No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
I'll liked Clones better than Phantom. The sonic grenades Laz mentions is enough to make me like it better. Wish there was more than two explosions.
James Cameron's "Avatar"
- Thread starter OrARoundabout
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
For some reason the quote button won't work on your post, Jive Turkey:
"To be honest, I thought Yoda looked especially shitty in Clones. Theres a scene where they're flying in an open spaceship and the wind is blowing through his hair. The lines and wrinkles in his face looked like textures instead of contours. The lighting on ILM characters always seems slightly off and they have an almost pastel quality to them. Clone troopers are easy because they're so shiny. But the wookies were guys in costume. they were just replicated a whole bunch of times.
Watto was definitely an awesome character and looked amazing, but there was still that sense that he wasnt quite in the scene (though its much less apparent in his case). Gollum just seemed so real and had a weight to him. I'm not talking about his motions, but rather the way he was lit and the way his colour saturation blended so well with the scene.
I have to disagree about the creature scene in Clones. that cat creature looked terrible. Hair is notoriously difficult, but I think Weta pulled it off better with the dog/wolf mounts that the orcs rode on"
The Yoda scene you're referring to is at the end of Sith. To me, the important thing isn't the skin texture and lighting, but the VERY human expression of sadness and defeat on his face, and that gesture as he runs his hand through his hair. That they were able to give him a performance like that without an actor's physicality (obviously Frank Oz's voice is an asset though) just tops everything for me.
Also, I'd argue that the cinematography in LOTR had a very washed out color quality, especially in the areas where Gollum is present. It's a lot easier to integrate your CGI characters into that than the classic bold palette that Lucas is using.
I stand corrected on the Wookies, and yes the cat creature is the worst in the arena battle. But the other two? Still hold up seven years later.
"To be honest, I thought Yoda looked especially shitty in Clones. Theres a scene where they're flying in an open spaceship and the wind is blowing through his hair. The lines and wrinkles in his face looked like textures instead of contours. The lighting on ILM characters always seems slightly off and they have an almost pastel quality to them. Clone troopers are easy because they're so shiny. But the wookies were guys in costume. they were just replicated a whole bunch of times.
Watto was definitely an awesome character and looked amazing, but there was still that sense that he wasnt quite in the scene (though its much less apparent in his case). Gollum just seemed so real and had a weight to him. I'm not talking about his motions, but rather the way he was lit and the way his colour saturation blended so well with the scene.
I have to disagree about the creature scene in Clones. that cat creature looked terrible. Hair is notoriously difficult, but I think Weta pulled it off better with the dog/wolf mounts that the orcs rode on"
The Yoda scene you're referring to is at the end of Sith. To me, the important thing isn't the skin texture and lighting, but the VERY human expression of sadness and defeat on his face, and that gesture as he runs his hand through his hair. That they were able to give him a performance like that without an actor's physicality (obviously Frank Oz's voice is an asset though) just tops everything for me.
Also, I'd argue that the cinematography in LOTR had a very washed out color quality, especially in the areas where Gollum is present. It's a lot easier to integrate your CGI characters into that than the classic bold palette that Lucas is using.
I stand corrected on the Wookies, and yes the cat creature is the worst in the arena battle. But the other two? Still hold up seven years later.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
quotes arent working for me either :s
"The Yoda scene you're referring to is at the end of Sith. To me, the important thing isn't the skin texture and lighting, but the VERY human expression of sadness and defeat on his face, and that gesture as he runs his hand through his hair. That they were able to give him a performance like that without an actor's physicality (obviously Frank Oz's voice is an asset though) just tops everything for me.
Also, I'd argue that the cinematography in LOTR had a very washed out color quality, especially in the areas where Gollum is present. It's a lot easier to integrate your CGI characters into that than the classic bold palette that Lucas is using.
I stand corrected on the Wookies, and yes the cat creature is the worst in the arena battle. But the other two? Still hold up seven years later."
You've got a point about the colour pallet used in each of the films. I hadnt thought about that. Starwars is definitely much more vibrant.
The 'performance' by Yoda in that scene is really good too. If I'm not mistaken, Lucas had them pull back a bit on animating Yoda so that he'd more resemble the puppet in the earlier films. When you take that into account as well, its really quite impressive the level of expressiveness they created. Still though, I'm such a whore for creature effects that I found the lack of 'depth' in his skin to be a little distracting.
I'll have to watch Clones again since you guys hold it in such high regard. Jedi has always been my favourite
I know thats not a popular opinion, but theres just so much nostalgia for me loving it as a kid (and my creature whoredom)
oh, and yes, the Rhino thing in the monster battle was super cool
"The Yoda scene you're referring to is at the end of Sith. To me, the important thing isn't the skin texture and lighting, but the VERY human expression of sadness and defeat on his face, and that gesture as he runs his hand through his hair. That they were able to give him a performance like that without an actor's physicality (obviously Frank Oz's voice is an asset though) just tops everything for me.
Also, I'd argue that the cinematography in LOTR had a very washed out color quality, especially in the areas where Gollum is present. It's a lot easier to integrate your CGI characters into that than the classic bold palette that Lucas is using.
I stand corrected on the Wookies, and yes the cat creature is the worst in the arena battle. But the other two? Still hold up seven years later."
You've got a point about the colour pallet used in each of the films. I hadnt thought about that. Starwars is definitely much more vibrant.
The 'performance' by Yoda in that scene is really good too. If I'm not mistaken, Lucas had them pull back a bit on animating Yoda so that he'd more resemble the puppet in the earlier films. When you take that into account as well, its really quite impressive the level of expressiveness they created. Still though, I'm such a whore for creature effects that I found the lack of 'depth' in his skin to be a little distracting.
I'll have to watch Clones again since you guys hold it in such high regard. Jedi has always been my favourite
I know thats not a popular opinion, but theres just so much nostalgia for me loving it as a kid (and my creature whoredom)oh, and yes, the Rhino thing in the monster battle was super cool
No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
Oh, for the record:
I do not hold Clones in high regard. I think that it gets trashed much worse than it deserves, and is more enjoyable than Phantom....but it's not like I think it's an amazing film or anything. Better to look at than to listen to, if that makes sense.
I do not hold Clones in high regard. I think that it gets trashed much worse than it deserves, and is more enjoyable than Phantom....but it's not like I think it's an amazing film or anything. Better to look at than to listen to, if that makes sense.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Well, yes. It may have the worst dialogue of all the films. But the visual storytelling on display is some of the best in the saga, and the actual plot mechanics (the mystery behind the assassination attempt, the creation of the clones, Dooku's true motivations, Palpatine's strategies) are pretty damned cool and well thought-out.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Not to mention the ending of Clones. If theres one thing that I was impressed with, it was the ominous tone it ended with.... gave me chills
No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
Completely agree. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
I just hate how many scenes are completely undone by bad dialogue/acting.
And while the battle scenes at the end of Phantom are splendid, especially when Maul is in town....the battle sequences at the end of Clones blew me away in the theater. All those Jedi fighting was pretty awesome, but then you have the two armies getting it the fuck on....good shit.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Even though it gets shit on quite regularly, I really like Phantom. Its got a different feel than the rest of the films, but looking back, it felt really fresh. I think I've watched the pod race about 100 times. That plus Darth Maul, Watto, Sebulba, Boss Nass and the new music makes for a good time. Too bad Jar Jar had to come and nearly ruin it for everybody
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Just when it came close to being too video-gamey, it would twist again and something else amazing would happen.
And I love when Lucas used those quick zoom, documentary-style camera moves during the battle. Very un-SW but they worked.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah, I still maintain that kids, even teenagers in the future are going to eat it up, because it's timeless storytelling stuff.
And the pod race alone is just one of the best set pieces ever.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Man, that is so weird. I was just about to post about that
Alright, I'm off to bed. talk to you guys later. Glad I'm not the only starwars nerd around here
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
We need each other.
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
I definitely don't agree with you, Laz, regarding ILM's digital character work. Yoda looked fantastic in Sith, but a bit wanky I feel in Clones. Now, I'm not going to crap on them too much, because Attack of the Clones was a fucking huge accomplishment of digital work... probably their most impressive whole project ever considering its time, but it does have some problems. Most notably when it comes to compositing I'd say. And like it's been pointed out, a lot of that stuff was hand-animated, not mo-capped, which as you said is an impressive feat, but I still feel simply can't match the increasingly expressive performance-capture stuff Weta is doing. But it's almost apples and oranges in that regard.
I was actually just remembering earlier that first time I saw Sith in theaters and how absolutely blown away I was by the opening 20-30 minutes of that film. Some of the most stunning digital work I'd seen, and still is. I'm hoping Avatar delivers that sense of wonder 4 years later. And speaking of digital compositing, Digital Domain was always the finest effects house when it came to that particular talent, and probably still is. I remember Cameron saying that's why he actually went to Weta for this film for a collaboration, because while his studio was tops in compositing and blue-screen work, Weta had the finest performance-capture set-ups and digital pipelines in the industry. I have a feeling they will both feed on each other's strengths pretty well and I'm looking forward to seeing how their collaboration pays off.
This discussion has also make me think about how fantastic the prequels would look in 3D. I know Lucas has suggested he might try rereleasing the OT for a theatrical run in 3D, but personally I'd rather see Clones or Sith again dimensionalized on the big screen.
I was actually just remembering earlier that first time I saw Sith in theaters and how absolutely blown away I was by the opening 20-30 minutes of that film. Some of the most stunning digital work I'd seen, and still is. I'm hoping Avatar delivers that sense of wonder 4 years later. And speaking of digital compositing, Digital Domain was always the finest effects house when it came to that particular talent, and probably still is. I remember Cameron saying that's why he actually went to Weta for this film for a collaboration, because while his studio was tops in compositing and blue-screen work, Weta had the finest performance-capture set-ups and digital pipelines in the industry. I have a feeling they will both feed on each other's strengths pretty well and I'm looking forward to seeing how their collaboration pays off.
This discussion has also make me think about how fantastic the prequels would look in 3D. I know Lucas has suggested he might try rereleasing the OT for a theatrical run in 3D, but personally I'd rather see Clones or Sith again dimensionalized on the big screen.
If you shout...
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I agree with basically EVERYTHING laz has said, here, apart from his rankings of the Star Wars films. Seriously, man--you are on. I'd follow you nearly anywhere, in this ILM/WETA slugfest. Which isn't even a contest, for what it's worth.
Just saw District 9, and while I did enjoy it, the effects work was NOT that good. Terrible character model/environment integration problems (though the lighting matches looked pretty stellar) and an overreliance on in-camera tricks to cover up sloppy work/to make sloppy work acceptable. Someone mentioned this as a highlight of WETA's more "traditional" work, and while I wouldn't call it a lowlight, per se, I think it's pretty laughable to go that far. It didn't look bad, but it didn't look even remotely great. Perhaps I watch too closely and actively, but I did an awful lot of cringing.
Just saw District 9, and while I did enjoy it, the effects work was NOT that good. Terrible character model/environment integration problems (though the lighting matches looked pretty stellar) and an overreliance on in-camera tricks to cover up sloppy work/to make sloppy work acceptable. Someone mentioned this as a highlight of WETA's more "traditional" work, and while I wouldn't call it a lowlight, per se, I think it's pretty laughable to go that far. It didn't look bad, but it didn't look even remotely great. Perhaps I watch too closely and actively, but I did an awful lot of cringing.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
It's incredibly sad
I
Star Wars above all else but I really did enjoy LOTR as well and I will take all the shitty CGI over those cringe worthy action moments with Orlando Bloom surfing on a shield or single handedly killing the elephant 
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Well, shit. I'm not sure what you're looking for then. For a low-budget film, I think the work in D9 is pretty remarkable, given the scope of what they tried to accomplish. I'll be the first to acknowledge Weta/whoever did the work on D9 (someone posted an article I didn't read yet about this) aren't the best when it comes to compositing... that's definitely their weak point, but while some of the integration (as you called it) was a bit off (and of course they're using a lot of in camera tricks... I'll call that efficient filmmaking before "covering up for sloppy work"... please) the majority of effects they achieved on a really low budget is definitely
As I've said before here, I guess I just admire a more expressive and ambitious use of digital imagery over ILM's extremely precise and subdued (if more technically "perfect") work. Though I'd never suggest ILM aren't still the gold standard for this sort of thing... because their work really is "perfect" so to speak. I'll happily make the trade if Weta continues to offer the most believable (performance-captured or otherwise) and life-rich CG creations. I suppose I'm just saying, I fail to understand the mentality that one studio is so clearly superior to the other when both are consistently putting out truly groundbreaking work that's the "best" in the industry upon any given release. I can't say I really prefer one over the other as they each have some particular strengths and weaknesses, at least as far as what I look for in this sort of thing.
And just out of curiosity, IYS, I wonder what you'd point to as the best example of recent work ILM has done that puts them so clearly over the top for you. Laz has mentioned a number of specifics so I'm looking for you take on the matter.
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Not too impressed with the trailer.
Saw this comparison between Avatar and Delgo:
http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html
Saw this comparison between Avatar and Delgo:
http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
in the ILM vs Weta battle, I had forgotten about Davey Jones......I was wrong. He's better looking than Gollum
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Very true, although Jones is a product of technology 4 years more advanced than Gollum (tech which was still in its infancy back in the days of Jar Jar and Gollum).
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Thats true, but even still, before Davey Jones came along, I dont think I had seen a more believable cgi character than Gollum. I think at a point, it becomes less about the technology and more about the artistic capabilities of the people doing the composite and rendering (the technology is still a huge factor obviously). It still blows me away how well Draco holds up 13 years later! He was another character that they didnt have to hide behind rain and shadowy lighting. He still looked great in clear daylight. When you take that into account, I find it somewhat disappointing that we still have conversations about cgi characters not quite blending. you'd think it would be all sorted out by now.
I also wish they'd not always rely on cgi for creature effects. I'll still take a state of the art animatronic over cgi any day
powerhour24
ONE love, blood, life
The people saying ILM is behind are definitely ignoring all the work on POTC, the skeletal pirates and of course Davy Jones (the scenes of him on board in direct sunlight, with the wind blowing, and spray hitting his face, hard to beat). But also some of the best is found in the SW prequels, I think he went a bit overboard with the CG in Clones, but if it was made today it'd look great, and ROTS was incredible, especially the opening battle scene. But the character design and environment rendering as well, Wookie planet, lava moon, etc. And I think General Grievous came out pretty darn awesome as well.
As for people saying KK looked bad, I wasn't a big fan of the dinosaur sequences, but the backgrounds themselves were great throughout, and Kong was amazing.
As for people saying KK looked bad, I wasn't a big fan of the dinosaur sequences, but the backgrounds themselves were great throughout, and Kong was amazing.
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
I don't think anyone is saying ILM are behind... 
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
who did the "CGI" for I Am Legend? Whoever they are - they lose by default.
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Sony Picture Imageworks mostly.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
ok, they suck pretty bad then cus that was terrible
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Ehh, you can't blanket a whole studio just for one movie. I chalk that movie up to a whole host of disastrous creative decisions. Dudes at Imageworks were just collecting their paychecks. But they too have done some pretty stunning work on The Spiderman films, Superman Returns, Watchmen, The Matrix sequels, etc.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
fair enough - I honestly think it was the only time I have been completely jarred out of my suspension of disbelief by crappy CG though - and I've seen some pretty crappy CG...
GirlsAloudFan
Blue Crack Addict
For the record, I think Avatar looks fantastic.
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Yeah, I get you. That movie is a travesty on so many levels though it's hard for me to get too upset about the visual effects.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
Up until the creatures/vampires/zombies/whatever the hell they are were revealed I was digging it... after that it was painful to watch.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
