Purist Sees The Light

[Son_of_Soong]

I believe that photo realistic CG is possible these days. Transformers certainly proved it could be done using objects like metal and stuff, and Advent Children is a large step forward as well.

They dont look that bad concidering the creators of Advent Children purposely made them look animated because they didnt want people saying "why not just use real actors?" Imagine what they could've done if they wanted it to be totalyl realistic.

Plus it's been a few years and the use of lighting and especially shadow (which is what its mostly missin) has been greatly improved, especially in Transformers.

 

[Holytomato]

"Well, for the CGI characters, they could almost pull something off like Beowulf. Most of the women looked very obviously like CGI,"

My wife thought Angelia Jolie was real.

" ...Oh, the cgi isn't finished so they used the motion capture footage for the trailer."

"aaaaaaahhhh. Nope. Thats cgi."

" Oh.... Jolie is still ^Hot^."

"Yep."

"Hey, wanna leave?"

"ahhhhhhh....mmmm...nope..."

"I'm pouting. out:"

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Right now its kind of at the point where the general viewer will have trouble telling real life from CG but the visual nut will be able to. Give it another few years and even the visual nut wont be able to tell the difference.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Holytomato said:
"James Kirk having an R for his middle initial?"

Well, you know that's the kind of "continuity" that's a bit obsessive to worry about. I was glad to see that the "Star Trek Remastered" people left Kirk's tombstone alone, even if only because they didn't have the time and money to fix it.

 

[ancient]

The R stood for Reboot.

James Reboot Kirk.

But then they reimagined his middle name. That's irony.

 

[archeryguy1701]

ancient said:
The R stood for Reboot.

James Reboot Kirk.

But then they reimagined his middle name. That's irony.

They knew it was coming. The original producers were aware of the impending reboot, tried to warn us, and we didn't understand until it was too late...

 

[Tralah]

James R. Kirk is one of the reasons why I can only laugh or shake my head in pity at those who obsess and express such displeasure over the slightest cosmetic changes made in this movie.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

*Second that*

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Son_of_Soong said:
I believe that photo realistic CG is possible these days. Transformers certainly proved it could be done using objects like metal and stuff, and Advent Children is a large step forward as well.

They dont look that bad concidering the creators of Advent Children purposely made them look animated because they didnt want people saying "why not just use real actors?" Imagine what they could've done if they wanted it to be totalyl realistic.

Plus it's been a few years and the use of lighting and especially shadow (which is what its mostly missin) has been greatly improved, especially in Transformers.

Those images pretty much prove my point. Is there anyone who, upon looking at those, thought that they were looking at real human beings? The CGI isn't there... YET.

Beowulf's CGI work was pretty, but still, nobody I know of watched that movie and was fooled into thinking that they were watching real actors who were filmed on real sets. It's getting better all the time, no argument there... but the very fact that people are AWARE that they're seeing CGI humans who "look really real" proves that the art hasn't hit it's target point yet.

The time will come... within our lifetimes, I'm sure... that you'll have CGI characters who you literally will not be able to tell aren't real. And CGI characters who'll be able to replicate existing people nearly flawlessly (that'll come later... and will require some new science to extract mannerisms, little things like eyelid "twitch" movements or whatever, all those tiny little things that we KNOW are supposed to be there, but which contemporary CGI characters don't really do yet... at least not like the "matched" real human being would do!

Getting the shapes is largely there (Rick Baker's "Old Man" on the cover of 3D World a few months ago is currently my personal example of the best you can do... but it's his ART, not something that the computer generates on its own!). Subsurface scattering is good for approximating flesh, but it's not PERFECT (just better than having totally opaque flesh... which makes CGI characters look TOTALLY phoney). There are tricks, and a skilled artist can make a still image that can fool you into thinking it's a real person. But as far as having a CGI "person" who can fool you into thinking you're watching a REAL person... nope, never seen it, don't think it's possible.

YET.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Remember the images I posted were PURPOSELY made to look CG, they arn't supposed to look photoperfect.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Son_of_Soong said:Remember the images I posted were PURPOSELY made to look CG, they arn't supposed to look photoperfect.

The PROPORTIONS were made that way.

My point is that nobody can show anyone a CGI character who the audience can't pick out as a CGI character. Can they?

The style of the characters in those images was done in "Manga" style. But the hair, skin, eye, etc characteristics was done in a "state of the art" manner.

Seriously... have you ever seen a CGI person who nobody... you, your friends, ANYONE... could tell wasn't a real human being?

Show me that... not as a still image (which I've stated I believe can be done... see my Rick Baker reference) but as an animation... in such a way that you can't tell it's not a real person.

I've never seen it, and I'm always looking for it. Beowulf is literally as close as anyone's come so far. But you can still tell that they're not real human beings on screen, can't you?

 

[Son_of_Soong]

*starts searching*

 

[archeryguy1701]

Cary L. Brown said:
I've never seen it, and I'm always looking for it. Beowulf is literally as close as anyone's come so far. But you can still tell that they're not real human beings on screen, can't you?

Like I said upstream, the women's skin texture looked cartoony except for Grendal's Mother, but most of the men looked real in many of their shots. They didn't maintain it the whole movie, but most of the time, they did look real.

 

[exalted one]

This purist here sees the light too. The light from the bridge console. The friggin underlit bridge console. This purist doesn't like what he sees. No, not at all.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

The purist isnt being forced to see the movie :-P

 

[FordSVT]

[[[MAC]]] said:

If JJ doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe, he shouldn't be making
a supposed Star Trek movie. Its as simple as that.

MAC

And how, exactly, do you know he "doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe"? I would assume it's because of the visual changes, because we don't know of any plot information that would lead us to believe he's throwing away canon. And in fact, JJ has said just the opposite of what you're insinuating.

So if your only problem is the LOOK of the film (which we haven't seen yet, BTW, the teaser is not the film or even a full trailer with production shots), would anything short of resurrecting and de-aging DeForest Kelly satisfy you?

I judge thee a pessimist who's hating before he knows what the heck he's talking about. Do you WANT this movie to be something you don't like? Seem it.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Why do some people have trouble comprehending why its called a teaser :-P

 

[Kinnison]

Cary L. Brown said:
Show me that... not as a still image (which I've stated I believe can be done... see my Rick Baker reference) but as an animation... in such a way that you can't tell it's not a real person.

I agree. Animating a completely realistic human is REALLY REALLY hard. I've been animating for a while now, and I've never even come CLOSE to complete realism. There's a reason Bugs Bunny moves the way he does.

 

[[[[MAC]]]]

FordSVT said:

[[[MAC]]] said:

If JJ doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe, he shouldn't be making
a supposed Star Trek movie. Its as simple as that.

MAC

And how, exactly, do you know he "doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe"? I would assume it's because of the visual changes, because we don't know of any plot information that would lead us to believe he's throwing away canon. And in fact, JJ has said just the opposite of what you're insinuating.

So if your only problem is the LOOK of the film (which we haven't seen yet, BTW, the teaser is not the film or even a full trailer with production shots), would anything short of resurrecting and de-aging DeForest Kelly satisfy you?

I judge thee a pessimist who's hating before he knows what the heck he's talking about. Do you WANT this movie to be something you don't like? Seem it.

You've taken what I said out of context.

I was not saying that JJ was changing anything. I was saying
that just because Star Trek was fiction, Science Fiction, and
Star Trek didn't mean that the creators of a Star Trek project
could do whatever they wanted and didn't have to be concerned
about all the stories that had been told before, all the details
that had been presented as a part of Star Trek 'History'.

My only point is that if JJ and company decide not to respect
Star Trek history, why should they be doing a movie that they
pretend is in the Star Trek universe? There are a million movies
made every year. Some succeed, a whole lot fail. If JJ, or
someone else like him, wants to make a movie they can pick from
millions of ideas and might just get the one that takes over the
box office. They could even create from whole cloth a new fictional
universe that could spawn spin-off TV shows and movies and become
even more successful than Star Trek.

There is no reason to create a movie in an established universe
and not respect what has gone before. It is a slap in the face to
the creators that worked so hard on those previous works and a
slap in the face to all the 'fans' that liked it just the way it
was.

MAC

 

[FordSVT]

[[[MAC]]] said:

FordSVT said:

[[[MAC]]] said:

If JJ doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe, he shouldn't be making
a supposed Star Trek movie. Its as simple as that.

MAC

And how, exactly, do you know he "doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe"? I would assume it's because of the visual changes, because we don't know of any plot information that would lead us to believe he's throwing away canon. And in fact, JJ has said just the opposite of what you're insinuating.

So if your only problem is the LOOK of the film (which we haven't seen yet, BTW, the teaser is not the film or even a full trailer with production shots), would anything short of resurrecting and de-aging DeForest Kelly satisfy you?

I judge thee a pessimist who's hating before he knows what the heck he's talking about. Do you WANT this movie to be something you don't like? Seem it.

You've taken what I said out of context.

I was not saying that JJ was changing anything. I was saying
that just because Star Trek was fiction, Science Fiction, and
Star Trek didn't mean that the creators of a Star Trek project
could do whatever they wanted and didn't have to be concerned
about all the stories that had been told before, all the details
that had been presented as a part of Star Trek 'History'.

My only point is that if JJ and company decide not to respect
Star Trek history, why should they be doing a movie that they
pretend is in the Star Trek universe? There are a million movies
made every year. Some succeed, a whole lot fail. If JJ, or
someone else like him, wants to make a movie they can pick from
millions of ideas and might just get the one that takes over the
box office. They could even create from whole cloth a new fictional
universe that could spawn spin-off TV shows and movies and become
even more successful than Star Trek.

There is no reason to create a movie in an established universe
and not respect what has gone before. It is a slap in the face to
the creators that worked so hard on those previous works and a
slap in the face to all the 'fans' that liked it just the way it
was.

MAC

But judging by your other comments in this forum it would seem you've already decided that he has decided to ignore canon, it wasn't exactly a leap for me to believe you weren't posing a hypothetical.