Model Work and CGI

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Model Work and CGI

Mark Davies-3
>I tend to agree. There's something about good >modelwork that always looks impressive on the screen. >At least to me. CGI has its points, but it's never been >able to compare with, say, that impressive shot of the >Phoenix under construction in its launch bay in >DOPPELGANGER.

>Michael

And I'll agree to agree.Good model work has a distinct feel to it that CGI can never generate.Whilst we know it isn't real,you have a hard time seperating it from what is.At times I maintain it is impossible.Just look at Derek Meddings minatures in Goldeneye.Model work has a heart,it is classic movie making.You work with film and a camera wth something tangible.
CGI is fakery,we know it,they know it,everyone knows it.It is to far removed from the movie making process.It is sterile.

Unfortunately in the movie busines today we have to accept that minature work will always run alongside CGI effects.

Peter Jackson mentioned that his Lord of the Rings could not have been made without CGI.I like to think he meant it could have been,but you would have been brave to attempt it or even finance it.
I wonder if we could have continued to develop minatures in the style of Derek Meddings and John Richardson and the stop motion skills of Ray Harryhausen,married to the matte work of a Whitlock, whether in fact it could have been done.
It would not have been the same,but it would have had a sophistication and style all of its own.

Mark UK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Griff
Hi Mark,

Yes, I agree with your sentiments.

CGI is digital, and in effect, models and miniatures are analogue. In a wayit is and can be their imperfections, textures, the way they reflect lightthat give them the certain quality.

Some say that analogue records and sound reproduction have a richer higher quality sound that digital reproduction does not always have, and although I was skeptical I have heard this myself, but it needs a great setup to experience it. I was absolutely shocked and spellbound when I heard Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the Moon" played on a £10,000 record deck and played through a valve amp and MS speakers. I know, correction, I thought I knew every single note, but I heard and 'felt' sound and sub-sonics that I had neverhead before. The experience was profound, and was the most mind-changing musical experience I can remember. The whole rig was about £30,000 was notplayed at loud levels, and was owned and setup by one of the members of the Moody Blues. We're friends, so I won't say who...

I believe the same can be achieved with models and miniatures. Nick Park isquoted as being displeased with the CGI elements to his movies, and I agree. The originals are still the best. He only went CGI because he was forcedto due to time and money, and pressure from the studios. As he said, "He likes to get his hands dirty, and likes the smell of plastercine under his finger nails.

I would never speak for the likes of Derek Meddings, but I think I know which side he might agree with.

I make my living from CGI (okay 2D and 3D), so these words "come rather hard..."

I must admit, I cringe at the mere thought of a CGI UFO Film...

Best,

Griff

--- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@...> wrote:

>
> >I tend to agree. There's something about good >modelwork that always looks impressive on the screen. >At least to me. CGI has its points, but it's never been >able to compare with, say, that impressive shot of the >Phoenixunder construction in its launch bay in >DOPPELGANGER.
>
> >Michael
>
> And I'll agree to agree.Good model work has a distinct feel to it that CGI can never generate.Whilst we know it isn't real,you have a hard time seperating it from what is.At times I maintain it is impossible.Just look at Derek Meddings minatures in Goldeneye.Model work has a heart,it is classic movie making.You work with film and a camera wth something tangible.
> CGI is fakery,we know it,they know it,everyone knows it.It is to far removed from the movie making process.It is sterile.
>
> Unfortunately in the movie busines today we have to accept that minature work will always run alongside CGI effects.
>
> Peter Jackson mentioned that his Lord of the Rings could not have been made without CGI.I like to think he meant it could have been,but you would have been brave to attempt it or even finance it.
> I wonder if we could have continued to develop minatures in the style of Derek Meddings and John Richardson and the stop motion skills of Ray Harryhausen,married to the matte work of a Whitlock, whether in fact it could have been done.
> It would not have been the same,but it would have had a sophistication and style all of its own.
>
> Mark UK
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Michael
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
--- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@...> wrote:

> Peter Jackson mentioned that his Lord of the Rings could not have been made without CGI.I like to think he meant it could have been,but you would have been brave to attempt it or even finance it.
> I wonder if we could have continued to develop minatures in the style of Derek Meddings and John Richardson and the stop motion skills of Ray Harryhausen,married to the matte work of a Whitlock, whether in fact it could have been done.
> It would not have been the same,but it would have had a sophistication and style all of its own.
>
> Mark UK


In Jackson's case, I think that the majority of his CGI work went into depicting the vast armies involved in the story (note that, since the advent ofCGI, we've seen a return to the "epic" style in films such as GLADIATOR, the Narnia stories, 300 and LORD OF THE RINGS . . . films which would've been too cost-prohibitive to produce back in the previous four decades). Thisis probably why we're finally getting around to having Burrough's Mars books produced into films. It's possible now.

Nice point about the skills of people such as Meddings and Harryhausen. Asan aficionado of classic genre films, I note where the matte work of Chesley Bonestell still holds up after fifty years, and the films of Ray Harryhausen still carry the cachet of fine crystal. As always, it's not so much in what you can do with special effects, but in how it's used. It's why a lot of CGI work (especially in the STAR WARS films) has tended to bore me. Too many people with computers who haven't the slightest inkling on how to set up a dramatic shot. The matte paintings, model and special-effects work in films such as THE WIZARD OF OZ, WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE and JASON & THE ARGONAUTS wasn't just pasted up willy-nilly. Each shot was coordinated and planned to produce maximum effect.


Michael
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Bob Muse-2
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Anyone here remember the original "Star Wars" back in the 70's seeing it inthe theatre. Remember what that was like in the opening w/ the runner & the Stardestroyer going overhead. Like/hate him (George Lucas) for his movies but I remember all to well what it was like. This is what can be done w/ models & camera back then, now add CGI, who knows?  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

HowardDavies
In reply to this post by Griff
Hi All,
I go with what I think is the flow here.....I like CGI and think a lot of films couild not have been made without it....but model work has a look a realism that CGI just does not capture. I believe it's simply that models exist in the real world and providing they are filmed with the right lighting and equipment they can be totally convincing. The Lord of the Rings trilogydid use a lot of CGI but was mainly to create the vast armies using a system I think was called MASSIVE. The image we see of Helm's deep for example was a model but using CGI to populate it, the same for the black gate.

Regards

Howard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

stone8435@att.net
I must agree with Howard
CGI makes so many things possible, its great
i just miss that look , i do hope if a UFO film is done
a little of the past  can be worked in
   thanks Dave

 



________________________________
From: Howard Davies <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:27:19 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI





Hi All,
I go with what I think is the flow here.....I like CGI and think a lot of films couild not have been made without it....but model work has a look a realism that CGI just does not capture. I believe it's simply that models exist in the real world and providing they are filmed with the right lighting and equipment they can be totally convincing. The Lord of the Rings trilogydid use a lot of CGI but was mainly to create the vast armies using a system I think was called MASSIVE. The image we see of Helm's deep for example was a model but using CGI to populate it, the same for the black gate.

Regards

Howard




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Michael
In reply to this post by Bob Muse-2
Oh, heck yeah! That opening scene in A NEW HOPE practically sold that filmand, for me, rates as perhaps the best (and most dramatic) model effects shot in the entire series (eclipsed maybe . . . maybe . . . by the AT-AT attack in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK).  

Consider what followed afterwards, with the increased dependence on CGI. Lots of undeniably lovely shots, but nothing which matched the sheer drama of those earlier model-based shots.

Now going back to UFO. Consider the shot of Skydiver preparing for launch . . . as well as the shot of the Sky fighter thundering up out of the ocean. Granted the same thing could be achieved via CGI, but could it bring thesense of Something Actually Being There that a well-crafted model brings? Perhaps . . . perhaps if a lot of these CGI jockeys took some courses in Direction.

(Same thing with, say, the shot of the SHADO mobiles disembarking from their carrier aircraft. That shot always left me with the feeling of the sheermass of the vehicles.)


Michael




--- In [hidden email], "Bob Muse" <robertmeuse61@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone here remember the original "Star Wars" back in the 70's seeing it in the theatre. Remember what that was like in the opening w/ the runner &the Stardestroyer going overhead. Like/hate him (George Lucas) for his movies but I remember all to well what it was like. This is what can be donew/ models & camera back then, now add CGI, who knows?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Michael
In reply to this post by HowardDavies
Exactly, and I can appreciate Jackson's reasoning here. Trying to find enough extras to create such large armies would've bankrupted any studio that attempted it.

Fortunately, UFO never relied on depicting a large number of aliens or SHADO operatives (one of the benefits of having a storyline dealing with two covert armies at war with one another). To my mind there's still room in a film project for excellent model work.


Michael



--- In [hidden email], "Howard Davies" <howarddavies2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I go with what I think is the flow here.....I like CGI and think a lot offilms couild not have been made without it....but model work has a look a realism that CGI just does not capture. I believe it's simply that models exist in the real world and providing they are filmed with the right lighting and equipment they can be totally convincing. The Lord of the Rings trilogy did use a lot of CGI but was mainly to create the vast armies using a system I think was called MASSIVE. The image we see of Helm's deep for example was a model but using CGI to populate it, the same for the black gate.
>
> Regards
>
> Howard
>
TRT
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

TRT
In reply to this post by Bob Muse-2
That scene in StarWars was inspired by a scene from Space:1999,
apparently.
Grant.

On 14 Jun 2009, at 20:43, Bob Muse wrote:

>
>
> Anyone here remember the original "Star Wars" back in the 70's
> seeing it in the theatre. Remember what that was like in the opening
> w/ the runner & the Stardestroyer going overhead. Like/hate him
> (George Lucas) for his movies but I remember all to well what it was
> like. This is what can be done w/ models & camera back then, now add
> CGI, who knows?
>
>



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

richard curzon
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Really?  Where did you hear that?  I knew that Lucas was impressed withthe effects work, which led to Brian Johnson getting Alien (1979) and thence on to ILM and Star Wars, Episode V:  The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

Rick

--- On Mon, 15/6/09, Grant Wray <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Grant Wray <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 15 June, 2009, 9:26 AM











   
           
           


     
That scene in StarWars was inspired by a scene from Space:1999,  

apparently.

Grant.



On 14 Jun 2009, at 20:43, Bob Muse wrote:



>

>

> Anyone here remember the original "Star Wars" back in the 70's  

> seeing it in the theatre. Remember what that was like in the opening  

> w/ the runner & the Stardestroyer going overhead. Like/hate him  

> (George Lucas) for his movies but I remember all to well what it was  

> like. This is what can be done w/ models & camera back then, now add  

> CGI, who knows?

>

>



____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

For more information please visit http://www.messagel abs.com/email

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
TRT
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

TRT
I've been trying to remember where I read that. It was in a book my
son had, I think. It may have been about the making of StarWars.
Grant.

On 15 Jun 2009, at 11:37, richard curzon wrote:

>
>
> Really? Where did you hear that? I knew that Lucas was impressed
> with the effects work, which led to Brian Johnson getting Alien
> (1979) and thence on to ILM and Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire
> Strikes Back (1980).
>
> Rick
>
> --- On Mon, 15/6/09, Grant Wray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> From: Grant Wray <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Monday, 15 June, 2009, 9:26 AM
>
> That scene in StarWars was inspired by a scene from Space:1999,
>
> apparently.
>
> Grant.
>
> On 14 Jun 2009, at 20:43, Bob Muse wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Anyone here remember the original "Star Wars" back in the 70's
>
> > seeing it in the theatre. Remember what that was like in the opening
>
> > w/ the runner & the Stardestroyer going overhead. Like/hate him
>
> > (George Lucas) for his movies but I remember all to well what it was
>
> > like. This is what can be done w/ models & camera back then, now add
>
> > CGI, who knows?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>
> For more information please visit http://www.messagel abs.com/email
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

richard curzon
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Like any effects format, CGI is only as good as the script, characters and performances that surround them (and the skills of the film-makers/stroytellers).  The Lord of the Rings (2001-3) works as well as it does becasue there is enough story and plot, with characters you care about to sell it.  Peter Jackson came a cropper (and I believe showed his true colours andlimitations) with King Kong (2005) a lesser endeavour in every way. 

The original 1933 film is a classic, but is no match for the Tolkien books as a source, and he over egged the pudding to the film's detriment (in my opinion).  Kong works at 104 minutes, but not at 190 minutes (or more withthe extended cut on DVD).  I can even take the 1976 remake (at 134 minutes) more than the 2005 version because it is real film making, and the crewdidn't have a tool that could do virtually anything, so they had to get more creative, and stage less action.  The suit-mation effects, while not anthropologically correct, were very effective and benfited from having a person (Rick Baker) in the suit.

The 1976 film has a so-so script, and cartoon characters, and the sexual politics are very much entrenched in the 1970s, but I would still take it over Jackson's CGI-fest.  Director John Guillermin uses the locations and Panavision frame with artistry, and John Barry's score is superb.  The 2005Kong is not a bad film, but feels like an indulgence, and a fan-boy film rather than a considered production.  I loved the first hour in New York and on the boat, with it's loving attention to period detail and I can't fault the performances, but once they got to the island it was just once action set-piece, and CGI-fest after another.

If UFO were to be remade, I hope they would keep the low-key approach and tailer the stories towards dialogue, plot and character rather than effects and action.  The 1969-70 series was considered an action show in its day,but technology was limited so dialogue, plot and character came naturally to the fore (they are cheap); by today's standards it would be considered slow.  But, I like slow; I like theings to develop, and I like to be able to see the spectacle when it is there (the new Trek film is cut so quick you don't get a good ogle).  CGI is a great tool, but not the whole show and film makers should take heed of the fact that just because they CAN do a thing, doesn't meet they should.

Rick

--- On Sun, 14/6/09, dave stone <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: dave stone <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Sunday, 14 June, 2009, 11:32 PM











   
           
           


     
I must agree with Howard

CGI makes so many things possible, its great

i just miss that look , i do hope if a UFO film is done

a little of the past  can be worked in

   thanks Dave



 



____________ _________ _________ __

From: Howard Davies <howarddavies2000@ yahoo.co. uk>

To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com

Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:27:19 PM

Subject: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI



Hi All,

I go with what I think is the flow here.....I like CGI and think a lot of films couild not have been made without it....but model work has a look a realism that CGI just does not capture. I believe it's simply that models exist in the real world and providing they are filmed with the right lighting and equipment they can be totally convincing. The Lord of the Rings trilogydid use a lot of CGI but was mainly to create the vast armies using a system I think was called MASSIVE. The image we see of Helm's deep for example was a model but using CGI to populate it, the same for the black gate.



Regards



Howard



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

richard curzon
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
I largely agree with what you say here Howard.  Models have a solidity that CGI rarely can replicate.

Rick

--- On Sun, 14/6/09, Howard Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Howard Davies <[hidden email]>
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Sunday, 14 June, 2009, 10:27 PM











   
           
           


     
Hi All,

I go with what I think is the flow here.....I like CGI and think a lot of films couild not have been made without it....but model work has a look a realism that CGI just does not capture. I believe it's simply that models exist in the real world and providing they are filmed with the right lighting and equipment they can be totally convincing. The Lord of the Rings trilogydid use a lot of CGI but was mainly to create the vast armies using a system I think was called MASSIVE. The image we see of Helm's deep for example was a model but using CGI to populate it, the same for the black gate.



Regards



Howard




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

richard curzon
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Space 1999 does het a mention in the recent coffee-table book on Star Wars (2007 making of book with Lucas and Mark Hamill on the cover).

Rick

--- On Mon, 15/6/09, Grant Wray <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Grant Wray <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 15 June, 2009, 11:41 AM











   
           
           


     
I've been trying to remember where I read that. It was in a book my  

son had, I think. It may have been about the making of StarWars.

Grant.



On 15 Jun 2009, at 11:37, richard curzon wrote:



>

>

> Really? Where did you hear that? I knew that Lucas was impressed  

> with the effects work, which led to Brian Johnson getting Alien  

> (1979) and thence on to ILM and Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire  

> Strikes Back (1980).

>

> Rick

>

> --- On Mon, 15/6/09, Grant Wray <grant.wray@Tiscali. co.uk> wrote:

>

> From: Grant Wray <grant.wray@Tiscali. co.uk>

> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI

> To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com

> Date: Monday, 15 June, 2009, 9:26 AM

>

> That scene in StarWars was inspired by a scene from Space:1999,

>

> apparently.

>

> Grant.

>

> On 14 Jun 2009, at 20:43, Bob Muse wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Anyone here remember the original "Star Wars" back in the 70's

>

> > seeing it in the theatre. Remember what that was like in the opening

>

> > w/ the runner & the Stardestroyer going overhead. Like/hate him

>

> > (George Lucas) for his movies but I remember all to well what it was

>

> > like. This is what can be done w/ models & camera back then, now add

>

> > CGI, who knows?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

>

> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

>

> For more information please visit http://www.messagel abs.com/email

>

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>



____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

For more information please visit http://www.messagel abs.com/email

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

James Gibbon
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:37:12 +0100
"Mark Davies" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> CGI is fakery, we know it, they know it, everyone knows it. It
> is too far removed from the movie making process. It is sterile.
>
> Unfortunately in the movie business today we have to accept that
> miniature work will always run alongside CGI effects.
>

Well, miniature models are fakery as well of course. I have to
agree that some CGI looks fake and unconvincing, but then so
do some physical models. The CGI Red Dwarf ship in the later
series of Red Dwarf looks a lot more convincing, to me anyway,
than the model of the same craft used in the earlier series.

The original series Star Trek episodes that have been "remastered"
provide an opportunity to compare the two methods in the same
application, and there's an interesting YouTube video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1mTPC1nQ8

To be fair though in some cases the original examples that have
been replaced aren't models, but paintings.

Either can be done badly or well, but CGI can only improve
substantially.

James
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Ben_the_bear
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3

--- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@...> wrote:
>
> >I tend to agree. There's something about good >modelwork that always
looks impressive on the screen. >At least to me. CGI has its points, but
it's never been >able to compare with, say, that impressive shot of the
>Phoenix under construction in its launch bay in >DOPPELGANGER.
>
> >Michael
>
> And I'll agree to agree.Good model work has a distinct feel to it that
CGI can never generate.Whilst we know it isn't real,you have a hard time
seperating it from what is.At times I maintain it is impossible.Just
look at Derek Meddings minatures in Goldeneye.Model work has a heart,it
is classic movie making.You work with film and a camera wth something
tangible.
> CGI is fakery,we know it,they know it,everyone knows it.It is to far
removed from the movie making process.It is sterile.
>
> Unfortunately in the movie busines today we have to accept that
minature work will always run alongside CGI effects.
>
> Peter Jackson mentioned that his Lord of the Rings could not have been
made without CGI.I like to think he meant it could have been,but you
would have been brave to attempt it or even finance it.
> I wonder if we could have continued to develop minatures in the style
of Derek Meddings and John Richardson and the stop motion skills of Ray
Harryhausen,married to the matte work of a Whitlock, whether in fact it
could have been done.
> It would not have been the same,but it would have had a sophistication
and style all of its own.
>
> Mark UK
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Hello everyone;
I'm a member of the RPF <http://www.therpf.com/> (Replica Prop
Forum). For which I have this to add; models add a dreamers/inventors
energy to a movie. People will look at a movie and ponder, "how did
they make that?" You then have people who make their own versions. (ie:
lightsabers, Hellraiser puzzle boxes, etc ...). All of that is lost in
a cgi movie.

Matt



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

jbillmeyer@sbcglobal.net
--- In [hidden email], "Matt" <ben_the_bear@...> wrote:
>Hi all A like the old model stuff!! it's real the CGI just looks so fakelike a cartoon. Anyone can sit at a computer A model builder is an artist
Jay

>
> --- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@> wrote:
> >
> > >I tend to agree. There's something about good >modelwork that always
> looks impressive on the screen. >At least to me. CGI has its points, but
> it's never been >able to compare with, say, that impressive shot of the
> >Phoenix under construction in its launch bay in >DOPPELGANGER.
> >
> > >Michael
> >
> > And I'll agree to agree.Good model work has a distinct feel to it that
> CGI can never generate.Whilst we know it isn't real,you have a hard time
> seperating it from what is.At times I maintain it is impossible.Just
> look at Derek Meddings minatures in Goldeneye.Model work has a heart,it
> is classic movie making.You work with film and a camera wth something
> tangible.
> > CGI is fakery,we know it,they know it,everyone knows it.It is to far
> removed from the movie making process.It is sterile.
> >
> > Unfortunately in the movie busines today we have to accept that
> minature work will always run alongside CGI effects.
> >
> > Peter Jackson mentioned that his Lord of the Rings could not have been
> made without CGI.I like to think he meant it could have been,but you
> would have been brave to attempt it or even finance it.
> > I wonder if we could have continued to develop minatures in the style
> of Derek Meddings and John Richardson and the stop motion skills of Ray
> Harryhausen,married to the matte work of a Whitlock, whether in fact it
> could have been done.
> > It would not have been the same,but it would have had a sophistication
> and style all of its own.
> >
> > Mark UK
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> Hello everyone;
> I'm a member of the RPF <http://www.therpf.com/> (Replica Prop
> Forum). For which I have this to add; models add a dreamers/inventors
> energy to a movie. People will look at a movie and ponder, "how did
> they make that?" You then have people who make their own versions. (ie:
> lightsabers, Hellraiser puzzle boxes, etc ...). All of that is lost in
> a cgi movie.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

James Gibbon
In reply to this post by Ben_the_bear
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:13:24 -0000
"Matt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everyone;
> I'm a member of the RPF <http://www.therpf.com/> (Replica Prop
> Forum). For which I have this to add; models add a dreamers/inventors
> energy to a movie. People will look at a movie and ponder, "how did
> they make that?" You then have people who make their own versions. (ie:
> lightsabers, Hellraiser puzzle boxes, etc ...). All of that is lost in
> a cgi movie.
>

To be fair the "how did they make that?" effect is probably confined
to people who are interested in models, and relatively few people make
their own light sabres - so it's not really a factor that's important
to cinema-goers in general. Or indeed viewers of UFO, if I may nod in
the direction of our principal topic.

I suspect that a "how do they do that?" factor is present among
people who marvel at CGI as well.

I could be harsh and suggest that if you're wondering how it was made,
then you've lost suspension of disbelief and the model work has
actually failed - but perhaps that's unfair.

James
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

Mario Butter
In reply to this post by jbillmeyer@sbcglobal.net
Anyone can sit at a computer AND MAKE COMMENTS LIKE THIS.

Not everyone can do CGI artwork, nor can everyone be a software
engineer (my profession). Just sitting at a computer does not convey
those skills.

There was a couple years of debate regarding CGI and models before
Babylon 5 spun up - the Trek devotees proclaimed that CGI could never
make realistic space scenes, that models were required. The CGI in
Babylon 5 was excellent. Also, the movie Titanic was almost completely
done with CGI - only a few walls and a couple of small hull sections
were made as sets, an the rest was all CGI - most people never knew
that it was done that way. CGI, done correctly, is impossible to
detect.

Also, for the people that talk about how impressive the models were in
Star Wars - don't you remember that they had to use CGI to "clean up"
the artifacts of the model matting process when high definition
screens starting becoming prevalent? While it was hard to see in a
darkened theater, the lines around the various ships where they were
matted onto the background were VERY visible when viewed on HD after
the movies were initially released as DVD - hence they went back and
used CGI to clean them up and make the ships look better.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM,
[hidden email]<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyone can sit at a computer A model builder is an artist

--
Mario

http://mario.silent-tower.org/
jks
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Model Work and CGI

jks
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
CGI is very good for compositing shots, enhancing shots, rescuing shots etc, when the basic elements have been captured in the real world, including miniatures. It is now rare to see very obvious technical faults in a film with a reasonable budget as CGI has made correcting faults affordable when once the only option might have been a reshoot.

CGI is far, far less successful when the starting point is a blank computerscreen. Sometimes this is because the difficulty of creating a particular realistic shot is insurmountable altogether, but also because the last 10% of work necessary for the best possible result can take far more time (and therefore cost) than the first 90%.

A further problem is that directors are able to achieve in CGI what the audience, on a gut level, knows would be impossible to shoot in the real world. This problem is likely to get worse as younger directors have more experience of playing video games than they do of shooting miniatures or stunts in the real world.

One of Derek Meddings principles was to avoid shooting miniatures from angles which would be unlikely to be used if such a real full-sized vehicle wasbeing filmed. Over time, fewer directors are going to even have the basic knowledge to make those decisions, let alone the inclination.

Regards
John
12