A Spirited Perfect Ten

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Prequels had plenty of miniatures and puppets. In fact, each film had more miniatures then the entire original trilogy combined. The background scenery of the prequels were oversized miniatures and digital matte paintings for the most part as it was faster and more cost effective then doing computer models (which was mostly reserved for creatures, droids and clones). It's great that TFA is using a lot of practical stuff, but the narrative that the Prequels were all CG isn't entirely true.


the difference is in the number of CGI/effects takes.
how many effects were in each prequel movie vs the original trilogy?
id say the newer movies were completely summerged in cgi, similar to how ugly "battle of the five armies" looked.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
the difference is in the number of CGI/effects takes.
how many effects were in each prequel movie vs the original trilogy?
id say the newer movies were completely summerged in cgi, similar to how ugly "battle of the five armies" looked.
As far as visuals go, the issue was that George shot Episodes 2 and 3 with very early digital camera technology. Cameras that are about the equivalent to a modern iPhone camera in terms of maximum resolution. It streamlined things in post significantly, but there's a significant difference in how digital looks versus actual film. Combine primitive digital recording technology with the emphasis on revolutionary digital techniques in the marketing at the time and the resentment built up over those effects and bam, you got the narrative.

And digital still hasn't quite gotten that film quality yet: In fact, PJ shot his Hobbit movies all with new digital high-frame rate 3D cameras and that made the stuff that was actually in front of a camera look like a big budget Game of Thrones episode with the clarity exposing the reality that make-up and physical sets are fake.
 

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
the difference is in the number of CGI/effects takes.
how many effects were in each prequel movie vs the original trilogy?
id say the newer movies were completely summerged in cgi, similar to how ugly "battle of the five armies" looked.

The bigger issue isn't the overuse of CGI per se, but how in his later life Lucas became an incompetent, lazy director, and the availability and versatility of CGI enables and encouraged his worst habits. A good director does not allow the ease of CGI to distract him from his core job of using his actors and camera to tell a story that will connect with an audience. This is why, say, Guardians of the Galaxy, while it has roughly the same amount of CGI and subject matter, is a great movie, and the Star Wars prequels are boring schlock.

For those who are over 18, I defer to Mr. Plinett.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
I'll just leave this here. It's from Forbes magazine, a periodical helmed by business experts:

Seven Lessons of Walt Disney



The essence of the life of Walt Disney, dreamer, innovator, entrepreneur and protean exporter of American culture–and dead for 40 years this month–has eluded biographers. Until now. The Hollywood historian Neal Gabler masterfully fills the gap with his 851-page Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination (Alfred A. Knopf). If you’re in search of a long, satisfying holiday vacation read, this is the book.

I read it from San Francisco to Miami (and back) and during our tenth FORBES Cruise for Investors in the eastern Caribbean Sea. So good was Walt Disney that I skipped a snorkeling trip in Grand Turk and a splash with the dolphins in Tortola. I will now publicly beg my abandoned wife’s forgiveness. Honey, the book was that good.

Enough gushing. Here’s why I liked it. Walt Disney is the best business book I’ve read in years. That’s not a high bar, as most books written directly to address business challenges are hopeless bores, of course. Of the few good ones, most are only indirectly about business. Last year I recommended as a terrific “business” book, Wooden on Leadership, by John Wooden, former head basketball coach for UCLA. A couple of years ago I hailed Rick Warren’sThe Purpose-Driven Church as a useful read. Just substitute “business” for “church” and it’s all there.

In Walt Disney Gabler takes us inside the heart and head of one of our greatest entrepreneurs. Here are some lessons Walt has to teach:

An unhappy childhood doesn’t kill. When Walt was 9 years old, his father, Elias, sold the failed family farm and bought a paper route in Kansas City. Elias put his boys to work. The youngest, Walt, “would rise early, in the darkness, to get his allotment of 50 papers. … He returned home at 5:30 or 6:00, took a short nap and then woke and ate his breakfast. … At times the cold and his tiredness would conspire, and Walt would fall asleep, curled inside his sack of papers.” Out of this Dickensian boyhood grew Walt’s vision of escape to a utopian world. That vision, of course, would inspire his animations and theme parks.

Don’t fall in love with money. Walt was a lousy businessman, by his own admission. His brother Roy handled all money matters. “[Walt] cared nothing for money except as a means to an end,” writes Gabler. “Walt’s only ambition was to make great cartoons.” Time and again Walt and Roy would gamble all they owned on making breakthrough movies and, eventually, a theme park. Knowing the money could come and go, Walt, his wife, Lillian, and their two children lived modestly in a three-bedroom house. They rarely hobnobbed with other Hollywood moguls.

Exploit the latest technology. During the mid-1920s Disney’s main competitor was the New York shop of Max and Dave Fleischer, creators of Koko the Clown and, later, Betty Boop and Popeye. Disney’s Hyperion studio had recently introduced Mickey Mouse in a silent short called Plane Crazy. Then came the technology of sound. Disney saw the potential. He innovated a way to synchronize sound and action, which spawned Steamboat Willie, the movie that forever propelled Disney ahead of the Fleischers. Disney spent his career looking for the technology edge.

Demand perfection, but play loose. Walt often worked ’til midnight and demanded the same of his employees. In grueling “sweatbox” sessions he could ream an animator for a poorly drawn dwarf’s thumb. But Walt also built a corporate campus with airy rooms, air-conditioning and top furniture, in the manner of today’s coolest ad agencies or software firms. Dress, led by Walt, was casual. He encouraged pranks among the staff.

Borrow from the outside. Flush from the successes of movie shorts featuring Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and the Three Little Pigs, Walt wanted to make a feature-length picture. But he knew the gag-driven pace of the shorts would wear out over 80 minutes. So, to prepare for making Snow White, Walt sent his animators to classes in acting, fine arts and even to classes on motion and gravity.

Be a storyteller. If Walt Disney had one towering gift, it was this: He was an extraordinary storyteller. He used stories to convey his vision and inspire employees. In the winter of 1934 he gathered his top animators on a soundstage. “Walt was standing at the front, lit by a single spotlight in the otherwise dark space,” writes Gabler. “Announcing that he was going to launch an animated feature, he told the story of Snow White, not just telling it but acting it out, assuming the characters’ mannerisms, putting on their voices, letting his audience visualize exactly what they would be seeing on the screen. He became Snow White and the wicked queen and the prince and each of the dwarfs.” The performance took more than three hours. “‘He was a spellbinder,’ recalled animator Joe Grant.”

Reinvent yourself when necessary. The huge success of Snow Whitecreated employee expectations that Walt couldn’t fulfill. In 1941 Disney studio animators went on strike. Walt was shattered. He would never again feel the same passion for cartoons and movies. Thus began his wilderness period, which lasted a decade. Out of that period came Walt’s inspiration for Disneyland, and he threw himself into the theme park.

Where did Walt’s second wind come from? Can’t tell you–I’m out of space. Read Neal Gabler’s fine biography on a great American businessman.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/033.html

So much for the lying conniving conman stereotype some people are trying to concoct. Not even Neal Gabler characterized Walt as such. Feh.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
And digital still hasn't quite gotten that film quality yet: In fact, PJ shot his Hobbit movies all with new digital high-frame rate 3D cameras and that made the stuff that was actually in front of a camera look like a big budget Game of Thrones episode with the clarity exposing the reality that make-up and physical sets are fake.
Digital can't ever get film quality. It's impossible.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
the difference is in the number of CGI/effects takes.
how many effects were in each prequel movie vs the original trilogy?
id say the newer movies were completely summerged in cgi, similar to how ugly "battle of the five armies" looked.
That's not really a valid comparison since digital effects were not really in existence for the first films.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
I know there has been a lot of discussion about "superhero fatigue" in the past in this thread. Ant-Man is now open in China and doing very well there and has garnered over $450M worldwide -- more than the first movies for each of the Hulk, Thor and Captain America. It's likely to hit $500M when it's all said and done, which is pretty darn impressive for a C-list hero.

There's a good article recently in Forbes on the topic of alleged superhero fatigue by Mark Hughes.

How dare a journalist write a well reasoned non-alarmist article. I'm sure he'll be fired for not click-baiting and trying to attract raging fanbois.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
PJ shot his Hobbit movies all with new digital high-frame rate 3D cameras and that made the stuff that was actually in front of a camera look like a big budget Game of Thrones episode with the clarity exposing the reality that make-up and physical sets are fake.
regardless of the version.. many of the effects looked plain ugly and fake.
Reminds me of the talk of cgi in discovery channel.
Where real masters of CGI say that the CGI must be minimal to blend up. Not take the entire narrative.

so I agree with @Bairstow

How dare a journalist write a well reasoned non-alarmist article. I'm sure he'll be fired for not click-baiting and trying to attract raging fanbois.
I honestly think that ant Man felt refreshing, hence why its doing allright.
Similar to GOTG.

Iron man in the other hand, seem to be going downhill. Same with Avengers. That wont stop them from getting tons of $$$ anyway.

I honestly believe Iron Man and Hulk have the possibility of being the first affected of superhero fatigue.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Digital can't ever get film quality. It's impossible.
its not, the same they said about digital photography.
You can imitate the "feel" of film by using filters. The resolution of the high end cameras are now onpar with very high quality film lens (36+ megapixels, 40megapixels, 50Megapixels) and medium format (80+ megapixels)
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom