nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome:  "ah, that's obviously CG!" 
> Really, smartass?  What gave you that impression?  The fact that there 
> are no running dinossaurs around so we could film them to be that 
> realistic moving on screen?

  Actually, in Jurassic Park 3 they used both animatronic puppets and CGI
dinosaurs, and you *can't tell them apart* (at least not when they are
standing in place, as the puppets obviously cannot run). It's basically
impossible to tell from a given, standing velociraptor, whether it's a
puppet or CGI.

  Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.

No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in 
Hollywood.  JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying 
triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor 
heads and feet...

That's really the bane of CG:  with it you can do exactly what 
animatronics can't, namely, realistic movements.  Unfortunately, that 
also means dinosaurs running, spider-man doing his super-powered jumps 
and stunts etc... all of which are pretty obviously CG because you know 
you can't have that for real, there are no super heroes nor dinosaurs 
around.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> > being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.

> No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in 
> Hollywood.  JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying 
> triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor 
> heads and feet...

  My point was that in JP3 you really *can't* tell them apart. In JP1 you
could tell them apart if you watched carefully, but in JP3 the animatronics
are so well done that they look outright hyperrealistic and indistinguishable
from the CGI models. There are many scenes in which you could *swear* that
CGI was used but, wasn't.

  Personally I appreciate movies which go the extra mile of using "real"
special effects rather than computer-generated ones. That's one of the major
reasons why I liked the Planet of Apes remake so much: There was practically
no CGI used there (the only CGI used was in some space scenes as well as to
create a few backgrounds). Whenever you see eg. a monkey outrunning a
galloping horse, there's zero CGI there. What you see is what the camera
saw.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> You are obviously full of BS.  Models and renders are friggin' well done
> -- you can even see sweat in the skin.  The only reason you notice they
> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
> even with the help of wires.

I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of 
Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS.  It's just not as impressive 
as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:45 -0500, Warp wrote:

>> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned
>> out from the beginning?
> 
>   I don't think so.

I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was 
planned out in detail.  But originally, it was 9 films, and the first 
three released were the middle group.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>> 
>> By the end of the third film that question is answered:  Neo taking on
>> Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
>> Architect couldn't control him any more.
> 
> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?

As someone else said, Smith wants out.  Controlling the prison is the 
best way to engineer an escape.

>> Neo wanted the war to end.  The Architect wanted Smith dealt with. 
>> They both got something they wanted.
> 
> So if Neo defeats Smith they call off the attack on Zion. Now it makes
> sense that Neo would want to beat Smith... Still not completely sure why
> the Architect cares about Smith or the contents of the Matrix... Or how
> Neo manages to beat him, actually. They're both invincible...

Because without the Matrix, the people who are the "batteries" for the 
machines die.  No batteries, no power for the machines.

>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make
>>> a sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>> 
>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
>> AFAICR.
> 
> Yeah, that's puzzling.
> 
>> It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come
>> out better than the original.
> 
> But when it happens, it's very, very cool.

Yep.

> Shrek 1: Rather good.
> Shrek 2: Really good.
> Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?

Admittedly, the third Shrek film advanced the CG, so for me, it was worth 
watching for that alone.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was 
> planned out in detail.  But originally, it was 9 films, and the first 
> three released were the middle group.

  Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> You are obviously full of BS.  Models and renders are friggin' well done
>> -- you can even see sweat in the skin.  The only reason you notice they
>> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
>> even with the help of wires.
> 
> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of 
> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS.  It's just not as impressive 
> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).

I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since 
there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to 
see the fine details like this:

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg

(which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions 
superpunch scene)

what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined 
with the super human movements it shows a bit.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> You are obviously full of BS.  Models and renders are friggin' well
>>> done -- you can even see sweat in the skin.  The only reason you
>>> notice they are CG is because they are moving like no human being
>>> could ever move, even with the help of wires.
>> 
>> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
>> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS.  It's just not as impressive
>> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
> 
> I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since
> there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to
> see the fine details like this:
> 
> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
> 
> (which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions
> superpunch scene)
> 
> what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined
> with the super human movements it shows a bit.

That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to, the 
one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead.  It's not a 
*lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either.  Not that I 
could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says 
"CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't.  The forehead is too 
long as well, and the jawline isn't right.

That was a big part of the issue; I could see Hugo Weaving in the film as 
a non-CG character, and as a CG character, and the differences between 
the two were too obvious.  That's one of the problems they had with this 
film - if you didn't put the real actor up against it, then the model 
looks really good.  But having the actor as a reference in the film makes 
it that much more apparent where the problems in the model are.

The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note) was 
that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to them.  
Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain aspects of 
the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe exactly) and 
my brain registered it as "not real".

What constitutes outstanding VFX for me in a live action film is when you 
can't tell what's live action and what's not.  In these particular 
scenes, it was clear what was and wasn't.

You of course may feel differently about it.  My point of view isn't the 
only valid one (nor is yours, I would remind you).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:18:43 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
>> planned out in detail.  But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
>> three released were the middle group.
> 
>   Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I
>   wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?

What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a major 
part of that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message