Star Trek Movie Make-up Effects Artist Talks Real v Fake May 26, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, ST09 Creative, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
With the biggest budget of any Star Trek film ever, we know that JJ Abrams is going to have a lot of spectacular effects for his Star Trek. However, even though Abrams has brought on CGI effects powerhouse ILM, he has also brought on board veterans of the world of practical effects as well. In a new article in the UK Guardian one of those old-school effects artists talks about keeping it real.
The article in the UK Guardian titled “The return of the real fake,” notes how some of the younger directors in Hollywood are approaching their effects. From the article:
One telling factor in the attitudes of [Christopher] Nolan [Batman Begins] and JJ Abrams could be their ages: Nolan is 37, Abrams 41. “They grew up watching films of the 80s or the ‘golden age’ of creature effects like Terminator, Aliens or The Thing, and miss the tactile reality they had,” suggests Oscar-nominated effects artist Alec Gillis. “These directors want audiences to have a lifelike experience, not a video-game sensory assault. They want stuntmen daring to risk their lives, full-scale buildings being blown up, totally convincing miniatures rocketing through the sky. CG often gives a physics-defying, over-nuanced, pristine-ness that defies our primal knowledge of reality.
The article also quotes Rob Burman, who heads up the mold shop creating puppets and make-up effects for the Star Trek film. Again from the article:
For Star Trek, Abrams hired Rob Burman, whose family has been in the effects business since his grandfather helped create Wolfman in 1931. “CGI had become more than just a tool over the past few years,” Burman says, “but now everyone is getting used to the toy and beginning to see the limitations of it. It takes you out of the grounding of the film. If you watch the Spider-Man movies, it’s great swinging through the city from his point of view, but you don’t have the thrill of knowing it’s a real guy doing these things. It can look utterly believable, but if what you’re watching is beyond possibility, it’s hard to suspend your disbelief. You want people to go to the movie and get lost in it. If you start thinking, ‘Oh, that was fake,’ then you’re automatically back in a seat in a theatre.”
Burman also how notes this approach is better for the actors and editors, saying
Having something practical there helps everyone involved. Actors don’t have to focus on a green tennis ball on a stick and pretend it’s this big monster or character. It even helps the editing and it helps the framing of the shot to have a literal 3D object in front of the camera. Everything is much simpler.
Aliens on the Enterprise
And we know that some of this make-up work will be creating Aliens who will be working with the crew on the Enterprise. Here is a clip of Anton Yelchin talking to MTV about working with Aliens
Abrams on making Trek Real
Star Trek director JJ Abrams recently stated “Effects for Star Trek have never, ever been done like this.” But all indications are that he went out of his way to take a different approach than the Star Wars prequels and to minimize the use of greenscreen. In his live chat with fans at TrekMovie.com Abrams talked about the mix of real and CGI.
I was lucky enough to work with ILM on Mission: Impossible III. Roger Guyette and Sherri Hanson are geniuses who are also a true joy to work with. ILM has always been the best — but in recent years they have — remarkably — gotten even better, making the virtual photo-real.
Having said that, my goal is to make Trek REAL — that is to say, not have it be camp — not have it be phony — not have it look like a scrap of green screen was used anywhere. Of course, this is Star Trek. We’re using every trick in the book. But WHEREVER WE CAN, we are shooting on sets — either built on sound stages or expanding upon found locations. This is important. What this means is that the movie won’t have that “actors performing in a blue or green void then placed in front of a spaceship set” feeling that makes me insane.
Not Burmans’ First Trek
JJ Abrams Star Trek is not Rob Burman’s first trip to the final frontier. He applied makeup effects for Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, working with his brother, Barney Burman. In addition, Burman and his wife and business partner, Jennifer E. McManus, worked on Star Trek: Insurrection. Rob is again working with his brother on the new Trek film, with his brother’s company Proteus FX. The Burman’s come from a long line of Hollywood Make-up artists dating back decades. Proteus also worked with J.J. Abrams on Alias and his first feature, Mission: Impossible: III. Proteus has extensive experience in Holllywood, including a number of recent sci-fi features such as Men in Black II, Planet of the Apes, and The Matrix: Reloaded. More info on the pair at Memory Alpha: Rob Burman, Barney Burman.
Loading ...
Comments»
So, uh, which aliens will we see?
romu-morlocks.
why is it still 11 months away?
I want to see this movie. Now.
The problem with CGI isn’t that CGI is inherently more fake looking than traditional effects. The problem with CGI, frankly, is that it allows you to get by with 75% and it still looks “okay.” If you try getting by with 75% with latex and animatronics, it looks horrendous. You MUST go the distance with the more primitive effects to get something looking good. CGI allows you to cut corners, and the end result often looks like it.
Well done CGI is stunning. Just look at Gollum (especially in RotK) or Davy Jones.
Well I’m glad these guys got it right.
Unfortunately spielberg has been getting it wrong, check out the new Indianna Jones movie to see realism, and traditional VFX thrown out the door. Like damn they even had a computer generated prarie dog in the film.
Im glad to see that Abrams knows to avoid this. This guy really is on the right trakc.
I guess now we know what JJ and Lucas may have been talking about in those black and white photos that surfaced a few months ago.
A lucas quote from way back, I am paraphrasing here: a good effects shot is worth nothing if the story is not involving.
I have two words for Lucas: Phantom Menace.
QED.
Arex?
I do not think there have been any directors who didn’t want their features to “look real.”
Peter Jackson’s Gollum was a masterpiece, and the other actors interacted with a real actor performing the role, and not a “tennis ball on a stick.”
CG or no, or less CG will not make the film any worse or better if the story is strong.
In any case, we have read here statements from the Trek crew that there is lots of green screen work, and now that there isn’t, but that they’re using “every trick in the book and that these guys from ILM are great.”
I bet it’ll be great. Show us something.
SO why can’t they use models for the ships like they did in the first 7 movies? I still think CGI space ships look fake on screen or tv. Models always looked more realistic to me on film. I think they’ve lost that look in recent years. Its a shame they are sticking with CGI in this case for the new film. Even Lucas used models for shots in the prequals.
3,
Because a sufficient amount of time has not yet passed. Go stand outside of Earth’s gravity well for about 10.5 months, then you’d find yourself on the day that Trek is supposed to come out. Of course, once you enter the well again, everyone is behind you, so you’ll still have to wait.
As for CGI, models should definitely used more. I remember the first Jurassic Park. It looked, and still looks, more real than most of the CG crap that is used in most movies today. I just got back from Indy 4 and Iron Man about 20 minutes ago. Indy used so much more ACTUAL footage, very little CG effects, except for the ending, which was…. interesting…
The difference between it and Iron Man was obvious in the effects. You can also tell when the suit for IM is real, and when it’s fake. I so much prefer the old-style models. Because of it, Voyager looked so much more tangible than Enterprise (NX-01) ever will.
Keep the models alive! I want another good Jurassic Park with animatronic dinosaurs! JP: IV is coming next year, by the way. Just to drop that note. There should definitely be a combination of the two in order to make a movie truly pristine.
#8
I’d love to see Arex or his Edoan brethern as a nice “tip of the hat” to TAS.
Except that a LOT of the ship shots in Voyager were also CGI.
Umm… do we know there aren’t using models (for the starship FX shots, or some shots)? Maybe they are?
While I am an aspiring CG artist, I agree that it should not be used unless there is no other way to do a shot. And if the shot must be CG, then at least incorporate real elements into it, such as real fire, real smoke, real dust, etc. to go with your CG objects. If you’re going to have cg creatures, then use skin based off real animals, or real objects.
ILM does fantastic CG, and can make things look very real, there is no doubt about that. Alot of the problem with CG these days is not in the technique, or the artist doing CG shots, but with the time allowed to complete your work. The more time you can spend working on a CG shot, the better the end product will be. If you have to rush through it, it won’t look too great. Movie studios are expecting CG artist to do more and more shots these days, without alot of time to do them.
Hopefully Star Trek won’t suffer from this, because of the May release date, although, I know ILM said they would still deliver in December. Perhaps they’ll get a bit extra time though.
Good to see the Burmans are involved – I hope there will also be a Westmore or two in the makeup department.
Not too off-topic: am I the only one to think that Lou Ferrigno’s Hulk was more believable and scary than its CGI counterpart?
#17
You are absolutely not alone. I agree completely. Nothing clever to add, just that :)
#10:
When you can tell a ship is CGI, it’s not just because it’s CGI but because the effects people cut corners. The Voyager was CGI half the time and a model the other half of the time and I bet you never noticed the difference. In ST6, the Enterprise B was CGI part of the time but again, I bet you never saw the difference (I’m a CGI hobbyist and I can’t tell the difference).
CGI also allows you to do “unreal” things, like zip the camera along the length of of a 600-meter starship in .4 seconds, weave through the pylons, and then turn in place and look back while that massive ship banks and weaves on all possible axes with all the weight of a paper airplane. NONE of those problems are inherent to CGI; ALL of them are inherent to bad artistic decisions on the part of the effects people.
#17:
Believable? Sure, Ferrigno was physically there in camera, so of course he was more believable. Plus, he was proportioned like a real human (a very muscular human, but Lou Ferrigno was an actual person). But scary? I dunno… He looked pretty goofy in that green beatles wig.
#5, …or Davy Jones
The Monkee?
Just Another Pleasant Valley Sunday!
On the off chance that Fred (#20) isn’t joking, I mean the villain from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
Good to see they’re trying to make Star Trek look as real as possible!
I thought the greenscreen work in Indy 4 was painfully obvious and fake-looking. The haze around the actors and the contrived blurriness of the CG background gives it away; none of the other movies looked like that. I’m really looking forward to the new “Wolfman” movie, since it uses zero CG. I’m really getting sick of all the CGI so it’ll surely be theraputic!!
The secrecy around trek is getting just a tad tedious, I really think it would be nice if we could start seeing stuff now not later. i would image that Im not only one getting a little impatient on this one. We’ve gotten glimpse of props and things only to have those photos withdrawn. why does that happen? what is the harm in letting these be in circulation, it would go along way to relieving the tedium secrecy.
I’m glad that Abrams is taking this approach. I think that obvious CGI effects lessons the quality of a movie and some film makers are getting lazy with it.
sweet, more talk, no pics… how awesome is that?
Case in point of CGI run amok: Speed Racer.
I mean, my god…almost every shot had some kind of CGI or digital compositing in it!
There’s a Mugato in engineering.
MY 3 MAIN GRIPES WITH C.G.I. …
Look, I’ll be the first to admit that, as an average filmgoer/lover, my knowledge of the process and manhours put into a typical CGI sequence is minuscule, to say the least. However, hasn’t ANYONE in Hollywood noticed or addressed the following problems with CGI (my own personal pet peeves):
1) NO MASS. In a film like TRANSFORMERS or the 2003 HULK, as examples, you have HUGE main characters that should weigh a couple tons easily, but they move, dance, bounce and strut across the screen as if they had all the weight and mass of a $1.10 helium balloon.
2) THE UNWRITTEN RULE OF PERPETUAL MOTION. Almost no CGI animator or director seems to understand that a living, breathing character does NOT need to move every conceivable muscle in its body whenever it’s on screen. That means, if a 100% CGI creation needs simply needs to be shown standing and breathing, that does NOT mean that said creation also needs to breathe in and out as if in the middle of a doctor’s exam; it doesn’t need to blink its eyes in slow motion; and it doesn’t need to move every other part of its body, as if it’s slowly floating in a vacuum. If a CGI character needs to stand still, DON’T MAKE IT MOVE! It’s that simple.
3) THE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE CAMERA MOVES. I may hate this the most, and it’s a big turn-off in the otherwise decent SPIDER-MAN films… does the camera honestly NEED to swoop in, around, up, down and sideways around a CGI creation that swings or flies across the screen??? If a camera move can’t accomplish something like that in real life, then why do the filmmakers/animators feel the need to show off in a purely masturbatory way? “See what WE can do?!” Guess what, it looks fake and takes you right out of the movie.
It just seems like a lesson in RESTRAINT is needed in order to make most CGI work believable. Just my 2 cents. If someone like Daniel Broadway can help explain my points, that’d be appreciated.
I think all this talk from J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Crew is just Hype.
Every movie these days has all the same talk. Real, little CGI and old school filming.
Look at this pre-release talk about Indy 4 from the indy 4 crew:
“Steven (Spielberg) is very aware of the process and we’re not cheating with CG (computer graphics) at all,”
“Spielberg wanted to make sure it looked like all the other Indy films”
Now go and Indy 4.
“Spielberg wanted to keep it real”
It is all just to Hyping people up so the movie makes money.
Indy 4 made $307 million on it’s open weekend, but how do people feel about it.
reading some Fan reviews, alot People said it is was fake-looking and did not look or feel like the other Indy films .
SPB — I’ll add one to your list: THE CASPAR EFFECT. CGI is typically designed (shadings are chosen) to be projected onto a highly reflective movie theatre screen. Take that same image and backlight it, as on a TV screen, and the shadings can rapidly become cartoonish. As bad as Lost in Space was in theatres, it’s ten times worse on TV. Even LOTR has some weak moments (the final attack of ghostly army loses all believability.)
I agree, also, with your take on restraint. CGI can do some fantastic bits — like taking out wires, for instance, and adding very nice planetary shots. It can also make entire characters, such as Golem. But, it cannot replace certain live elements. Using CGI to de-age actors, for instance, must be done very sparingly. It only worked in X-Men because we never asked for that film to be totally convincing. I’d hate to see the Shat de-aged through an entire film. Sorry, Bill.
Anyway, that’s one or two cents to add to your two, SPB.
29. THE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE CAMERA MOVES.
I *hate* that sort of thing and for the very reasons you give. I saw “Beowulf” and every scene had one of these superfluous and unneccessary ‘virtual camera’ moves. I was stunned when the final credits ran at it was directed by Robert Zemekis! I thought it had to have been directed by a cgi artist with no restraint or understanding of how to pace or tell a story. It was weighed down with effects tricks just for their own sake. It was annoying and amatuerish.
I am quite gratified by the above article. They’re saying what I want to hear. And I was totally invested in the theatre-audience experience during “Cloverfield”. I was swept up in it and believed it and that’s a rare thing in film these days. I can’t wait to see what JJ and the team have in store for us.
Oh, and putting Arex in the film in a cameo would rock!
@32 i think your being a bit hard on Beowulf cause its basically a comic boy type movie , so i would expect impossible camera moves plus it was all cgi so it was not overly out of place, but i must admit spiderman really annoyed me , you would have him out of the suit doing normal stuff , then put the suit on and jump out a window and just enter fake land , really bad i thought .
Oh and Cloverfield was great yes i saw it on an imax screen , man people got sick lol
Doesn’t the idea of a “Burman” anywhere near this new Trek freak you out a bit? Just kidding.
Sounds like real talent on board this new film – and the realistic approach they are taking to EFX and stunts gets me excited.
But hopefully we’ll have Westmore’s touch somewhere in the make-up effects on this film. Doesn’t matter if it’s TNG, DS9, YOY, ENT or the Generation movies – no one can say that the make-up effects were ever lacking.
Not to mention he’s a world-class gentleman. Wrote him a letter once – got a hand-written response on the back of a page from a DS9 shooting script. Talk about cool dude.
Long live Michael Westmore!
#28 green blooded bastard:
Airlock that friggin’ Mugatu.
Heh, Speed Racer.
I went to the Midnight of that. I really wish I hadn’t. I felt like I was on a CGI LSD trip. It was just bad. The plot in and of itself wasn’t bad, but the CGI just ruined it. Had they just left the M5 alone, had some guy driving it, it would’ve been much better than it was. As for Beowulf… also a bad CGI movie. It should’ve been done by actual people, and not their computer counterparts. It also should have stuck to the original Epic Poem a little more closely.
Indy 4, while it didn’t look and feel like the old Indies, it was decent. I admit they could’ve done a better job with the Siafu. I think that there are things that all of us would change about movies. Hopefully, J.J. will usher in the new era of movies, and we can all get back to models, with just a hint of CGI.
It’s just a matter of “Would you like some human with your salt?” to borrow an example from Futurama. It’s all become to much seasoning and not enough substance.
re; 12. Xai – May 26, 2008
#8 I’d love to see Arex or his Edoan brethern as a nice “tip of the hat” to TAS.
That might ease some of the pain.
#29
Couldn’t agree more, and notice that all three of your issues have less to do with the realism/look of the CGI and more to do with the composition/animation choices of the effects artists.
CGI allows mediocre artists to make passable work. Old school methods are less forgiving. CGI in the hands of someone really skilled and determined to do good work can look freaking amazing.
#11
I absolutely agree about the dinos in Jurassic Park. They looked fantastic, those Raptors, the Rex even the Brachiosaurus all breath-taking.
After seeing Peter Jackson’s King Kong remark while it made good effects the T-Rex in particular looked soooo fake. All these epic movies with inflated budgets spending money and processesing power on making full CG dinosaurs with muscle movements etc etc and yet a 1993 movie (and even some dino documentaries) can do much better.
Lets not forget that Jurassic Park used CG dinosaurs a lot as well.
`Pete
@34
yes i have to agree with you there, Michael westmore stuff on star trek
was great like i dont know how much of a budget he had but his stuff
always looked like it should be in a movie , good stuff . hope the new
make up for the aliens is good.
well, I liked Anton’s mention of the uniforms,”We shot teh ending scene and it was like Epic,,,we’re all standing there in our gold, red and blue uniforms…”
I have hope…
I just want to say that even though I agree that CGI is overused in films and TV, there are times that it can be good and the only option. I have watched the Dominion War space battles on DS9. The CGI is good, even by today’s standards. There are about a hundred ships moving in all sorts of directions. I think in models, they would have been lucky to put in 15 moving ships. I hope I don’t offend anyone by saying this, but when I watched the battles, I thought, “You can’t do that with models!” Even if you could, I doubt it would have been done under a TV budget and schedule.
PS. Still, I would only look at that ‘tennis ball on a pole’ if it was the only option for the filmmakers to do.
Big budget doesn’t make a good Star Trek film. Star Trek II was made on a very low budget and it became the most popular of the film series.
I love the idea that an alien made out of rubber and foam is inherently more ‘real’ than one made out of pixels; it’s such an obvious ontological absurdity that it makes me laugh every time I hear it/read it.
CGI that I don’t notice is great, mission accomplished. It’s those ambitious shots that end up looking lke crap (Indy and the Crystal Skull) because they should have never attempted it to begin with, that always taint the stew.
If CGI can’t deliver the goods you should go physical. If you want to go crazy and neither CGI or physical effects can deliver the shot convincingly then go back to the drawing board and start over with another idea.
CGI is, and can be, a great tool. It is also one of the most abused tools in filmaking. CGI is not the end-all be-all cure-all.
Spielberg, with his digital color correction and CGI jungles effectively removed some of the heart from Indy Jones. It does my heart good to hear that JJ, for many effects, is keeping it real in Star Trek.
Westmore was good, but i have to say, saw a few too many bumpy head klingon varaitions by the end for my liking. as of CGI, everyone here seems to be of exactly the same opinion. thats speaks volumes, people on this site disagree (respectfully most times) over so many things, but not on this issue. film makers need to start listening to what film goers want.
totally agree on the king kong t-rex being fake. too much movement is not real. look at an elephant. they arn’t rippling and flexing and bouncing all over the place.
I hope they stick to their word on “keeping it real” with these FX. We’ll see.
Even though I have had CGI training, I have always said mixing techniques is the best way to go. I never “drank the koolaid” that CGI was the end all, be all. All these films today look WAY too slick…way too much CGI and I agree the camera moves are ridiculous in a lot of cases.
I heard ILM sold off it’s model shop a while back — not sure if that’s true — but if it is, it’s a shame.
#45 – That’s actually Lucas & ILM who’s responsible for FX on Skull.
What’s bad is we know ILM can do better, but I think they were trying to make it look like a 1950’s Sci-Fi film, right down to the less then convincing “This Was Shot On A Sound Stage” scenes.
Sometimes they went too far to make it look like a 1950’s film.
- W -
* Meh *
Wow, lots of hate for CG.
I have one thing to offer up in the defense of that particular tool:
“Clash of the Titans”
Every time I run across that film on late night TV, I thank the universe for LightWave, 3DSMax, Maya, SoftImage XSI, Shake, Combustion, and its ilk.
That being said, I DO agree with complaints about what I’ve dubbed “CG Cinematography”. The phrase “less is more” is something a lot of the people in the field need to embrace.
CGI is fine if in the right hands and context. In DS9, lot of the battle sequences were CGI and they looked great. I don’t like the jerkiness of CGI and the ‘impossible” maneuvers they try to add in. I think the large models work great for closeups and I would like to see more of that for sure.
“Synthetic alcohol, synthetic people” to paraphrase Scotty.
#49 -
While it may be easy to scoff at something like CLASH OF THE TITANS today, don’t forget that not only was it a deliberate throwback to the ’50s and ’60s B-movies of yore, but ALL of that was painstakingly done by HAND. In a film like that, you can almost literally see the blood, sweat and tears up on the screen. The same can’t be said for today’s brand of CGI overkill. Ray Harryhausen and the like got their mitts dirty and broke their backs making these films. You’ve gotta admire the craftsmen of yesteryear.
Concerning CG effects, I could not agree more with some of the things being said on this topic.
One great example used by a couple of you guys is the one pertaining to the Spider-Man films. Even when the first one came out, I could not help but feel strange, as if something was not right, when the camera went all insane as Spider-Man swung through the city. Here’s why I think it was a problem… because all that fast-changing camera angle crap kept the scene from being able to build intensity… the person watching this just wants to see a few angles throughout the character swinging at a fast pace… but they are overwhelmed by way too many camera angles… it’s just a case of over-engineering the sequence. That’s my opinion.
You knew this was gonna happen though… everyone over-doing it with the computer graphics breakthrough.
CG can be awesome – - but the statement “With great power…” comes to mind. Too bad Raimi didn’t practice that motto.
Oh, and when it come to Next Generation – - I also HATE with a capital “H” – - every time the Enterprise warps out and that stoopid “flash sparkle” thing appears. Drives me crazy. ARRGGH!!
CGI spaceships?
Give me a physical model any day. When the Big E (Next Gen) was CGI-ed, it just looked flat to me. I really do prefer a model. It just looks more real to my eye.
My 2 cents.
I like the sensibility of Abrams & Co. There is a place for CGI, but it needs to be used sparingly. Whenever I see a flyover of airplanes using CGI, I wince. Ditto with explosions or fire.
But I disagree that spaceships require physical models. If done correctly , CGI models can be as good or better than physical ones. The poor work of CBS-Digital is not indicative of what we’re likely to see in the film. The trailer is proof of that.
53. JL – May 27, 2008
Oh, and when it come to Next Generation – - I also HATE with a capital “H” – - every time the Enterprise warps out and that stoopid “flash sparkle” thing appears. Drives me crazy. ARRGGH!!
It is presumed that flash was meant to be an upgrade to the “starbow” seen in the first movie—with just the white-light bow. When it comes to FTL speed, warp, whatever—that’s an INCREDIBLY FAST JUMP! Lord knows, they’d better hope the IDF (Inertia Dampening Field) system works when they go to warp — or else drop from FTL to sublight, and back into normal space! While TNG’s white-light-only version seemed lacking (yes, even to me—a die-hard fan), perhaps it can be argued that when a warp field forms around a starship on ST, the visible effect from outside appears as though it’s a streak of multi-colored light (the “starbow” in the first film), or the white flash in TNG.
I was actually shocked when I saw that first “starbow” in the first film; it was stunning, beautiful, WOW-FAST, and actually a smooth, straight-line transition from “normal space” to FTL speed. Would that occur naturally in a real space-ship’s jump to warp? That is apparently what the creators of ST are saying. (Heck, there’s even a momentary, split-second light burst on the new BSG when the Galactica jumps to light speed. And in a split second, the Battlestar is no longer there….)
It is interesting that the 79 episodes of ST:TOS is the only series that does not show that effect, as it apparently wasn’t thought of at the time. (??)
#29 SPB- FINALLY someone agrees with me about the constant movement thing.
It really first bugged me during the diner scene with Obi Wan in “Clones.” The big CG guy just kept over-emoting and moving constantly. If you’re simulating a real-world, mass-bearing thing, don’t animate as if it were in an old Popeye cartoon!!
Weta succeeded with Gollum, what’s the problem with all these other artists? It certainly isn’t lack of money or resources. Beowulf was also a disaster in the mass/movement area. For ALL the rendered detail they laid down, the dynamics SUCKED!
The one thing I’ll give ILM today is hard-surface simulation. After Transformers and Iron Man, I’m liking what I see, unlike what they did in the last 3 SWars disasters.
Welcome back Burmans. The Westmore crew will always hold a special place for me (a fellow make-up artist), but new blood can’t hurt.
#49—Although it completely butchers Greek Mythology, I always loved “Clash Of The Titans”. #51 is correct. It was a nostalgic movie-making experience, and an ode to the monster movies of the 1950’s and 60’s. Young people today might think it looks utterly ridiculous when compared to more modern effects, but it was a fun experience when it was released, and remains a fond memory of mine.
#51:
Actually, I DO respect Harryhausen. I remember watching JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS on TV, and seeing CLASH OF THE TITANS when it was released in theaters. It played well during its time.
Nevertheless, stop motion never, ever fooled me as a viewer in the way that GOOD CG can today. Thus my respect for the new toolset.
Re the people that complain about too much movement in CG characters: Believe the Nutty Fanboy when he says, that without movement you’d be complaining even more than that.
signed,
your Nutty Fanboy Mat
aspiring VFX artist
..another sad result of no-holds-barred CGI is the extinction of shock and awe experiences. When the sky is the limit, too many directors don’t know when to stop reaching for the sky. So rather than have a well done, jaw dropping effect “wow” you midway through the film, or at the climax, it’s thrown at you, no holds barred from the very first frame.
Having so much happening all the time robs the film of any build up and the action sequences eventually run out of steam delivering your movie to an un-exciting climatic end. Used to, to save the big guns for the finale, but anymore it’s a full blown assault on the senses from frame 1. And that’s too bad.
Stop motion never fooled me either, but on the other hand…those effects had a “magic” that today’s just don’t have. Just using his hands, he was able to create not just motion…but MOOD and atmosphere that few have matched since (at least with regard to character animation).
Ray Harryhausen was — is — and will always be THE master! Many of the effects supervisors of today will tell you he was one of the reasons they got into the business. Ask Phil Tippet, Richard Edlund, or most of the guys who worked at ILM over the years who was the greatest influence on them.
Largely, what is missing today are good effects ARTISTS and directors. There’s a lot of really good technicians out there…but as you can see with ST:Remastered and many of the films today that there aren’t as many who know how to compose a good shot or how to use a camera.
29
SPB, I like your points for the most part. I never bought The Next Generation Enterprise. It never moved or felt real to me
I also like your venom and ferocity on the issue. Want to come teach this last two weeks of class for me? It’ll help the summer get here faster.
#62:
I absolutely agree on the lack of artistry. I also think that this is more a function of the relative youth of the art form. As full-motion CG works its way further back into the developmental cycle of artists, I suspect we’ll see better and more striking work.
best movie visual FX were Trek III i think..there were amazing model FX galore in that..and all looked pretty damn real..i still remember my jaw hitting the floor when i saw that HUGE mushroom spacedock (why the heck didnt they have it appear in the obiting earth scenes in First Contact or Nemesis?..its as if they wanted to totally jetison any link to original trek..while at the same time stealing TWOK plot for Nemesis)
worst = Trek V…did Bran Ferren ever work again afterwards? my god..even the galaxy barrier in WNMHGB was more menacing than the great barrier…it just shows you can not cut corners when it comes to FX (although i know ILM were totally booked up with Indy 3, Ghostbusters II and BTTF 2)
(on a side note regarding Trek V – i had a thought about it after seeing the new Indy film..and it was clear that Shatner was aiming for the same kind of Lucas/Spielbergian mystical journey into a great unknown thing that they are masters of..where the build up to something extraordinary is intense and has you on the edge of your seat and the eventual pay off at the end dosnt disappoint (e.g Raiders, Crystal Skull, CE3K etc)…but unlike them Shatner wasnt able to deliever the big pay off (due to budget/script problems)…but he didnt do that bad a job upuntil then…the same could be said for TMP and to an extent Generations and Insurrection…theyve never been able to pull off ‘a steven spielberg’ for a Trek movie..Trek always seems to work best as straight action adventure set in space (with travel travel occationally)
TNGs FX while obviously good wernt as memorable as the original films
however I expect to be TOTALLY blown away by the new FX…jaws hitting floors again etc…the huge budget and just think of all the ILM FX people working on it putting in that extra mile..wanting to get it just right as they are fans of (original) Trek & grew up watching the movies and TOS (i remember reading articles in cinefantastique etc in the 80s/90s where they had interviews with the FX guys working on the ST movies and they all said they were major trek fans and were putting 110% in to make sure everything looked just right)
i think Trek VI was the best example of that where the budget was relativly small for a Sci Fi film at the time and had also been cut – yet ILM pulled out all the stops so the FX still looked 1st class..the space fx were a million times better than Trek Vs (that opening planet destruction scene became a staple in SF cinema even used for star wars special editions) and it was T2 standard with the blood..
plus theres the extra time until May next year as well..i remember Starship Troopers was originally shedualled to come out summer 97 but got put back to xmas so they could have extra time on the FX..the result was the best space FX ever seen up until that point (and still today i think..so much detail..so much going on..it wasnt until the opening to Revenge of the Sith that anything was seen like that again)
i know trek got moved for other reasons but that extra time has gotta make a difference in someplaces
imagine if CGI had never been invented (at least for Spaceship models) think of how amazing and detailed they would be by now..
Whatever happened to Rob Botin?
#63 – Andy Patterson
I don’t know if I’d call it “venom,” as I have no idea as to how hard these proverbial nuts are to crack. For all I know, most CGI animators may have been struggling with these issues since the 1993 benchmark of JURASSIC PARK. It’s just disheartening that all these years later, animators and/or directors are still making the same mistakes or not addressing some of the more glaringly obvious reasons (to these eyes, anyway) as to why so much CGI work never seems to be as thoroughly convincing as they’d like it to be.
The issue of “no real mass” could very well be something that’s within reach, but the “over-movement” of CGI characters and over-reliance of 3D/MATRIX-esque camera swoops really burns my rear. There’s just NO NEED for it, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why these things are needed and can’t be done away with.
I’m not a CGI animator and I’m not a director, so why is it so hard for the top-dollar Hollywood bigwigs to see why most CGI doesn’t really “work,” yet a poor slob like me can spot it like that?
(Again, to any aspiring or professional CGI artists out there, feel free to enlighten us!)
What about cel animation too? I miss stuff like Ralph Bakshi’s rotoscope work in movies like American Pop, or the distinctive style of Don Bluth (that I knew as a kid for its abundance of sparks being flown all over the screen).
It seems like, as with live-action filmmaking, with animation it’s also best when CG is combined with more traditional methods, as when an object is animated by computers but still has the flat texture mapping and outlines of something animated by cel, like in The Iron Giant or in stuff like The Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, and Family Guy.
67
Okay,…maybe “venom” was a strong word. Maybe “Vinegar” is more apt. I still meant it as a compliment and liked the force behind them. There’s nothing like a great mix of the two. The real hard physical lends so much. Look at that horse bird thing from the third Harry Potter. That was a combination of the two. That’s the kind of thing I would have liked to see done with The Thing in the Fantastic Four movie. A mix of puppeteering, suit and CGI. What one can’t do…let the other help.
#69 – Andy P.
Agreed! I distinctly recall watching the same scene you mentioned from HARRY POTTER 3 and thinking that it looked pretty damned good, considering that PARTS 1 and 2 had some of the LOUSIEST CGI work I’d ever seen in a big-budget popcorn flick!
“What one can’t do…let the other help.” Well put! It should be the mandatory mantra for every FX house on the planet!
#3
Erm, because May 2009 is 11 months away? Maybe? I dunno.
To me, the first Jurassic Park looked better in the areas of CGI dino movement than ALL of its sequels. Anyone else notice that?
Who was on board for it? Phil (Cloverfield/Starship troopers) Tippett- a guy who started out as a stop-motion animator!
For me the only CGI characters that have equalled that work have been Gollum and Weta’s Kong. (but NOT their t-rex’s, either.)
Moral-
All the texture mapping in the world can’t make up for crappy (Beowulf) animation.
I’m actually so relieved that the Westmores are *not* involved. Ditto for the Okudas. I admired all their work on various Treks but after a while it all looked the same. Especially the Westmores’ re-using and re-re-using of recognizable make-up appliances. I was always irked by just how many aliens in all corners of the galaxy and in all time periods had Benzite head-and-ears or that same nose-and-forehead piece Icheb had.
66. Rob Botin was awesome! His work on The Thing especially — terrifying! Nice that the above article seems to agree with the idea that that type of 80s make-up effect work would look great on Trek.
#64 Oh, I agree! Definitely.
There’s no doubt CGI will evolve and the ART itself will evolve. Part of the problem currently is that there is way too much CGI “Showboating” going on.
You can almost hear the FX teams saying “Lookie what we can do!”.
Yeah…we know…now get back to art, cinematography, and storytelling!
I don’t believe the stop-motion in CotT and other Harryhausen films is really meant to “fool” anyone, any more than you would look at a painting and think you were looking at the real thing. It’s an artistic experience.
CGI is a good servant, but a bad master.
“For me the only CGI characters that have equalled that work have been Gollum and Weta’s Kong. (but NOT their t-rex’s, either.)”
LOTR has aged badly (and it’s been less than 6 years!).
Davey Jones is far more “real” than Gollum IMHO. If you didn’t know he was CG you’d all still think he was a guy in a suit.
I’ve been into VFX longer than a lot of you have been alive, CGI can be “better” than the real thing, so to speak. But it needs time & care, just as models and motion control photography do.
Hooray for less CGI and more make-up and lighting effects. Strip a crew of CGI and you get to really see these artists work their mojo with the media of film. Using lighting effects, make-up, camera angles, set dressing, and even things like the foley artist really give you the essence of what a film should be. Hoo-rah! This makes me more excited for the film to come out!
Still think Michael Westmore should be doing the makeup but oh well, I’m sure it’ll be awesome.
53,
The “sparkle” is supposed to be the light-equivalent to the sonic boom that is heard when something exceeds the speed of sound. Instead of a boom, we get a burst.
CGI characters? Maybe, depending on how they’re shown, revealed, and/or their relevance to the story. Arex? M’Ress? Others….? Actually, ST:VOY’s “Species 8472″ weren’t all that bad, IMHO, as well as some of the CGI species shown briefly on ST:ENT. Perhaps they’ll find a way to make it appear as though they are really there. These days, with SFX and makeup, it’s always possible.
I recall seeing a feminine “cat-person” in an episode of “Andromeda” which I happened to catch one evening—and immediately thought of M’Ress on TAS. And she looked AMAZINGLY real….
Again, if it adds to the story and gives more depth to “Star Trek history,” I wish them all the best, and hope they have the most fantastic ST film ever made. I hope they really do.
For me, when I work with CGI, I usually say to myself “Now, how would this look like if I actually used real models.”
I would use models except that I’m a one-man animator, and relies on CG for almost all my effects in any short-films I create. But when I do CG, I work as hard as possible to make it look real.
As for the CG in Star Trek XI, I hope Abrams uses it well, and sparingly for Ship Shots. CG has several advantages, like allowing a ship to explode with real zero-g traveling of the remaining debris. (Even in early TNG, I could always notice everything passing to the side of the screen slowly)
CG is, as lots of others have said, and amazing tool. But CG has to be dealt with like a digital construction world. Use it like you would use something that’s real. I.E. When Pixar does their movies, they use camera angles so realistic that there are times you forget it’s CG. That’s what Abrams should do, and that’s what I hope he does.
#65- I’d agree ST III had probably the best FX in terms of the model shots. I do remember that one shot of the Enterprise B in space dock in Generations that did look great and thought that was probably the last best use of models in the movies. After ST 7 it all went CGI and never looked the same again.
I’d be unhappy if ILM was no longer able to work with models. When did this happen?
#82:
STIII had some fine model shots but the lighting was poor. They pumped up the fill light so much that the very first shot of the Enterprise is washed out. Early video versions with heightened contrast only made this worse.
To hide garbage mattes (the little grey boxes that appear around the ships) ILM experimented with a filter first used on Return of the Jedi. A side effect of the filter was that the starfields turned light blue. Look at Trek III on DVD to see what I mean. The pre-S.E. version of “Jedi” on the THX LaserDisc shows this too.
They largely remedied this by ST:IV and the model photography is terrific. ST:VI looks good but the video transfer is brightened wayyy to much making the starships look artificial. (BTW: Did you know the shots of the Excelsior encountering the Praxis shockwave were CG?) By Generations they had gone to digital compositing. A couple shots of the Enterprise-B and D were CG, as were the El-Aurian refugee ships.
“First Contact” (ST:8) had *plenty* of model photography. The Enterprise-E, the Borg cube and sphere, the Phoenix. The CG models were the “new” starfleet ships like the Akira, Steamrunner, Norway, and Saber…and a couple shots of the Enterprise-E. The Defiant was also CG and looked every bit as “real” as her model-based counterpart used at the time on DS9.
When ILM moved to San Francisco’s Presido complex, they left their model shop behind renamed Kerner Optical. They used them in the “Pirates” movies as well as the latest Indiana Jones.
I’ll just be glad to see some new Trek full stop, the Enterprise series was far too short. Having grown up in the 80’s myself, I’m glad there taking the live action method where possible. Reality wins every time. Just compare the original Star Wars releases with the new prequels. The originals has a life like quality that was so capturing. The prequels just made me feel like I should have stayed home and played a video game instead. (Episode III was alright in parts though), This computer CGI will replace actors caper is a joke that isn’t funny.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!!!!