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

Yes, I suddenly realized how dull and boring a making of looks if it is mainly about CGI. These days. Showing how compositing plates go together or how a scene looks as a clay rendering before texturing and lighting is the most boring thing I have seen in a long time.


I asked myself "so where is the magic?". In 1997 I think I had bought the Behind the magic Interactive CD ROM IIRC. I watched the hours of MO on EP1 and LOTR. Everything was new and interesting and now?

And at 2:50 the depression REALLY started to set in...

In 1999 it was so new and fresh, but it is the state of the art nowadays and I find nothing magical about it. Living in interesting times, huh? Nah, I guess it is another case of me getting old.

It's not about your age, Daddy. You're just cursed with a having a high SWIQ, in a low SWIQ world.

The Wook

It's a brave new world! :lol

For those of us that loved the old one we are just chit outta luck!

I like how they showed the restoration/roto/comp for Red Leader at 2:24. Very cool.

SB

I watched this last night, and I'll admit there was one part that depressed me as well.

Sure - I get that any spaceship or landscape I see now- or, heck, any open environment - has wither been built entirely in, or at least extended by, CGI. But, after the prequels where it became apparent that giving actors minimal-to-no actual sets impacted their acting, I thought that the vaunted "return to practical sets" meant at least enough of an actual set would be built so the actor would at least have an immersive environment surrounding him or her at least to arms' length (even if extended later). So frankly,I was disappointed to see, in that last shot, that not even the small confined space of the rebel cockpit was actually built out- instead it was just another case of "slap up some white shapes approximating the cockpit, and we'll CGI in a real cockpit later." How much time or money did that actually save?

M

I only like the first 3 films that were made in the 70's and 80's. I think like Marvel this is just a cash machine, people prematurely building costumes and props before even seeing the movie and knowing if they like it or not is bizarre. I realise that the costume and prop part is not necessarily related to this discussion, but it has to be said, especially at 2:30 in the morning.

BTTFSpencer said:

I only like the first 3 films that were made in the 70's and 80's. I think like Marvel this is just a cash machine, people prematurely building costumes and props before even seeing the movie and knowing if they like it or not is bizarre. I realise that the costume and prop part is not necessarily related to this discussion, but it has to be said, especially at 2:30 in the morning.

Click to expand...

Zam Wessel.

The Wook said:

Zam Wessel.

Click to expand...

Ah, now THAT was a missed opportunity, indeed.

DaddyfromNaboo said:

Yes, I suddenly realized how dull and boring a making of looks if it is mainly about CGI. These days. Showing how compositing plates go together or how a scene looks as a clay rendering before texturing and lighting is the most boring thing I have seen in a long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBvi8opWTiQ&feature=youtu.be

I asked myself "so where is the magic?". In 1997 I think I had bought the Behind the magic Interactive CD ROM IIRC. I watched the hours of MO on EP1 and LOTR. Everything was new and interesting and now?

And at 2:50 the depression REALLY started to set in...

In 1999 it was so new and fresh, but it is the state of the art nowadays and I find nothing magical about it. Living in interesting times, huh? Nah, I guess it is another case of me getting old.

Click to expand...

To be fair, it's not like the old analogue process was any more exciting.You got what, a lighting pass, a matte pass, and beauty pass, at the least and with the camera probably moving pretty slow at that. Not too terribly exciting to me and you have even less of what the final shot is going to look like than you do digitally.

Riceball said:

To be fair, it's not like the old analogue process was any more exciting.You got what, a lighting pass, a matte pass, and beauty pass, at the least and with the camera probably moving pretty slow at that. Not too terribly exciting to me and you have even less of what the final shot is going to look like than you do digitally.

Click to expand...

That is true in general, but if you look closer it IMO has more of that mid-century movie making fairy dust, since you first had to build a huge model, then have a studio set and then all of that lighting and camera equipment, then an experienced camera operator, an optical printer, a photo lab to process everything. And hope that everthing went okay. And then a silver screen to project it on. Not to mention something called "patience"

And now? You can do a lot of the stuff at home. Everyone can do it, if they spend enough time on it. Heck, even @TheWook could do it with enough time on his paws

The "artistry" is imo starting to go amiss. Do we have actually "famous" 3D artists theses days? People that stand out because of their extraordinary talent? I think it´s become a very exchangable position in any digital department these days.

DaddyfromNaboo said:

That is true in general, but if you look closer it IMO has more of that mid-century movie making fairy dust, since you first had to build a huge model, then have a studio set and then all of that lighting and camera equipment, then an experienced camera operator, an optical printer, a photo lab to process everything. And hope that everthing went okay. And then a silver screen to project it on. Not to mention something called "patience"

And now? You can do a lot of the stuff at home. Everyone can do it, if they spend enough time on it. Heck, even @TheWook could do it with enough time on his paws

The "artistry" is imo starting to go amiss. Do we have actually "famous" 3D artists theses days? People that stand out because of their extraordinary talent? I think it´s become a very exchangable position in any digital department these days.

Click to expand...

It's not that different from today, it's essentially the same but done on a computer instead of with physical models and cameras. Back in the days of the OT they had, for the most part, long since abandoned the practice of filming miniatures against an actual background. The only part of the OT that I can recall that was shot way was some of the walker scenes from Empire, otherwise they were shot against a blue screen if there was anything more than a black background. They still had to comp in the miniature photography against a background plate, just like they do now.

Doing things on a computer still requires patience and doesn't grant instant gratification. Instead of time spent developing film you have render time and you don't know what the final results are going to look like until everything is done rendering. Trust me, there's a lot of artistry that goes into doing things in CG, sure, just about anybody can do it but it takes artistic talent to do it well. The same kind of talent that it takes to light a miniature convincingly or to make it look like it moves like a real thing exists in the CG world, it's not as simple as just clicking a few buttons and voila, instant CG scene.

In some ways, there's actually a lot more to doing things in CG because the software being used today are so powerful, there's a lot options and it's very easy to accidentally click on the wrong setting and screwing up your results. You can turn things off that you want, things on that you want off, you can easily mess up hours of work on a model because you've moved a tiny part of that you didn't realize that you had selected (I know I've done that a lot of times myself). Things can go wrong in the rendering, the render farm can crash, a bug can pop up, you can use the wrong settings, and so on. It's a lot of work and just like with the old analogue methods, it takes lots of talented people who know what they're doing to make the magic happen.

As for famous artists of the CG age, I give you Richard Taylor.

Riceball said:

To be fair, it's not like the old analogue process was any more exciting.You got what, a lighting pass, a matte pass, and beauty pass, at the least and with the camera probably moving pretty slow at that. Not too terribly exciting to me and you have even less of what the final shot is going to look like than you do digitally.

Click to expand...

It absolutely was more exciting, by leaps and bounds. I used to love Cinefex magazine, and I still pull out my old issues and reread them. The breakdown of traditional effects technique still interests me. But I let my subscription lapse in the early digital days, CGI is no fun to read about. And the behind the scenes photos are crap, nothing but low res renders. I'd rather see models being built, cameras set up, optical printers threaded and aligned. But it was the use of models that caught my interest the most. I was into model building at a very young age, and learning that models were used for movie effects gave me a very profound connection to the process.

And don't tell me "The prequels had more models than the OT..." Of course they did. They also had a crap ton of CGI that could have been done practically, and would have been more effective if it had been.

robn1 said:

And don't tell me "The prequels had more models than the OT..." Of course they did. They also had a crap ton of CGI that could have been done practically, and would have been more effective if it had been.

Click to expand...

The problem is they were running with on a budget. They looked at things by how much money would a ship cost as a model vs. a CGI model. The cheaper one usually won out. I really doubt you could convince any move studio to create even 20 very detailed ship models and then have them take the extra time (I imagine) it would take to film all their scenes using motion control. It worked for the OT and other 80s movies because that's all they had to work with.

The Wook said:

Zam Wessel.

Click to expand...

Snorkel. Albuquerque.

I have absolutely no problem with these behind the scenes breakdowns,....it still shows the skills of these artists of how they can create convincing photo real effects,....at no point in the film did I spot anything badly rendered or composited

J

Jaitea said:

I have absolutely no problem with these behind the scenes breakdowns,....it still shows the skills of these artists of how they can create convincing photo real effects,....at no point in the film did I spot anything badly rendered or composited

J

Click to expand...

I agree completely.....watching things like the rocky terrain being built up layer by layer was breathtaking.

There was nothing in this mini-doc i found offensive...in fact it all really impressed me how they use the new FX tools to make stuff look so damn real.

Hey, at least the black Death Star droid was real!

Rich

Good points, everyone.

It is like railroad fans arguing about what is cooler, that old steampowered streamliner or the new electric highspeed train.

I fortunately know enough about creating 3D imagery that I do understand the points pro CGI, and maybe that is what makes me feel so sad looking at the making of. I know what goes into creating a convincing image, but I know that it takes much moreso to create a convincing image with model work.
I fully understand the digital set enhancements due to budget decisions, especially if it is a set that is shown for only a very short time. There were huge sets built, and as @slusivanshipyards pointed out, they did not have the budget of a regular SW movie, IIRC. Mind you, I love the look of most of R1, the sets, some of the ship designs, creatures, costumes. But it still does not, to me, feel like the olden times. I must confess that it is the same with all the readily available repro hobby stuff. The "magic" IMO simply goes away if everything´s available, just a matter of time. And in CGI everything can be done. No limits whatsoever. With that mindset I find it hard to say "wow that is awesome craftsmanship" even if it is great artistry. And regarding the CGI artists, the question still stands, what famous CGI artists do we know? Who stands out? For single works, yes, but they IMO go under within the army of artists working on a movie.

I think I know what you're getting at.
With a few noteable exceptions ,the bulk of the films I've enjoyed over the years really owe their enduring appeal more to their stories, characterizations and dialogue than the VFX ,which unfortunately look quite dated in many cases now. The same is true for the loads of TV series I watched , some of which I would never dream of missing when they came out years ago but I cannot rewatch for long because .......... well because they look terrible by todays standards.
Certainly the ability to integrate CGI objects and expand background elements so they combine almost seamlessly into frame with the live action these days amazes me, I literally cannot detect the difference in most reasonably budgeted productions.
It works stunningly with movies like the Marvel universe and such, where it just fools the eye (or more precisely the mind)almost perfectly. And without it we could never have a programmed series like "Game of Thrones" or even many normal everyday TV shows where because you simply cannot tell its been needed ,you don't even know IT HAS been done.
With some vehicles and sci fi enviroments I do agree with your point, just because they now have this fantastic power to make complex models and surface skins ,they often REALLY over design and complicate it beyond "believability".
And by that I mean a design often fails because it falls off the normality curve and the brain which contains all your "models" of reality just ends up saying "NOPE" to it. It may look brilliantly unothodox and wildly fururistic but if the viewer cannot quickly estabish what its shape and functionality is for ,its a total "miss" conceptionally.
And thanks to 3 D printing we are seeing this same "textural" snarl up creep into costuming where sometimes the designs are just too eccentric and far removed from practicality to be purposeful. Physical scale models and costumes made by hand used to take so much time to move from concept and design to physical build that such elaborations were impractical and too costly for production. Now not so much.
And I'd also point out that its now often become tha case that the script suffers precisely because directors have become over reliant on having huge fantastic effects sequences that are so over the top or unlikely that viewers just gag on the visually chaotic overload.
But when they get it right they bloody well get it right. In the last ten years I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.......... and I'm thankful to the huge number of VFXs artists that worked so very hard to have made them "real" for us !

CutThumb said:

I think I know what you're getting at.

With a few noteable exceptions ,the bulk of the films I've enjoyed over the years really owe their enduring appeal more to their stories, characterizations and dialogue than the VFX,which unfortunately look quite dated in many cases now. The same is true for the loads of TV series I watched , some of which I would never dream of missing when they came out years ago but I cannot rewatch for long because....well because they look terrible by todays standards.

Certainly the ability to integrate CGI objects and expand background elements so they combine almost seamlessly into frame with the live action these days amazes me, I literally cannot detect the difference in most reasonably budgeted productions.

It works stunningly with movies like the Marvel universe and such, where it just fools the eye (or more precisely the mind)almost perfectly. And without it we could never have a programmed series like "Game of Thrones" or even many normal everyday TV shows where because you simply cannot tell its been needed ,you don't even know IT HAS been done.

With some vehicles and sci fi enviroments I do agree with your point, just because they now have this fantastic power to make complex models and surface skins ,they often REALLY over design and complicate it beyond "believability". And by that I mean a design often fails because it falls off the normality curve and the brain which contains all your "models" of reality just ends up saying "NOPE" to it. It may look brilliantly unothodox and wildly fururistic but if the viewer cannot quickly estabish what its shape and functionality is for ,its a total "miss" conceptionally.

And thanks to 3D printing we are seeing this same "textural" snarl up creep into costuming where sometimes the designs are just too eccentric and far removed from practicality to be purposeful. Physical scale models and costumes made by hand used to take so much time to move from concept and design to physical build that such elaborations were impractical and too costly for production. Now not so much.

And I'd also point out that its now often become tha case that the script suffers precisely because directors have become over reliant on having huge fantastic effects sequences that are so over the top or unlikely that viewers just gag on the visually chaotic overload.

But when they get it right they bloody well get it right. In the last ten years I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....and I'm thankful to the huge number of VFXs artists that worked so very hard to have made them "real" for us !

Click to expand...

FTFY.

CT, when I suggested your posts would be easier to read if you used paragraphs, I meant you needed to put line spaces between those paragraphs. Otherwise, it still looks like a giant block of text, which is very uninviting to the reader.

See how much nicer it looks now? How much easier it is to read?

Cheers,

The Wook

Movies are like watching video games now.