Abrams on why Star Trek was shot on film and not video

[filmfan]

Roger, thanks for the good expanation as to why a lot of CGI is not as convincing as it was years back. It is true that a lot of CG creatures and characters move and flit about the screen without real physics seeming to affect them. I have wondered why the digital input device is no longer used. It seems a brilliant idea for an animator to have something to touch and manipulate, rather than using only a mouse and keyboard. I think Starship troopers made use of the DID for the bug warriors.

[Scotness]

Great description re JP - Roger - thanks for that.

CGI aside just on Indie 4 - I thought Harrison Ford was fine in the role and could have been used alot more -- strangely enough I watched Blues Brothers 2000 the other day for the first time too - and I thought the same thing about Dan Akroyd - he was fine in the part of elwood Blues and totally up for it - but was let down by a poor script/production - as was Harrison.

Back to the CGI - it'd be interesting if they went back to DID - but the bean counters would prevent that I think.

Scot

[MovieStuff]

Back to the CGI - it'd be interesting if they went back to DID - but the bean counters would prevent that I think.

Yes. In the space required for one stop motion animator and a DID rig, they can fit in 4 CGI artists sitting at a keyboard. Plus, even if you did use the DID rig, they would still need the CGI artists anyway for compositing, backgrounds, texturing of the animal, etc. But what the bean counters don't want is a single, unreplaceable craftsman with specialized skills that is essential to the project. Even if the work they get from a group effort is marginal, at best, at least they can control them. Also, the more CGI artists they have, the easier it is to pull one or two off a given segment to work on something else the director thought of at the last minute due to poor planning. You know the term "We'll fix it in post." ? Well, that used to be a joke.

[christoph]

I wasn't generous enough to give Die Hard 4000 another shot. When you compare it with the optical effects and stuntwork in the first Die Hard you feel cheated - like asking for a Coke and getting a Diet Coke - it don't taste the same and it leaves a strange artificial taste in your mouth.

just to be fair, nearly all the stunts in Die Hard 4.0 were with real objects or models - yes, this includes the somersaulting car (with some green screen of course) or the helicopter being shot down by a car. the only major GCI they used was for the fighter jet, which ironically is one of the weakest parts imo.

i didn't like it terribly much in the theater either, but watched it on DVD since and agree with roger that i found it a very enjoyable movie the second time.
for somebody with a bit of background in computers and networking, the weakest part was really the whole hacking/tracking issue (the warlock is one of the top online geeks and yet the bad guy can track him, hack into his computer and activate his webcam within 10 seconds? please?) i can see why it was necessary for the storyline, but it sure bugged me the first time.
++ c.

ps: btw, on the bonus track of the DVD they explain why they went real stunts over CGI: for the exact reasons discussed in this thread.

[Jim Carlile]

We all sound like old guys, but it's true-- there's such lightweight conceptions going on now in TV and movies. Like where are all the adults?

So many bad ideas....just top-of-the-head stuff, and so comic book. I'm not asking for Tolstoy or Tarkovsky or anything, but a little bit of gravity would be nice. You can't even turn on the news without hearing screaming and yelling and that incessant, phony rock-and-roll beat behind everything.

I was watching an A.I.P. movie the other night-- The Trip-- and it had more substance and sober, measured performances than I've seen all year. And it was just Roger Corman, for chrissakes ! Something's been lost somewhere, and it's why I think S8 and 16 are far more interesting.

[super8man]

For a completely different view, how about Masterpiece Theatre's Little Dorrit. A wonderful series. Highly recommend.

[standard8]

CGI has it's place but they just seem to use if for everything. it should be a tool used in the right place for the right thing not just to save money!

and some stuff always looks so fake likeTitanic, which looked so phoney with all the CGI people milling around the deck. can't help thinking of the "French and Saunders" send up every time i see it now.

Can't beat real models like in the Gerry Anderson stuff of the 60's and 70's.

[Andersens Tears]

CGI has it's place but they just seem to use if for everything. it should be a tool used in the right place for the right thing not just to save money!

and some stuff always looks so fake likeTitanic, which looked so phoney with all the CGI people milling around the deck. can't help thinking of the "French and Saunders" send up every time i see it now..

Did you see the Harry Enfield Titanic sketch?

Can't beat real models like in the Gerry Anderson stuff of the 60's and 70's.

..if only someone would say in one of these big budget action blockbusters as the terrible alien monster prepares to attack.."it's only CGI ya' know!" as in the immortal line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail... "It's only a model!"

I went to see the dire Thunderbirds movie with my 5 year old nephew... not long into the film, he leans over to me and whispers.."I can't see the strings!"..

[Will2]

A friend of mine worked on the Star Trek movie at ILM. Those guys work incredibly hard and for years on a tiny shot.

The issues are usually from the director, trying to push the envelope or envisioning a shot that doesn't really make cinematic sense and the ILM guys have to make it work the best they can. When they are more involved with the art direction most artists there would say keep it more subtle and realistic.

I have to say that for a movie filled with CGI, JJ Abrams did a good job of envisioning the shots in a very action oriented way. He used real locations as much as possible which also helped with more natural lighting.

Is it a crazy in your face non-stop action movie: Yes.

It is what it is but I really think it was done well and it started with decent character development. It certainly crammed in too much in a short time however.

[standard8]

another thing i noticed in the the new Star Trek film was all the lens flare. not sure if it was CGI lens flare or real lens flare!! it can look interesting if done sparingly but was a bit overdone and just became annoying.

[Will2]

another thing i noticed in the the new Star Trek film was all the lens flare.

Ha! That was exactly what I was going to post after thinking about it for a while.

There were lens flares in practically every scene. Perhaps they thought it gave more of a Cinema Veritas feel; like you were really watching it as it happened and the camera just happeded to catch it. Not sure, but it was a little over done.

[super8man]

That must be the lamest thing ever (lens flare). Can't say my eyes ever do lens flare when I am walking about the planet earth. So, we try to make a "realistic" space film and then add the obligatory "make it look like it was filmed with an old fashioned film camera" - cheesy is cheesy I say. Perhaps the Hubble Space Telescope should have lens flare introduced into every picture it snaps?????

[Jim Carlile]

Apropos to this discussion, some of you guys might be interested in this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=B5CCcB ... +book+film

The author is a Los Angeles film professor, and he makes some points that I've never seen anyone mention at all, anywhere. He really hates modern films, but it goes beyond that, he actually hates the way they are made.

He gives lots of specific examples of why things like Steadicam and excessive close ups and other modern techniques are so slip-shod and destructive, and he backs up his ideas with a bit of theory that's not too much to take.

I really like what he says-- he combines an old-fashioned love of craft with a great explanation of exactly why current production techniques are so deadly. But he's not a fuddy-duddy, he's pretty radical.

As to Little Dorrit, well, it's not good Dickens, and again, I was struck by the lack of a sense of place-- just way too many close ups. Like a soap opera.

For great Dickens, check out the David Lean movies of the 40s, or Pickwick Papers of the early 50s.

[Will2]

Can't say my eyes ever do lens flare when I am walking about the planet earth

Of course not, but you've been programmed by years of television and films to associate a lens flare with amateurish camera technique... in other words you when you see lens flares in the new Star Trek you're supposed to feel like it was an average guy capturing the moment rather than a well paid camera op with a $350k camera thus making you feel like you're more part of the moment, there is no acting; it's actually happening. Probably part of what he took from that Cloverleaf movie.

[standard8]

maybe he used the "lens flare" to give the film a sense of depth - wonder if they'll be a 3-D version? i can imagine a lot of 3-D film directors jumping onto that bandwaggon!