• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

ILM to CGI?

Have they said whether or not that effects will be CGI?? And if so, please tell me it won't be who ever did the effects for Nemesis/Insurrection because, quite frankly, I thought they were horrible....too cartoony. What is the 'word' on the street?

Rob
Scorpio
 
ILM sold their model shop, which became Kerner Optical (IIRC.) So if it really is just ILM providing the effects for the film, they'll be CGI.

INS was Blue Sky (the same folks who did Ice Age) and NEM was Digital Domain.
 
Not for space FX. He said they were not using a lot of green screen for locations and sets.


"The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual."

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/25/jj-abrams-star-trek-wont-look-like-a-green-screen-movie/


He is talking about sets not the ship itself.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but look at the question and answer in context -

ILM is doing the effects for the film. Will it all be CGI or have they built a physical model of the New Enterprise? Also when will we see a photo of the finished Enterprise?

JJ: I was lucky enough to work with ILM on Mission: Impossible III. Roger Guyette and Sherri Hanson are geniuses who are also a true joy to work with. ILM has always been the best - but in recent years they have - remarkably - gotten even better, making the virtual photo-real.

Having said that, my goal is to make Trek REAL - that is to say, not have it be camp - not have it be phony - not have it look like a scrap of green screen was used anywhere. Of course, this is Star Trek. We're using every trick in the book. But WHEREVER WE CAN, we are shooting on sets - either built on sound stages or expanding upon found locations. This is important. What this means is that the movie won't have that "actors performing in a blue or green void then placed in front of a spaceship set" feeling that makes me insane. One of our really talented designers recently commented online how we shot on a green screen set and what a shame that was, since we could have built something incredible. And she was right - for that one scene, which will last for maybe thirty seconds on screen, we built only pieces and were surrounded by green. But that is the exception. We can't build EVERYTHING, and need to make this film on a budget (partly because that's the $ we have, and partly because I want the studio to see Trek as viable!).

The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual. A photo is forthcoming!


http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/01...Answer-Fan-Questions-About-NewnbspMovie.shtml

Yes, he talks a lot about the sets, but the question was specifically about the Enterprise as a model. In that context I think he was answering that it will be a model and CGI.
 
Last edited:
The question was about the ship, but he went off on such a tangent I don't think he was answering the same question by the end of his dissertation. Within the context of his answer, he was talking about sets.
 


He is talking about sets not the ship itself.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but look at the question and answer in context -

ILM is doing the effects for the film. Will it all be CGI or have they built a physical model of the New Enterprise?

JJ: I was lucky enough to work with ILM on Mission: Impossible III. Roger Guyette and Sherri Hanson are geniuses who are also a true joy to work with. ILM has always been the best - but in recent years they have - remarkably - gotten even better, making the virtual photo-real.

Having said that, my goal is to make Trek REAL - that is to say, not have it be camp - not have it be phony - not have it look like a scrap of green screen was used anywhere. Of course, this is Star Trek. We're using every trick in the book. But WHEREVER WE CAN, we are shooting on sets - either built on sound stages or expanding upon found locations. This is important. What this means is that the movie won't have that "actors performing in a blue or green void then placed in front of a spaceship set" feeling that makes me insane. One of our really talented designers recently commented online how we shot on a green screen set and what a shame that was, since we could have built something incredible. And she was right - for that one scene, which will last for maybe thirty seconds on screen, we built only pieces and were surrounded by green. But that is the exception. We can't build EVERYTHING, and need to make this film on a budget (partly because that's the $ we have, and partly because I want the studio to see Trek as viable!).

The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual. A photo is forthcoming!
Also when will we see a photo of the finished Enterprise?

http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/01...Answer-Fan-Questions-About-NewnbspMovie.shtml

Yes, he talks a lot about the sets, but the question was specifically about the Enterprise as a model. In that context I think he was answering that it will be a model and CGI.

Thanks for the 411 Mr. Carpe

Rob
scorpio
 
The question was about the ship, but he went off on such a tangent I don't think he was answering the same question by the end of his dissertation. Within the context of his answer, he was talking about sets.

That is my impression too.
 
The question was about the ship, but he went off on such a tangent I don't think he was answering the same question by the end of his dissertation. Within the context of his answer, he was talking about sets.

That is my impression too.

But he says "The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual. A photo is forthcoming!" He doesn't say photos, as in sets. He says photo, as in of the Enterprise.
 
The question was about the ship, but he went off on such a tangent I don't think he was answering the same question by the end of his dissertation. Within the context of his answer, he was talking about sets.

That is my impression too.

But he says "The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual. A photo is forthcoming!" He doesn't say photos, as in sets. He says photo, as in of the Enterprise.

The Enterprise will be a physical model, but the Pez dispensers will be CG.
 
That is my impression too.

But he says "The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual. A photo is forthcoming!" He doesn't say photos, as in sets. He says photo, as in of the Enterprise.

The Enterprise will be a physical model, but the Pez dispensers will be CG.

smile.gif
 
The sombrero will have to be CGI... you would have to weave a LOT of straw to make it real. That would break the budget.
 
I can see it now, we're going to be deluged with "The Sombrero Looks FAAAKKEE!" and "Cartoony Sombrero Suxs!" threads.
 
The question was about the ship, but he went off on such a tangent I don't think he was answering the same question by the end of his dissertation. Within the context of his answer, he was talking about sets.

That is my impression too.

But he says "The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual. A photo is forthcoming!" He doesn't say photos, as in sets. He says photo, as in of the Enterprise.

I can't see any such implications in what he says. He's talking about the Enterprise as a whole, sets and exterior. The "photo" he talks about could be the bridge, sickbay or a corridor.

And given that ILM don't do physical models any more, I think we can assume there won't be a physical model of the Enterprise.
 
See also the following, excerpted from an article cited elsewhere by pookha:

JJ Abrams, the creator of Lost, has also gone so far as to reassure worried fans that the new Star Trek film he's directing won't rely too much on the power of silicon chips. Even those behind the digital effects sometimes balk at what appears on the big screen. "You can use CG too much," says Dafydd Morris, a computer animator who recently worked on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. "There's no need to green-screen everything."

One telling factor in the attitudes of Nolan and Abrams could be their ages: Nolan is 37, Abrams 41. "They grew up watching films of the 80s or the 'golden age' of creature effects like Terminator, Aliens or The Thing, and miss the tactile reality they had," suggests Oscar-nominated effects artist Alec Gillis. "These directors want audiences to have a lifelike experience, not a video-game sensory assault. They want stuntmen daring to risk their lives, full-scale buildings being blown up, totally convincing miniatures rocketing through the sky. CG often gives a physics-defying, over-nuanced, pristine-ness that defies our primal knowledge of reality. Christopher Nolan wants us to believe." Gillis is feeling the benefits of those attitudes - his skills are back in demand and he's working on X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the prequel to the X-Men series.


For Star Trek, Abrams hired Rob Burman, whose family has been in the effects business since his grandfather helped create Wolfman in 1931. "CGI had become more than just a tool over the past few years," Burman says, "but now everyone is getting used to the toy and beginning to see the limitations of it. It takes you out of the grounding of the film. If you watch the Spider-Man movies, it's great swinging through the city from his point of view, but you don't have the thrill of knowing it's a real guy doing these things. It can look utterly believable, but if what you're watching is beyond possibility, it's hard to suspend your disbelief. You want people to go to the movie and get lost in it. If you start thinking, 'Oh, that was fake,' then you're automatically back in a seat in a theatre."


He thinks that the kind of puppets and creatures he provides are better on set as well as in the cinema. "Having something practical there helps everyone involved," he says. "Actors don't have to focus on a green tennis ball on a stick and pretend it's this big monster or character." Which perhaps explains why otherwise good actors such as Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson often looked perplexed and wooden in the entirely green-screen Star Wars prequels. "It even helps the editing and it helps the framing of the shot to have a literal 3D object in front of the camera," adds Burman. "Everything is much simpler."


It may be simpler, but it's not cheaper. Even JJ Abrams has admitted that it's impossible to build sets for everything on his Star Trek movie because it would cost too much. "If you want a big cityscape," says Morris, "it's much cheaper to do it in CG than build it physically. And it means you can move the camera anywhere and do whatever you want. The technology is getting to the point where you can do almost anything."
Read the whole article, if you have the time; it's about the changing industry perception of the question of CGI vs "real" effects, models and sets.
 
See also the following, excerpted from an article cited elsewhere by pookha:

JJ Abrams, the creator of Lost, has also gone so far as to reassure worried fans that the new Star Trek film he's directing won't rely too much on the power of silicon chips. Even those behind the digital effects sometimes balk at what appears on the big screen. "You can use CG too much," says Dafydd Morris, a computer animator who recently worked on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. "There's no need to green-screen everything."

One telling factor in the attitudes of Nolan and Abrams could be their ages: Nolan is 37, Abrams 41. "They grew up watching films of the 80s or the 'golden age' of creature effects like Terminator, Aliens or The Thing, and miss the tactile reality they had," suggests Oscar-nominated effects artist Alec Gillis. "These directors want audiences to have a lifelike experience, not a video-game sensory assault. They want stuntmen daring to risk their lives, full-scale buildings being blown up, totally convincing miniatures rocketing through the sky. CG often gives a physics-defying, over-nuanced, pristine-ness that defies our primal knowledge of reality. Christopher Nolan wants us to believe." Gillis is feeling the benefits of those attitudes - his skills are back in demand and he's working on X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the prequel to the X-Men series.


For Star Trek, Abrams hired Rob Burman, whose family has been in the effects business since his grandfather helped create Wolfman in 1931. "CGI had become more than just a tool over the past few years," Burman says, "but now everyone is getting used to the toy and beginning to see the limitations of it. It takes you out of the grounding of the film. If you watch the Spider-Man movies, it's great swinging through the city from his point of view, but you don't have the thrill of knowing it's a real guy doing these things. It can look utterly believable, but if what you're watching is beyond possibility, it's hard to suspend your disbelief. You want people to go to the movie and get lost in it. If you start thinking, 'Oh, that was fake,' then you're automatically back in a seat in a theatre."


He thinks that the kind of puppets and creatures he provides are better on set as well as in the cinema. "Having something practical there helps everyone involved," he says. "Actors don't have to focus on a green tennis ball on a stick and pretend it's this big monster or character." Which perhaps explains why otherwise good actors such as Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson often looked perplexed and wooden in the entirely green-screen Star Wars prequels. "It even helps the editing and it helps the framing of the shot to have a literal 3D object in front of the camera," adds Burman. "Everything is much simpler."


It may be simpler, but it's not cheaper. Even JJ Abrams has admitted that it's impossible to build sets for everything on his Star Trek movie because it would cost too much. "If you want a big cityscape," says Morris, "it's much cheaper to do it in CG than build it physically. And it means you can move the camera anywhere and do whatever you want. The technology is getting to the point where you can do almost anything."
Read the whole article, if you have the time; it's about the changing industry perception of the question of CGI vs "real" effects, models and sets.

In other threads I've argued that miniatures can look more "real" than CGI if done correctly.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top