Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (?)

[Chrisisall]

As much as I like the Enterprise in the remastered OS, and as much as I think the Big(ger) E looked weighty & textured in the latest movie, Star Trek 1, 2, 3, & 6 are my go-to flicks for serious ship-pron, mainly, I think, because of the MODEL WORK!!! CGI is great (just look at Iron Man), but there's SOMETHING about real objects that can't entirely be duplicated (at least not 100% of the time) on screen...
My favourite effect in all of Trek is when Enterprise is pulling into space dock just in front of the lounge in ST3 (when Rand gives it that "Messed her up again..." look)- it's just artistry how REAL it seems!!

Is it just me?

 

[Kegg]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I have an inordinate fondness for good modelwork, I really do. As far as Trek goes TMP is pretty much the high watermark here - though TWOK, TSFS and TUC do have some nice work with spaceships flying around and ofentimes shooting at one another.

But CGI is the future, and it's a future I've embraced very readily. It's getting better all the time and I'm sure whatever advantages models may still have it will eventually overcome - and it has many advantages of its own, clearly. In the long run CGI is going to do wonderful things for my spaceship itch, I'm certain of it.

CGI is great (just look at Iron Man),

Why?

It just seems an odd example when discussing spaceships. I've seen it, the SFX were fine, but in our SFX-deluged age I didn't think it did anything outstanding that'd merit especial mention.

 

[FalTorPan]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I don't care which VFX techniques are used, and I don't care if the end result is photorealistic. The story's the thing. I can suspend my disbelief in the effects if I can believe in the story.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

CGI is great (just look at Iron Man),

Why?

I just thought it was extremely good CGI of a moving person with armour around him- not as easy to do as they made it seem.

I don't care which VFX techniques are used, and I don't care if the end result is photorealistic. The story's the thing. I can suspend my disbelief in the effects if I can believe in the story.

Of course, that's paramount. I loved TOS before the cool new FX for that reason.
I miss some of the better model shots re-done in the remastered series though- glad I have old versions of some of my favourites.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

CGI can do wonders for a movie, as long as it's used in moderation.

If you use it too much, you end up with the Star Wars prequels, which were WAY too overly reliant on CGI. The best one, FX wise, was Revenge of the Sith. Is it a coincidence that it was the one that used the most model work? I think not. The scene in Attack of the Clones were Natalie Portman eats a piece of CGI fruit that's been floated to her by The Force still makes me shake my head. They could even use a piece of real fruit!

I agree that CGI is the future, and I embrace it as well. We just aren't at the stage where it can justifiably be used without models. One day, movies will be completely CGI and it will look as if they aren't. Just not yet.

Of course, like has been stated, it's all moot without a good story.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Of course, like has been stated, it's all moot without a good story.

 

[Joshua Howard]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I think on occasion that I am abnormally impressed by CGI. I don't want to derail this thread by going down the Star Wars road, but I am one of the folks who thought that the SW prequels were absolutely stunning.

The TMP introduction of the Enterprise is one of my favorite Trek clips. My second favorite would very likely be the Borg battle scene from First Contact.

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

uh, much of Iron Man was done practically...

if you wanna film for "HOLY FUCK LOOKIT WHAT CGI CAN DO!!!!!" look at the Transformers flicks.

ignoring all the anti-Bay-it's-not-G1-BOO-HOO!!! crap, it's fucking realistic looking robots in live action beating the shit out of one another and transforming!!!

 

[Forbin]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I got nothing against good CGI at all, but I will always be a fan of old school miniatures!

 

[Praxius]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I think on occasion that I am abnormally impressed by CGI. I don't want to derail this thread by going down the Star Wars road, but I am one of the folks who thought that the SW prequels were absolutely stunning.

For me personally they were painful to watch on many occasions, but then again I'm trained to notice issues with 3D modeling/animation. Much of what I saw in the new Star Wars movies seemed either rushed or just half-arsed..... but to each their own.

There many pros and cons for Physical Models and 3D Models.

With the Physical models used in TOS/Movies and TNG you can get as much detail as you want to design in your models, but they're not as flexible and maneuverable as 3D models, that and the more detail you wish to display in your ship, the larger the model has to be, which then winds up requiring a larger area/studio for moving the ship around, cameras, etc.

With 3D Models, you have more flexibility in changing the appearance of the model without having to remake the whole thing from scratch, you don't need a large space/studio for the model to move around in, along with cameras, and once you have the model completed, it's quicker and easier to reuse in different situations & scenes as much as you want, as often as you want. Plus you don't have to worry about someone coming along and damaging the model, thus requiring to take time to repair it.

The draw back with 3D models is technology limitation, which is becoming less and less of an issue as computers become more powerful.

In the early years of 3D modeling, computers could only handle so much detail, so many polys, etc. that if you attempted to make the model 100% realistic, your systems would either crash or it'd take you way to long to export the animation frames, thus quality and details needed to be reduced for time and resource availability.

A problem for both Physical and 3D models has and imo always will be proper lighting. Without the right lighting, the whole thing can look like cheesy crap done by some college wiz. But with the right lighting, one can make a half-arsed Physical model or 3D model look amazing.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Some great stuff's been done with models, but Babylon 5 made me a firm believer in CGI. Sure, it's not cutting edge any more, but episodes like Severed Dreams and Shadow Dancing are still impressive and I must say rather eclipsed the space action scenes Star Trek was doing at the time.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

A problem for both Physical and 3D models has and imo always will be proper lighting. Without the right lighting, the whole thing can look like cheesy crap done by some college wiz. But with the right lighting, one can make a half-arsed Physical model or 3D model look amazing.

Very good point. Check out Serenity for great lighting of a CG model!

 

[Lazarus]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Iron Man was probably my favourite film of 2008, the CGI work in it, as people have pointed out, was fantastic in my opinion.

I saw Transformers 2 recently and while the CGI was impressive as an exercise in special effects, I felt that the film was basically two hours of CGI with a bit of plot tagged on almost as an afterthought.

Take Babylon 5 for example, particularly the first season, the CGI work of ships moving around in space looks like something from a mid-90s computer game. Yet Babylon 5 is nonetheless very highly regarded, because the story was there backing everything up.

 

[Caliburn24]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

One of the reasons I like a lot of model work better is because of the physical limitations it puts on the action. This could be done in CGI of course, but all too often it seems that we see massive starships zipping and zooming around like fightercraft. The majesty and weight and size of starships so far has always seemed more real when done with models.

 

[Forbin]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

^I heartily agree.

 

[Praxius]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

One of the reasons I like a lot of model work better is because of the physical limitations it puts on the action. This could be done in CGI of course, but all too often it seems that we see massive starships zipping and zooming around like fightercraft. The majesty and weight and size of starships so far has always seemed more real when done with models.

I never did get the issues people had of large starships zipping around quickly..... they're in a Zero G environment, thus their size would have little effect on their speed and agility imo.

I could get these issues if everything was under water, or in a sky, or on land.... but in space, I just don't get it.

 

[Hambone]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I never did get the issues people had of large starships zipping around quickly..... they're in a Zero G environment, thus their size would have little effect on their speed and agility imo.

I could get these issues if everything was under water, or in a sky, or on land.... but in space, I just don't get it.

For me it's a matter of perception. We think of massive objects as slow to move. None of us (?) has ever seen a Borg cube or Star Destroyer in real life, so we have to depend on our experience with similar-sized objects. I can't imagine an aircraft carrier zipping around like a PT boat; I also would have a hard time watching a Star Destroyer exhibiting the same type of manuverability as the Millenium Falcon.

I recall reading some reviews of the new CGI effects in "The Doomsday Machine"; some people felt the Enterprise moved too much like a fighter plane when it attacked the planet killer.

 

[Rarewolf]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

I think DS9 produced the best examples of each type in it's big too battles - Way Of The Warrior & The Sacrifice Of Angels. Both are jaw droppingly brilliant, but the model work of WOTW is rather static compared to SOA. You can tell a tremendous amount of work went into both.

 

[RapidNadion]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

Add my name to the list of those who appreciate the beautifully-detailed miniatures we've seen on ST and other Sci Fi series. (Side note: is it still proper to call a model a "miniature" even if there's no full-scale counterpart built? In other words, is it just as correct to call the 1701R model a "miniature" as it is to call the small Type 6 shuttle model a "miniature," considering the Type 6 also had a full-scale mockup?)

I will say, though, that the Trek XI crew did a wonderful job of building and shooting the CGI Enterprise. Back in the days of Bab-5, CGI was so crappy, I couldn't conceive of the Enterprise ever looking good as a collection of polygons as opposed to a physical model. First Contact through Nemesis did a good job of disabusing me of that notion, but XI sealed it - especially in the shot where the shuttles carrying our heroes pass over the dorsal registry on the saucer.

That said, I really do miss seeing the creative work and craftsmanship that results in truly massive-looking models like the Ent-D.

 

[AnyStar]

Re: Getting your ship-pron on -OR- to CGI or not to CGI, that is the (

i've been a model-maker all my life, my first one was a helicopter of some kind, it was a birthday gift from my dad.

i saw the picture on the box and couldnt wait to play with this awesome new toy!!! my dad was horrified when after opening the box i started to cry that my brand new toy was already broke!!!

the next week that followed with him helping me put it together, and paint it began a love affair with models ever since.

i turn into the biggest fan-boy anytime i get the privelege of being in the presence of any screen used model! and even though i too try re-creating these things in CGI, i too long for the days of physical model domination to return.

i'm practical though, i understand the cost effectiveness of a cgi model, and the limitless use one can get out of it from a single animation technician, verses the entire crews it takes to film a miniature.

its a real shame these models are becoming a thing of the past. the artists responsible for them are truly the invisible stars of the shows.