• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Ruined even further

I wrote a letter to Turner for colorizing films. I was "the younger generation" then and found it to be wrong. I don't care much about what is done with the special effects, but altering the story and changing out actors seems bizarrely Streisand-ish. ;)
 
Ultimately, changing the FX is moronic. You say they didn't look good in the original, yet it's the pre-quels that have become giant cartoons. Give me model FX over that anyday.

Models have a three dimensional appearance that CG still hasn't mastered.

That's why Jackson used a lot of model work whenever possible in LOTR, and used CG only when it was needed or worked better.

As for changing Anakin's force ghost...you can try and defend it until you're blue in the face, but I'll never support it. Anakin should appear as he did upon his redemption, not prior to his fall. Besides, from what I've seen of GL's idea of a younger, pre-fall Anakin...I can't see what there was to redeem. What did Luke see in him? He was a spoiled, whiny, little asshole. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned...the dark side can have him. He's a prick.

Sorry, it's not just raping my childhood, it's destroying art and history. As a filmmaker, I now view a man I once respected with shame. The new films are missing the magic, character and wonder of the OT. And by the time GL is done, there will be no magic left. :mad:

CE
 
Dude, don't blame CG, that's become the perennial whipping boy of film critics. It's just a tool. It's all about the style, technique, and context.

Gollum and Jar-Jar Binks. Both all-CG characters. Very different.

Don't kid yourself: Jackons used a lot of CG. He just made it look good (though there were quite a few "cartoon" moments). The reason the SW prequels are cartoony is because of the characterisations and the hokey dialogue.
 
I watched the first 45 minutes of "Return of the King" last night (I know, I'm weird that way, I'll watch the rest today). I know that when these CGI characters are created they often use a human model. Someone who is actually acting out the action.

They have an actor playing Smeagol before he becomes Gollum. Did they also use this actor in the CGI? Or was he only cast in this third film?

Hmmm, I think I'm really pushing thread drift today. This is what happens when I get to drinking and staying up untiil 1 a.m. :eek:

Markas and Siggy: be forewarned. :devil:
 
Hypatia,

Yes same actor. Andy Serkis was the actor the put the CGI'd Gollum on top of, and he is the actor who played Smeegol.

Andy Serkis is going to be doing the same thing in Peter Jackson's King Kong Remake. He will act the part of Kong, and they will paste CGI over him.
 
IIRC, Serkin was originally just hired to be in the scenes as Gollum with the other actors so that they had something to work off of. Apparently, he got into it so much that they based Gollum off of him and used his voice for Gollum.
 
It was all Serkis except the skin. The voice, the bouncing, everything. They just painted Gollum on top of his performance.
 
This is something I've heard about just a little bit when it comes to animated features. Now it has spread to CGI characters, I gather.

I think the idea is kind of interesting. A whole new way of acting. Like someone adding voice to an animated character. Well, if you want a more in-depth performance, why not model the movement on the actor as well? :cool:

That is actually very cool.

And not at all like dubbing lines to old Charlie Chaplin films. ;) [Just trying to stay on topic, folks. :p]
 
Dude, don't blame CG, that's become the perennial whipping boy of film critics. It's just a tool. It's all about the style, technique, and context.

Gollum and Jar-Jar Binks. Both all-CG characters. Very different.

Don't kid yourself: Jackons used a lot of CG. He just made it look good (though there were quite a few "cartoon" moments). The reason the SW prequels are cartoony is because of the characterisations and the hokey dialogue.
Click to expand...

This is me, GKE. I'm not blaming CG, I'm stating that the CG fest that has become SW is over the top and cartoonish. For example: The big battle scene in AotC. Most of that scene is CG, even the stormtoopers, even the stormtroopers that are standing right in front of them talking to them. EVERYTHING is CG. Jackson used sets, miniatures and the best technique the situation called for. He did not just use CG on everything like GL has done.

There is one shot specifically in the AotC battle scene where Yoda is in the foreground and a trooper is behind him. It looks like a video game it's so fake.

Forgive me...but SW is just a CG cartoon with a few actors painted in. And soon, the OT will be just as ridiculous.

I don't have a problem with CG, especially when it's done very well. I love VFX in general. I'm a SF fan who's a filmmaker...hello.

But I do NOT like what CG has become in SW, nor what GL is doing to the OT using CG. Any FX, when they are present to enhance and support the story, are great. But when the FX become the story, then something is terribly wrong.

CE
 
I see. Maybe if I brought myself to sit through them again I'd agree. It is funny, though, that we both call it a "cartoon" but for somewhat different reasons. Like even if it looked more "real," less CG, whatever, I'd probably still think of it as a cartoon. Though it could be subconscious on my part, too.
 
I don't not like the prequels. I like them alright, just not nearly as much as I liked the original Star Wars trilogy. I just don't like how Lucas doesn't care about what Star Wars means to many people. He created a huge fanbase with episodes IV-VI but has rapidly lost and pissed off many of those people, starting with the Special Editions and continuing on to what he's done with the soon to be released DVD's. Not only that, but CE is right in that he is planning on doing an ultimate edition after Episode III is done.

He has created this universe that many people loved and now he is destroying the very thing that we all came to know.
 
Yeah, I like the prequels too, although again not as much -- and I pretty much liked the originals as they were. A few touch-ups wouldn't be amiss, they've done that with other classics and made them look great. But altering the plot, swapping actors in and out -- that's sacrilege, even if it is the creator coming back to revise.
 
So far I've liked the prequels except for one element a movie that's screwed them up. What's frustrating is that in each case a second opinion or any connection to the real world could have cleared the problems up and made the movies quite good.

If only someone was there to say "Hey George, this Jar Jar character, he's not funny" and "Hey George, maybe you should let someone else write the loves story part".
 
"Hey George, this Jar Jar character, he's not funny"
Click to expand...

I think Jar Jar is hillarious (and I'm not talkin the kind of funny that people derive from making fun of someone). His character might not work for a lot of people, but there are us out there that love him!

Quick, someone get the smelling salts, I think I just heard some people pass out in shock.
 
And I'm going to sue you for that, you know. :p

I didn't even bother seeing the second movie in the theater. I did rent it and watch it with friends. I accept again that I'm just not part of the "market" for this anymore.

And I have to respect GL for being able to crank in mega-buck after mega-buck without even creating anything new. Just by editing old versions.

At least he's only messing with his own shit. Michael Jackson, on the other hand, owns the rights to the original Beatle's songs, doesn't he? :rolleyes:
 
hypatia said:
At least he's only messing with his own shit. Michael Jackson, on the other hand, owns the rights to the original Beatle's songs, doesn't he? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have three words for everyone.

Ted Turner, colorization.

:rolleyes:
 
Michael Jackson, on the other hand, owns the rights to the original Beatle's songs, doesn't he? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true.

And the saddest part of it is that when he bought the rights at auction he was so determined to get them that his opponent (some guy called Paul McCartney) finally conceded saying that he wasn't prepared to spend that kind of money just to get back something that he had created in the first place.

Great defender of IP rights I may be, but some things just make me shake my head in despair.
 
And the saddest part of it is that when he bought the rights at auction he was so determined to get them that his opponent (some guy called Paul McCartney) finally conceded saying that he wasn't prepared to spend that kind of money just to get back something that he had created in the first place.
Click to expand...
If Michael Jackson loses his case I suspect that the rights will be for sale within 2 years. Possibly for less than Jackson paid for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 418 (members: 0, guests: 418)

Share this page

Back
Top