The upshot of the article is that a lot of industry people these days are thinking the same way.
ILM to CGI?
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
There are a couple of other ways to interpret JJ's comment about the Enterprise. It's possible that a physical model of some or all of the ship might be used for particular scenes, i.e. the Ent-E saucer that was built for the ramming scene in Nemesis. It's also possible that we might see parts of the ship's exterior built as physical sets, such as the deflector sequence from First Contact.
Either scenario would fit with JJ's statement without precluding the use of CGI effects for the vast majority of the space FX.
Either scenario would fit with JJ's statement without precluding the use of CGI effects for the vast majority of the space FX.
Well, haven't we already seen a combination live-action set/CG and possible model of the Enterprise exterior in that teaser trailer?
That's not necessarily true. ILM has hired Kerner Optical (ILM's old model shop) on the Pirates sequels and on Transformers for model work. The reason the ILM model shop split off was so that it could take on non-ILM projects, as well as ILM projects.
It's still entirely possible that Kerner will do model shots for the movie, and ILM would put those model shots into the scenes.
You can view Kerner's work on Pirates and Transformers by going to their website and clicking "Demo Reel>Slide Show" See below...
http://www.kerner.com/
True enough, and that alone might be enough to justify JJ's statement without requiring anything in the way of a physical scale model of the ship.
I still wonder about that teaser, though. Call it a wild hunch, but I'm not at all convinced that the Enterprise in the actual movie is going to look more than vaguely similar to the one in the teaser. Has anyone ever actually posed the question, "Is the ship shown in the teaser what the ship in the movie will look like?" I can't for the life of me remember that question being asked of any of TPTB or, if it has been, receiving an unambiguous answer.
I'm not just another TOS purist grasping at straws, by the way. I could easily live with the teaser version. It just wasn't the sort of "enhanced design" I was expecting from the people who are working on this project. I honestly would not have been surprised--and still won't be--if the movie version turned out to be much closer to the original design.
Why would anyone ask such a ridiculous question?
Of course the ship in the teaser is the Enterprise from the new film.
That's true. A great deal of the design could have been early concept work that's since been revised.
Hell, Kong in Peter Jackson's "King Kong" got a whole new face between the time he first appeared in a theatrical trailer and the release of the movie.
You'll have to forgive me if I decline to take your word for it.
Hell, Kong in Peter Jackson's "King Kong" got a whole new face between the time he first appeared in a theatrical trailer and the release of the movie.
And let's not forget FOTR Gollum vs. TT Gollum!
so,
havent they contracted out work before
i just looked at the kerner site and they still do models.
Last edited:
This is like saying that Lockheed/Martin doesn't manufacture tires, and therefore their planes do not have landing gear.
I am 99% sure that most of the ship effects work in Star Trek will be CGI, its just the way things are done these days. It does not mean that perhaps models of certain sections of the hull will be made, but people thinking that there will be some sort of filming model of the ship, a la TOS, are probably wrong.
I agree. I think there might be some tweaking between teaser and final release. There might not be... but I kinda hope so. Aside from a couple cool details, the ship from the teaser looks rather... ungraceful.
ILM won't be doing all the effects for STXI. Look at the credits for any big sci-fi film. There's always a big effects house like ILM or Digital Domain doing the main effects, and then a number of smaller effects houses doing secondary effects.
I think what "industry people" have finally figured out is that there is a place for both models and CGI, and each individual situation, shot and budget will dictate what will be the best way to go. Miniatures can definitely look more real, but CG can also definitely look better than miniatures in some situations. It almost always ends up being a mix of the two these days.
George Lucas' greatest modern accomplishment was showing the film making community in grand fashion when too much CGI is in fact too much, at least when it comes to actors physically interacting with their surroundings and other characters. He pushed a boundary that definitely pushed back, and I don't think all of the problems are necessarily tied into how "real" the images themselves look once rendered on screen.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
QFT Indeed.
It is quite an accomplishment to have such great actors and actresses in the prequel trilogy and bring them to a point were they would deliver only sub-standard performances (measured by their usual work).
CGI definitely has it's place. For instance, CGI landscapes and cityscapes can look quite good. CGI space scenes also can be done well (planets, etc.). CGI characters however are still lacking, and closeup details on CGI objects like spaceships can often look too glossy or fake (although not a spaceship, take a look at the Titanic).
I agree that films like Star Wars Episodes 1-3, Sky Captain, etc. pushed the CGI envelope too far. Maybe in the future completely rendered environments will look "real", but today I wish filmmakers would back off the CGI a little (and it appears they may be heading in that direction).
"JJ, is the big ship that was shown only sparingly in that oh so teaserish way in the teaser trailer... the Enterprise that'll be used in the film??"
"Nah, we thought we'd create two different ships one for the teaser and one for the main movie."
Similar threads
