ILM Behind the magic "Rogue One" - the first time a making of depresses me...
- Thread starter DaddyfromNaboo
- Start date
Bones_68
Sr Member
I still have my Cinfex and Cinefantastique magazines, too. They're still fun to read and it's nothing short of miraculous that those SFX guys were able to pull off some of the things they did. People like Doug Trumbull, Richard Edlund and John Dykstra were well versed in photography, film technique, mechanics, engineering, physics, etc. Edlund was somebody who didn't just know how an optical printer worked, he knew how to design one and help build it from the ground up.
But I think it's a little unfair to say there are no great fx people working in the digital realm today. It's probably just as difficult in its own way and requires a high level of both tech and creative skill. As it's often said, the tools change over time but the tools don't sell the effect. That will always require hardcore dedication and talent.
As for why we don't hear more about the newer FX people? Think about it... in the 70s and 80s, effects work inspired a whole generation of young people in a way that had never happened before. FX people were like rock stars to some of us and there weren't that many of them out there. You had ILM, Apogee and Future General. It was easier for those guys to gain recognition when they had the playing field to themselves. But 40 years later, effects are everywhere and being made in countries all over the world. Special effects have become mundane simply by being omnipresent. It's hard to get noticed when the audience takes your work for granted.
True, the poor pacing of many movies is annoying, but that's because the current generation of FX people and directors grew up on video games. I don't know if there's any solution to that particular problem.
But I think it's a little unfair to say there are no great fx people working in the digital realm today. It's probably just as difficult in its own way and requires a high level of both tech and creative skill. As it's often said, the tools change over time but the tools don't sell the effect. That will always require hardcore dedication and talent.
As for why we don't hear more about the newer FX people? Think about it... in the 70s and 80s, effects work inspired a whole generation of young people in a way that had never happened before. FX people were like rock stars to some of us and there weren't that many of them out there. You had ILM, Apogee and Future General. It was easier for those guys to gain recognition when they had the playing field to themselves. But 40 years later, effects are everywhere and being made in countries all over the world. Special effects have become mundane simply by being omnipresent. It's hard to get noticed when the audience takes your work for granted.
True, the poor pacing of many movies is annoying, but that's because the current generation of FX people and directors grew up on video games. I don't know if there's any solution to that particular problem.
Axlotl
Master Member
Gesundheit.
Bones_68
Sr Member
That sounds about right! My brothers and I use to have conversations like this one with my father about music. He grew up on Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, big bands and swing. To his credit, he had a certain amount of tolerance for rock-n-roll but really didn't like any of it. To him, it represented a death knell for good, quality, pop music. Of course, we loved rock and thought his music was boring. Rotten kids.
So I guess this kind of conversation, no matter what the topic, is basically generational and will go on long after we're all dead and uploaded into our digital storage pods. But until then, it's fun to talk about.
robn1
Master Member
And I hate video games.
It's not always generational. I'm probably your age, but I side with you father musically.
Bones_68
Sr Member
Yeah, I absorbed a lot of good music from him, not to mention some great, classic movies. I just didn't realize until I got old enough to appreciate it.
Ditto for me!
The silver lining here is that video games are like movies that you can play and be a part of.
I did not mean to say that. There are excellent people out there, but due to availability of tools and chances they really are a dime a dozen. And when something is available in masses, it becomes...
MUNDANE hits it on the head, I guess. It is the absolute opposite of "MAGIC".
When I look at the movie "Kubo and the two strings" and watch the making of, I am blown away by the amount of work that went into it, although it has a digital basis it was built upon. I see new techniques used to make a movie an old-fashioned way.
But although I was thoroughly impressed by the use and combination of new and old techniques, I did ask myself "why?"
Why would anyone go to the lengths and first build up everything in 3D, then print it out and then animate it like it was done ages ago?
The making ofs of Kubo are so damn impressive, and we have members like Tim Arp aka D48thRonin working on such great projects, but see what happens? Me, whining about the loss of magic thinks about why a handcrafted movie was not done entirely digital. Shizophrenic?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bones_68
Sr Member
Schizophrenic? Ha, possibly, but you raise another good point. I really liked Kubo and the Two Strings and it was amazing to see just how much of the film was hand crafted. The same is true of all Laika films, they've really elevated stop motion to a new level by combining old and new techniques. But in a world were the general film audience just assumes everything they see on screen is cgi, why use old techniques? From a business standpoint it probably doesn't make sense. But I'm glad a few people are still doing it.
And speaking of RPF inspiration, look no further than the short Blade Runner film being made by member LukaFilm and his partner. In addition to all the miniatures they've created, they recently had a post showing how they made a traditional matte painting and the final clip looked fantastic.
So it's nice to know that a few people are keeping the old techniques alive. There's still a little traditional magic out there and a little is better than none, in my opinion.
Check!
Double Check! Supersupersuper project by super dedicated people!!! Artistry! Nothing mundane about that. Everybody doing a CGI project on their own isn´t mundane either, but still...
Triple Check! Wasn´t Phil Tippet working on a monster classic animation project?
I guess it is less an objective assessment rather than an emotional evaluation of the applicability (is that even a word?) of the terms "art" and "artists". Both analog and digital arts need a high degree of craftsmanship.
A few years back we had those images that were composed of other images by combining them by color hue, like creating images by single points of colour. The first versions were done by hand, i.e. manually selected and composed. It did not take long and there was software that could do that by having an image as a target and a database of images to compose the target image out of.
I can´t help myself but I simply admire the time and work that goes into manually creating a piece of art. It "feels" more valuable, IMO. Again, it is just an emotional approach, I guess. So, maybe I am not really depressed but moreso suffering from a severe case of mostalgic melancholia...
Get out of my head. As a kid ( and now) i created with things in the physical world. Kids who grew up with computers now create with computers. I some times see threads where a member is making CG model of a space ship. Im thinking 'What the heck are ya going to do with it when its done?' I mean its not like you can touch it or physically play with it. We just have a different avenue to create with.
Bones_68
Sr Member
Yep, Tippet and his team have been making a short called "Mad God." I got part one when they did the original Kickstarter. It's pretty bizarre and looks great but I haven't seen part two yet.
Another stop motion sort I would recommend is "Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong trousers." It's seriously one of the best and funniest short films I've seen in any medium (but it's from 1993 so it's not exactly new).
Yeah, although they can 3D print those models. But there's just something about a person using their own two hands to draw, design, paint and build using whatever available tools and materials they can find. That's not to detract from what cgi artists can do but it's a very different beast.There's such a glut of cgi now combined with computers in general being so woven into the everyday fabric of life that it's reassuring to know people still take pleasure in creating by hand.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Laspector
Master Member
I too agree that CGI has taken over and there is no going back, but I also agree that watching the "making of" videos are just not as fun to watch. And I also agree that reading about it is (to me) boring. As has been said here, I also used to just pour myself all over those Cinefex books. My first one was the classic Blade Runner issue, I must have read that thing a hundred times. However, even when the first TRON issue came out I found myself skipping to the parts about the rotoscoping, etc. Even back then I didn't care to read about the computer stuff. I will be the first to admit that I didn't understand a word of it, maybe that is why.
Similar threads
