bad FX shots...

[JarodRussell]

The problem I have with Nemesis, and not so much with Insurrection, is the fact it came out, what, in 2003? A full four years after Phantom Menace and yet the CGI looked no better than stuff from the mid 90s, IMO.

The cartoony looking effects of nemesis were unacceptable. Perhaps its because I am so old and use to real effects. But the movements of the ships in NEMESIS, and the strange glassy look, just ruined it for me.

Rob

That's because The Phantom Menace contained more physical model shots for the space scenes and environments than the entire Original Trilogy combined.

 

[mtblillie]

IMHO the models were way better than the CGI, but for the most part the CG effects were terrible as compared to now. So in a sense they have improved phaser blasts but have made ships look worse.

So how did you like the VFX in First Contact?

The Defiant and many shots of the Enterprise were models, all other fed ships were VFX. Same thing though, look real close at the shots of the Defiant, there is a big difference. I actually don't mind it so much, someone said earlier that it's like a video game, I agree with that, but I also like video game graphics. It isn't very "real" but it's a lot more involved than pac-man or mario.

The problem I have with Nemesis, and not so much with Insurrection, is the fact it came out, what, in 2003? A full four years after Phantom Menace and yet the CGI looked no better than stuff from the mid 90s, IMO.

The cartoony looking effects of nemesis were unacceptable. Perhaps its because I am so old and use to real effects. But the movements of the ships in NEMESIS, and the strange glassy look, just ruined it for me.

Rob

That's because The Phantom Menace contained more physical model shots for the space scenes and environments than the entire Original Trilogy combined.

That doesn't even make any sense, every ship used the original trilogy was a model, phantom menace used at least some VFX models (like the underwater ship and the pod racers, though not in every instance).

 

[JarodRussell]

IMHO the models were way better than the CGI, but for the most part the CG effects were terrible as compared to now. So in a sense they have improved phaser blasts but have made ships look worse.

So how did you like the VFX in First Contact?

The Defiant and many shots of the Enterprise were models, all other fed ships were VFX. Same thing though, look real close at the shots of the Defiant, there is a big difference. I actually don't mind it so much, someone said earlier that it's like a video game, I agree with that, but I also like video game graphics. It isn't very "real" but it's a lot more involved than pac-man or mario.

The problem I have with Nemesis, and not so much with Insurrection, is the fact it came out, what, in 2003? A full four years after Phantom Menace and yet the CGI looked no better than stuff from the mid 90s, IMO.

The cartoony looking effects of nemesis were unacceptable. Perhaps its because I am so old and use to real effects. But the movements of the ships in NEMESIS, and the strange glassy look, just ruined it for me.

Rob

That's because The Phantom Menace contained more physical model shots for the space scenes and environments than the entire Original Trilogy combined.

That doesn't even make any sense, every ship used the original trilogy was a model, phantom menace used at least some VFX models (like the underwater ship and the pod racers, though not in every instance).

I know for a fact that the Defiant was CGI. It was the same CG model used for DS9. You can compare the differences between the CG version and the model on Ex Astris Scientia and then have a look at the First Contact screencaps at Trekcore for example.

And check out the book "Sculpting a Galaxy - Inside the Star Wars Model Shop" and you'll see that The Phantom Menace was more practical model work than CG.

 

[Avon]

wow so The Phantom Menace made real physical models look like crap cgi? nice.

 

[JarodRussell]

wow so The Phantom Menace made real physical models look like crap cgi? nice.

Or your definition of crap cgi needs a bit of rethinking.

 

[Avon]

now i really really love it where physical models have some 'weight' or 'presence' to them but the phantom menace just looked like shiny cgi. even if it wasn't. which is just weird.

 

[Python Trek]

now i really really love it where physical models have some 'weight' or 'presence' to them but the phantom menace just looked like shiny cgi. even if it wasn't. which is just weird.

It's funny to me that you should say that, because I think that Phantom Menace has far and away the best f/x of the prequels. The latter two look like a slapped-together video game to me. <shrug>

Anyhoo back OT, the bad Trek f/x that stick out in my mind are:

1. TFF---everything, especially the warp effects and torpedoes

2. Insuckrection---everything but the hamster---the ships were Babylon 5 bad--and that's bad!

3. "The Dauphin" shapeshifters

4. Damn near any explosion on DS9---they always look like someone has tossed an Ertl model into a campfire

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^^^^I often find that when some people don't like a movie, all of a sudden all aspects of that movie are terrible, such as special effects, music, costuming, etc.

^^
I often find when some people defend a weak movie, all of a sudden aspects of that movie are better than they really were. Such as FX, music...costumes too.

So you're saying that, when you find people defending a movie you dislike, you feel that they find some aspects of the movie to not be as terrible as you feel they are? Clearly you don't like the movie. But can you really find a psychological rationale for someone disagreeing with you here or just a difference of opinion.