ILM Behind the magic "Rogue One" - the first time a making of depresses me...

SethS said:
I think it's bull to complain about computers and actors on blue screens having their performances effected if you didn't realize what the effect was until watching this video. If you know CG is in play and you think that automatically means it's crap, you're a cranky dinosaur.

Of course there is BAD cg work-- just like there's bad miniature work, bad compositing, and bad puppetry throughout the history of cinema. ANY effect is intended to be invisible. When you watch a movie, the goal is for you to buy everything you see. There is CG in almost every movie that goes unnoticed because it's an effect of something that exists in the real world. When you see a scout walker or x-Wing, or something else that doesn't exist in the real world, and it's a movie made in the last decade you know it's CG. It could be the best effect in the world, but knowing it's CG for some people automatically means it's bad.

R1's effects are amazing. And, btw, done mostly by ILM, the very company who invented all the techniques no longer used. They know their job-- to be invisible, so they are going to constantly evolve with technology and techniques. Obviously it's not as technically groundbreaking or nerd-sexy. A hundred people in front of computers isn't as fun as watching a bunch dudes in a warehouse invent miniature blue screen compositing, but everything done today was built on their backs. One led to another. There was certainly a time when CG was not up to snuff, and the argument for practical effects was more valid-- like why the hell is Lucas using CG Clonetroopers instead of just dudes in suits in AOTC...

All that said, I'm no CG apologist. I personally think every effect has its strength, and the best productions employ a mix of techniques. Look at Aliens. The xenomorphs are a combination of performers in suits, puppetry, and miniatures and they hold up way better than the all cg-aliens of the later films-- even Covenant.

Using the right FX for the effect should be the goal. That said, not every film has the time or money to do that.
Click to expand...

If I watch a movie and the CGI comes across as weak, thats just as bad as poor physical effects. Rogue One did an amazing job with their CGI, physical props and morphing the two together. I knew the tropical world was cgi but didnt know the background in the smaller shots was all computer. That was some good stuff. So thumbs up on the making of vid.

The only time in R1 that I thought 'fake' was when Tarkin and Leigh spoke. That is the last hurdle in CGI..realistic facial expressions. Which is strange as Captain America and the Curious Case of Bengerman Buttons did it flawlessly.

Agree 1000% on Aliens holding up better than another Alien film.
 
joberg said:
Yes, the key is not to go overboard with the CGI. Using real models (like Luka) and a combo of CGI is the answer. It's no longer :"Look at what my program can do" but rather, "Look at what my program can enhance"
Click to expand...

Actually, using whatever technique you're going to use properly - and allowing the crew enough time to do it is the answer. In most cases I don't know that any method is better than any other method. However, those executing the shot can make it the wrong method by rushing it, doing a poor job, or not having enough time - regardless of what technique they're using.

You'd think in this day and age that directors would understand what it takes to do proper CG work, but clearly - they don't. They clearly rush things and try for last second changes which makes the result look shoddy.
 
It's all tools, people. These are all tools to be used in a film's production. The trick isn't making all the stuff realistic and believable, the trick is to create a suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately, that's the real problem I find with most films now; they rely on the tool rather than the story or just basic film grammar/structure to create that suspension.

ILM does great work, period. That's why they're the best and most highly-regarded VFX house in the world. It's just unfortunate that a lot of the work is wasted in the glut of mediocre films that is flooding the cinema (and yeah, I'm including R1). Sure the effect is great but to what end does it serve? That's the real question that should be asked.

To the point of bad CG and other effects, if the film is good in the end, who cares? I love Fury Road, it's the best film I've seen at the theaters in the last 10 years and that picture is filled with spotty CG and compositing work but do I care? No! Same goes for Blade Runner, love the film but a great deal of the matte paintings just don't look good but me spotting it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the film. Another example is ALIEN; it's clearly a guy in a rubber suit and Ash's decapitated head looks like a gag from the Muppets but, at the end of it all, everything else about the film is just done so well that it doesn't matter.

I agree with the posts above in how reading about the technique isn't as interesting, but at the end of the day, when it comes to a film, effects alone are not enough to support it. It has to work in conjunction with everything else or everything else has to be done well enough to support its faults.
 
Last edited:
While bad CG sure stands out badly...one movie that I still think looks great is Jurassic Park. Even in the shots that look it, it just has a magicalness to it.
 
People who think building a 3D model requires no skill should have a go themselves, if its that easy.

Also try doing it without using your hands, since there seems to be an emphasis on using those to make a physical model.

Physical model makers use tools, they use parts from kits other people made, they rarely design the models themselves, and there will always be limits on how close you can zoom into the model..

I respect the hell out of those guys at ILM, just remember its those same guys who invented CGI in the first place, and using it in small doses as far back as return of the Jedi, and wrath of Khan.

I'm not putting down physical model makers, I even dabble occasionally myself, but as someone who has made 3D models for nearly 30 years on and off, I can tell you its not as easy as some people would beleive, you don't just press F7 for spaceship, press F8 for Robot.

Like I said, I have been doing this for 3 decades, and there is still plenty I could learn,
 
JediMichael said:
So this movie lied to me.....all these years.....
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/
Click to expand...

Max Headroom, too ;)

By the way, I did not want to instill a fight about CGI or traditional fx. A tool is a tool is a tool and to get the desired result, every tool is justifiable. The ends do justify the means.

Did the great old renaissance master painters take shortcuts to create their fantastic paintings. Yes, they did. Are the paintings less impressive? I think not. Would the same motive have the same impact as a photograph? I tend to say no. But then again, aren´t photographs sometimes breathtaking works of art? Definitely. Is CGI work sometimes breathtakingly beautiful? Absolutely.

Do I love a good discussion on the RPF? Heck, yeah!
 
Yeah, this conversation didn't really start out as a cgi vs analog death match. It was basically about which method of creating effects is inherently more interesting to watch and read about as fans of this stuff, that's all. It's not a ding on the quality, difficulty or artistry of cgi. For the record, I thought Rogue One looked fantastic overall.

But, like PoopaPapaPalps mentioned above, it all points to a bigger question: when does spectacular imagery in film become boring? I'm not talking about the background scenery stuff that you're not suppose to notice anyway. I'm talking about the big, intentional SFX moments that are designed to take your breath away, like the mothership in Close Encounters. We've been so inundated with over-the-top imagery in films for the last 20-30 years that special effects have almost become a kind of white noise. That's especially true in the hands of lesser directors who don't know how to pace their films or integrate the effects scenes in the first place.
 
Last edited:
In older times, each effects shot was very expensive so every effects shot that was made had to be an important one. The scene with the mothership in Close Encounters was important, not just to imbue a sense of wonder in the audience but also to give a sense of what the principal characters in the movie experienced.
These days, new effects shot are inserted just because they look cool. With lots of shots like that, the effects shots that actually mean something get lost among the others.
I think the fault lies not with effects artists as much as it lies with directors, cinematographers and storyboard artists.
 
Johan, excellent point! It is a step down from cinema of narration to cinema of attraction.

Mor is not necessarily better, but many people think so.

Jusr yesterday I had caught HEAT on tv, and the cinematography is fantastic. My biggest gripe about VFX in modern movies, the viewer isnt led and guided by and within imagery but flooded with information, most of it unnecessary.

I did like R1 for ita cinematography, and the fx are well executed since sometimes hardly noticeable. Kudos for that, but still the making of is a tad boring :p

As are IMO the Making of books nowadays. But that is for a different thread ...
 
Nothing will ever capture my interest like practical FX and most especially models!!!
I was in the FX magazine buyers club back in the day.
I think it's because practical FX are fascinating to see how they did it, everyone enjoys how clever
the magician's tricks work.
Digital? Oh boy yes, very boring.
 
Dem Bones said:
Yeah, this conversation didn't really start out as a cgi vs analog death match. It was basically about which method of creating effects is inherently more interesting to watch and read about as fans of this stuff, that's all. It's not a ding on the quality, difficulty or artistry of cgi. For the record, I thought Rogue One looked fantastic overall.

But, like PoopaPapaPalps mentioned above, it all points to a bigger question: when does spectacular imagery in film become boring? I'm not talking about the background scenery stuff that you're not suppose to notice anyway. I'm talking about the big, intentional SFX moments that are designed to take your breath away, like the mothership in Close Encounters. We've been so inundated with over-the-top imagery in films for the last 20-30 years that special effects have almost become a kind of white noise. That's especially true in the hands of lesser directors who don't know how to pace their films or integrate the effects scenes in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think the Hobbit films are a great example. Everything in the same focal plane, the frame packed with endless tiny details. The PT suffered a bit from this too. A well composed shot should direct your eye to where it needs to be, not be full of a thousand moving parts.
 
SethS said:
I think the Hobbit films are a great example. Everything in the same focal plane, the frame packed with endless tiny details. The PT suffered a bit from this too. A well composed shot should direct your eye to where it needs to be, not be full of a thousand moving parts.
Click to expand...


I skipped the Hobbit trilogy but what you're saying doesn't surprise me. Jackson, much like PT Lucas, seems to have become a little too fond of visual bloat. BTW, since you're a writer, I'd be curious to know if you thought The Hobbit really needed to be three movies. From what I remember of the book, that seems like overkill.

Anybody here a fan of Spielberg's War of the Worlds? That's one example that comes to mind where I thought they did a good job of using cgi to tell the story without letting it take over.
 
.
- For me, I got into "Movie Magic" when it was still being created by the early creators of Star Trek (most notably NEXT GEN. 30 years ago).
Watching "the making of" was what got me interested in prop making and how it was being done by the experts and that they
were already there creating the cool stuff!
I would remember there names and what they were known for and how it all came together to create the final project.

I would search out current magazines and went to conventions to hopefully rub shoulders with the best.
Some of it rubbed off and I took the time to learn how to use the tools of the trade. Actual machines with motors.
My interest evolved around the electronics and function of props of the time and was lucky enough to get my "15 minutes of fame" working
in the industry for a number of years (17).

As time went on, I could see however more and more was being done by computer generated imagery and the fun of learning started to wane and
it has not slowed.
I think the last film/series I watched where I could see a well balanced mixture of both "practical and computer" was Firefly/Serenity.

I guess it is all about cost and speed to get it done these days. I still feel sad when the greats pass away.
In my eyes, it is a lost art for sure.....:(

Craftsmanship is a thing of the past.
noun [uncountable] /ˈkrɑːftsmənʃɪp/ the skill involved in making something beautiful or practical using your hands. Crafts and craftspeople:artisan, carver, craft... a. the beautiful or impressive quality of something that has been made using a lot of skill.
.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i stopped looking at making of books around the time they put out that ilm book after the release in theaters of the star wars special editions. i saw it in a bookstore and had previously been all over those but after leafing through it a little and seeing wireframe x-wings i put it down and walked out of the store. it wasn't the same. magic....

i have an aversion to 3d printer lines. they make my blood pressure rise and i break out in hives.

those 90's computer generated cartoons on tv at the time drove me to drink as well.
 
Last edited:
modelcitizen said:
i stopped looking at making of books around the time they put out that ilm book after the release in theaters of the star wars special editions. i saw it in a bookstore and had previously been all over those but after leafing through it a little and seeing wireframe x-wings i put it down and walked out of the store. it wasn't the same. magic....
Click to expand...
Yes.

i have an aversion to 3d printer lines. they make my blood pressure rise and i break out in hives.
Click to expand...

Nnnaah. It´s just a tool.

those 90's computer generated cartoons on tv at the time drove me to drink as well.
Click to expand...

To me it´s the 2015s 3D animated versions of classic children anime that for sure is not known in the states such as "Wickie the Viking" and "Maja the bee" and "Heidi". Same goes for Bob the builder and Fireman Sam.

Strangely enough though Aardman did have a success with flushed away but chose to continue to animate the classic way, didn´t they?
 
yeah it's just a tool...one that will never wear your fingers down to man-nub sausage fingers if ye don't bust out that sandpaper and get to sweatin' lol
 
Re: ILM Behind the magic "Rogue One" - the first time a making of depresses me...

Wish I had more behind the scenes books. I have the Independence Day book. I love it. Wish the model section was bigger.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and yeah, Hobbit could have been one movie for sure....too many boring parts I thought.
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Sluis Van Shipyards
First time in history that companies hate their fans?
2
Replies
30
Views
1,429
Master Boda
M
Prop Collector
The ark of the covenant has been found!
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2,542
JediMichael
JediMichael
DarkHelmet
I think it's time to remake the OT..
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
4,122
Treadwell
Treadwell
Captain Dunsel
New Book: The Making Of Star Trek II
Replies
11
Views
1,116
DarkKnight
D
gusw666
Looking for the exacto location of the the secret life of Walter Mitty Life Magazine cover
Replies
10
Views
684
drusselmeyer
drusselmeyer
Back
Top