Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    "No, that was the Star Wars Trek." « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: "No, that was the Star Wars Trek."  (Read 7285 times)
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 Print
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #680 on: 12-06-2005 12:22 »

::Standing ovation::
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #681 on: 12-06-2005 14:27 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by FishyJoe:
the guy who played Palpatine
Ian McDiarmid!

And it says Star Wars on your shirt too...  no no
Haha.  tongue

I thought she was ok in Garden State, and I certainly enjoyed her ass-acting ("That's using your ass!" ) in Closer, from the short clips of certian scenes I've seen.  flirt

"Live forever or die trying."
FishyJoe

Honorary German
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #682 on: 12-06-2005 14:44 »

That was a stunt ass! Search your feelings, Faze, you know it to be true!
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #683 on: 12-06-2005 15:27 »

The only problem with Revenge of the Sith was the CGI. It looked awesome, but there was too much of it and not enough real sets. It's just that I like some good old fashioned sets.

Also, they seemed to have more big name actors than they did in the Originals. George said he wanted to make no names into somebodies with the first ones, but why did he go all out with the big names in this trilogy?
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #684 on: 12-06-2005 18:54 »

Indeed, CGI might look great but I crave for the old school rubber monsters, sets and models.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #685 on: 12-07-2005 00:55 »

CGI > Stop motion, though.
Zogonif

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #686 on: 12-07-2005 02:03 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nixorbo:
CGI > Stop motion, though.

Yea. if done right
Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #687 on: 12-07-2005 02:35 »
« Last Edit on: 12-07-2005 02:35 »

Riiight, rubber monsters and stop-frame puppets are better than CGI. Now I've heard everything.

I really wonder at what point in time it became so punkasfuck for armchair critics to be anti-digital. "Oh my, no 16mp digital camera could ever be a match for my piece of shit 35mm compact SLR. I don't have any technical measurements to back up my illogical discriminations, but hey, that just makes me more trendy. Down with the WTO too!"
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #688 on: 12-07-2005 04:18 »

Nothing like that, But it gets tiresome like with everything overused. It also reminds us of Jar Jar. If you ever own the Special Edition DVD, you see CGI has been done quite poorly and makes you wish for the Originals. For example, the guy who did Vader's Lightsaber which was originally rotoscoped or just painted over kept his cursor over the renamed light red, which was once known to some as pink.

Not to mention it sort of, takes jobs. Which some people spent years of their life learning to do.

CGI is great if used in the bits where stop motion situations just look unrealistic. If you use CGI for freaking everything including props and background it not only dulls the watchers senses but also the actors.

Maybe the reason why some of them didn't act so well because they had nothing to act with but Lucas reading aloud from his own script and making vague gestures. Or maybe they just suck no matter what they had to aid them.

There are some situations where CGI has more or less worked out in Star Wars, like the space battles which didn't have to use the same 3 TIE Fighters and same X-Wing model over and over again.

Heh, It's a double pointed sword.
SlackJawedMoron

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #689 on: 12-07-2005 04:24 »

My only objection to CGI is when it's used in the place of stuntmen. In that context is ALWAYS looks fake.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #690 on: 12-07-2005 05:53 »

True. Also, think of the poor unemployed stuntmen who still have a full set of limbs.
Zed 85

Space Pope
****
« Reply #691 on: 12-07-2005 11:47 »

That said, the ability to CGI horses for the battles in the LotRs is a good thing, considering that usually in epic battle sequences, real-life stunt-horses often die in their dozens. But usually CGI is done using motion capture, so there is A stuntman involved somewhere, inevitably.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #692 on: 12-07-2005 11:54 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by FishyJoe:
That was a stunt ass! Search your feelings, Faze, you know it to be true!
NOOOOOOO!!  eek
That's impossible!  cry

Meh, an ass is an ass.  smile
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #693 on: 12-07-2005 12:49 »

It was CGI.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #694 on: 12-07-2005 19:06 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ben:
Riiight, rubber monsters and stop-frame puppets are better than CGI. Now I've heard everything.

I really wonder at what point in time it became so punkasfuck for armchair critics to be anti-digital. "Oh my, no 16mp digital camera could ever be a match for my piece of shit 35mm compact SLR. I don't have any technical measurements to back up my illogical discriminations, but hey, that just makes me more trendy. Down with the WTO too!"

Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, and Corpse Bride were all stop motion, if you remember. They didn't look bad. In fact, they look better, in a sense of comparing an animated look to a realistic look, than the CGI of stuntmen, the R2-D2 fire scene, and some other points in the movies.
Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #695 on: 12-07-2005 21:10 »
« Last Edit on: 12-07-2005 21:10 »

That's not the issue here. I'm not saying those processes don't have their place, especially in stylized productions such as those you mention. But do you really think a strop-frame sequence of R2-D2 would have been more realistic than the CGI one?

I'm by no means a fan of the work ILM did on the Star Wars prequels - it looks washed out in episode 1 and garish in the other two, but that's just down to process and direction, not technology - you can have bad CGI just as you can have bad stop-frame (full-frame Tauntauns on Hoth..) Look at Weta's work. There's no way you could do anything like Shelob or Gollum with stop-motion or rubber masks.

It's bad enough that there are still anachronists in the industry that have a thing against digital, let alone ignorant consumers who have no idea about the technology involved.

Oh, and by the way, there was a good portion of CGI in The Corpse Bride. The fact that it's integrated so well reinforces my point.
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #696 on: 12-07-2005 21:38 »
« Last Edit on: 12-07-2005 21:38 »

I don't have a thing against CGI, but I do think it needs to be used properly in order to be totally effective. Too much CGI makes the effect look incredibly phony and pulls me out of the movie. The first two Star Wars prequels are great examples of it. During scenes on Corsucant (sp?) and the pod races just looked too shiny and cartoonish.

Objects should look "real," with all the dings and scrapes they normally have. For instance, I still think the opening Star Destroyer crawl in IV looked better than any of the ships in I - III. It was "real" and easier to believe as giant. Or take Blade Runner...the scenes in which Decker is entering the city look much more impressive to me than any Corscucant scene from I - III. Or compare the LOTR orcs to the Battle Droids from AotC. For backgrounds and touch-ups, I think the CGI looked good. But a whole lot of CGI characters look really bad.

I have to be honest, though. None of the CGI I saw in SW really impressed me that much when I first saw it. It was acceptable at best, but I was never "wow"ed by it. Some of it looked good, but some of it just looked too flat.

And, before someone tries to nail me, I liked the CG in Sin City because the movie was supposed to be cartoonish. The art direction fit the effects properly. The B&W aspect of Sin City negated any silliness normal CGI would have.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #697 on: 12-08-2005 01:52 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by evan:
Objects should look "real," with all the dings and scrapes they normally have.

Or look at Firefly/Serenity - not the most technilogically-advanced CGI, but it is dirty, it is gritty, and that lends a better sense of realism to it.

Of course, the camerawork helps as well (I ::heart:: the "dirty zoom," as I like to call it.)
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #698 on: 12-08-2005 06:44 »

If they ever release a SE DVD Prequal Boxset, I wish they would at least improve some of the CGI mistakes like with Yoda the TPM and completely edit Jar Jar Out.

Though the last one would rock, I expect it won't happen.

A good example of CGI was with the battle of Coruscant in Revenge Of The Sith.

So...anyone hear anything more about that series?
Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #699 on: 12-08-2005 07:14 »

You fool. Yoda was a puppet in TPM.
Gocad

Space Pope
****
« Reply #700 on: 12-08-2005 07:37 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ben:
Riiight, rubber monsters and stop-frame puppets are better than CGI. Now I've heard everything.

From a certain point of view they are.
Animatronic devices (if properly made and filmed) are known to look more 'real' than CGI.

One example:
When 'The Mummy' was released, one of the sfx crew that had they used an animatronic mummy instead of a CGI one they never would have received a PG rating, because the use of CGI made it look less scary.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #701 on: 12-08-2005 08:11 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ben:
You fool. Yoda was a puppet in TPM.
Who looked even worse with the CGI.

Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #702 on: 12-08-2005 08:18 »
« Last Edit on: 12-08-2005 08:18 »

Gocad: The effects in that movie are also 7-8 years old. The shader, rendering and motion capture tech available now basically mean you can replicate anything, if you're prepared to throw money and time at a team of artists and a big-assed render farm (i.e. "if properly made and filmed",  wink). Like everything else involved in the production, you've got to have good direction and talent on the ground. I think the problems you guys mention have more to do with deficiencies with the former. I don't doubt the talent of the modelers and animators at ILM, but perhaps the director should have been a bit more a hard-ass. I mean, if it's anything like his direction of the rest of it, no wonder the CGI sucked..

Nurdbot: Don't be such a sap.
Zogonif

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #703 on: 12-08-2005 08:36 »
« Last Edit on: 12-08-2005 08:36 »

   
Quote
Originally posted by Nurdbot:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Ben:
You fool. Yoda was a puppet in TPM.
Who looked even worse with the CGI.



Get outta here nurdbot.  The CGI Yoda is good


Anyway i ended up getting up Star Wars: Clone wars vol 2 today
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #704 on: 12-08-2005 08:37 »
« Last Edit on: 12-08-2005 08:37 »

What? It just looked ugly. If I have to content with ugly CGI, the last thing I want is an ugly puppet. I mean, you could have made a much better looking younger Yoda.

Zogonitwit: Duuuuh.

Zogonif

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #705 on: 12-08-2005 08:39 »

No.  Nurdbot it must be just you that hated it
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #706 on: 12-08-2005 08:40 »

UGLY PUPPET YODA FROM THE PHANTOM MENACE.
Zogonif

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #707 on: 12-08-2005 08:43 »

Yea that yoda was pretty bad.  But not the CGI yoda
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #708 on: 12-08-2005 08:45 »

Was there any CGI Yoda in The Phantom Menace?
Zogonif

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #709 on: 12-08-2005 08:47 »

Did i say there was ?.................NO !
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #710 on: 12-08-2005 08:52 »

Did I say CGI Yoda sucked? End of argument.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #711 on: 12-08-2005 09:13 »

By the great Jedi Masters, do we have to put you two in seperate forums or something?
FishyJoe

Honorary German
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #712 on: 12-08-2005 11:09 »

 
Quote
By Ben:
Oh, and by the way, there was a good portion of CGI in The Corpse Bride. The fact that it's integrated so well reinforces my point.

I'd say the fact that it was integrated so well points more to the quality of stop-motion than the quality of CGI.

I swear, when I saw the movie(well, three fourths of the movie--my movie theater had a fire and we had to be evacuated by the end, and I still haven't felt like going to see the end of it), I thought the entire thing was CGI. The animation was too smooth, and the camera moved around too much. When I heard from someone else that it was all stop-motion, I didn't believe it.

Now that you say that there was a good amount of CGI, it makes sense. Still--if even half of the movie was filmed with stop-motion effects, I am seriously impressed.

As for the whole CGI debate, I thought most of the "stunt doubles" were easily noticeable in Attack of the Clones. I didn't notice them at all in Revenge of the Sith(well, except for ONE instance with Christopher Lee). I'm not sure if it's because the technology has gotten better, or if it's because I didn't follow the "behind the scenes" action for Revenge of the Sith. I knew pretty much every detail about Attack of the Clones before it came out, which definitely lessened my enjoyment of the movie since all I had left to do was notice the bad acting and nitpick at the special effects.

So yeah. Generally, I'm against CGI when models or stuntmen or makeup are feasible. But if it looks as good or better, who am I to complain? The bottom line is, make it good. I don't care how you do it--models, CGI, paper airplanes being thrown across camera-view while the director makes zooming noises--if it looks good, then it doesn't matter.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #713 on: 12-08-2005 11:36 »

Corpse Bride didn't have CGI. They used a combination of digital camera technology with the traditional stop-motion technique to do the film. It was the first stop-motion film to use a digital camera to take shots. The circle shots, such as the one where the Corpse Bride corners Victor on the bridge, used moving cameras, as seen in the Nightmare Before Christmas. Where did you get the information that there was CGI in that film?

Anyway, I liked Yoda in TPM, thought it was a lot more realistic than some of the up close CGI Yoda shots, though I loved the kick-ass lightsaber CGI Yoda.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #714 on: 12-08-2005 11:57 »

Nurdbot, there are times when I couldn't disagree with you more.  This is one of those times.

::Huggles the little green pinball of doom::
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #715 on: 12-08-2005 15:00 »

The puppet looked great in the late eighties Nix, but it did look a little scrappy with the advanced CGI Coruscant in the background and being right next to Samuel L Jackson.
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #716 on: 12-09-2005 01:45 »
« Last Edit on: 12-09-2005 01:45 »

Now Nurdbot, that's not fair. CGI was the only way to properly replicate the full spectrum of colours emanating from Samuel L Jackson's forehead.    no no

EDIT: DAMN YOU SMILEY!  mad
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #717 on: 12-09-2005 08:51 »

That forehead is perfect enough!
It needs no CGI!
Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #718 on: 12-09-2005 09:23 »
« Last Edit on: 12-09-2005 09:23 »

Well, I've realised it's futile trying to defend a process when a bunch of fanboys want to project their franchise's multitude of obvious failings onto one aspect of the production.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #719 on: 12-09-2005 10:05 »

Yeah, but you can still crush other people in many different things. Variety is what makes life worth it for you.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.341 seconds with 18 queries.