THE THING PREQUEL HAD PRACTICAL EFFECTS AFTER ALL. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

The T-Rex is 'shot' as if were there, it's not in the center of shots, it feels like it could pass off screen and still exist. There is never a big deal made of it. Even its first reveal is a wide. What really makes it work, more than anything since, is the way it was animated, by hand, using rod-puppets hooked up to a computer feed. The animators had the ability to add tiny character moments, get a feel for it, rather than clicking away on the PC. 

The reason why I love this film and its direction, it was filmed as if the dinosaurs were actually there.  Have other films used the technique of creating a puppet hooked up to a computer?  Dragonheart possibly?

As far as I'm aware it was abandoned. I don't know why, probably too costly. Nowadays its done by an army, all doing tiny bits, but back then it was a small team venturing into uncharted waters. 

I'm assuming you know all this, but the reason they used the rods was because it was meant to be Phil Tippets Go-Motion team doing the FX, when they changed it to CGI quite late in the day, the only people with enough experience to do it were the puppet guys. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Sean's comment about over-texturing reminds me of something I've read/heard about matte painting; they're actually not very detailed.  Too much detail will end up making it look fake when seen in a movie.

 

BROAD STROKES MAN!

Subtlety is something most modern effects movies seem to want no part of.

This matte painting in Return of the Jedi when the Emperor where you see all those troops, well if you looked at each trooper they were just broad strokes. Since it wont be in focus, it's of no issue.  Wish I had a better photo.

What is technically right, doesn't always look right. Mainly because humans don't see in super high quality, at least at a distance. Shit gets hazy fast and that's not always reflected in FX work, leading it to look fake. 

At least, that's how I see it anyway. I'm sure Kate will disagree because she seems to see things in a very strict fact manner. That sabertooth might be of higher spec, but it doesn't look as real, for whatever reason.

This one?

Yep! thanks Mcnooj

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitfocus 

A youtube video would've shown things in motion. If you're arguing about animation, wouldn't posting a video be the smart thing to do?

 

You chose to show small compressed photos, which again will do no favors for the image quality of anything,  including the cartoon and the caveman. If those were the best pictures you could find, you clearly didn't look hard enough at all.

 

You're not very intelligent, are you?

I did an extensive search, choosing only the images that illustrated the points I was trying to make

If you search JURASSIC PARK REX CGI? The best, biggest shots you get are 60% photos of the ROBOT

The others all change the lighting from the film in some way, they are darker or lighter than the Rex appears in the movie

Dont insult my intelligence, I put alot of work into my image choice

That sabertooth one is the very best I could find in many pages of results. The others lighten the image or darken it, or they crop the aspect ratio

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

What is technically right, doesn't always look right. Mainly because humans don't see in super high quality, at least at a distance. Shit gets hazy fast and that's not always reflected in FX work, leading it to look fake. 

At least, that's how I see it anyway. I'm sure Kate will disagree because she seems to see things in a very strict fact manner. That sabertooth might be of higher spec, but it doesn't look as real, for whatever reason.

I will respond to everyone's points tomorrow, but for now I wanted to say you're absolutely right, most cgi objects/creatures in film today never are lit correctly. That's one of the big triumphs of JP, the creatures look as if they're being lit by what light was on set (except for the first shot where the Rex steps out of the paddock, it's over lit, one of the pieces that has not aged well. The piece of cgi Rex that best held up? The shot where it chases Malcolm with the flare. That one would almost be blockbuster quality even today, though the lack of detail shows in places)

As for that Sabertooth, it's nicely animated, but in daylight scenes it's poofy fur doesn't work

However, for about five seconds when it menaces the actor in the shot above, it is IMHO photo real, and utterly convincing. I don't like most of the effects in that movie, however they were working on those wet sabertooth shots virtually the entire shoot, and it shows. In that close up moment, it really looks (to me) as if an impossibly huge tiger has its face inches from the actors. It's like the robot shots with Alan Grant in JP, it stops being an effect and you fear for the lives of the characters

I am not saying 10 000 BC had perfect FX. I thinK the mammoths look just about perfect in the 30 second tracking shot that establishes the hunt. And I think that sabertooth remains one of the most stunning pieces of CGI from the past 10 years, for all of 11 seconds of film or so (when it prowls over to the guy after getting free, adn then the close up shot I put above)

One of the reasons its difficult to find good images of the CGI Rex is because it really isn't used in the film that much, but you're never going to agree with people on this because you're idea of what works is different. Its not about the technology or the facts, but the intangible feeling of it just looking 'right'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

This matte painting in Return of the Jedi when the Emperor where you see all those troops, well if you looked at each trooper they were just broad strokes. Since it wont be in focus, it's of no issue.  Wish I had a better photo.

 

I've said it elsewhere on the board before, but this is my pick for the objectively best matte painting of all time

Of course, in the interest of balance, this has aged horribly, but still, it works. The magnitude of the animal in the context of the film, plus the history of it being the first convincing CGI creature give it a strange ageless quality. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Of course, in the interest of balance, this has aged horribly, but still, it works. The magnitude of the animal in the context of the film, plus the history of it being the first convincing CGI creature give it a strange ageless quality. 

 

I'd agree. The actual creature is not great by today's standards, but the reactions of the actors, the sound design, the music, the framing and the sense of weight and grace the animators gave the animal all help to sell the reality of the moment

The Brontosaurus looks more real than most of the dinosaurs in TERRA NOVA, that's for sure.  I know they have to make do with a TV budget but it is 18 years later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

 

I've said it elsewhere on the board before, but this is my pick for the objectively best matte painting of all time

I'm curious on why you think it's the best matte painting of all time?  Of course when I think of the best of all time it's so hard to pick one..

I would love to see a team of people at ILM today redo that first Brachiosaurus scene so we can compare the technology.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

I'm curious on why you think it's the best matte painting of all time?  Of course when I think of the best of all time it's so hard to pick one..

 

I would love to see a team of people at ILM today redo that first Brachiosaurus scene so we can compare the technology.
 

 

There have been plenty of good ones over the years, amazing scenes and well executed effects. However, the ROTJ one above is IMHO tops because of how well it's lit, and how photo real it appears. The reflections off the polished floor, the troopers, it's all 100% convincing on screen. You don't even consider the idea it could have been a painting

A matte painting is not a practical effect, unless the illusion is achieved in-camera. And instances of that technique are extremely rare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

A matte painting is not a practical effect, unless the illusion is achieved in-camera. And instances of that technique are extremely rare.

I did not say it was a practical effect

We kind of derailed this thread here a bit Kate

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Of course, in the interest of balance, this has aged horribly, but still, it works. The magnitude of the animal in the context of the film, plus the history of it being the first convincing CGI creature give it a strange ageless quality. 

 

Discus...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

We kind of derailed this thread here a bit Kate

Yes my bad, for some reason I thought this was an article from several months ago whose thread had gotten bumped

Interesting discussion though : P

PS When I said that Matte Painting was the objectively best Matte Painting of all time? I was mistaken. I remembered posting about it on the board before, but it turns out it was in the FAVORITE MATTE PAINTING thread. So, it's my favorite, and one of the best, but I'm not sure it's objectively the best ever