated the shots. The ones in the original movie weren't even done as well as was technically possible back in 1977; ILM was just horribly, horribly behind schedule as a result of wasting months making shots that turned out to be totally unusable, so they had to rush to re-do all of them in something like a third of the time they should have had. In fact originally it seems Lucas would have been content just taking out the original models and re-shooting them that way, but Dennis Muren, who worked on the original shots, apparently convinced him it should all be done with CGI: quote:However, everyone involved with the Special Edition has a different recollection of how the process came together. "I remember first hearing that they were going to re-release the movies in anticipation of the new series of films," says Dennis Muren, a senior visual effects supervisor for ILM who served as a visual effects second cameraman on the original Star Wars. "A few weeks later, I heard that George was going to add some scenes that he had always wanted to do, and fix some things up. I felt we could improve the matte edges on some shots that had been done at the last minute—particularly those involving explosions. But there were also a number of shots in the space battle where the movements just weren't right. If we could smooth them out, the action would have more clarity, and viewers would be able to follow the movie a little better. I suggested digitally re-doing shots in which the models were moving incorrectly." All this is to say that the realism of the special effects is secondary to the skill with which the story is told on the screen, be it visually or dramatically. There is a certain ironic logic to the clones in the movie being brought to life as actual digital clones, but I'm pretty sure Lucas decided to make them all CGI simply to see if he could get away with it, because being able to create fully digital costumes would open up all kinds of possibilities for storytelling in the future, as we've seen with stuff like Iron Man and Black Panther in the Marvel movies. The end goal is storytelling. The clones either work because they're used effectively as part of a story, or they don't. Seems to me they were probably good enough to fool the average moviegoer, which is the goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
I didn't realize the Clone Troopers were cgi either 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:They look pretty real, dude. If you're caught up in the story instead of scoffing and cynically analyzing everything on screen it's totally believable that you wouldn't notice. You would naturally assume that all the clones are men in costumes, and they're real-enough looking that your brain convinces you they are. I was ten at the time but I didn't realize it either. The whole point of criticism against these lovely prequels is how they prioritize (now bad) special effects at the expense of storytelling, editing, and acting. Notice how these same critics don't care about the dated special effects in the OT; it's because they're secondary to everything else in the films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
I also love Padme and the Clones taking potshots at Dooku https://i.imgur.com/GLKxBaa.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The whole point of criticism against these lovely prequels is how they prioritize (now bad) special effects at the expense of storytelling, editing, and acting. Notice how these same critics don't care about the dated special effects in the OT; it's because they're secondary to everything else in the films. They don't, though. The special effects are always used to tell a story. Just like in the originals. Except sometimes in the originals, the special effects actually hindered the story due to limitations of time, money, and technology, as I just outlined in the big post you more or less completely ignored. The speed and energy with which the ships move across the screen, the way the shots are composed, the way the objects in motion balance and complement each other within the frame, the way these things mesh with the footage of the actors in the cockpits--these are all part of telling the story. The intended story of "Biggs maneuvering frantically and being matched move for move by a relentless TIE fighter coming closer and closer to hitting him, only for Luke to dramatically swoop in and rescue him" is told in a more or less objectively inferior manner in the original. It just plain is. I defy you to put together a coherent counterargument to that effect. You can't, because it's obviously impossible. It's a clear cut case of nostalgia for special effects trumping actual storytelling. The irony is downright pungent. Also, the editing of the Star Wars prequels is incredibly good and just as much of a masterclass as those of the originals. Not surprising, as the same head editor worked on all six. I could go on and on about that for a while if you like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The whole point of criticism against these lovely prequels is how they prioritize (now bad) special effects at the expense of storytelling, editing, and acting. Notice how these same critics don't care about the dated special effects in the OT; it's because they're secondary to everything else in the films. The prequels would be bad even if they had good special effects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
As much poo poo as they deservedly get, the prequels - AOTC in particular - do have god drat incredible sound design. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9-K1cxj6IQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME5jhsgmB4
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Oh gently caress yeah. The sound those bombs make in your second clip is dope as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:But it looks more like a live action FMV cutscene, which pre-dates AOTC. Yeah, I misread. The statement that early digital compositing looks like... early digital compositing... isn't all that interesting to consider. Unless it's meant like 90's FMV on CD games, in which it's kinda the same as saying it looks like PS1 graphics: it don't. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I could go on and on about that for a while if you like. Please don't. It's clear you're more interested in typing up irrelevant, tangential word salad (with a flavor of contrarianism) in order to make yourself look smart. Yaws posted:The prequels would be bad even if they had good special effects. I know. The films fundamentally fail because of incoherent scriptwriting coupled with atrocious acting, which was my argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Yeah, I misread. The statement that early digital compositing looks like... early digital compositing... isn't all that interesting to consider. Unless it's meant like 90's FMV on CD games, in which it's kinda the same as saying it looks like PS1 graphics: it don't. I wasn’t making a statement I was asking did it look dated when it came out or is it a product of time
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Please don't. It's clear you're more interested in typing up irrelevant, tangential word salad (with a flavor of contrarianism) in order to make yourself look smart. Sure, I'll bite. What is incoherent about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
It looked like all-digital filmmaking, which was the future. The loss of visual fidelity in the cameras with this move was and is a source of some controversy and lots of marketing. The effects themselves were groundbreaking, even where they're more cartoony than realistic, but lots more groundbreaking occurred in the years afterwards (especially in the direction of photorealism) which has blunted that somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
AOTC was to digital filmmaking what TPM was to fully CGI characters. A really poo poo pioneer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Clones and Revenge both have more coherent scripts than The Force Awakens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
The Phantom Menace did not even have a main protagonist. It's clear Lucas did not have anyone proofread the first draft for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Thanks for the insightful post, Cnut. So here's the thing with Attack of the Clones. It was the first Major Motion Picture Event shot on a digital camera. The resolution of the camera used was 1080p, but they cropped the top and bottom to make it fit the desired aspect ratio. Digital cameras distort the appearance of reality in a different way than film cameras do, and at the time, this property was not as well-understood, because it was newer. It also extensively used digital compositing, so that many more elements could be combined into a single shot than before, albeit with different artifacts introduced than the artifacts from analog compositing (such as the black outlines visible around the models in the original trilogy). Attack of the Clones uses very bright, direct lighting throughout. This is, of course, a stylistic decision, and one made very often by, for instance, Wes Anderson. A lot of physical objects - props, puppets, and miniatures, of which there were very many - under this lighting resemble a computer-generated model. The props themselves were often designed to be smoothly shaped, uniformly colored, and glossy textured, a staple of the retrofuturist design that all the scenes on Coruscant quote extensively. Unnatural colors like those from neon lights are also all over the place. All of this adds up to an uncanny aesthetic (at least in the Republic, which is thrown into contrast with the dirty, rough scenery of the desert of Geonosis). If your idea is that certain effects are bad because of their resemblance to things you've seen in the past where an animator failed to create an illusion of a real object, then you'll need to find some way to square that with the intentional decision to film real objects in a way that makes them look like fakes. (Meanwhile, the unimpressive motions for the clone soldiers is not a bad effect so much as it is bad acting, one corrected by using actual actors for mocap in the sequel.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
josh04 posted:It looked like all-digital filmmaking, which was the future. The loss of visual fidelity in the cameras with this move was and is a source of some controversy and lots of marketing. The effects themselves were groundbreaking, even where they're more cartoony than realistic, but lots more groundbreaking occurred in the years afterwards (especially in the direction of photorealism) which has blunted that somewhat. The problem is the prequels come often come across as trial run of all-digital filmmaking. Obviously there was going to be some growing pains with it and the prequels are ground zero of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The Phantom Menace did not even have a main protagonist. It's clear Lucas did not have anyone proofread the first draft for him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_cast
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The Phantom Menace did not even have a main protagonist. It's clear Lucas did not have anyone proofread the first draft for him. "The scripts are incoherent" and "I don't like the lack of a clear protagonist" are different statements. You should try to be more consistent in your criticism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Yeah I was about to say if The Phantom Menace is bad for not having a "main protagonist" then so is The Hidden Fortress.
Raxivace fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
If I gave a script to someone to read and they gave it back to me saying there wasn't a protagonist I'd be really loving confused as to what they'd thought I'd wanted. Either a script has a protagonist or it doesn't; to have someone else add one in a draft would be bizarre. You'd be fundamentally changing the entire project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:The Phantom Menace did not even have a main protagonist. It's clear Lucas did not have anyone proofread the first draft for him. If this is the first of your many undefendable fusillades please consider this my white flag. Your critique is simply too airtight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
They even misspelled porg racing, it's just super obvious Lucas needed a proofreader. Also, It's Just Bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
We're reaching the point in the thread cycle where people will be quoting the RLM reviews verbatim. Just remember, those reviews are a starting point for a more satisfying conversation, not a list of proofs that Movie Bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Yaws posted:The problem is the prequels come often come across as trial run of all-digital filmmaking. Obviously there was going to be some growing pains with it and the prequels are ground zero of that. Yeah, they absolutely are, and I'd agree that the droid factory sequence is one in particular where its reach exceeds its grasp. The actors struggle to convey the peril they're supposed to be in and the even lighting can't give the place the right kind of menace. But many of the sequences are unqualified successes, albeit not in the direction of realism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:We're reaching the point in the thread cycle where people will be quoting the RLM reviews verbatim. Just remember, those reviews are a starting point for a more satisfying conversation, not a list of proofs that Movie Bad. Who's the main protagonist of TPM? cargohills posted:"The scripts are incoherent" and "I don't like the lack of a clear protagonist" are different statements. You should try to be more consistent in your criticism. A lack of a protagonist the audience can identify with certainly qualifies as being incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Who's the main protagonist of TPM? Boss Nass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Agreed this is why Magnolia has consistently been regarded as one of the worst movies of the 2000s.viral spiral posted:Who's the main protagonist of TPM? You are free to identify with literally any character on screen. Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Padme, Anakin, Shmi, the choice is yours! Also a lack of protagonists that an audience can identify with isn't "incoherent", that's not what that word means. Jewmanji fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Who's the main protagonist of TPM? Qui Gon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Who's the main antagonist of TPM even? Darth Maul, Palpatine, the droids? I mean, what the gently caress? The script was dogshit, and it's embarrassing to witness a few of you defend it as coherent, or even linear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Who's the main protagonist of TPM? Queen Amidala and Anakin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Who's the main antagonist of TPM even? Darth Maul, Palpatine, the droids? I mean, what the gently caress? The script was dogshit, and it's embarrassing to witness a few of you defend it as coherent, or even linear. Nute Gingrich
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:Who's the main protagonist of TPM?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Maybe you should be more precise in your critique. What aspect of the film is "non-linear"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
I feel like it could be Obi-Wan, but it's not structured well. You can also make the argument for Qui-Gon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:44
|
|
