CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Attack of the Pixels
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Attack of the Pixels

post #1 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:26am
Thread Starter 
I've been watching AOTC over the past couple of days, trying to decide which PT film I like the best. I still can't decide. Ay any rate, I'm just wondering if it's me or does portions of the film seem flat. I really noticed this strange sense of depth during the pursuit of Zam Wessell on the streets of Coruscant. There would be people and aliens in the foreground that seemed gray, just strange.

I know I'm probably one of the few people who believe that some of the effects in AOTC are sub par. Another very annoying effects scene for me is the composited exterior diner scene. I know there's a miniature, matte paintings, and CGI at work, it just never seemed believable. I guess I'll never understand how something like LOTR can be achieved so magnificently [it's not flawless] or HERO or The House of Flying Daggers and yet ILM assembles scenes that appear so stilted and cardboard.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just giving my perspective and wondering if anyone else has been bothered by the effects in AOTC.

J.M. Prater
Reply
post #2 of 12
2/1/05 at 4:25am
I agree with you on the diner scene. I think the whole scene looks a bit off. That is the only scene in a Star Wars movie that erks me enough to skip through it. But the movie as a whole has effects that are on par. I did'nt know untill much later that none of the clone troopers were real actors in suits.
Reply
post #3 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:02pm
ILM has become lazy, it seems. Their stuff (characters and composit stuff) has looked very cartoony lately-- and yes, I'm pointing to all that crap in Van Helsing. WETA has come up young and hungry and is handing them their lunch.
Reply
post #4 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:16pm
Luckily after ROTS, we'll all have a common ground on which to spark the WETA vs. ILM debate: the lava. Of course WETA wins hands down on the completely CGI character performance, but Yoda in AOTC always looks just about perfect. The lava in Return of the King though was one of the effects that really didn't sit well with me. The chase out of Mt. Doom, the fire everywhere and lava flows--it was the weakest effect moment. Since Sith with deal with a similar terrain, maybe we'll just how lazy (or not) the ILM crew is.
Reply
post #5 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:19pm
I'm not going to go anywhere near calling ILM "lazy", especially on a Star Wars movie. But I know what you mean regarding the look of AOTC. I think shooting on DV is the culprit. It seems to lend itself to a very clean, flat look and they haven't quite figured out how to light it appropriately yet.
Reply
post #6 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:26pm
The CGI is more a reflection of the director, Van Helsing was just overflowing with CGI, CG everything, even stuff that could be done practically...CG cows getting taken into the air....

The comparisons with Yoda and Gollum are something I never really pay attention to, Gollum has a guy in a motion capture suit on the set. ILM has to create Yoda without much of anything to bas eit off save for footage of Empire and Jedi, i'm sure they had a stagehand have a marker on set for where the actors should look or something but i's just not the same, really the big similarity is that they're CGI and as Andy Serkis performs...and that performance is integrated, of course Gollum comes off the better.

ILm still has the best dinosaurs from the original Jurassic Park..............well, maybe until King Kong comes out........

.........Meanwhile I await the return of good ole fashioned matte paintings
Reply
post #7 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd
I'm not going to go anywhere near calling ILM "lazy", especially on a Star Wars movie. But I know what you mean regarding the look of AOTC. I think shooting on DV is the culprit. It seems to lend itself to a very clean, flat look and they haven't quite figured out how to light it appropriately yet.
I agree, with the additional comment that the effects look much better when seen in a digital presentation. On a regular tube TV, they can look a bit cartoony/flat, but there is more depth and texture when presented digitally. It does seem, judging by the completed spoiler stills from ROTS, that a lot of the lighting (and any other technical) issues have been greatly improved in the past three years.
Reply
post #8 of 12
2/1/05 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd
I'm not going to go anywhere near calling ILM "lazy", especially on a Star Wars movie. But I know what you mean regarding the look of AOTC. I think shooting on DV is the culprit. It seems to lend itself to a very clean, flat look and they haven't quite figured out how to light it appropriately yet.
Maybe lazy is too strong a word... complacent? ILM is certainly hard working and has done some incredible work, but come on. Lately others are competing rather well.
Reply
post #9 of 12
2/1/05 at 5:24pm
ILM has been slipping lately. On reason might be they are taking on too many projects with not quite enough personnel.
The personnel get spread thin, have less time for each project, and the quality goes down.
ILM uses an awful lot of sub contractors I notice, and maybe quality control is slipping up there as well.
If ILM wants to keep on top, they might have to invest in some expansion. There is real competition out there, and not just from WETA. I notice that Digital Domain and and a number of other companies are getting a lot of work also.
Reply
post #10 of 12
2/1/05 at 5:27pm
Can't we just have one thread for your various ramblings? This could have easily been posted in TPM VS AOTC.

J.M. Prater
Reply
post #11 of 12
2/1/05 at 5:47pm
I like Sith Happens' signature.

Seriously.
Reply
post #12 of 12
2/1/05 at 10:07pm
Thread Starter 

Yoda & WETA

Motion capture has only a little to do with the way Gollum was realized. I think the comparisons are accurate. I think Yoda looks pretty damn good but he doesn't have the realism that Gollum had, which has everything to do with rendering and little to do with performance. On the other hand, it was difficult for the guys at ILM to create a believable Yoda that danced between the somewhat stilted performance of the puppet and the capabilities of CGI. I believe Rob Coleman said if they went to far from the puppets sensibilities than the fans would cry, and if it was too puppet like the fans would still cry.

Yoda was never my biggest concern. My concern when it comes to AOTC is the composites. With many of them I could see the seems. The scope and depth of TPM far outweigh AOTC any day of the week. As far as WETA goes, I'll say this; when I see behind the scenes video as they work on Narnia, Kong, and LOTR there is a love that those guys have for what they do, not that the ILM guys don't love what they do, not at all. The WETA guys seem to approach each project with the kind of community that I don't see in the video behind the scenes at ILM. Everyone always seems cold, in hushed reverie of George Lucas as opposed to the Jolly fellows I've been able to see at WETA. ILM feels more like a business, WETA appears to be a big family.

By the way, yeah, I started another thread. I wanted to discuss a specific topic, so kill me.

J.M. Prater
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Attack of the Pixels