How do people buy the ridiculous looking characters?
- Thread starter medwatt
- Start date
... AGREED!!! Human CGI characters, especially, tend to look "bloodless."
What a dumb question.
If you are so narrow-minded as to let the way characters look effect your watching habits then you probably have the same problem in real life. Part of the idea of ST is that you can look past the way people/creatures look and to other things.
So do you have problems with Caucasians? Black people? Asians? People in tribal masks? Dreadlocks? Women who color their hair?
If you are so narrow-minded as to let the way characters look effect your watching habits then you probably have the same problem in real life. Part of the idea of ST is that you can look past the way people/creatures look and to other things.
So do you have problems with Caucasians? Black people? Asians? People in tribal masks? Dreadlocks? Women who color their hair?
What a totally unnecessary comment. Puts you on the hairy edge of a flaming warning.
I don't relate. Except for maybe a few instances, I didn't find the characters looking ridiculous. I was, and I suspect thousands of others were, too wrapped up in the story to worry about such things. At the same time I believe I also realized the limitations that TV could bring me so, as was mentioned above, belief was suspended. It wasn't and still isn't a big deal because I still watch the old shows (I'm talkin' TOS, here) with much the same feelings as I had then. Of course, now with all the technological advances that have been made WRT special effects most limitations have disappeared. There are a lot of people who won't watch older programs for a whole variety of reasons (my wife hates B&W TV shows and movies while I love them) and that's fine, too. This is a case where nobody's right and everybody's right.
This is a topic about whether the make up jobs on an 80s television show look silly by modern standards, not whether you should judge real human beings by their appearance.
'The Conspiracy' aliens are still pretty frightening to me.
Although, I do vaguely recall being kinda upset - when the show was still running - that we didn't see different creatures that weren't walking on two legs. (Even TOS showed us the Horta, which I think is a good effect, even though it is basically a man under a large rug).
Of course, with Trek 2009, we had different non-humanoid aliens on the bridges of ships. (I don't know if the character on Captain Robau's ship was a 'two-legged' being though).
Some makeup effects did actually take me out of whatever story there was, such as: Worf's huge turtle head in certain seasons, Alexander's huge head (which added to the annoyance of the character), and Ray Wise's huge head in the episode 'Who Watches the Watchers.' Even the Romulan makeup and flared shoulder costumes were a bit iffy for me. I preferred the 'sexy' TOS look. It made them more mysterious and exotic.
Another example are the Bandi aliens from 'Encounter at Farpoint.' They looked cheesy, and ironically added to the 'pathetic-ness' of the characters...in the context of the episode.
On the other hand, the Bajoran makeup (however simple it was) added some interesting things to certain characters. For me, it was two female Bajoran characters: Ensign Ro and Ensign Sito. Of course, they were both attractive, but they were also both - again - interesting and 'alien' (i.e. exotic) in the context of the universe. I wanted to know more about them.
Although, I do vaguely recall being kinda upset - when the show was still running - that we didn't see different creatures that weren't walking on two legs. (Even TOS showed us the Horta, which I think is a good effect, even though it is basically a man under a large rug).
Of course, with Trek 2009, we had different non-humanoid aliens on the bridges of ships. (I don't know if the character on Captain Robau's ship was a 'two-legged' being though).
Some makeup effects did actually take me out of whatever story there was, such as: Worf's huge turtle head in certain seasons, Alexander's huge head (which added to the annoyance of the character), and Ray Wise's huge head in the episode 'Who Watches the Watchers.' Even the Romulan makeup and flared shoulder costumes were a bit iffy for me. I preferred the 'sexy' TOS look. It made them more mysterious and exotic.
Another example are the Bandi aliens from 'Encounter at Farpoint.' They looked cheesy, and ironically added to the 'pathetic-ness' of the characters...in the context of the episode.
On the other hand, the Bajoran makeup (however simple it was) added some interesting things to certain characters. For me, it was two female Bajoran characters: Ensign Ro and Ensign Sito. Of course, they were both attractive, but they were also both - again - interesting and 'alien' (i.e. exotic) in the context of the universe. I wanted to know more about them.
I think it's a budgetary reason more than anything. I don't like it any more than you do. I think "The Chase" was necessary because there is no other way to explain such an improbable course in comparative evolution.
Even if you were to restrict Trek to the three most basic races from TOS - Human, Vulcan, and Klingon - that's exactly what they were: races. If they can breed then they are the same species. If it wasn't made for Television from the beginning, this probably wouldn't have been the case. On the other hand, you get very personable characters that represent what humanity could have become if its own history took different turns.
That still doesn't mean I'm okay with foreheads of the week. Yes the makeup artists did some pretty impressive things, but it was a pretty lazy way of making a story.
Even if you were to restrict Trek to the three most basic races from TOS - Human, Vulcan, and Klingon - that's exactly what they were: races. If they can breed then they are the same species. If it wasn't made for Television from the beginning, this probably wouldn't have been the case. On the other hand, you get very personable characters that represent what humanity could have become if its own history took different turns.
That still doesn't mean I'm okay with foreheads of the week. Yes the makeup artists did some pretty impressive things, but it was a pretty lazy way of making a story.
I dunno, man. I think you should get out more. The last scene in Dawn of Planet of the Apes is this long dolly shot towards Caesar's face and it ends with just his eyes. I don't know if it was partly a composite with Andy Serkis' real eyes but it is 100% convincing. This looks like a still from it, but it blows you away at full resolution and 3D in the theater. So I have to vehemently disagree with you that performance-capture hasn't arrived. It doesn't mean every attempt will match Dawn, but the technology is available to do it.
I still think "The Chase" was needless and redundant, giving that the question was already explained by the discovery of The Preservers in TOS.
Of course, a TNG writer would have had to SEE and/or care about TOS to know that.
Yeah, Ronald D. Moore hated TOS...
(That's sarcasm meant for the people who obviously don't know anything about the writers of TNG though they comment as if they do)
They're getting there, but there's a reason they keep avoiding humans. They're still not QUITE there yet and, like above, I still think it's many years before we get to humans. You can get away with a little more with aliens, monsters and animals. But normal humans need to literally be perfect, which is tough still.
And when they can portray totally realistic humans it'll still be a while before they can display the same complexity of emotions as real actors.
Also I suspect that a lot of films will fall into the trap where the dialog seems really unnatural just because only one person was generating it. Kind of like how they say in Star Wars Harrison Ford had to ad-lib quite a lot because the lines were unnatural.
Not to mention how in Raiders of the Lost Ark, that famous scene where the guy is waving the sword around then Indy just takes the gun out and shoots him was a result of Harrison Ford having a cold that day. That kind of 'accidental greatness' would be hard to recapture with fully CGI characters.
Also I suspect that a lot of films will fall into the trap where the dialog seems really unnatural just because only one person was generating it. Kind of like how they say in Star Wars Harrison Ford had to ad-lib quite a lot because the lines were unnatural.
Not to mention how in Raiders of the Lost Ark, that famous scene where the guy is waving the sword around then Indy just takes the gun out and shoots him was a result of Harrison Ford having a cold that day. That kind of 'accidental greatness' would be hard to recapture with fully CGI characters.
The little pink things? Yeah, I agree. Their stop-motion-ish movements actually add to their alien-ness to me. I think this stems from similar movements I've seen attempted in very old silent films. Sometimes, depending on the subject matter, they could be pretty creepy, too!
I still think "The Chase" was needless and redundant, giving that the question was already explained by the discovery of The Preservers in TOS.
Of course, a TNG writer would have had to SEE and/or care about TOS to know that.
Yeah, Ronald D. Moore hated TOS...
(That's sarcasm meant for the people who obviously don't know anything about the writers of TNG though they comment as if they do)
You're a swell guy.
(That's sarcasm meant for the people who could have politely explained their point rather than being an asshole).
We have to accept some things for a show to work, i.e. Everyone seemingly speaking English in the SG shows. I could say that VOY looking brand new in virtually every episode was unrealastic and stretch the suspension of disbelief to breaking point. For the TOS-TNG-DSN this was less of an issue because it was easier to say that it was fixed off screen at a starbase. What works for one show might not work for another.
The #1 reason to avoid humans is that it's a lot easier to just use a real human. That's where there's a blurry line between what constitutes live-action and animation. If you want something purposefully cartoony, that's one thing, but Zemeckis in particular was pushing for an Uncanny Valley aesthetic which divided people over the look. But for the most part, doing that kind of thing is a solution in search of a problem--i.e. a gimmick.
There are cases where virtual stunts need to simulate a real person, or you may want to bring a dead celebrity back to life, though. Plus the aging and de-aging. These are specialized scenarios.
But to make a creature that doesn't exist seem to exist, I'd say they're there--on the big-screen. Not on TV.
That's not as true as it used to be. It's possible to mocap multiple performers at once. Avatar did it. And Apes somehow recorded the performance on location rather than a greenscreen. It looks like they're starting to use motion-sensors rather than just markers.
I wasn't being any meaner than you were being to the writers of the show with baseless accusations.
I didn't take the high road, and I apologize. But just because they're not here to defend themselves doesn't mean we can just jump to any conclusion we want without any sort of facts to back it up (and it didn't quite come across as opinion with what you were saying).
Point to you. That really is the easiest explanation for what I said, wasn't it. I still think it's tougher to do humans because that's who we interact with every single day and doing the subtleties (instead of, for example, a stunt double) is tougher.
But you're absolutely right. Why make a virtual actor when we have real ones willing and able all around.
Thought once they DO perfect that, I hope Brent Spiner works out a deal for future Star Treks in case they need an ageless Data. What the heck, John DeLancie as well for Q.
Well, he's alienated quite a few...
Similar threads
