ILM to CGI?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"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."

That's not an argument for your position; it's simply uninformed sarcasm.

 

[number6]

"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."

That's not an argument for your position; it's simply uninformed sarcasm.

QFFT!

 

[Vektor]

"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."

Let me give you a slightly different exchange of dialogue.

ILM: "So you want us to put together a teaser showing the Enterprise under construction."

JJA: "Yeah, it's kind of a metaphore for the whole project."

ILM: "You are aware that we're barely into pre-production and all we have are a few rough sketches of the new Enterprise."

JJA: "It doesn't really matter. It's only a teaser and, like I said, it's meant to be more metaphorical than realistic anyway. We want to show it under construction on the ground for crying out loud. Bob or Alex or somebody saw a picture on the Internet and thought it was a cool idea but nobody's gonna buy that for a ship this size in the actual film. Just use lots of closeups, throw in some pipes and gantries and other stuff to obscure it a little. Give me one shot at the end where it's recognizable, show the name on the hull to make sure we get the message across, but don't sweat the design details at this point."

ILM: "But won't people be kind of confused if they see one version of the ship in the teaser and an entirely different version when the actual film comes out?"

JJA: "The movie won't come out until almost a year after the teaser. Most people won't even remember what the ship looked like by then. Sure, maybe the hardcore fans will notice the difference but, with all due respect, they're only a fraction of the people we need to bring in to turn a profit on this beast. We'll have the final design ready to go by the time we do a real trailer, and with all the advertising and other media in the months leading up to the release, trust me, what we show in the teaser won't even matter. Besides, with all the secrecy surrounding this project, do you really think I wanna to show what the actual ship looks like this early in the game?"

ILM: "No, I suppose not. So I guess we'll just stick with the basic design. Most people probably recognize the movie version a little better so maybe we'll borrow some elements from that. We won't show any more of the ship than we have to."

JJA: "Sure, but don't make it look too much like the movie version. Our story is set mostly in the Original Series time frame so we need to make some visual connections with that. Maybe show the old-style engines, the ones with the big, spinny things on the front, the fan blade things."

ILM: "Fan blades."

JJA: "Yeah, you know, the buzzard scoops or whatever the hell they're called. Make 'em really big in the final shot so people can't help but notice them. We're gonna add a voiceover by Leonard Nimoy doing the "Space, the final frontier" routine so it should give some pretty strong hints as to when this story takes place and who it's about."

ILM: "Okay, we should be able to work with that. How soon do you need it?"

JJA: "I want to show it in front Cloverfield next month."

ILM: Gulp

 

[Tom Servo]

The upshot of the article is that a lot of industry people these days are thinking the same way.

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.

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).

Well seeing as how most of the Titanic shots in Titanic was model work, how is that an example of bad CGI? Many of the people in the shots were CG, as was some of the water and smoke... but most of the ship shots themselves were a model, and a large model at that.

I do agree with you about Episode III and Sky Captain though, way too much CGI...even though with Sky Captain it was kind of the point.

I use Starship Troopers as one of the benchmarks as a great blend of CGI and model work. I think that the effects in that movie were great.

 

[ST-One]

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).

The Titanic was a miniature!

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).

'Sky Captain' didn't try to look 'real'. The hightend, surreal, very stylized look was intentional.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

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.

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).

Well seeing as how most of the Titanic shots in Titanic was model work, how is that an example of bad CGI? Many of the people in the shots were CG, as was some of the water and smoke... but most of the ship shots themselves were a model, and a large model at that.

I do agree with you about Episode III and Sky Captain though, way too much CGI...even though with Sky Captain it was kind of the point.

I use Starship Troopers as one of the benchmarks as a great blend of CGI and model work. I think that the effects in that movie were great.

The bugs in the original Starship Troopers were pretty good.

Everything I've read says the Titanic was CGI.

 

[ST-One]

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).

Well seeing as how most of the Titanic shots in Titanic was model work, how is that an example of bad CGI? Many of the people in the shots were CG, as was some of the water and smoke... but most of the ship shots themselves were a model, and a large model at that.

I do agree with you about Episode III and Sky Captain though, way too much CGI...even though with Sky Captain it was kind of the point.

I use Starship Troopers as one of the benchmarks as a great blend of CGI and model work. I think that the effects in that movie were great.

The bugs in the original Starship Troopers were pretty good.

Everything I've read says the Titanic was CGI.

That was just the hype back then and those people who wrote that were flat out wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-yWD4TSTk

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Well seeing as how most of the Titanic shots in Titanic was model work, how is that an example of bad CGI? Many of the people in the shots were CG, as was some of the water and smoke... but most of the ship shots themselves were a model, and a large model at that.

I do agree with you about Episode III and Sky Captain though, way too much CGI...even though with Sky Captain it was kind of the point.

I use Starship Troopers as one of the benchmarks as a great blend of CGI and model work. I think that the effects in that movie were great.

The bugs in the original Starship Troopers were pretty good.

Everything I've read says the Titanic was CGI.

That was just the hype back then and those people who wrote that were flat out wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-yWD4TSTk

I stand corrected. Found this after a little Googling -

Yet many of the most spectacular special effects shots in Titanic were
filmed using a much smaller museum-quality 14 metre model. In addition much
of the wreck footage was filmed using a scale model of the wreck.
The problem with special effects miniatures in movies involving water is
that you can't scale down the viscosity of the water. That's why miniature
ships floating on real water always look slightly fake, no matter how
realistic and detailed the miniature. The key element in Titanic's
convincing effects sequences is the use of computer generated water in most
of the sequences where the ship is seen in motion traveling across water.
On a big ship, the only sense of motion is when you look down. Because the
big set was surrounded on three sides by water, it was relatively easy to
add computer generated water effects.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...eachable_moments/deconstructing_titanic_6.cfm

 

[Tom Servo]

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).

Well seeing as how most of the Titanic shots in Titanic was model work, how is that an example of bad CGI? Many of the people in the shots were CG, as was some of the water and smoke... but most of the ship shots themselves were a model, and a large model at that.

I do agree with you about Episode III and Sky Captain though, way too much CGI...even though with Sky Captain it was kind of the point.

I use Starship Troopers as one of the benchmarks as a great blend of CGI and model work. I think that the effects in that movie were great.

The bugs in the original Starship Troopers were pretty good.

Everything I've read says the Titanic was CGI.

Well they are misinformed then. I have seen photos of the model that they built for the film. They had the 775ft long set/model, and then a smaller 40ft filming model... and they even built a 60ft high stern section for the scene in which the ship breaks in two.

There are two photos here of the smaller model:

http://www.mentorhuebnerart.com/featuredguests/filmmakers/generizzardi.shtml

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Well seeing as how most of the Titanic shots in Titanic was model work, how is that an example of bad CGI? Many of the people in the shots were CG, as was some of the water and smoke... but most of the ship shots themselves were a model, and a large model at that.

I do agree with you about Episode III and Sky Captain though, way too much CGI...even though with Sky Captain it was kind of the point.

I use Starship Troopers as one of the benchmarks as a great blend of CGI and model work. I think that the effects in that movie were great.

The bugs in the original Starship Troopers were pretty good.

Everything I've read says the Titanic was CGI.

Well they are misinformed then. I have seen photos of the model that they built for the film. They had the 775ft long set/model, and then a smaller 40ft filming model... and they even built a 60ft high stern section for the scene in which the ship breaks in two.

There are two photos here of the smaller model:

http://www.mentorhuebnerart.com/featuredguests/filmmakers/generizzardi.shtml

Yeah, see above. Learn something new every day.

 

[ST-One]

The bugs in the original Starship Troopers were pretty good.

Everything I've read says the Titanic was CGI.

That was just the hype back then and those people who wrote that were flat out wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-yWD4TSTk

I stand corrected. Found this after a little Googling -

Yet many of the most spectacular special effects shots in Titanic were
filmed using a much smaller museum-quality 14 metre model. In addition much
of the wreck footage was filmed using a scale model of the wreck.
The problem with special effects miniatures in movies involving water is
that you can't scale down the viscosity of the water. That's why miniature
ships floating on real water always look slightly fake, no matter how
realistic and detailed the miniature. The key element in Titanic's
convincing effects sequences is the use of computer generated water in most
of the sequences where the ship is seen in motion traveling across water.
On a big ship, the only sense of motion is when you look down. Because the
big set was surrounded on three sides by water, it was relatively easy to
add computer generated water effects.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...eachable_moments/deconstructing_titanic_6.cfm

It is actually quite funny (and telling) that you were told this particularly beautiful miniature/big-ature/life-sized recreation is a CG-model and you then jump on your soap-box to decry the quality of that 'CG-model'.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

That was just the hype back then and those people who wrote that were flat out wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-yWD4TSTk

I stand corrected. Found this after a little Googling -

Yet many of the most spectacular special effects shots in Titanic were
filmed using a much smaller museum-quality 14 metre model. In addition much
of the wreck footage was filmed using a scale model of the wreck.
The problem with special effects miniatures in movies involving water is
that you can't scale down the viscosity of the water. That's why miniature
ships floating on real water always look slightly fake, no matter how
realistic and detailed the miniature. The key element in Titanic's
convincing effects sequences is the use of computer generated water in most
of the sequences where the ship is seen in motion traveling across water.
On a big ship, the only sense of motion is when you look down. Because the
big set was surrounded on three sides by water, it was relatively easy to
add computer generated water effects.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...eachable_moments/deconstructing_titanic_6.cfm

It is actually quite funny (and telling) that you were told this particularly beautiful miniature/big-ature/life-sized recreation is a CG-model and you then jump on your soap-box to decry the quality of that 'CG-model'.

What soap box? I was just trying to agree with another post. Please forgive me. And truth be told, I still say it looks like CGI. Probably because of all the CGI water and people added around and on it.

 

[JuanBolio]

It happened before. Its not like they showed us much of the ship, after all.

 

[trevanian]

I still say it looks like CGI. Probably because of all the CGI water and people added around and on it.

Well, the people part I can really see. The mocap folks walking seem as stilted and artificial (in the daylight flyover anyway, I haven't seen too much of the movie) as the stop motion folks on the establishing shot of Jabba's barge in JEDI. They ruined the otherwise beautiful shot, and I don't understand why everybody bought off on stuff that looked so flawed on such an elemental level, especially after all the work that went into making the ship look good. Maybe they should have done something very old-school, and taped pictures or little figures to ants and let them run around the deck. At least ants wouldn't strobe.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Maybe they should have done something very old-school, and taped pictures or little figures to ants and let them run around the deck.

"No ants were harmed in the making of this motion picture."