Aug. 1, 2010, 4:29 p.m. CST
by Sailor Rip
it's cool to see how they did this in the old days though.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:30 p.m. CST
But this pic is fascinating to me.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:31 p.m. CST
Because it's an entirely different kind of work that goes into it. I know, I know, clicking the mouse and working with algorithms is skilled labor. But it will never mean as much, never be the same kind of ART that can only be made by hand. Will 3-D printers make pottery obsolete? Does digital synthesis make a blues guitarist obsolete? Maybe it does for you, but not in the world I want to live in. Great photo.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:32 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:32 p.m. CST
with Harrison Ford?
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:33 p.m. CST
Super 8 it!!
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:34 p.m. CST
how does that work?
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:34 p.m. CST
And I didn't even realise that this was how the opening crawl was filmed. You learn something new every day.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:35 p.m. CST
by Sailor Rip
...is from The Thing.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:35 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:36 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:40 p.m. CST
Kinda cool to see how this scroll was done, exactly the type of stuff you never think about but wonder, seeing as how nowadays they use computers for so much. But the large screen in background is kinda cool when you think of the old paintings that set decorators and other artists had to do to insert characters into the worlds the director was creating.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:40 p.m. CST
by Axl Z
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:41 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:43 p.m. CST
Keep 'em coming! Movies may be magic but there is a lot of hard work behind them.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:43 p.m. CST
I would guess the string and tack was there to help align the camera to center of the glass.
Aug. 1, 2010, 4:59 p.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
If i was talkin to someone and try told mr this is how they did the opening crawl, I would have called them an idiot. But its still weird right, I mean obviously they're able to put words on a screen, did they really not have the tech to give the words a one-point perspective? Not complaint, just curious.
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:20 p.m. CST
I note that almost all Star Wars video games fail to match the font or other characteristics of the crawls in the films. Fortunately they did their homework for the prequels and got about as close as a digital version can get.
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:22 p.m. CST
by Amazing Maurice
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:25 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:27 p.m. CST
Never even crossed my mind. Always assumed it was animated.
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST
I thought the crawls for the Knights of the Old Republic games were about as close as you were going to get.
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST
Most impressive and proud KA master spy of Soviet motherland, trenned since child.
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST
You've been talked into seeing a lot of crappy lesbian performance art, haven't you?
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST
And how they did it. <p> COOL PIC! <p> Umm... by-the-way... <p> Harry? umm... Have you seen Inception yet? <p> You should. It's really good!
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:32 p.m. CST
They obviously did the same thing about three years earlier with Star Wars.
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:39 p.m. CST
This was, of course, before the discovery CGI and Hollywood's terrible addiction. <p> * alas *
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:47 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:48 p.m. CST
by Tigger Tales
Aug. 1, 2010, 5:59 p.m. CST
Can't remember when Lucas started to meddle with perfection. Does anyone have an original version copy to confirm this?
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:07 p.m. CST
The first film originally was released with no chapter number and title. However, it was Lucas' intent all along to have the chapter number and title and when the film proved to be a success and the extra prints were being created, they added Episode IV: A New Hope. Empire Strikes Back has always included in the opening crawl the roman numeral V followed by the title.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:11 p.m. CST
When Star Wars was re released Episode IV was added.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST
by Triceratops on Fire
Really, seeing the black gaffer tape all around the border just does it. I love the idea that they just grabbed whatever they had around to put these films together.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:22 p.m. CST
If I'm not mistaken the crawls were remade in a computer for the Special Editions onward, weren't they?
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:24 p.m. CST
The Star Wars opening crawl IS iconic, but it is also an EXACT ripoff of the old Flash Gordon serials, one-point perspective and all. <p> And come on, Kevred. Your statement was supremely idiotic in it's ignorance. PLEASE educate yourself if you're gonna say something like that. "Working with algorithms" is one of the stupidest, broadest, ill-informed things I've ever heard. If you're talking physics simulation and the like, sure. That stuff's filled with tech-heads, but it's secondary - and in traditional animation things like flowing hair and the movement of clothes were also called secondary animation. But digital sculpting to make a character is still sculpting (and divides into organic and mechanical in just the same way as the real world). Digital animation is more a cross between stop-motion or puppetry and regular keyframe animation. You still move joints and pose figures. The only real difference is that you don't have to do all the inbetween frames. You still need to set that timing up right though. And there are just as many awful traditional animators as digital ones. Also, most of the crappy traditional animation has fallen by the wayside and we're left with the best. But currently we are seeing and can remember/access both the best AND the worst (which of course is always the larger proportion) of digital animation. Apples to oranges. <p> Like John Lasseter said when talking about animation: A computer doesn't create computer animation anymore than a pencil creates pencil animation. What creates computer animation is the artist.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:29 p.m. CST
has always been used incorrectly. It actually refers to on-set, physical effects, like car flippers, bullet hits and so on. The sort of post and matte effects I think you have in mind were always called special optical or visual effects. VFX. Cheers.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:34 p.m. CST
between tech-crazy guys in the old days who were more taken with the mechanics of an effect compared to the tech-crazy digital guys these days who are more concerned with the "algorithms"? None. Both are the tail wagging the dog and both give you bad performance and bad storytelling. A tool is just a tool. Same as the simplistic haters here who probably aren't old enough to remember the majority of shitty stuff in the 'old' days.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:36 p.m. CST
We don't see the EXACT SAME SHOTS of the models flying by the camera every other scene. At least with CG you can change up the shots a bit.
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:51 p.m. CST
they probably had to do a reshoot
Aug. 1, 2010, 6:59 p.m. CST
They just look more authentic than CG. There was a point in the 80s / early 90s when there was a kind of harmony between model work and CG. The two had struck a perfect balance. Now we've gone completely the way of CG with model work rendered obsolete and it just looks...like something a computer would shit out. I don't buy into this "oh, computers are just a tool" bullshit. Building something with your own hands will ALWAYS be more special than crunching numbers and wiggling a mouse. You have a much more personal attachment with something that you make with your hands and that personal touch translates onto screen.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7 p.m. CST
I like the prequels and everything, I watch them once a year, but new star wars is nothing like the good old days. I would love to see this era covered again on screen, even the clone wars cartoon format is fine, just get over the damn prequel era already.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:06 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:12 p.m. CST
Star Wars will always BE awesome.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:13 p.m. CST
which do you want, crap that looks good or good,smart film that looks like crap? Go to your local cinema and vote now! Myself, i'll take Charlie wilsons war over Transformers ANYDAY!(I hear ya white_vader,nice post)
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:13 p.m. CST
SCOTTPILGRIM SUCKS MY BALLS!
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:14 p.m. CST
Holy shit that's a cool original talkbackers name. I'm a fan.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:15 p.m. CST
you geek god,you!
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:16 p.m. CST
Hey, is your middle name pretentious?
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:16 p.m. CST
Like the more intelligent ones have said, it all depends upon the artist, not the tool.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:19 p.m. CST
Wonder if they did it the same way in the prequels. Anybody know?
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:21 p.m. CST
Likely to be the second biggest hit of the summer . . . But what a yawn, says AICN -- as our cinematic overlords wait with masturbated breath for: "Scott Pilgram vs. the Expendables."
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:29 p.m. CST
i was totally blown away by computer vfx was the t-rex escape from Jurassic Park (mixed in with on set effects)but that was still hand animated with sensor covered armatures, and then fed into the computer.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:29 p.m. CST
just type something and slowly roll the camera over it lol
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:34 p.m. CST
The T Rex was a real scaled down model, fed into a computer. That was an example of model work and CG working together well. Compare that with the Brachiosaurs at the beginning which were completely CG and looked much more fake.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:42 p.m. CST
Really, the CG in Jurassic Park looked fake? Compared to what, Jason and the Argonauts?
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:43 p.m. CST
by nolan bautista
this is fake!
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:43 p.m. CST
for the scenes where it tips the van over and where it comes up to scare the kids, so you're wrong there.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:44 p.m. CST
They make the model then shoot it digitally from various angles THEN it becomes CGI! I don't know if every filmaker does it this way but I know Lucasfilm does.
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:44 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 7:51 p.m. CST
by nolan bautista
..i read the earlier posts addresing whether the original release had the Episode V on the crawl..
Aug. 1, 2010, 8 p.m. CST
The first Brachiosaur scene looked fake. The T Rex and Velociraptors looked great because they used a mixture of animatronics, CG and models seamlessley. Try not to be a douche.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:09 p.m. CST
Why yes,yes it is. Thank for noticing!
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:14 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:15 p.m. CST
by Star Hump
were the ships from Starship Troopers, specifically the Rodger Young. Lucasfilm did those too. Sharp as all hell.<p> I'm having a hard time with peeking behind the scenes on the Star Wars stuff. The rest of the features are fascinating but when it comes to Star Wars I prefer ignorant bliss. This pic really knocked my socks off though.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST
While I'd want confirmation, this was done before it was as easy as picking a font and typing it out. The type was likely "set" by hand.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:24 p.m. CST
There was an awesome empire making of video back in the 80's spfx I think it was called...
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:25 p.m. CST
Sure thing Bush!
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:32 p.m. CST
magic marker corrections. It was in a closet at boss film until they closed. Then it was backlit at my friend's place and used as the centerpiece of his starwars collection. Now he hates the prequels and isn't into starwars and it's in his closet! The fucking thing is back in a closet! Anyway I bet he'll sell it if you want it let me know.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:35 p.m. CST
"Will always be Awesome." To that I just have to say "Noooooo!!!!" Some of new star wars is awesome, and some of it is that camel thing farting in Jar Jar's face. Or holding me like that time you did on Naboo.</p> <p>The best SW is Legacy and they canceled it.</p>
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:37 p.m. CST
you with your dick in your hand and your thumb in your ass. You still have fuck though.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:38 p.m. CST
And while I agree that some overuse of CGI does exist and sometimes makes things look obviously fake, these effects guys woulda used computers if those effects existed. They used what they had.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:40 p.m. CST
and Underworld, and that low budget sci fi channel BS.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:41 p.m. CST
remotely accurate about the effects process from any era.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:44 p.m. CST
It was so different that stuff like Jurassic Park blew people away. Now every movie looks like JP. Which means audiences want something new. After 3D gets old, the only logical place to go is back to practical effects. Then people will wonder why the stuff onscreen looks so "real". It will look real because it was actually filmed in front of a camera. Where the prequels went wrong is the original look of SW was just fine. It didn't really need elaborate special effects other than lightsabers and blaster-fire, and maybe a couple CG aliens here and there. What we got instead was an elaborate video game that is a mess to look at.
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:52 p.m. CST
Can you honestly say that ROTS, which incidentally used the most models in any Star Wars movie, looked bad?
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:53 p.m. CST
did i even post here? I am obviously out of my league with all of you super nerd brainiacs in here. i shall kindly and shamefully remove myself while you all thrust and parry at each other with your cock shaped lightsabers!
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:55 p.m. CST
cgi vs. vfx ? WHO THE FUCK CARES!
Aug. 1, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST
I count the OT as original SW. But all three looked better than TPM.
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:05 p.m. CST
So you're some kind of an effects specialist? What exactly did I say wrong? Jurassic Park DID use a combination of animatronics and CG for the T Rex and Raptors. Now go any burt your ugly face back into your mom's hairy gray bush and suck on her clitty until she sprays your zit face with her menopausal cum.
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:10 p.m. CST
It would have had much more the look and feel of the original.
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:13 p.m. CST
I hate to state something so obvious, but there's nothing better than good CG combined with judicious use of practical effects where possible. My favourite era of special effects movies is the mid-to-late 90s, from Jurassic Park to The Matrix. At this time, CGI was still expensive enough that most effects were attempted practically where possible. I feel the special effects of this time (notably Jurassic park, True Lies, Judge Dredd, Independence Day, Dante's Peak, Starship Troopers, Armageddon, etc.) hold up far better, and actually look better in the objective sense, than the majority of effects in the post-Matrix era of over-reliance on CGI.
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:21 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:27 p.m. CST
He has think about saving money. He also wants to use the latest and greatest. Why would he tell his workers. Okay guys, we're gonna make a movie like it's 1983! Get those muppets, matte paintings and models ready! There was no way Lucas was gonna use anything else other than CGI for the prequels. I wouldn't even have minded all the CG that much; if the damn acting and story was actually good. If I was Lucas I would have picked better actors, had good writers write the story, used actual people in clone-trooper costumes and duplicated them when necessary. Oh but no, Lucas has to write it himself and go nuts with the CG!
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:31 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:55 p.m. CST
Keep these ESB pix comin' my man! P.S. Happy Shark Week!
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:55 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 9:59 p.m. CST
Actually Phantom Menace used MORE MODELS than the whole original trilogy COMBINED. How many times do I need to say that? Go look it up instead of just spouting stuff. And sure TPM looked dodgy, and WAS dodgy, but it wasn't because of models. CG or the combination of both. There were a TON of them in there, and other things like the waterfalls just being salt poured over black velvet, over-cranked and then comped in. <p> http://tinyurl.com/2eb7hqt <p> http://tinyurl.com/264mbtw <p> http://tinyurl.com/25h3vvh <p> http://tinyurl.com/256d6y9 <p> And there were a hell of a lot more. Jesus, they even filmed dry-for-wet for Christ's sake. <p> And you saying Redrain's middle name was Pretentious was hilarious - considering we now know what the "P" in your own name stands for. <p> Redrain - absolutely - whatever gets the job done best. And 'best' has a lot of variables that change depending <p> The only part where that crawl could be slightly more complicated than you think is that you need to maintain deep depth of field while still getting the perspective. So actually that is one thing where it makes sense to just do it in the computer for the prequels. <p> Another cool title/titles shot is Carpenter's The Thing. I can't remember how they did it for the original, but in Carpenter's version they backlit it as heated up the black plastic mask to make it wither away so the letters formed. Disclaimer - that's just my memory of it. Now THAT is an effect better done practically. Not that reliable/repeatable though. I'd like to see a BTS shot of that.
Aug. 1, 2010, 10:05 p.m. CST
of foresight in jettisoning off Pixar back when he used to own them I guess. And irony of ironies, passing on fully rendered and texture-mapped x-wings back in the late seventies when a test was done before Empire (and looked better than stuff that came years later) - because of money/budget concerns.
Aug. 1, 2010, 10:12 p.m. CST
Yes, I knew all of that. So, how can people say there was so much CG in the prequels?
Aug. 1, 2010, 10:21 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2010, 10:24 p.m. CST
is how much they don't understand it, and how it is actually a blessing in disguise to Practical Artists. <P> I use to sculpt in all the mediums, chavant, wedclay, sculpty, wax, castiline, and life was good. My Recreative film character and props sculpts- The form of art I am attracted to, was ok. By "OK" I mean other people would look at it and say nice things, but deep down I knew it could be better. <P>With CGI my view on my sculpts has changed from steroscopic "my two eyes" 3d sculpting object To 2d sculpting since the sculpt is on a 2d monitor now. You might think, hey that sounds like a step backwards not forwards. Well this is not true when your trying to recreate a character or prop from a film. That added level of depth created by your two eyes distorts the sculpt objects true shape. That's why some sculpts look really good in person but not so when you look at a picture of them.<P> When I was practical sculpting my recreative sculpts based on film characters. I was wearing glasses with one of the lenses taped over to shut off one of my eyes to reduce this issue. I don't have to do this anymore to sculpt while studying my ref images of those characters of props. <P> I can also bring my study ref images into the background area behind my CGI sculpt, and turn down the CGI sculpts opacity, So it rests in front of the images ref like a silhouetted ghost object. This alone has improved my recreative abilities 10 fold in contrast to the hands on clay way. <P> If I need to change a characters expression. All I have to do is pull those areas into position. If I had to do this with a practical sculpt. I'd have to resculpt those areas completely from the ground up. <P> I can reverse my sculpt and the ref images to increase my shape match work even more. Cant do that in the real world. <P>The time it takes to rough up the shapes is way faster you can only meld clay so fast it's a very laborious tiny piece build rake and shape affair. Digital lets you add and remove things very quickly. <P> I never have to worry about running out of sculpting material either, or how i have to store the sculpt between sessions or what kind of armature i have to build to support the shape and weight of the material I'm sculpting it in. <P> I don't ever want to looks back at practical. With quality/detail levels of Rapid Protoype increasing and the costs of those rapid prototype prints coming down in price. I may never have to. I only jumped into the world of digital to replace and improve upon what I was already doing in the real world. It's better- infinity better, and faster and more accurate. You haters confuse the piss out of me. <P> The future of practical effect will be a world were the practical is made in the computer- then printed into the real world- molded- with that mold being used to make either silicone latex or resin casts to finalize the practical objects needed for the film. It's already happening with films like Indy 5 and Iron Man, but soon it will be major part of all films that choose to have practical fx work on set. The hand on clay sculpting stuff will fall into smaller tasks like appliance pieces/ and clean up work for RP parts. <P> No one will need these realworld sculptors to build shit like a full scale whale from scratch or something like that. Sure they will still be used to lay and texture clay over a 5 axis cnc milled whale created in High Density Foam, but the main brunt of the shape and form work of large scale shit like that will be done in a computer, same goes for animatronic creatures, they can sculpt the creature in the computer including the armature that goes under it, print those parts out, and mold them and cast the respective materials into those molds to fabricate them. They can make many different sized versions from the same CGI model. It's a brave new world people. Get of the soap box and jump in. The waters fine, very fine indeed!
Aug. 1, 2010, 10:31 p.m. CST
why did you say "incidentally used the most models in any Star Wars movie" then? <p> And people can say there was so much cg because it is ALSO true. Considering that there were around 2000 shots in each prequel movie, compared to roughly 3 to 6 hundred in each OT movie. There was a lot more of everything. So they're right.
Aug. 1, 2010, 10:35 p.m. CST
The reason WHY there is so many visuals in the prequels is because Lucas wanted a more fleshed out universe that was shown in the OT. The OT was mainly about the Rebels VS Imperials, but the prequels were about the entire galaxy.
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:03 p.m. CST
You're not listening or answering the question re: contradicting yourself or getting it wrong in the first place. Stay on target, as they say. Sorry I wasted my time.
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:06 p.m. CST
The prequels were about visuals instead of story and script. End of discussion.
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:15 p.m. CST
I admire your enthusiasm but you're making the same mistake as the cg haters. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing, one side or the other, black or white. I'm teaching myself practical AND digital sculpting at the same time (still pretty lousy, but it's fun), precisely so I don't have a bias either way, and so one type of knowledge compliments the other. That way I'll be focussed on the goal at hand and my decisions will be based on the requirements and not driven by the tool I'm using/prefer. You don't have to dump on practical sculpting as the 'bad old days' and be glad to be rid of it! It may be better for you because you already have the old knowledge, but for anyone learning it's a huge mistake. Even if they never use it professionally, they should learn traditionally. The same mistakes were made with typography and graphic design when DTP came along at the end of the eighties. <p> Yes, stereolithography and CNC milling is great. But it will LOOK digital even if output in the real world due to a host of giveaways (mostly to do with scale and edges) that traditional sculptors know or at least do intuitively - you have to build those things into it even in the digital world. But yes, symmetry is a Godsend - you just have to know when to turn it off. It's the same thing with digital airbrushing as opposed to stuffing around with frisket masking. If you can't draw in the first place it's all for nothing though.
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:20 p.m. CST
Calm down dude. I was talking effects and practical & digital. Nothing to do with story or script - sure, I probably agree with you there, but that wasn't the issue. I never said the prequels were better at all. Just boring old numbers and examples because Locke got the Jedi thing wrong, that's all. Fair enough?
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:35 p.m. CST
in the Tron, Flight of the Navigator and Last Starfighter era. Abyss, T2 and Jurassic Park uped the ante (10 years later) thanks to more processing power and user friendly animation/shading softwares. Incidentally, the CG guys responsible for the Star Wars graphics (displays and trench simulation) provided Lucas with a fully rendered X-Wing CG dogfight test in *1979*(if you're lucky, you'll find it on the net, or at least still images). You would be surprised at the level of detail in the thing. However, computing power at that time wasn't sufficient for real production (you needed a Cray or two, and those weren't sold at Radio Shack). And it's a good thing too, because I still think models is the way to go for these kinds of shots.
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:36 p.m. CST
Aren't we supposed to get over it?
Aug. 1, 2010, 11:44 p.m. CST
<p>Is that while cg looks great now, it always ages. ALWAYS. The effects will advance and in ten years the current stuff will look cheap and amateur. But real will always be real. Real doesn't age, and real doesn't look "less real" over time. This is pretty basic stuff.</p> <p>There's a big place for CG. But I think it is over-used. What once used to be pulled off by story, creative direction/lighting/editing, is all done with a computer now--no limits means no creative problem solving in the moment. People like GL, as much as I respect the man, just don't know when to say "that's enough, we have the shot" when they have an unlimited toolbox, and unlimited time.</p> <p>I think the best CG is when you just assume it was real anyway. Often I'll assume something was shot "real" and then see it was all fake and I appreciate that. But when you have something ridiculous like the Jedi Arena battle in AOTC--I think part of our brains knows such an elaborate spectacle is unlikely to happen (all fake CG stuff anyway) so we don't get engaged with the drama onscreen. Not just Lucas either, what comes to mind is the absurd scene in Matrix 2 where Neo battles a hundred million Mr. Smith's... that was pathetic. Takes you right out of the story. Just too much of a good thing.
Aug. 2, 2010, 12:04 a.m. CST
Not to sound sentimental but "sniff" this picture made me remember that there was an empire without that new douchey emperor with way too much eyeliner on.
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:15 a.m. CST
How do you figure that real FX don't age? Look at all the great work Ray Harryhausen did...it still has it's charm and is a lot of fun to watch, but it does not look real, at all. It looks like something that was done a long time ago, in otherwords, dated. CGI that's not flawless (or at least close) is distinguishable as CGI right from the get. It's easy to look past it and forgive as long as it isn't so horrible it takes you out of the picture. However, tons of great CGI that DOES look real, will always look real. Davy Jones from the Pirates Trilogy is always going to look real, and no many years in between that is going to change it. Now I'll say there's not too much obvious CGI that looks real, but let's not forget the countless CGI shots in movies that are subtle. Most people never did, nor will, notice these shots, and 10 years isn't gonna change that. For example I was watching Black Hawk Down a few weeks back, and I found all of the black smoke in a scene is CGI, but I would have never knwon if I didn't read it. Great practical FX that look realistic will always look REAL (even if not totally believable), but CGI will too. Your just used to seeing a lot of so-so CGI.
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:32 a.m. CST
who defend the prequels just need to watch the Red Letter Media reviews...and then come back and post...if you can. I know I mention the RLM reviews all the time and so do a ton of other posters...there's a reason for that...the RLM reviews don't just sit there and bag on Jar Jar for an hour and a half. What they do is they logically and hilariously point out all of things that are drastically wrong with those films (and the special editions) in a whipsmart performance. heavenlykid haha "I love Empire so much I fuck it!" RLM fan! And Ryan Pom(whatever)...I mean RPLocke...keep defending those prequels...every time the conversation sways to the majority hating the new Star Wars prequels you interject with something about people having to get over it... But wait, we liked the GOOD Star Wars and not the crap with ROGER ROGER droids and "MeesaKakaPoopooPeePeeDoodooKakaBombad" or whatever shit...
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:46 a.m. CST
Dude, it's just your opinion. It seems to me people would rather argue over Star Wars, and not talk about what they liked about it. I would rather do that.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:54 a.m. CST
Is how it should be. Yes the stop motion stuff from the ancient times looks corny but it's still fucking cool. I was watching one of those Harryhausen movies a few months ago, and even though it was obviously models I actually believed the characters were in the cave with it and it was more interesting to look at and half-way believable as being real than any CG Clash of the Titans Kraken or whatever it's called.</p> <p>I guess the point I'm making is that even if practical effects look cheesy sometimes, they actually have more of an emotional impact on the audience for the very fact that they are real objects, they are really there and the brain can tell, so the brain is more interested in it than a computerized monster. Just my own theory.</p> <p>CG can be wonderful, I just watched 300 again and I loved it, so it's not like it's ALL bad. But when I say over-used I mean it's used to cut corners in the story. Before you had computers in order to make it interesting you had to compensate for the "cheesy" effects with acting and dialogue. So the story can lose out when it's "ooh look at all the CG monsters!" I guess at the end of the day it's really the story and the direction, same as always.</p> <p>As far as the prequels, man I would have been happy if they were directed and written well and were just Obi-Wan sitting in a cave somewhere explaining to Anakin all the dangers of the dark-side. Something like the Dagobah scene from ESB. You can create the atmosphere with the practical effects and some CG but focus on the damn story and only use the cool images when they are there for the story. Lucas did it backwards with the prequels, he was so eager to show off the CG battle droids that the thing that made the first movies so good was ignored: story and acting. Oh well this is not a new opinion, I'll stop blabbing now.</p>
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:01 a.m. CST
by sam jacksons wig
....watched "Something something something Darkside" last night on Blu Ray.<br><br> Alot of gay gags, man..........
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:13 a.m. CST
Keep em coming matey!
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:13 a.m. CST
by sam jacksons wig
I respect the hell out of you, matey, but the Wars prequels stank the place up. <br><br> The problems? George Lucas had too much free reign and worked with a bunch of sychophants and nodding dogs. <br><br> Look at the making of docs. You can see the pain in Ric McCallums face and that of others as Lucas tried to defend TPM at a test screening. They just threw too much at the screen and cared little for the 2D characters he created.<br><br> Not to mention that Christiensen and McGregor were woefully miscast, Portman looked beautiful but that was it, and the most hated creation in movie history was foist upon us in the not-even-close-to-funny JarJar Stinks. <br><br> What did work? The tone of ROTS was quite bleak, and yes the FX was good (and it was, haters...)but that was about it.<br><br> I wish I could find something else I liked about them, my friend, but I don't revisit them at all now- I just watch the ORIGINAL versions of IV, V and VI. <br><br> Bear in mind that this is, as ever, just MHO.....take care matey!!!
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:40 a.m. CST
by Mr Gorilla
If you hate the prequels, you sure better hate RETURN OF THE JEDI, which is like a space muppet show. I would take REVENGE OF THE SITH over JEDI - at least there was a sense that it all mattered. In truth, A NEW HOPE and EMPIRE are the best ones, by a country mile.
Aug. 2, 2010, 4:22 a.m. CST
from this picture. Anyhoo, I put this piece of black plastic in a closet at Boss Film and there it stayed until Boss closed. Then an employee of mine took it under his wing for purposes of historical preservation when Boss folded. He had it backlit in the middle of the most incredible starwars themed attraction anyone has ever built in their home. Well long story short.. His ex girlfriend has it now! This prop is at this very moment in the hands of some un-knowing brute! I'm just curious how much it would bring. Figure I can match the magic marker correction holes in the plastic against the original negative to prove authenticity.
Aug. 2, 2010, 4:25 a.m. CST
Know that facts and data about effects creation mean nothing compared to people's honest reactions to the screen image once the project is finished, right? In other words, you can argue logically that CGI is as good as practical, but there's a certain "sense" off non-CGI stuff that it is real (since it was/is) that seems to make all the difference to many people, no matter how proficient the CGI. And yes the rest of the film needs to be good for any effect to really work, and even models can be handled badly (for example, the vast model shots in LOTR which look like CGI - i.e. don't have that sense they are physical objects.) I think the Star Wars trilogies are a great example though, being as they show the same/similar things handled both with practical effects and CGI, so we can really see and feel the difference. And yes Mr Gorilla, I don't like the prequels, or Return of the Jedi beyond nostalgia. It was a disappointment, and the first two are really the only ones that can be called great.
Aug. 2, 2010, 4:27 a.m. CST
Go find that thing, man! If you can prove it's real (your identity alone should cover that) it would surely be worth a mint to some collector.
Aug. 2, 2010, 4:38 a.m. CST
Now fetch me an image of Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine between takes on the set of SOUTHERN COMFORT, and quick about it.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:20 a.m. CST
Whether the effects are practical or Computer generated, the only point they are considered "bad" is when they take you out of the movie experience. When you have massive CGI sequences that overload the eyes with unending detail, it distracts you from the story. Like in transformers 2 where the fights seem confusing because of all the innards of the "bots, or when everything is computer generated except for the actors. If you blend the two you follow the story better, rather than look at the yellow boxes around the TIE fighters(a sign of blue screen matting) in the classic star wars trilogy, or become bored during the clone/separatist battle because it's all computer generated and looks like a friggin cartoon/
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:26 a.m. CST
Now they can do that on a laptop at the beach.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:26 a.m. CST
The space battle (Battle of Endor) in "Return of the Jedi" is better than anything the prequels have to offer.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:29 a.m. CST
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:33 a.m. CST
by Mr Nicholas
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:48 a.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
Never though they've shot it *THAT* way... o.O<p>Impressive stuff!
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:56 a.m. CST
Most of the problems found in the prequels began in ROTJ. Excessive reliance on effects (some of which serve no real purpose... see most of the Jabba's Palace sequence), bad dialogue, awkward pacing (other than getting Han back in the story and I guess getting Luke's hand wounded, act 1 has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, meaning act 2 basically starts a new story), plotlines that are wrapped up with minimal development and bizarre whimsical things that felt really out of place. ROTJ was the first time Lucas truly had free reign of the operation. Previously, he had Gary Kurtz as his producer and he would reign him in whenever he wanted to do really stupid things. After Kershner wouldn't be a yes-man, Lucas got fed up, fired everyone who wanted to disagree with him, and filled his staff with yes-men. People forget that ROTJ was pretty reviled when it first came out. By the time the special editions came out though, it was already considered a classic and a "fitting part of the holy trinity." Take the nostalgia glasses off, folks. ROTJ had its fun moments, but it's just as bad a movie as the prequels.
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:06 a.m. CST
by just pillow talk
I would not have guessed that was how they shot it.<p>And for all its faults, ROTJ's final battle scenes (space battle & vader/luke) are miles ahead of anything from ROTS.<p>But of course there is no disputing that the first two are the best (SW and ESB).
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:15 a.m. CST
Act 1 of ROTJ was awkwardly paced, but everyone putting their asses on the line to save Han demonstrated the friendship and comraderie that would eventually be key to overthrowing the Empire. It set the tone for the rest of the film. And ROTJ as bad as the prequels? Leia in a gold bikini alone makes that statement a fallacy.
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:28 a.m. CST
JAR JAR SUCKS! YAY!
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:29 a.m. CST
Me? I hate him. HE SUCKED!
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:30 a.m. CST
Did you know that the prequels sucked? THEY DID!
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:31 a.m. CST
1. They sucked.<br><br>2. Jar Jar Binks.<br><br>3. See reason 1.
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:34 a.m. CST
a pic of Lucas on set with Gary Kurtz and his wife telling him "No, George, that sounds totally fucking stupid. This is how we should do it..."
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:36 a.m. CST
I think her name was Maria? She was the one who showed him how to make good movies when he was still able too. Well, okay, Gary Kurtz n' her.
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:39 a.m. CST
the exact moment when Lucas lost his mind, heart, and soul. I believe this process began sometime during the filming of ROTJ, was nearly completed during the making of the "Special" (as in Retarded) Editions, and then finally and completely complete when he made THE PHANTOM MENACE. So, yeah, I wanna see that pic; the one that shows his heart breaking, mind disintegrating, and soul running out the door...
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:40 a.m. CST
People who constantly engage RPLocke are hilarious, I suppose I must take off my hat in salute of his constant, contradictory, "take whatever everyone is talking about and simply embrace the opposite position" trolling, and actually getting people to buy in. 2nd, anyone who has read the ROTS novelization knows its actually a fantastic story. It perfectly explains everything, including Anakin's turn, in perfectly logical manner (and is packed full of cool character tidbits like what Dooku was thinking in that final duel, and where Palpatine hid his lightsaber for all those years, and WHY exactly Mace Windu was the only one who could defeat him, and would have if not for Anakin's intervention). The failure falls not in the script/story, but in Lucas's utter lack of execution and Christenson's complete miscasting and lack of danger (check out Pyro's villian turn in X-Men, considering that guy was the 2nd choice to play Anakin, to realize how Lucas fucked THAT one up). 3rd, ROTJ is clearly flawed. However, the last 3rd stuff with the space battle and especially Luke and Vader is awesome. I would argue the Luke and Vader stuff is amongst the best moments in all 6 movies. When Luke throws down the lightsaber and says "I am a Jedi.....like my father before me", while the Emperor makes a face like some just shat in his Cheerios, to this day if that isnt the mother of all goosebump moments, I dont know what to tell you. Thats one of the only times where the prequels actually work FOR the series, they built to that moment for 6 movies and executed the payoff perfectly. Also because we know how powerful the Emperor is, and how dumb that is to throw away the lightsaber.
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:47 a.m. CST
1. Dooku thought he would throw the fight to Anakin, get arrested, and claim he was corrupted by the Sith, and start corrupting the Jedi from the inside, eventually becoming the head of a Jedi army with Anakin as his general. 2. Palpatine hid his lightsaber in his statues in his office, he made themn out of a super-dense metal that cant be scanned or even scanned by the Jedi, the perfect hiding place. He then activated it with the Force when he heard Windu was coming, thus burning it out from the inside. 3. There are 6 different ways (or something like that) to use the lightsaber, like forms, and Windu was a master of the one that skirted closest to the Dark Side. This enabled him to reflect/deflect Palpatine's force lightning/dark side energy. Its a skill that few Jedi had, and Palpatine knew he had it. He was more worried about Windu then almost any other Jedi.
Aug. 2, 2010, 8:14 a.m. CST
and, ashamed as I am to admit it, a bunch of the Prequel related novels that came out post AOTC. They're actually pretty good (I mean, you know, it's crappy hacked out pulp stuff, but good crappy hacked out pulp stuff) and do a WAY better job of setting up the conflict and tensions going on in the universe. Everything makes more sense, even the slow build up to Anakin's turn and alla that. The sad thing is, HOW THE FUCK DID THEY MANAGE TO NOT PUT ALLA THAT STUFF IN THE ACTUAL FUCKING MOVIES??? It's insane, really, and sad, and stupid, and Lucas should go to his grave in regret for how horribly he mangled his mythology... that is, he would, if he actually cared about it AT ALL as anything more than a way to make ZILLIONS of dollars offa zombie consumers...
Aug. 2, 2010, 8:19 a.m. CST
It was a mess because of how poor the set-up in the other two films, but as a stand-alone prequel to the REAL Star Wars story (the original trilogy is the only thing that matters), it works much more than it fails. I'd give it 3 outta 4 stars; about on par with ROTJ.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:08 a.m. CST
Great photo. Now I'm wondering if they filmed the STAR WARS title zoom-out in the same fashion. The camera pulling away, instead of panning, of course. All this talk of practical SFX vs CGI, look at Jabba The Hutt in ROTJ. He's a huge puppet with puppeteers inside, remote contolled eyes, etc. Okay, now look Jabba talking to Han in the Special Edition. His movements are too fluid. He doesn't have that tactile, puppet-y motion about him. CGI Jabba's lips curl, puppet Jabba's mouth just opens and closes, up and down. They even re-made Jabba in that ANH conversation scene, and he STILL doesn't look truly convincing. The irony is, he actually looks pretty good in TPM.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:17 a.m. CST
FX tests done in the late 70's involving fully rendered and texture mapped X-Wings. First I've ever heard of such a thing.
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:13 a.m. CST
Cinefex issue 6. "An apple for the dreamsmiths" story. It's the Dragonslayer/Raiders of the Lost Ark issue. The test was done by Triple I of a wave of fighters. They did stuff on Tron, and the lead guy's name was Richard Taylor (no, not the Kiwi, the other one).
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:28 a.m. CST
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:31 a.m. CST
Obviously they CG'd the string out in post...duh.
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:36 a.m. CST
DROIDMAKER: George Lucas and the Digital Revolution. I read that book twice and it's an amazing look into Coppola, Lucas, ILM, Pixar, and all of the various computer and chip companies that went into getting us where we are today, not just in filmmaking but in print with photoshop and illustrator and just about any other industry that uses computers. I love the part where a few of the guys at ILM working in the computer division (Alvy Ray-Smith, Ed Catmull, etc.) finally figures out how to get rid of 'jaggies'. To borrow a phrase from a review somewhere online, it almost looks and is annotated like a college text book yet it's a real page-turner. There's a lot of suspense leading up to George and Marcia's divorce and what it means to the company, the building of the Ranch, what will happen to the computer division when they can't sell their editing hardware (a forerunner to Avid), the aftermath of Star Wars and what it meant in terms of cash flow for the companies... it's just INSANE the amount of activity that Star Wars generated and what it meant for the movie industry at the time. Also, this is a great early history of Pixar when they were part of Lucasfilm. The 'scene' where Alvy and Catmull go check to Disney at the time they were trying to sell them on CAPS and Lasseter takes them down into the archives to look at the glory of Disney's past in animation is spine-tingling considering what this meeting eventually lead to. And this book... I mean, they don't just mention something like Atari or Intel, they mention it and then you have a three page insert with an incredibly well-written history of that company, where it and it's people fit into this larger story, etc. Don't take my word for it... go over to Amazon and read the reviews from people like Ben Burtt and Alvy Smith. If you have any interest in this subject whatsoever then there is literally no excuse for not reading this book. I even think ti's available somewhere online in pdf format, but it's a worthy tome to add to your collection just cause it's great when you want to have a book around that you can dive in at any point knowing it will keep your attention.
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:44 a.m. CST
I disagree, at least in Iron Man 1, because Stan Winston's company created that amazing practical suit and then ILM repeatedly tried to convince Favreau to not use it. In the BTS on the blu-ray, there's a section where the camera is moving around the suit, it's stationary and ILM adds all these flaps and shit to it moving in and out and all they had to do was track the practical suit and add those pieces to it... but no, they wanted the entire suit replaced and I couldn't figure out any reason, other than perhaps expediency, that you'd want to cover over that beautiful, brushed metal looking practical suit. And they even do a side-by-side in that bts stuff and I'm sorry, I see a huge difference in the way the light hits the real, practical suit and illuminates all those little scratches and grooves vs. how the CGI version looks. Why do that? It's silly to act like the digital guys don't want to be THE one and only vendor on a movie and pretty much try to kill practical when we have stories of them trying to convince Nolan not to use an actual stuntman for certain shots... thank god he remained unconvinced and is one of the few people willing to say it's just not good enough. Of the two, I'm guessing Favreau just gave in at a certain point, believing it was 'good enough', but man... those two examples prove that the digital vfx guys actively try to kill practical on movies, and I think that really sucks. I COMPLETELY AGREE that when used properly and in the right context, it's a tool that works extremely well, but it's fucked up that some of the techie nerds doing it see their work as a replacement for pretty much everything on the set. If that's what you want, go work for fucking Pixar or Dreamworks Animation, stop wearing directors down, trying to convince them to use digital for things where it can never match a real, practical effect.
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:46 a.m. CST
I wish Lucas would finish fiddling with ESB. The start of the scene where Han, Leia and Chewie first meet Vader in Cloud City has the new windows in the background. However, after the door opens and Vader stands up, the backgrounds are back to the old ones. <br><br> It always sticks out to me now, hopefully I've now ruined the movie for a few of you who hadn't spotted it before. ;)
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:46 a.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
...there weren't really any letters scrolling through outer space?
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:51 a.m. CST
As much as I hate two out of the three, I do my best to find something positive to say about each of the. PM, the podracing scene was damn cool. Don't care what anybody says. AOTC (my personal least favorite), it's impossible to argue that the Battle of Geonosis wasn't pretty damn cool. And I may lose some people here, but I actually love ROTS. Maybe it's the sentimental side of me that remembers how big of a deal that movie was for me in 7th grade, but I think it's definitely a step above the other prequels. The only HUGE problem I have with that movie is Hayden Christianson, who sucked throughout, but even he was a LITTLE less suckish by the end of that movie as he had started to essentially play a different character that worked SLIGHTLY better for him. Again, I'm gonna get flamed beyond all reason for it, and I'm in no way saying that PM and AOTC are good movies (I really fucking hate both of them) but I do my best to find something good to say about them.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11 a.m. CST
Ewan McGregor woefully miscast? Surely you jest. Most people who hate the prequels agree that at least he seems to be having a good time in the role and did a great job.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:02 a.m. CST
I was around for the original films, and I love the prequels equally. Those Red Letter Media reviews are nit-picking comedy pieces, you could similarly skewer any film like that if you had time.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:08 a.m. CST
something nice about the prequels. I agree that Revenge of the Sith has more good than bad, but my gods, the first two are terrible. There are moments here and there of quality filmmaking, but it's finding the good parts of those films is like grasping at straws. What terrible missed opportunities.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:09 a.m. CST
Way more models. Much more advanced makeup and costume design. The fight and lightsaber choreography were light years more advanced than anything in the prequels (and no corny "Matrix" style wirework). Even matte paintings were used (albeit digital ones).
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST
Not universally. When there's a T-1000 or whatever, sure, use CGI. Use it when there's no way to handle it as a practical effect. Practical just feels real to people, because it is real, and therefore has more weight. When you've got, for example, Natalie Portman in a scene "acting with" CGI clone troopers and they are all standing on a CGI sand dune, then there is going to be some resentment since it intuitively feels fake and lessens believability, and therefore the audience doesn't care what's happening. Although in the prequels I guess the script took care of that already, CGI or not.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:17 a.m. CST
Thanks. I'm gonna track that down.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:20 a.m. CST
...obviously you have no idea about how digital design actually works. Take a look at the Zbrush forums to really get an idea about what´s being done right now in sculpting and 3d printing. Most of those cool action figures and film statues you see on the ads here come from digital sculptors and artists. And to use something as trivial as the crawling text to make your case doesn´t really work. If anything at all diss digital compositing and animation, that´s where most of the time the discrepancies between digital and real show, not in the 3d content itself. (Yeeeeh, I know, I do that stuff for a living). And yep, I love stop-motion, too, so don´t flame me as single-minded and defensive,LOL.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:23 a.m. CST
...yeah, cool pic. I´d have imagined that it had been done differently, with a basic Photoshop already being available around "New Hope" (and optical printing). Then again, why re-invent the wheel for something that basic. Cool pic!
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:24 a.m. CST
I never noticed that before, but I only watch the original versions anyhow. Things like what you pointed out being one reason... even when the new stuff is nice, it doesn't mesh too well with the late seventies footage.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:26 a.m. CST
The clone trooper in the dunes with Portman was an actor, actually. Blame Lucas for being a bad director and editor.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:36 a.m. CST
Actually most models now are digital from the design stage to final art, and if you see a physical version it´s usually printed or milled from the 3d object. And it would be a very dumb economic decision to go all practical for stuff like spaceships these days. And yeah, I dig all the "practical fx" yadda yadda about Inception, too, but let´s keep it real. BTW; the Inception you see on the big screen wouldn´t exist without computer graphics and compositing. People, separate all the marketing talk from reality, film geeks should be able to. And oh, digital New York in Kong looked superb, as did Kong himself, so there you go. It´s the artists, not the tool.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST
by Darth Macchio
Was, if I remember correctly, a wooden cut out painted black with black paper taped onto the back of it. John and crew put some big lights behind fishtanks filled with water (not sure about this tho I know Spielberg did it in Poltergiest) and then they just lit the paper blocking the light on fire...the fire burns quick and practically white in the shining light so it looks amazing. Yet totally practically and something anyone could do with a jig saw, some black paint, some grade-school construction paper, some bright lights and a 10 gallon fish tank.<p>I think CGI has it's place as well as practical effects. One can only hope that money isn't the driving factor behind which choice is utilized but this is typically the case. Asshats like Lucas say they'd have made the entire colliseum CGI in Gladiator...that would be a very BAD example of CGI though if done well, likely no one would have noticed it (Scott did use CGI for the second layer and up for the colliseum).<p>I say it's idiotic to have to choose one or the other...I prefer real effects as I'm old school but I also love the work Weta did with Smeagol/Gollum in LotR.<p>Also, if you want to see some truly amazing CGI, take a technical look at "Kung Fu Panda". I consider it a triumph of CGI and even breaking some ground. If you watch the escape scene (brilliant on every level), there are moments where the CGI begins to look like it's real, as in not CGI but actually real and even more, it looks like it's miniature. Like little miniature animals and a miniature jail, etc, etc...I'm consistently amazed every time I see that scene...the use of near/distant character focus, perspective, timing, slow-motion, colorization, etc, it's simply beautifully done scene on every level.
Aug. 2, 2010, 12:54 p.m. CST
There are specific kinds of effects in a movie,(practical, visual, sound, make-up, etc.). But I find that in most conversations or articles about them, they are usually grouped under the title of "Special" effects. Even though SFX should only refer to things that actually happen in front of the camera while its rolling. <p> The non-geek population of the world likes to simplify things for easier, nonthinking consumption. So, like all the kids in grade school today, all the effects are "special". ;D
Aug. 2, 2010, 1 p.m. CST
Here's a dinky photo, there are a few better ones floating around: http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/lesson20.html It's becoming harder to find the footage and images on the net. I guess it's the industry's dirty little secret, that some of the vast improvement comes only from sheer computing power, and that everything we see is "game changing". Same goes with the Jexter (or Jester?) footage, the first near photorealistic performance capture of a human head. Now, impossible to Google because every query for "photorealistic CG human" brings you to a nutty article on Avatar where they claim that they had to invent everything and blah-blah-blah...
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:02 p.m. CST
I thought it was done on a computer, even back then. of course they prolly do it computer now, but that was a great bts pic. Thanks aicn
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:17 p.m. CST
http://www.atariarchives.org/cap/showpage.php?page=color1 I always thought these where airbrush art when I was a kid. They used to show up in ads, magazine articles and cards.
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:37 p.m. CST
Alan Arnold stated in the book "Once Upon a Galaxy: A Journal of the Making of The Empire Strikes Back" http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Galaxy-Journal-Strikes/dp/0345290755 that the first CG footage was done for some TIE fighters that were in the film. The footage of the x-wings http://design.osu.edu/carlson/ history/lesson20.html were blue screen effects. The death Star schematics were computer graphics
Aug. 2, 2010, 1:58 p.m. CST
Stop spreading the stupid fucking lie that lucas fired/got fed with Kershner. Who started this anyway? Was it you, you asshole? Lucas ASKED Kershner to do Jedi and Kershner said NO because it was too demanding, and later regretted not doing it after watching how it seems to fall apart. Lucas then wanted Spielberg, but he was part of some sort of fucking guild (so I guess that makes Spielberg a yes-man now) so he couldn´t use him either. Get the facts straight you twat.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:15 p.m. CST
Kersh was part of the director's guild and Lucas was not. The Director's guild hated Lucas and didn't let Kersh direct.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:20 p.m. CST
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm aware of what can be done and what's being done. I'm just passing a value judgment on it.<p>Those "cool" figurines and busts from the ads you mention are a good example. Because they're well-made from a technical standpoint, but look like complete junk to me - cheap, ugly, artless plastic junk.<p>The point I'm making isn't about realism, or how quick or cheap CG makes a process. I'm talking about the art of it. Which, admittedly, is a subjective thing, and what I'm saying is my opinion. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that almost all CG has a far smaller lasting artistic impact on anyone than non-CG effects have.<p>And, to parallel your statement, I do enjoy good CG. I've been amazed at times at the cleverness and resourcefulness of what I've seen on screen. I think it can be used to marvelous effect in enhancing a story. My beef isn't with all CG by any means, just the way it's been horribly overused to fill screens with junk and visual noise, and been a too-ready shortcut and band-aid for cutting corners in storytelling. <p>With CG, I think the best work is that which is invisible - where you don't realize you're even watching a special effect. With practical, it can both enhance the film and stand up as artwork in its own right. And, to me, that enhances and deepens the experience of the overall film.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:23 p.m. CST
The pictures I sent where post Star Wars CG test. The movie was released in 1977 (and yes, all the spaceships where models). The CG test was done in 1978, during prep for ESB. The images in the link I sent are a frames of that test: They are texture mapped geometries rendered by a computer.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:28 p.m. CST
I have an old Cinescape magazine with a Kershner interview. He said "We talked about doing the third one, but I didn´t want to give up another three years of my life.." Interviewer: You and Lucas had discussions about the third film? Kersh: Well, yeah, of course. And let me tell you, after seeing the third one I was kind of sorry I didn´t do it." Stop pulling info out of your asses, people.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:29 p.m. CST
Nope, but I have seen the pictures of your second link in the past. Maybe her name was Trixter? It was a playful girl with a funny hat. Her skin tone was off, but the overall effect was pretty good at the time (3 or 4 years ago?). It was easy to find, but now all that Google sends back are SpaceSmurfs.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:32 p.m. CST
<p>ROTJ was the first movie I remember seeing in a theater when I could follow the story all the way through, I was like six years old. But it's really hard for me to be critical of any of the OT, since it was such a big part of my life. Still, ESB is my favorite and it's a shame we only got one SW movie of that quality.</p> <p>I think many people who were excited for the prequels just assumed GL would do the right thing and paint a very dark story (the fall of Anakin, the Birth of Vader) in the same dark, compelling tones of Empire. Oh well, it was his movie he could do what he wants. </p> <p> And I never hated the prequels. When TPM came out I saw it about six times in the theater, ATOC I think I saw five times, and ROTS I saw three times. And I've seen them all on DVD multiple times.</p> <p>They all have excellent parts but the infuriating thing is they are right next to parts that make you want to rip your hair out. You can't just not watch them because if you watch them all in your head you can selectively edit all the horrible acting and kiddie humor and awkward romance and boring video game action sequences and come out with one fairly decent movie. Six hours of prequel=one decent 2 hour Star Wars movie.</p> <p>I was hoping the live action series would bring up the quality but that is on hold now because Lucas is saying the scripts are too ambitious for the budget. Oh well. There's always the new Star Tours. If you want anything else it looks like you are going to have to settle for Clone Wars era or nothing. </p>
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST
Orcus stands corrected.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST
Ok, I agree to some degree. I love well done CGI not only as a movie consumer. As I´m a 3d modeler and sculptor myself I actually like to see it being recognizable to pick it apart from a technical POV. That being the case makes me definitely biased in discussions like this one. But I do agree with you for one simple reason! "The Wolfman" That was the one movie I went to drool over the master´s practical FX just to be utterly disappointed by FX I could have done myself at home (well, almost, nit that good yet but you get my drift). Ironically Baker does most of his initial designs these days in Photoshop and ZBrush himself.
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:43 p.m. CST
Aside from the Arnold book, some of the CG references in the early SW movies are a bit obscure
Aug. 2, 2010, 2:55 p.m. CST
There are articles floating around. One of them is an interview with Edlund, others pieces on the early CG era involving the Triple-I guys. Here's a good possible staring point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_International,_Inc.
Aug. 2, 2010, 3 p.m. CST
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:02 p.m. CST
The Book is called The Magic of Special Effects. The chapter was on the state of the art, circa 1983. Nice coffe table book too with the Blade Runner spinner on the cover.
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:05 p.m. CST
Orcus was going through his archives and found that one. Sill in the original shrinkwrap too. Speaking about Blade Runner, The ORIGINAL cinefex issue on the movie as available as a hardcover http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Inside-Don-Shay/dp/1840232102/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280779495&sr=1-3
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:11 p.m. CST
Had it in my hands at some second hand magazine shop during the 90s...Decided that 13$ was too expensive for a Cinefex. I was a schmuck. Thanks for the link, I just might get it this time (and it's cheap, too!)
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:19 p.m. CST
Orcus was fortunate to get Issue 1 of Cinefex (ST:TMP) and the Issues (2&3?) featuring TESB at a convention a while back. One day Orcus should get off his scaly backside and scan them.
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:45 p.m. CST
Now Orcus must check it out
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST
Aug. 2, 2010, 3:53 p.m. CST
was having Anakin turn completely over to the darkside by killing kid Jedis! Darth Vader started out as a kid-kiler!?!? Also, where the fuck was any of the old music in the prequels? Playing 'The Imperial March ' while Anakin walks up the stairs of the Jedi Temple (to kill kids!) would've told you all you need to know. Did Anakin even kill any adult Jedis in ROTS? Adding the old musical themes for the characters would've added an emotional connection to the original trilogy.
Aug. 2, 2010, 4:27 p.m. CST
Up to a point. The most popular ones are only available as Xerox prints. I know a guy (master at stop motion and CG) who got Phil Tippett to sign his ESB issue.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:02 p.m. CST
complaining that the new model of depends doesn't fit as snugly as the ones made in 1940. CG is here to stay. Get used to it motherfuckers. Sure some movies looks fucking cheesy with all the cheap looking effect, but many others look spectacular and couldn't pull it off without CG. You fucking nerds were having orgasms and coming in your pants when Spiderman 2 came out. You think they coulds done Doc oc's tentacles with practical effects? NO. Nor could you do Spiderman's web slinging through the city. This is all fucking obvious, I don't know why I'm bothering to argue. Now, the prequels were a tad excessive, but if they had a great story and characters instead of a horrible story and exceedingly dull characters, the CG wouldn't really be an issue! They COULD have made a cool CG generated actor, but LUCAS gave us JAR JAR. It's not the fault of the CGI, its fuckin Lucas' fault.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST
Funny how people are so against Vader killing kids when Vader hunted down and killed all the adult Jedi
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST
trying to argue about the faults of the prequels is staring into the abyss, you will get sucked in and your soul devoured into a carnival of horrors.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:09 p.m. CST
it was that the story was so horribly executed that when he did kill said jedi children, it was yet another WTF moment in a vast array of WTF moments. His character arc was very clumsy and poorly executed.
Aug. 2, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST
Read "Empire Building" by Garry Jenkins. He managed to get Gary Kurtz and even Alec Guinness and David Prowse to talk about what went on behind the scenes.
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:13 p.m. CST
<p>the point is that even if CG does look pretty good sometimes (when it's subtle, when it genuinely fools you into thinking it was a real effect), the fact that it is so easy to use is completely ruining movies. You can't blame the CG necessarily but the fact is the filmmakers don't know how to say "we went overboard". Until there is some self-restraint we're just going to get more and more ridiculous over the top sequences that are f'ing boring. Whenever I see something like the trailer for the new Clash of the Titans it makes me feel like I'm watching someone play a video game. They are having fun because they are controlling the character but for me it is fucking boring because all I see is some CG artist showing off onscreen "hey look at this cool thing you can do!" Seriously does anyone get a kick out of watching other people play video games? Maybe I'm weird that way. </p> <p>I think movies can do it right though, stuff like Moon, D9, I just saw Daybreakers which used actual human beings in vampire suits, but otherwise had some cool CG stuff in the BACKGROUND going on... so there are some filmmakers who know at what level to turn the CG meter to.</p>
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:20 p.m. CST
Good point about the clone troopers. When the prequels came out Lucas actually bragged that not a single real clone trooper suit was ever made. Now maybe there was one here or there but as far as I know he was thrilled he didn't have to build the suits. Because, after all, the original storm troopers were so fucking stupid looking.
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:28 p.m. CST
Inquiring minds want to know! I've seen that flick a billion times and I've never seen that there.
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST
There were never any clone trooper costumes made, but I think they did have a stuntman in a bluesuit for shots such as the one where Natalie Portman has to be helped to her feet by someone.
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:40 p.m. CST
Not that having a stand-in helped, mind you, everyone still looks bewildered and clueless.
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:53 p.m. CST
I forget, didn't Obi-Wan talk him out of going back because it put something in danger or something? No that's not right because they had babies.
Aug. 2, 2010, 6:58 p.m. CST
Thanks for the tip on the Droidmaker book. I might have to pick that one up, sounds really interesting.
Aug. 2, 2010, 7:43 p.m. CST
Anakin never knew about Luke or Leia. The OT makes that clear.
Aug. 2, 2010, 8:18 p.m. CST
it shows they really did it all from scratch, even the text. no AfterEffects no PhotoShop literally handmade!! WOW!
Aug. 2, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST
It's hand made but it's still run through a computer controlled camera.
Aug. 2, 2010, 8:35 p.m. CST
you guys need to get laid (hell i need to get laid) i'm out.
Aug. 2, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST
You REALLY felt the need to point that out? You have serious mental problems, pally. No joke, you need help.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9 p.m. CST
Have it on my iPod, (always need Star Wars on the go, folks!) With the McDirmid Palpatine (which I like better than the original. Ian McDirmid is the fuckin MAN) Lemmie transcript: "The young rebel who destroyed the Death Star. I have no doubt this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker." "How is that possible?" (You can tell they recorded James Earl Jones when they did his lines for Sith because it doesn't sound like Vader for the rest of the movie) "Search your feelings, Lord Vader. You will know it to be true."
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:04 p.m. CST
Hell, even Obi Wan forgot about Leia in the OT when he was there when both were born.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:05 p.m. CST
by Al Swearengen
You don't fuckin' get out much do you?
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:07 p.m. CST
I don't think they LET him out. And I do think that's a good thing.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:10 p.m. CST
YOU BEST SHUT YOUR SHIT FOR BREATH PIE HOLE BEFORE I STICK THIS SHOTGUN DOWN YOUR THROAT AND BLOW OUT YOUR ROTTEN SCUM BAG INSIDES!
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:11 p.m. CST
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:27 p.m. CST
the only Jedis that Vader kills on FILM are kids & Obi-Wan (kind of counts). He's really kind of a pussy if you ask me.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:37 p.m. CST
by Al Swearengen
You fuckin' dirt worshippin' heathen. Any chance you've been slammin' that Celestial fuckin' dope into your dope fiend fuckin' veins? Cause any cocksucker dumb enough to talk like that in my fuckin' joint stands, with or without the indignity of that Chinese molasses, stands a right good fuckin' chance of gettin' on familiar relations with my blade...and the interior fuckin' organs of Wu's pigs.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:38 p.m. CST
While Lucas obviously paid close attention to the scene where he talks with the Emperor and carefully rewrote the dialogue, he overlooked something: earlier in the film, Vader clearly says "That's it, the rebels are there, and I'm sure Skywalker is with them." If Vader knows the rebel he's after is named Skywalker and it never occurred to him that he might be a relative, then Vader's a bit of an idiot. If he knew all along then... I guess he's pretending to be surprised? Just having that line in there brings the entire thing down.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:43 p.m. CST
by Al Swearengen
And as such, I suggest you insert a prick into that fuckin' mouth of yours and start earning a livin', you loopy fuckin' cunt.
Aug. 2, 2010, 9:43 p.m. CST
It's "Special Effects, Creating Movie Magic" - For those interested, it goes for cheap on Amazon.
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:05 p.m. CST
I think that was a throwaway explanation on a website Q & A or something. Works for me, anyway. Why not? I guess if you googled "Skywalker" in the Star Wars universe, you'd get quite a few hits on the ole search engine.
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:09 p.m. CST
Like in the four years in between, they obviously learned who blew up the Death Star before ESB rolled around. "the young rebel who destroyed the death star, I have no doubt this boy" kinda implies they've talked about it before that. It's not as if they didn't, you know, chat about it. (see: "Robot Chicken". "WADDYA MEAN, THEY BLEW UP THE DEATH STAR? WHO'S 'THEY'?!!"
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:23 p.m. CST
What a deal! Sign me up!
Aug. 2, 2010, 10:52 p.m. CST
As a real-deal sculptor/modeler, I'd like to know what you think are some good examples of CG in recent years. If any films or scenes come to mind that represent what you think CG has great potential for at the moment, I'd be curious to know - because of your background, I'm sure you notice things I don't. And I'm sure I don't give some things the chance they deserve.
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:38 p.m. CST
<p>Before Biggs joined the imperial academy he formed a band (The Skywalkers) with Luke. Biggs on the guitar, Luke on vocals.</p> <p>They actually had some decent success, their hit single "Big Mouth of the Sarlacc Pit Strikes Again" helped to move their album "The Queen of Naboo is Dead" to the number 1 spot of top of the Mos Espa Top 10 for almost a year.</p>
Aug. 2, 2010, 11:56 p.m. CST
Yeah I know Anakin didn't know about the kids. My joke was that he must have not listened to Kenobi because he went and saved her and then knocked her up. He knocked her up after AOTC.
Aug. 3, 2010, 3:06 a.m. CST
Love vintage SW pics.
Aug. 3, 2010, 9:52 a.m. CST
For the record, I did wonder.
Aug. 3, 2010, 9:52 a.m. CST
Aug. 3, 2010, 10:04 a.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
Like, the words were written on a concrete floor or something like that.
Aug. 3, 2010, 10:30 a.m. CST
Awesome as always. LOVE the pictures.
Aug. 3, 2010, 11:48 a.m. CST
by lucky slevin
Cool. and whats with all this comparative ROTJ prequel talk? Jedi is leagues ahead of the prequels. it has the best ending of ALL 6 imo. no one agrees?
Aug. 3, 2010, 1:10 p.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
BOOM!<p> Yay!<p> Medal ceremony.<p> Credits.
Aug. 3, 2010, 3:04 p.m. CST
Aug. 3, 2010, 4:20 p.m. CST