STAR WARS SUCKS, THE TRUTH.
Eric Carlson
I may be one of the few people in the world, which believes that Star Wars
is not a good movie. In fact, I believe it absolutely sucks. The dialogue
is lame; the outfits are sad, even for 70's standards; and the casting is
hideous. Luke is a lame dweeb, Fisher is only mildly attractive, and the
droids are a joke. I was foolish enough to actually go to this show at the
theater, no wonder Lucas said the show sucked, it does. And the BS about
starting the show at episode 3, wow it sounds like Leonard part 6. Empire
is actually kinda enjoyable with the addition of superior graphics and
smoother transitions. Luke is still a wuss, but Yoda is cool. Do I even
have to mention Return, whank-o-rama. It may be true that todays shows,
like ID4 would not have happened without Star Wars, but damn lets stop
worshipping crap, like Star Wars.
Has anyone noticed the ultra-cheesy effects in Star Wars, hell the lines
aren't even cut right. The new version instead of covering things up, tries
to hide the crap behind new scenes. Have any of you noticed how Lucas tends
to trip, when focusing shots. Sometimes the whole scene will get blur and
out of focus, and not on purpose.
James A. Whitney
Well, I'm convinced. What the hell was I thinking?
Michael Powers
On Fri, 02 May 1997 00:56:32 -0700, "Eric Carlson" <Loo...@msn.com>
wrote some silly rant.
<snip>
Troll, troll, troll your boat, noisily down the group...
Mike Powers
Henry Vogel
"Eric Carlson" <Loo...@msn.com> wrote:
You're certainly welcome to your opinion but that's all you've given
us. Unfortunately, you've labeled your opinion as truth -- no, TRUTH.
And, strangely enough, your opinion is in no way, shape or form the
truth -- or even the TRUTH -- for me. Nor is it true for millions of
others. That doesn't make your opinion wrong for you -- one of the
wonderful things about opinions is that they are based entirely on
personal things and can vary widely from person to person -- but it
doesn't make it truth, either.
Henry
Valmir
My first question is "How old are you"?
Star Wars was patterned after the old SF serials that use to be shown
in the movie houses in the thirties or so. It's the way it is on
purpose.
In the beginning Luke is nothing more than a farmboy. In the end he
confronts the big mystical bad guy and wins. Tell...what about Luke
is lame?
"Fisher is only mildly attractive" ... Your gonads are showing....
What about the droids are a joke???
Each three episode unit is a self contained story. So starting at
episode FOUR (not 3) is not a problem. Leonard part 6 was never meant
to be anything other than a single movie (and a bad one at that).
"The dialogue is lame; the outfits are sad, even for 70's standards;"
You must not have seen very many 70's movies have you? Have you seen
Logan's Run (a CLASSIC 70's SF film)?
As for "ultra cheesy effects", when it came out, Star Wars broke new ground.
Nothing like that had been done before. The effects were spectactular and
mesmerizing. I remember getting slightly dizzy the first time I saw the
scene where, from the pilot's point of view, they show the fighter going
into the trench. Nothing like it had been done before. Yes, in hind
sight it may look cheesy, but you don't go from fire to atomic power in
one single stroke.
Industrial Light and Magic was created to create the special effects in
Star Wars. Today ILM probably does about 99% of the special effects. They
are responsible for the ground breaking special effects in just about every
SF movie starting with Star Wars. And the spin off from ILM, Pixar, is
doing the same thing where computer animation is concerned. All this
from Star Wars and its "Cheesy Effects".
Everyone KNOWS that Star Wars isn't perfect. But neither are the old
Buck Rogers serials, neither is the original Star Trek, neither is Logan's
Run, and neither is ID4. (An alien in biomechanical armor is immune to
everything except Will Smith's fist, yadda yadda yadda)
So, you don't like Star Wars. Fine. I do. End of subject.
Russell Miller
I give him points just for introducing me to the term "whank-o-rama."
Brian Bunch
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>
> Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
>
> >when it came out, Star Wars broke new ground.
> >Nothing like that had been done before. The effects were spectactular and
> >mesmerizing. I remember getting slightly dizzy the first time I saw the
> >scene where, from the pilot's point of view, they show the fighter going
> >into the trench. Nothing like it had been done before.
> >Industrial Light and Magic was created to create the special effects in
> >Star Wars.
> Admittedly, ILM have been the gods of effects for a long time. However,
> don't assume that they have no similarly talented competition. Lately,
> James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
> at least as good as ILM... TRUE LIES, STRANGE DAYS, APOLLO 13, THE FIFTH
> ELEMENT... and just over the horizon they have something which will blow
> the effects industry away - AVATAR.
>
<snip>
> Will ILM be overtaken?
> Probably. It is doubtful that anything can compete with AVATAR (if the
> effects targets are met). DIGITAL DOMAIN may soon be on top of the
> effects world.
>
> Any comments/opinions?
The only shortcoming I see with Digital Domain is that they haven't done
anything truly innovative in their projects. True they do stuff that
looks incredible, but no really great technology, that I know of, has
come from them. ILM has been involved with many new innovations. In
computer graphics one of these is the scan-line renderer REYES that
Renderman uses most of the time. I know this an old technology now, but
is really the basis to a lot of the computer graphics seen in film
today. ILM gets a lot of the PhD types to develop new stuff.
I admit to not knowing everything there is to know about what DD has
done but I am very familiar with Renderman and its history. I know that
AVATAR is supposed to be cool, but does it really introduce a
ground-breaking new technology, or does it just extend waht already
exists.
andy
sam...@ix.netcom.com
I think we can really compare ILM's and Digital Domain's work in "Titanic."
Supposedly, both effects houses will be doing the film.
John
--
=================================================
John Callaghan
sam...@ix.netcom.com
ER Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2079/index.html
News, Rumors, Pictures, Video Clips, Sound Bytes, and More of ER
Peter Ronaszeki <pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote in article
<5kikbh$lsi$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>...
>
> Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
>
> >when it came out, Star Wars broke new ground.
> >Nothing like that had been done before. The effects were spectactular
and
> >mesmerizing. I remember getting slightly dizzy the first time I saw the
> >scene where, from the pilot's point of view, they show the fighter going
> >into the trench. Nothing like it had been done before.
> (snip)
> >Industrial Light and Magic was created to create the special effects in
> >Star Wars. Today ILM probably does about 99% of the special effects.
They
> >are responsible for the ground breaking special effects in just about
every
> >SF movie starting with Star Wars. And the spin off from ILM, Pixar, is
> >doing the same thing where computer animation is concerned.
>
> Admittedly, ILM have been the gods of effects for a long time. However,
> don't assume that they have no similarly talented competition. Lately,
> James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
> at least as good as ILM... TRUE LIES, STRANGE DAYS, APOLLO 13, THE FIFTH
> ELEMENT... and just over the horizon they have something which will blow
> the effects industry away - AVATAR.
>
> And let's not forget the other effects houses... just take a look at
> VIFX's amazing work on THE RELIC for example. There are a *lot* of good
> effects being done nowadays, and not all from ILM. Will ILM be
overtaken?
> Probably. It is doubtful that anything can compete with AVATAR (if the
> effects targets are met). DIGITAL DOMAIN may soon be on top of the
> effects world.
>
> Any comments/opinions?
>
>
> Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
>
> _THE ENTERTAINMENT NEXUS_
> ( Movies, video games, sci-fi, multimedia downloads, etc. )
>
> *** http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~predator ***
>
>
mcooney
I think AVATAR will only blow away the competition and put DD on top
if Cameron can release the film BEFORE the first Star Wars prequel film
comes out. With the gargantuan efforts of ILM in programming and
research now spanning years, all of it top top secret, god knows what
kinds of new animation and rendering tools they have come up with. I
figure Star Wars episode one, when released will brake more or less the
final barriers to absolute photirealistic characters, virtual sets, ect.
I'm sure AVATAR effects guys are equaly trying hard to reach maximum
quality, but in the end, it's the one who gets their film out to market
first that will get the credit.
Look at it this way, if in 1975, Doug Trumbull or some other guy had
to create motion controll and advanced optical compotiting, and did it
before Star Wars, but the film got held up for a year and was released
after SW, nobody would remember that film, and everybody would say it
was Star Wars that pioneered those effects.
Hickey David SCM1311
You are a fuckwit!,
If you want lame, lets look at crap movies like ID4, the stupid yank
advertising invasion, if you fell for the gimick of a few computer
generated spaceships and 100 hornets flying around than you are a
dickhead.
Nobody asked you to worship star wars, nobody even asked for your opinion,
if you do not like star wars, then get off this newsgroup and look up
alt.binaries.little boys.
Star wars may not have the special effects of the bigger budget films and
more modern films, but remember when it was made, the special edition, is
much better than the original, but if you are looking for a comparison
between star wars and another movie, you won't get it!
Just remember it is science FICTION you wanker!!!
U don;t like it then DONT FUCKING WATCH IT AND STOP WASTING EVERYBODYS
TIME AND MAKING THEM READ THIS FUCKING MESSAGE!
:(
Beezel
On Tue, 06 May 97 23:17:26 GMT, ECH...@news.salford.ac.uk (M.A.Yates)
wrote:
>P.S.
>
>What the hell is AVATAR - seen it mentioned here and at Harry's.
>
Avatar is going to be set in the futer on an ailyen woreld, invaded
by humans who strip mine planets to sustian ther steller empier or
something like that.
The Avitars are indiginos life forms on this woreld who eat sertin
plants to tranzforme into super powerfel beaings and defend ther
planet from the evil humans.
As for the ILM vs. Digitel Domaine question, if ither of theas
companeys are worth ther salt we wont be aibel to tell the diferens
between ther work in Titanic.
Anyway, Its not the *companey*, its the peopel who maike the
diferens. If ILM had to sudenly and complealy re-staf with
inexsperyensed peopel, ther nastalgic asosyaition with Star Wars
woulden't save them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorey for the inconveanyens of reading thrue my posts!
However...
I will not respond to >un-frendly< coments regarding my
spelling.Dislexya does NOT = stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcooney
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>
> m2...@utdallas.edu () writes:
>
> >Brian Bunch (bab...@eos.ncsu.edu) wrote:
>
> >Avatar may blow audiences away but can't the same be said for the
> >upcoming prequels, I have read stuff saying that the prequels will be the
> >most visually impressive movies and that it will be like nothing done
> >ever before.
>
> Well, I think the phrase "like nothing ever before" is overdoing it a
> little...
>
> *** Minor Spoilers Below for STAR WARS: BALANCE OF THE FORCE Intro ***
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> From what I hear, the intro scene of BALANCE OF THE FORCE will be a chase
> through the location (can't remember the planet's name) that was shown in
> the new ending for RETURN OF THE JEDI. If so, we already know what the
> visual look is - just take a look at the new JEDI ending - and while it is
> definitely very nice, it certainly can't be called "like nothing we've
> ever seen before". Heck, THE FIFTH ELEMENT already looks better. Not
> to mention that the prequels will be relatively moderate budget. The
> phrase "like nothing we've ever seen before" should be reserved for
> AVATAR.
>
> If it's a Cameron vs. Lucas race, then it'll be close for sure, but if all
> goes as expected Cameron will come out on top. That's just my take on the
> matter.
>
> Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
>
> _THE ENTERTAINMENT NEXUS_
> ( Movies, video games, sci-fi, multimedia downloads, etc. )
>
> *** http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~predator ***
One really BIG plus Digital Domain now has is the recently hired on
Ken Musgrave as a software designer. If you have ever visited his web
site, and seen the experimental procedural modeling and rendering
effects and new types of shaders he has done, it's really increddible.
Entire planets and terrain all done with code!
Peter Ronaszeki
Caltiki, the Immortal Monster
Who says this is a Star Wars Only NG? And, let's see, you have to
actually like SW to post here, right?
Seems to me that Luke appeared as if he could have fallen for Hans Solo
as easily as Leia. And with muppets, muppet babies, those cute,
adorable droids, and a cartoonish plot, SW hardly hardly qualifies as
science fiction. More like an ambitious cross between "Pete's Dragon"
and "Lost in Space".
So there.
Kevin C.
--
knm...@interactive.net
Holy Hanna Banana!
http://www.interactive.net/~knmcarr/images/
m2...@utdallas.edu
Brian Bunch (bab...@eos.ncsu.edu) wrote:
Avatar may blow audiences away but can't the same be said for the
upcoming prequels, I have read stuff saying that the prequels will be the
most visually impressive movies and that it will be like nothing done
ever before.
> Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
> >
> > Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
> >
> > >when it came out, Star Wars broke new ground.
> > >Nothing like that had been done before. The effects were spectactular and
> > >mesmerizing. I remember getting slightly dizzy the first time I saw the
> > >scene where, from the pilot's point of view, they show the fighter going
> > >into the trench. Nothing like it had been done before.
> > (snip)
> > >Industrial Light and Magic was created to create the special effects in
> > >Star Wars.
> <snip>
> > Admittedly, ILM have been the gods of effects for a long time. However,
> > don't assume that they have no similarly talented competition. Lately,
> > James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
> > at least as good as ILM... TRUE LIES, STRANGE DAYS, APOLLO 13, THE FIFTH
> > ELEMENT... and just over the horizon they have something which will blow
> > the effects industry away - AVATAR.
> >
> <snip>
> > Will ILM be overtaken?
> > Probably. It is doubtful that anything can compete with AVATAR (if the
> > effects targets are met). DIGITAL DOMAIN may soon be on top of the
> > effects world.
> >
> > Any comments/opinions?
> The only shortcoming I see with Digital Domain is that they haven't done
David Montrose
Eric Carlson (Loo...@msn.com) wrote:
: I may be one of the few people in the world, which believes that Star Wars
: is not a good movie. In fact, I believe it absolutely sucks. The dialogue
: is lame; the outfits are sad, even for 70's standards; and the casting is
: hideous. Luke is a lame dweeb, Fisher is only mildly attractive, and the
: droids are a joke. I was foolish enough to actually go to this show at the
: theater, no wonder Lucas said the show sucked, it does. And the BS about
: starting the show at episode 3, wow it sounds like Leonard part 6. Empire
: is actually kinda enjoyable with the addition of superior graphics and
: smoother transitions. Luke is still a wuss, but Yoda is cool. Do I even
: have to mention Return, whank-o-rama. It may be true that todays shows,
: like ID4 would not have happened without Star Wars, but damn lets stop
: worshipping crap, like Star Wars.
: Has anyone noticed the ultra-cheesy effects in Star Wars, hell the lines
: aren't even cut right. The new version instead of covering things up, tries
: to hide the crap behind new scenes. Have any of you noticed how Lucas tends
: to trip, when focusing shots. Sometimes the whole scene will get blur and
: out of focus, and not on purpose.
--
You're a fucking trekkie, aren't you.
Beezel
On 7 May 1997 19:03:14 +0800, pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter
Ronaszeki) wrote:
>
>WOW, you realise this is the first time details of the story have been
>posted on the net! Assuming you're not joking, thanks for the hot info!
>
Umm. Sorey! I WAS joking...
All i heard was that ther was going to be CGI chericters or
something. And it was going to be set in medeavel times.
Didn't mean to anoy. My apaligeys.
Beezel
Peter Ronaszeki
m2...@utdallas.edu () writes:
>Brian Bunch (bab...@eos.ncsu.edu) wrote:
>Avatar may blow audiences away but can't the same be said for the
>upcoming prequels, I have read stuff saying that the prequels will be the
>most visually impressive movies and that it will be like nothing done
>ever before.
Well, I think the phrase "like nothing ever before" is overdoing it a
little...
Cronan Thompson
Brian Bunch <bab...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in
> The only shortcoming I see with Digital Domain is that they haven't done
> anything truly innovative in their projects.
I don't see that as a weakness at all. Microsoft has never really had any
ninovations. They just steal other peoples ideas and market them better.
Rigoberto Cortes
From what I've heard the sequel to True Lies is next for Cameron and another
rumbling is MGM just brought the rights to Spiderman from Carolco for a paltry
2mil and MGM was hoping for a memorial day 1999 date for SM. If that's the
case where does Avatar fit in? Also take a look at DD's work for the Virtual
Andre spot. It look to be the precursor to Avatar.....
M.A.Yates
P.S.
What the hell is AVATAR - seen it mentioned here and at Harry's.
Mark
England
In article <5kikbh$lsi$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>,
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
>
>Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
>
>>when it came out, Star Wars broke new ground.
>>Nothing like that had been done before. The effects were spectactular and
>>mesmerizing. I remember getting slightly dizzy the first time I saw the
>>scene where, from the pilot's point of view, they show the fighter going
>>into the trench. Nothing like it had been done before.
>(snip)
>>Industrial Light and Magic was created to create the special effects in
>>Star Wars. Today ILM probably does about 99% of the special effects. They
>>are responsible for the ground breaking special effects in just about every
>>SF movie starting with Star Wars. And the spin off from ILM, Pixar, is
>>doing the same thing where computer animation is concerned.
>
>Admittedly, ILM have been the gods of effects for a long time. However,
>don't assume that they have no similarly talented competition. Lately,
>James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
>at least as good as ILM... TRUE LIES, STRANGE DAYS, APOLLO 13, THE FIFTH
>ELEMENT... and just over the horizon they have something which will blow
>the effects industry away - AVATAR.
>
>And let's not forget the other effects houses... just take a look at
>VIFX's amazing work on THE RELIC for example. There are a *lot* of good
>effects being done nowadays, and not all from ILM. Will ILM be overtaken?
>Probably. It is doubtful that anything can compete with AVATAR (if the
>effects targets are met). DIGITAL DOMAIN may soon be on top of the
>effects world.
>
>Any comments/opinions?
>
>
M.A.Yates
In article <5kikbh$lsi$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>,
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
>
>Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
>
>>when it came out, Star Wars broke new ground.
>>Nothing like that had been done before. The effects were spectactular and
>>mesmerizing. I remember getting slightly dizzy the first time I saw the
>>scene where, from the pilot's point of view, they show the fighter going
>>into the trench. Nothing like it had been done before.
>(snip)
>>Industrial Light and Magic was created to create the special effects in
>>Star Wars. Today ILM probably does about 99% of the special effects. They
there are numerous other fx companies out there - about 5 or 6 were involved
in ID4 - which don't forget won the best Oscar for fx.
DD is very quickly catching up with ILM.
What about Pixars cgi work - look at Toy Story!
Some of the stills for the 5th element look outstanding - absolutely amazing!
And what I've heard about the cgi stuff in the Titanic sound quite
unbeleivable - DD have been asking for bids on up to 100 cgi shots they don't
think they can handle!
Mark, England.
Jonas Ussing
> What the hell is AVATAR - seen it mentioned here and at Harry's.
An upcoming Cameron/DD project said to involve "revolutionary CGI character
animation". Supposedly it will be THE movie to truly introduce CGI
character animation to visual effects houses' repetoire, the way Jurassic
Park did it with creatures. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
> >And let's not forget the other effects houses... just take a look at
> >VIFX's amazing work on THE RELIC for example.
I am sorry, but me being so squeamish about CGI I have to say this: I was
NOT impressed by the Relic - some shots were REALLY nice, but way too many
lacked quality. I definately give them thumbs up for trying to create a
creature on fire, and even almost convincing in a few shots, but the
overall was too poor.
But, to back up your point, the monster in Relic was WAY WAY WAY better
than, say, the alligators in Eraser -- so yes, ILM is meeting competition.
-Jonas
Jonas Ussing
Beezel <Bee...@helix.net> skrev i artiklen
<336dc80f...@news.cyberion.com>...
> Avatar is going to be set in the futer on an ailyen woreld, invaded
> by humans who strip mine planets to sustian ther steller empier or
> something like that.
> The Avitars are indiginos life forms on this woreld who eat sertin
> plants to tranzforme into super powerfel beaings and defend ther
> planet from the evil humans.
Where do you have all this information from? All I heard was the part about
CGI characters, and I thought I knew all there was to know - are you an
insider? Tell more!
-Jonas
Peter Ronaszeki
Beezel<Bee...@helix.net> writes:
> Avatar is going to be set in the futer on an ailyen woreld, invaded
>by humans who strip mine planets to sustian ther steller empier or
>something like that.
> The Avitars are indiginos life forms on this woreld who eat sertin
>plants to tranzforme into super powerfel beaings and defend ther
>planet from the evil humans.
WOW, you realise this is the first time details of the story have been
posted on the net! Assuming you're not joking, thanks for the hot info!
Chris Klecker
Bee...@helix.net(Beezel) wrote
: On Tue, 06 May 97 23:17:26 GMT, ECH...@news.salford.ac.uk (M.A.Yates)
: wrote:
: Avatar is going to be set in the futer on an ailyen woreld, invaded
: by humans who strip mine planets to sustian ther steller empier or
: something like that.
: The Avitars are indiginos life forms on this woreld who eat sertin
: plants to tranzforme into super powerfel beaings and defend ther
: planet from the evil humans.
: As for the ILM vs. Digitel Domaine question, if ither of theas
: companeys are worth ther salt we wont be aibel to tell the diferens
: between ther work in Titanic.
: Anyway, Its not the *companey*, its the peopel who maike the
: diferens. If ILM had to sudenly and complealy re-staf with
: inexsperyensed peopel, ther nastalgic asosyaition with Star Wars
: woulden't save them.
Wow! hookked on fonics wurkt fer u.
--
| Chris Klecker
COOIINN!! COOOIIIINN!! COOOIIIIIN!! | klec...@cs.purdue.edu
| http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/
The Mummy in Scooby Doo.| kleckecr/home.html
Chris Klecker
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au(Peter Ronaszeki) wrote
: Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
: Admittedly, ILM have been the gods of effects for a long time. However,
: don't assume that they have no similarly talented competition. Lately,
: James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
: at least as good as ILM... TRUE LIES, STRANGE DAYS, APOLLO 13, THE FIFTH
: ELEMENT... and just over the horizon they have something which will blow
: the effects industry away - AVATAR.
the effects for True Lies weren't all that spectacular but they were pretty.
Digital Domain will need more movies to lay down a foundation. Terminator
2 may just be that foundation. However, digital domain just hasn't come out
with any movies that top T2 in the effects catagory. T2 still reigns as the
best effects powerhouse of the 90's for DD.
ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
--
Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've | Chris Klecker
got a full tank of gas, half pack of | klec...@cs.purdue.edu
cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing |
sunglasses. |
Jake: Hit it! Blues Brothers |
Serge Sretschinsky
Chris Klecker wrote:
> ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
> foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
Close Encounters was Douglas Trumbull.
Brian White
Try www.search.com, and search for 'avatar camerom', I pulled up a few
sights having minor tidbits of info, still no plotline or scriptment
though. By the way, The Fifth Element should have some awesome CGI
effects (better than True Lies or Apollo 13) - definitely see this one -
is it the Blade Runner of the 90's? Digital Domain rules, I'm sure it
will be a race to see who bids for the best CGI jobs on upcoming
FX-heavy films. ILM may be good, but I'll bet DD has a better battle
plan.
Peter Ronaszeki
klec...@cs.purdue.edu (Chris Klecker) writes:
>the effects for True Lies weren't all that spectacular but they were pretty.
>Digital Domain will need more movies to lay down a foundation. Terminator
>2 may just be that foundation. However, digital domain just hasn't come out
>with any movies that top T2 in the effects catagory. T2 still reigns as the
>best effects powerhouse of the 90's for DD.
>ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
>foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. ILM did T2, not DD.
If by "a foundation" you mean a large profile flashy film (like ILM like
to do) then look no further than THE FIFTH ELEMENT, with effects to put
SW:SE to shame.
Lancer
> I think AVATAR will only blow away the competition and put DD on top
>if Cameron can release the film BEFORE the first Star Wars prequel film
>comes out. With the gargantuan efforts of ILM in programming and
>research now spanning years, all of it top top secret, god knows what
>kinds of new animation and rendering tools they have come up with. I
>figure Star Wars episode one, when released will brake more or less the
>final barriers to absolute photirealistic characters, virtual sets, ect.
>
> I'm sure AVATAR effects guys are equaly trying hard to reach maximum
>quality, but in the end, it's the one who gets their film out to market
>first that will get the credit.
>
> Look at it this way, if in 1975, Doug Trumbull or some other guy had
>to create motion controll and advanced optical compotiting, and did it
>before Star Wars, but the film got held up for a year and was released
>after SW, nobody would remember that film, and everybody would say it
>was Star Wars that pioneered those effects.
Can anyone point me to a site with a lot of info on Avatar. I tried it in
the search engines and I came up with zero. Even in the Internet Movie
Database, there is no mention of what the movie is about. Thanks
******************************************
Lancer's Mech and Star Wars 3d Art Gallery
http://www.users.interport.net/~lancer/
LAN...@INTERPORT.NET
******************************************
"If you don't stand for something, you'll
fall for anything "
Pierre Allaire
/ klec...@cs.purdue.edu (Chris Klecker) said:
| the effects for True Lies weren't all that spectacular but they were pretty.
| Digital Domain will need more movies to lay down a foundation. Terminator
| 2 may just be that foundation. However, digital domain just hasn't come out
| with any movies that top T2 in the effects catagory. T2 still reigns as the
| best effects powerhouse of the 90's for DD.
|
| ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
| foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
Er, Digital Domain wasn't even in existence when -T2- was made. Unless
you're referring to -T2 3D-, in which case you can ignore this whole post.
:)
-jon
--
jonathan young "The Internet people said that about you?
jyoung @ pobox.com Those vicious geeks..." --Conan O'Brien
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
hello spambots: ro...@127.0.0.1 abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost
val...@wt.net
According to the way this reads, I wrote the paragraph below. The
problem is I DIDN'T WRITE IT. Please be more careful in your attributions
in the future. Thanks.
In article <5kqak4$s...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
klec...@cs.purdue.edu (Chris Klecker) wrote:
>
> pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au(Peter Ronaszeki) wrote
>
> : Valmir <val...@wt.net> writes:
>
> : Admittedly, ILM have been the gods of effects for a long time. However,
> : don't assume that they have no similarly talented competition. Lately,
> : James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
> : at least as good as ILM... TRUE LIES, STRANGE DAYS, APOLLO 13, THE FIFTH
> : ELEMENT... and just over the horizon they have something which will blow
> : the effects industry away - AVATAR.
>
> the effects for True Lies weren't all that spectacular but they were pretty.
> Digital Domain will need more movies to lay down a foundation. Terminator
> 2 may just be that foundation. However, digital domain just hasn't come out
> with any movies that top T2 in the effects catagory. T2 still reigns as the
> best effects powerhouse of the 90's for DD.
>
> ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
> foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
>
> --
> Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've | Chris Klecker
> got a full tank of gas, half pack of | klec...@cs.purdue.edu
> cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing |
> sunglasses. |
> Jake: Hit it! Blues Brothers |
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Craig Good
In article <336CF1...@eos.ncsu.edu>, Brian Bunch <bab...@eos.ncsu.edu>
wrote:
: ... ILM has been involved with many new innovations. In
: computer graphics one of these is the scan-line renderer REYES that
: Renderman uses most of the time. I know this an old technology now, but
: is really the basis to a lot of the computer graphics seen in film
: today. ILM gets a lot of the PhD types to develop new stuff.
Just to pick nits, Reyes (which later became what we know generically
today as RenderMan) wasn't written at ILM. The authors all worked for the
division which eventually became known officially as the Lucasfilm
Computer Division, the only division at LFL not to get a really cool name.
But that's OK, it spun off into a couple of companies with sorta cool
names, one of which survives today and which happens to be the current
home of RenderMan.
--
--Craig
go...@pixar.com
Warren Day
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
> James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
> at least as good as ILM...
It's interesting to note that...
Digital Domain was founded in 1993 by, among other people: JC, SW and ...
Scott Ross. Who, until then, had been running various parts of the LucasFilm
organisation, including ILM, of which he was General Manager.
Warren "These guys are rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic"
Jerico One, Strange Days :)
Peter Ronaszeki
Lan...@interport.net (Lancer) writes:
> Can anyone point me to a site with a lot of info on Avatar. I tried it in
>the search engines and I came up with zero. Even in the Internet Movie
>Database, there is no mention of what the movie is about. Thanks
The reason for this is because AVATAR is the single most secret movie
project around. Yes, even more secret than the prequels. Only the guys
at DD know anything about it, and if they leak anything then Cameron will
personally kill them.
All we know is that it is a fantasy/tech/love story/thriller, and that it
features over a dozen "genetic" avatars (photorealistic CGI creatures
and/or humans). Of course, if anyone feels brave and wants to give some
more info, then we'd love to hear it.
Jonas Ussing
Serge Sretschinsky <se...@spimageworks.com> skrev i artiklen
<3370EF...@spimageworks.com>...
> Chris Klecker wrote:
>
> > ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
> > foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
>
-And Dennis Muren out of ILM.
Brian Bunch
Craig Good wrote:
>
> In article <336CF1...@eos.ncsu.edu>, Brian Bunch <bab...@eos.ncsu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
> Just to pick nits, Reyes (which later became what we know generically
> today as RenderMan) wasn't written at ILM. The authors all worked for the
> division which eventually became known officially as the Lucasfilm
> Computer Division, the only division at LFL not to get a really cool name.
> But that's OK, it spun off into a couple of companies with sorta cool
> names, one of which survives today and which happens to be the current
> home of RenderMan.
>
Yea, after Larry Gritz e-mailed me I looked again and realized I had
messed up. Sorry about the screw up I just got little mixed up in what
I said.
BTW, do a lot of people from Pixar read this group? I was wondering how
many corrections I can expect to get <g>.
andy
Austin "danger" Powers
> >What the hell is AVATAR - seen it mentioned here and at Harry's.
> >
>
> by humans who strip mine planets to sustian ther steller empier or
> something like that.
> The Avitars are indiginos life forms on this woreld who eat sertin
> plants to tranzforme into super powerfel beaings and defend ther
> planet from the evil humans.
Also, from what I hear, AVATAR will have computer generated
actors, a revolution in film making. They look exactly like real people
but they don't exist.
>
> As for the ILM vs. Digitel Domaine question, if ither of theas
> companeys are worth ther salt we wont be aibel to tell the diferens
> between ther work in Titanic.
> Anyway, Its not the *companey*, its the peopel who maike the
> diferens. If ILM had to sudenly and complealy re-staf with
> inexsperyensed peopel, ther nastalgic asosyaition with Star Wars
> woulden't save them.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorey for the inconveanyens of reading thrue my posts!
> However...
> I will not respond to >un-frendly< coments regarding my
> spelling.Dislexya does NOT = stupidity.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Serge Sretschinsky
That may be, but it was not an ILM job nor was Muren the VFX Supervisor.
Scott Gross
I can't believe that Cameron could up with a better story to use to
introduce the concept of avatars than Snow Crash, the Neil Stephenson
novel. What a GREAT book. When I first read this book it played in my
mind like a good film. I hoped that someone of Cameron's caliber would
make it, but he apparently has such faith in his writing skills that he
has his own plot. Granted his record and skills speak for themselves,
but I will go to see it with some skepticism and it better be good.
--
|------------------------------------|
| Scott Gross |
| P. E. Photron |
| 4030 Moorpark Ave., Suite 108 |
| San Jose, CA 95117 |
| Phone: 408-261-3613 |
| FAX: 408-261-3628 |
| Pager: 800-746-0854 |
| E-mail: sgr...@photron.com |
| Web Page: http://www.photron.com |
|------------------------------------|
| We must stop them, Tonto |
|____________________________________|
Jonas Ussing
Peter Ronaszeki <pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> skrev i artiklen
<5ksdr1$ojj$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>...
> Lan...@interport.net (Lancer) writes:
>
> The reason for this is because AVATAR is the single most secret movie
> project around. Yes, even more secret than the prequels. Only the guys
> at DD know anything about it, and if they leak anything then Cameron will
> personally kill them.
>
> All we know is that it is a fantasy/tech/love story/thriller, and that it
> features over a dozen "genetic" avatars (photorealistic CGI creatures
> and/or humans). Of course, if anyone feels brave and wants to give some
> more info, then we'd love to hear it.
A (questionable) rumour surfaced at Harry's a week or so back, which said
that there would be only one (1) CGI character in the movie, and that that
would not be revealed until the last minute of the film. -Sounds very
doubtful (as I believe Harry also pointed out). Somehow, it doesn't seem
like the concept of Avatar is to amaze us at the very end, but more to keep
us amazed and jaw-dropped throughout the entire film. (But I don't think it
is more secretive than the prequels -- it's just not as far in development,
so there's not so much information to reveal...)
Also, rumours say DD recently held a demonstration of their research in
character animation, and that it was absolutely amazing. Somthing about a
human getting up from a chair, walking around the room, and getting back
into the chair in one perfect animation. As far as I understood, at this
stage is was a wireframe model or something, and obviously CGI , but the
animation was perfect.
Has anyone ever noticed that the increased popularity and anticipation
about the DD/Cameron cooperation and their expected succes is very much due
to the rumours about Avatar, which we haven't seen one single screen shot
from yet? I mean, that's about all it takes to become wildly popular (among
VFX people, anyway) -- rumours about a "new and revolutionary CGI project
that will move borders and set new limits"... -Just a thought.
-Jonas
Hank Driskill
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
: The reason for this is because AVATAR is the single most secret movie
: project around. Yes, even more secret than the prequels. Only the guys
: at DD know anything about it, and if they leak anything then Cameron will
: personally kill them.
:
: All we know is that it is a fantasy/tech/love story/thriller, and that it
: features over a dozen "genetic" avatars (photorealistic CGI creatures
: and/or humans). Of course, if anyone feels brave and wants to give some
: more info, then we'd love to hear it.
Sorry, no one here that brave... <g>
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
.--.__ Hank Driskill __.--.
_ ___/ /\| Software Development |/\ \___ _
.~( )__. ) ~ Digital Domain ~ ( .__( )~.
// // '==; dris...@d2.com ;==` \\ \\
' \ | ^ +1.310.314.2997 ^ | / `
^ ^ "It's a Kind of Magic" ^ ^
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dan
The problem DD and the smaller fx houses face is that they need
bankable films. Given 5th element has outstanding effects, it must
bring in the money to advance further projects. This is why lucas
re-invests a majority of profits into further ilm projects. We are
seeing a great deal of better cgi because it is fantasically cheaper as
the years progress, ILM will always have the finanical support to allow
it to develop new technology.
doctorjones
Peter Ronaszeki
war...@towers.co.uk (Warren Day) writes:
>Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>> James Cameron and Stan Winston's DIGITAL DOMAIN has been producing images
>> at least as good as ILM...
>It's interesting to note that...
>Digital Domain was founded in 1993 by, among other people: JC, SW and ...
>Scott Ross. Who, until then, had been running various parts of the LucasFilm
>organisation, including ILM, of which he was General Manager.
I know. That's probably why they got off to such a quick and immediately
successful start. It's all about people.
Peter Ronaszeki
Scott Gross <sgr...@photron.com> writes:
>I can't believe that Cameron could up with a better story to use to
>introduce the concept of avatars than Snow Crash, the Neil Stephenson
>novel. What a GREAT book. When I first read this book it played in my
>mind like a good film. I hoped that someone of Cameron's caliber would
>make it, but he apparently has such faith in his writing skills that he
>has his own plot. Granted his record and skills speak for themselves,
>but I will go to see it with some skepticism and it better be good.
Actually, SNOW CRASH *is* being made into a film. But not by J.C.
James Cameron has said that AVATAR has nothing to do with SNOW CRASH:
"The story is not about virtual worlds or computing."
Peter Ronaszeki
"Jonas Ussing" <jo...@dialog-data.dk> writes:
>A (questionable) rumour surfaced at Harry's a week or so back, which said
>that there would be only one (1) CGI character in the movie, and that that
>would not be revealed until the last minute of the film.
This has to be false.
An article recently ran in Wired which clearly stated that AVATAR "stars
no fewer than a dozen computer-generated thespians".
>Somehow, it doesn't seem
>like the concept of Avatar is to amaze us at the very end, but more to keep
>us amazed and jaw-dropped throughout the entire film. (But I don't think it
>is more secretive than the prequels -- it's just not as far in development,
>so there's not so much information to reveal...)
Well, the prequels have had quite a lot of leaks already. While AVATAR
has had *zero* leaks that I know of. I still maintain that AVATAR is the
most secretive project in the business.
>Also, rumours say DD recently held a demonstration of their research in
>character animation, and that it was absolutely amazing. Somthing about a
>human getting up from a chair, walking around the room, and getting back
>into the chair in one perfect animation. As far as I understood, at this
>stage is was a wireframe model or something, and obviously CGI , but the
>animation was perfect.
From what I've heard of heard, this demo was FULLY RENDERED, not
wireframe. Supposedly indistinguishable from reality. I've also heard
that the lucky guys at DD like to play "guess what's CGI in this shot"...
:)
>Has anyone ever noticed that the increased popularity and anticipation
>about the DD/Cameron cooperation and their expected succes is very much due
>to the rumours about Avatar, which we haven't seen one single screen shot
>from yet? I mean, that's about all it takes to become wildly popular (among
>VFX people, anyway) -- rumours about a "new and revolutionary CGI project
>that will move borders and set new limits"... -Just a thought.
James Cameron hasn't disappointed his fans yet, and I don't think he plans
on changing that. With DD's help, he'll deliver the goods.
Whatever it takes. :)
Danny Braet
Beezel wrote:
>Dislexya does NOT = stupidity.
Totally agree....The most important thing is what is in the text and not
how it is formed....
stupdity is a word that can be associated with those who think the
opposite,
Danny Braet.
US visa recieved digital artist for Digital Domain
Payndz
On the subject of FX company vs FX company, how do Netter Digital
Imaging's (if I got their name right) shots for Babylon 5 compare
with Foundation's? We haven't had season 4 in the UK yet, so I'm
curious (but not yellow).
No spoilers please!
Payndz
Danny Braet
Euh...what do you consider to be a small fx house...certainly not d2 i
suppose ?
anyway...big/small company...big/small budgets....a lot of small houses
make
marvelous things....it all comes down to the people behind the magic....
--
Chris Klecker
se...@spimageworks.com(Serge Sretschinsky) wrote
: Chris Klecker wrote:
: > ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
: > foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
: Close Encounters was Douglas Trumbull.
jesus I'm getting dissed left and right. Then I thought Close Encounters was
ILM. I could check again.
--
"Just don't sneeze, while flossing that upper cuspid | Chris Klecker
cuspid" Berke Breathed | klec...@cs.purdue.edu
dec...@ucla.edu
dris...@netcom.com (Hank Driskill) wrote:
>: All we know is that it is a fantasy/tech/love story/thriller, and that it
>: features over a dozen "genetic" avatars (photorealistic CGI creatures
>: and/or humans). Of course, if anyone feels brave and wants to give some
>: more info, then we'd love to hear it.
>Sorry, no one here that brave... <g>
>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> .--.__ Hank Driskill __.--.
> _ ___/ /\| Software Development |/\ \___ _
> .~( )__. ) ~ Digital Domain ~ ( .__( )~.
> // // '==; dris...@d2.com ;==` \\ \\
> ' \ | ^ +1.310.314.2997 ^ | / `
> ^ ^ "It's a Kind of Magic" ^ ^
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Awww Hank! Why not? ;-) Don't like the branding irons?
------------------------
Alan Precourt
Digital Domain CGI
"More human than human is our motto..."
Chris Klecker
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au(Peter Ronaszeki) wrote
: klec...@cs.purdue.edu (Chris Klecker) writes:
: >the effects for True Lies weren't all that spectacular but they were pretty.
: >Digital Domain will need more movies to lay down a foundation. Terminator
: >2 may just be that foundation. However, digital domain just hasn't come out
: >with any movies that top T2 in the effects catagory. T2 still reigns as the
: >best effects powerhouse of the 90's for DD.
: >ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
: >foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. ILM did T2, not DD.
: If by "a foundation" you mean a large profile flashy film (like ILM like
: to do) then look no further than THE FIFTH ELEMENT, with effects to put
: SW:SE to shame.
oh they did? Whoops. Sorry. Then I guess DD has no REAL foundation at all. :(
As for your closing statement. Effects do not a movie make. They make only a
fraction of the movie. Star Wars also had the interesting characters, the
wonderful development, the incredible action scenes. Until I see the Fifth
Element I may change my mind but from this day onward, until something
crazy happens, Star Wars and Empire will reign in my mind as the greatest
special effects/movies ever created.
--
You have the right to remain silent. | Chris Klecker
You have the right to have your face | klec...@cs.purdue.edu
kicked in by me. You have the right to
have your balls stomped on by him.
Fletch
Peter Ronaszeki
klec...@cs.purdue.edu (Chris Klecker) writes:
>pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au(Peter Ronaszeki) wrote
>: If by "a foundation" you mean a large profile flashy film (like ILM like
>: to do) then look no further than THE FIFTH ELEMENT, with effects to put
>: SW:SE to shame.
>Effects do not a movie make. They make only a
>fraction of the movie. Star Wars also had the interesting characters, the
>wonderful development, the incredible action scenes. Until I see the Fifth
>Element I may change my mind but from this day onward, until something
>crazy happens, Star Wars and Empire will reign in my mind as the greatest
>special effects/movies ever created.
Fair enough. I never said THE FIFTH ELEMENT will be better movie than the
STAR WARS TRILOGY (in fact, I'm sure it won't be). I just said the
effects will probably be more accomplished.
MarkW
Payndz <and...@paragon.co.uk> wrote:
>On the subject of FX company vs FX company, how do Netter Digital
>Imaging's (if I got their name right) shots for Babylon 5 compare
>with Foundation's? We haven't had season 4 in the UK yet, so I'm
>curious (but not yellow).
Hmm.
I'm going to preface what I have to say by noting that I've seen no
other posts or comments anywhere that even broach this subject so my
opinion on this is obviously in the minority. Whether my opinion has
any substance or not is something that you'll have to decide for
yourself when C4 finally decides to show season 4.
Now, Netter got all of the ships, planets, object and scene files and
whatever (everything, in theory) that Foundation had done for B5 up
until the end of season three. That material was, in effect, owned by
the show rather than Foundation. Given this, it would have been
really difficult to make new shots *look* radically different than the
old ones. Once you have a "Space" scene set up (and they had examples
from Foundation's stuff) Lightwave gives you the way the image
looks... and when it's something like a space scene, they'd have had
to be *monumentally* incompetent with the package to make the images
look wrong. They're not monumentally incompetent with Lightwave. The
visual quality of the space effects is fine, same as it ever was.
Having dealt with that let's move on to the more... intangible
qualities of the effects...
The first six episodes of season four were very good, it was hard to
see a difference. Oh sure, I remember spotting a couple of things
that were possibly wrong, like a ship that didn't decelerate out of a
jump gate like I expected it to or a shot that was slightly confusing
to look at... and from the first I disliked the long Starfury shot in
the main titles (Somebody *slap* them - Starfuries aren't supposed to
fly like an X-Wing, it's just plain wrong...) but on the whole the
first six episodes were very good. Since then however, the effects
have *stunk*...
The first thing that made me go "Ugh!" was the fireworks scene (you'll
know it when you see it). The effects have been almost uniformly sub
par since then. They've decided to ignore establishing shots in many
instances, their sense of image composition is so lacking that quite
often it's hard to tell what's supposed to be happening, their
sequences have almost no sense of story flow and somebody *please*
explain "Line of action" to them bacause they just don't seem to get
it... wait, I want to mention composition again... Many of the newer
shots are plain "hideous*. Really. It seems to be impossible for
them to simply point the camera at something without banking it, I'm
sick to death of seeing starfields rotate around the centre of the
screen.
Netter's people seem to badly lack the things that were most important
and valuable about Foundation's work - not the ability to use
Lightwave at all but rather the abilities that go on top of that to
produce something like Severed Dreams - An innate sense of drama,
storytelling, coherent visual flow and composition. They started off
promisingly but somehow they seem to have lost it.
I've read that they are of the opinion that they're getting more
"Adventurous" with the effects now. Maybe... but I think that they
should try for "Good" before they try for "Adventurous".
Mark W.
Peter Choi
Chris Klecker wrote:
>
> pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au(Peter Ronaszeki) wrote
> : klec...@cs.purdue.edu (Chris Klecker) writes:
>
> : >the effects for True Lies weren't all that spectacular but they were pretty.
> : >Digital Domain will need more movies to lay down a foundation. Terminator
> : >2 may just be that foundation. However, digital domain just hasn't come out
> : >with any movies that top T2 in the effects catagory. T2 still reigns as the
> : >best effects powerhouse of the 90's for DD.
> : >ILM's would have to be the Star Wars SE. But at least they have a wider
> : >foundation. (Close Encounters, ET, Raiders..... )
>
> : I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. ILM did T2, not DD.
> : to do) then look no further than THE FIFTH ELEMENT, with effects to put
> : SW:SE to shame.
>
> fraction of the movie. Star Wars also had the interesting characters, the
> wonderful development, the incredible action scenes. Until I see the Fifth
> Element I may change my mind but from this day onward, until something
> crazy happens, Star Wars and Empire will reign in my mind as the greatest
> special effects/movies ever created.
>
> You have the right to remain silent. | Chris Klecker
> You have the right to have your face | klec...@cs.purdue.edu
> kicked in by me. You have the right to
> have your balls stomped on by him.
> Fletch
Sets, props, animatronics, costumes, electronics....
DS7865
I enjoy Star Wars, I do not "worship" it. I like it for what it is, I
don't dislike it for what it isn't. Although Star Wars is flawed, to say
it "sucks" weakens your argument. SW is first, a movie -- a form of
entertainment. Did it fail to entertian you? If so, I doubt it was for the
reasons you mention. It's not Shakespeare! Sure, the dialogue might have
been better, but isn't it funny how such "lame" dialogue has been
remembered and quoted some twenty years later? What SW has done is
continue to entertain from one generation to the next. Saying that "it
sucks" comes across as someone who is jealous of its success. The same way
a basketball fan outside of Chicago would say "the Bulls suck" because
they are flawed. You provide valid points to your argument, but let's not
over analyze every detail. I like SW, you don't. So be it. No hard
feelings. May the Force be with you anyway.
Apocalypse
You can't say something 'sucks' if you are not interested in it.
If Star Wars sucks....well....many people in the world like stuff which is
sucked....The dialogue is simple, yes, I would totally agree with you.
But well, this is a space fantasy not stage work. Take it easy, okay??
Do you watch it again..take it easy in the dialogue and sit back and enjoy
the special effects and John Williams' soundtrack. IT is not bad, isn't
it ??
May the Force be with you, always.
My ICQ UIN : 1007298
Homapage : http://www.cs.cuhk.edu.hk/~sytong
==============================================================================
|
Tong Sin Yin (Apocalypse) | "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
Computer Science & | --Yoda
Engineering Department | "I don't think so.I'm looking for a great
Yr 1 (Y96) | warrior." -- asked Luke Skywalker
New Asia College | "Ahhh! A great warrior. Wars not make one
Chinese University of HK | great." -- replied Yoda
Beezel
>
> Also, from what I hear, AVATAR will have computer generated
>actors, a revolution in film making. They look exactly like real people
>but they don't exist.
> >
Sounds graite. Thue i thingk you should knoe that wat i posted
about AVATAR isn't true! I don't actuely knoe anything about it.
Sorrey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the inconvenence of reading through my posts!
However...
I will not respond to >un-frendly< comments regarding my
spelling.Dislexia does NOT equal stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max F. Exter
On 09 May 1997 10:58:34 Payndz wrote about "Foundation vs NDI Was Re: ILM vs. DIGITAL DOMAIN":
> On the subject of FX company vs FX company, how do Netter Digital
> Imaging's (if I got their name right) shots for Babylon 5 compare
> with Foundation's? We haven't had season 4 in the UK yet, so I'm
> curious (but not yellow).
Well, my opinion is that NDI is superior. Still, I will hold off the rest of
my judgement until I see the Voyager season finale. (Foundation now works
for Voyager.) From the preview, it looks like there are some fairly
impressive shots in that one.
- ME -
Pentti J Lajunen
Beezel<Bee...@helix.net> writes:
> On Thu, 8 May 1997 11:16:09 -0600, "Austin \"danger\" Powers"
> <cmy...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> > Also, from what I hear, AVATAR will have computer generated
> >actors, a revolution in film making. They look exactly like real people
> >but they don't exist.
> > >
> Sounds graite.
So, we'll get the same old repetetive block buster crap, but with CG
actors from now on. Somehow it seems the studios have forgot the simple
and inexpensive ways how to improve their movies.
I can't wait.
Peter Choi
10 years later it will change. You will be able to pay less and less
for digital actors(even in your Intel-986 2000Mhz, 16GB, 2.5TB with
300million polygons per second graphic card and 256 channel sound card
PC. :)) Highly paid performers kill Hollywood. Digital actors will save
it.
Still now, Hollywood is like a big dinosaur which will be extincted in
any minute...latgely due to the salary.
Ford A. Thaxton
Titanic Sinks Into The Fourth Quarter
By Anita M. Busch
HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Jim Cameron's "Titanic," whose
mega-budget is growing day by day, has been moved
completely
out of July, sources at Paramount Pictures confirmed.
Until now, Paramount had been unwilling to acknowledge to
the
press that it had even moved the film from its original July
2
date. Speculation is that it will be released in November or
December when it will go up for Oscar consideration. The
new
date could be announced Monday.
If the picture is released during the holiday season, sources
estimate that the postponement will add another $20 million
to
the already bloated budget.
Sources also say that the carrying costs in addition to
prints and
advertising (and including the Rosarita facility) could push
the
total budget to an estimated $285 million -- which would
rival
Cleopatra to become the most expensive film ever made.
The
cost of Cleopatra, put at $44 million in 1963, cost about $300
million in adjusted dollars.
20th Century Fox, which is overseeing the production and
has
foreign distribution, strongly denied the figures were that
high;
Paramount, which capped its commitment at $65 million, is
distributing domestically.
Fox was counting on foreign distribution of the picture for
its
fall schedule. Domestically, Fox has two important films for
the
fall -- "Alien Resurrection" and the animated "Anastasia" --
scheduled for November so "Titanic" would be butting heads
with
those two films.
Cameron has widely publicized that he has given up his
upfront
fees on the project, but he is still getting paid through his
ownership stake in Digital Domain, the special effects house
doing the work on Titanic.
The lack of a release date for the film has caused problems
throughout the industry -- for the exhibitors across the
nation
who are booking screens, and for every studio trying to get
the
best release dates and screens for their films while
avoiding
"Titanic."
Reuters/Variety
Travers Naran
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@earthlink.net) pontificated:
> Titanic Sinks Into The Fourth Quarter
>
> By Anita M. Busch
>
> HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Jim Cameron's "Titanic," whose
> mega-budget is growing day by day, has been moved
> completely
> out of July, sources at Paramount Pictures confirmed.
>
> Until now, Paramount had been unwilling to acknowledge to
> the
> press that it had even moved the film from its original July
> 2
> date. Speculation is that it will be released in November or
> December when it will go up for Oscar consideration. The
> new
> date could be announced Monday.
"Oscar consideration"?
Is it really that good, or are they hoping for technical Oscars?
Jeffrey Davis
Travers Naran wrote:
> >
> > [about Titanic]
> >
> "Oscar consideration"?
>
> Is it really that good, or are they hoping for technical Oscars?
The trailers are highly melodramatic. Two hours+ of Ed Harris
trying to bring whatsherface back to life. Good/not good?
Depends on how much you like melodrama.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
No. You got the wrong number. This is nine one......two.
Glen Kane
Jeffrey Davis wrote:
>
> Travers Naran wrote:
> > >
> > > [about Titanic]
> > >
> > "Oscar consideration"?
> >
> > Is it really that good, or are they hoping for technical Oscars?
>
> The trailers are highly melodramatic. Two hours+ of Ed Harris
> trying to bring whatsherface back to life. Good/not good?
> Depends on how much you like melodrama.
>
Hmmm. I didn't realize Ed Harris is going to be in Titanic. You are
obviously thinking of Cameron's '89 film "The Abyss". And I don't
recall the trailer being "two hours +".
Glen.
--
Laser Time Video is the Tampa Bay areas premiere
laserdisc provider. We are an ongoing supplier of
rental laserdisc for the entire Tampa Bay area.
This gives us the ability to provide a continuously
changing database to laserdisc collectors here on the
internet. Check us out at:
Peter Ronaszeki
tna...@mail.direct.ca (Travers Naran) writes:
>"Oscar consideration"?
>Is it really that good, or are they hoping for technical Oscars?
People who have read the script say it is ripe for a nomination based on
the quality and mood.
Peter Ronaszeki
Glen Kane <lasr...@concentric.net> writes:
>Jeffrey Davis wrote:
>>
>> Travers Naran wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [about Titanic]
>> > >
>> > "Oscar consideration"?
>> >
>> > Is it really that good, or are they hoping for technical Oscars?
>>
>> The trailers are highly melodramatic. Two hours+ of Ed Harris
>> trying to bring whatsherface back to life. Good/not good?
>> Depends on how much you like melodrama.
>>
>Hmmm. I didn't realize Ed Harris is going to be in Titanic. You are
>obviously thinking of Cameron's '89 film "The Abyss". And I don't
>recall the trailer being "two hours +".
Actually, that's what I was going to say the first time I read that.
But then I realised he meant: "TITANIC is going to be two hours of emotion
as intense as Ed Harris' reviving scene in THE ABYSS, based on the
trailer"
Jonas Ussing
Peter Ronaszeki <pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> skrev i artiklen
<5lruto$1ik$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>...
> Glen Kane <lasr...@concentric.net> writes:
> >Hmmm. I didn't realize Ed Harris is going to be in Titanic. You are
> >obviously thinking of Cameron's '89 film "The Abyss". And I don't
> >recall the trailer being "two hours +".
>
> Actually, that's what I was going to say the first time I read that.
> But then I realised he meant: "TITANIC is going to be two hours of
emotion
Small stuff, but I believe it will actually be 3 and a half hrs...
> as intense as Ed Harris' reviving scene in THE ABYSS, based on the
> trailer"
Letæ„€ hope.
-Jonas
jru...@ix.netcom.com
tna...@mail.direct.ca (Travers Naran) wrote:
>Is it really that good, or are they hoping for technical Oscars?
Saw a preview over the weekend. The visuals look incredible and are
very powerful. The plot looks somewhat melodramatic - but what the
heck, bring it on!
Rusty
Peter Ronaszeki
"Jonas Ussing" <jo...@dialog-data.dk> writes:
>Peter Ronaszeki <pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>> But then I realised he meant: "TITANIC is going to be two hours of
>emotion
>Small stuff, but I believe it will actually be 3 and a half hrs...
3 1/2 hours long? Are you sure? I had heard that it may stretch to 3
hour length (uncut), but this is the first time I have heard a predicted
length of 3 1/2 hours... that would be quite an epic indeed.
Gregory Durlandt Wood
> 10 years later it will change. You will be able to pay less and less
> for digital actors(even in your Intel-986 2000Mhz, 16GB, 2.5TB with
> 300million polygons per second graphic card and 256 channel sound card
> PC. :)) Highly paid performers kill Hollywood. Digital actors will save
> it.
Ummm, not likely. As much as I'd like to see it, it is nice to see a
familiar actor in a film. They draw people in. Just as you don't see no
name actors in a big movie (with the exception of Star Wars, of course),
you won't see completely big-name free movies. In fact I'm sure digital
actors will be used as stand-ins. I think avatars will replace stuntmen
before Hollywood 'talent'.
Oh, and a scene an actor can breeze through would require a *lot* more
effort to animate and render. And for complex, emotional scenes, with
lots of close ups, how well will an avatar hold up?
> Still now, Hollywood is like a big dinosaur which will be extincted in
> any minute...latgely due to the salary.
Yeah, just like Baseball. It seems all the fans are still harping over
that big strike. Oh wait, they seem to have completely forgotten about
the whole thing. And yet the salaries grow...
Let's face it, Hollywood stars generate bucks. I personally agree with
you, they shouldn't. But how many people watch the Oscars? How many
people read up on the gossip on their latest actor? How many
Entertainment shows are out there? And how many people will watch an
avatar do the same?
Digital actors won't replace real actors, merely *enhance* them.
Greg
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
Gregory Durlandt Wood <wo...@negia.net> wrote
> Ummm, not likely. As much as I'd like to see it, it is nice to see a
> familiar actor in a film. They draw people in. Just as you don't see no
> name actors in a big movie (with the exception of Star Wars, of course),
> you won't see completely big-name free movies. In fact I'm sure digital
> actors will be used as stand-ins. I think avatars will replace stuntmen
> before Hollywood 'talent'.
I disagree. Some of the best action films ever had realtive unknowns.
Everything from ESCAPE FORM NEW YORK to DIE HARD. Lets also not forget ID4
whose actors may not have been unknowns but were certainly not familiar to
alot of people.
> Oh, and a scene an actor can breeze through would require a *lot* more
> effort to animate and render. And for complex, emotional scenes, with
> lots of close ups, how well will an avatar hold up?
As the technology advances it will be increasing easy...
> Yeah, just like Baseball. It seems all the fans are still harping over
> that big strike. Oh wait, they seem to have completely forgotten about
> the whole thing. And yet the salaries grow...
I stopped watching Baseball.
> Let's face it, Hollywood stars generate bucks. I personally agree with
> you, they shouldn't. But how many people watch the Oscars? How many
> people read up on the gossip on their latest actor? How many
> Entertainment shows are out there? And how many people will watch an
> avatar do the same?
It would put those shows out of business. That does not nessecarily mean
that the movies themselves would be out of business.
> Digital actors won't replace real actors, merely *enhance* them.
Now that is a possibility.. At least until the avatars are so advanced that
they cannot be distingished from the real thing.
Jonas Ussing
> "Jonas Ussing" <jo...@dialog-data.dk> writes:
> >Small stuff, but I believe it will actually be 3 and a half hrs...
>
> 3 1/2 hours long?
Yep.
> Are you sure?
Nope.
> this is the first time I have heard a predicted
> length of 3 1/2 hours... that would be quite an epic indeed.
It´s just what I heard, but I believe it to be true... And yes, it sounds
epic!
-Jonas
Carlos R Gomez
In article <nf7raf4...@alpha.hut.fi>, plaj...@alpha.hut.fi says...
>
>
>
>Beezel<Bee...@helix.net> writes:
>> On Thu, 8 May 1997 11:16:09 -0600, "Austin \"danger\" Powers"
>> <cmy...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> > Also, from what I hear, AVATAR will have computer generated
>> >actors, a revolution in film making. They look exactly like real people
>> >but they don't exist.
>> > >
>> Sounds graite.
>
>
>
>So, we'll get the same old repetetive block buster crap, but with CG
>actors from now on. Somehow it seems the studios have forgot the simple
>and inexpensive ways how to improve their movies.
>
>I can't wait.
>
You mean like plot? Character development? An ORIGINAL soundtrack that
actually enhances the visual experience? Or how about an original story? I
would be happy if they started with original material and not a retread of a TV
show or movie.
Roger Christie
Gregory Durlandt Wood wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Let's face it, Hollywood stars generate bucks. I personally agree with
> you, they shouldn't. But how many people watch the Oscars? How many
> people read up on the gossip on their latest actor? How many
> Entertainment shows are out there? And how many people will watch an
> avatar do the same?
>
I think theres a real possibility of the eventual emergence of
'virtual' stars. See William Gibson's (?) latest novel.
*dec...@ucla.edu
Peter Choi <ge...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 10 years later it will change. You will be able to pay less and less
>for digital actors(even in your Intel-986 2000Mhz, 16GB, 2.5TB with
>300million polygons per second graphic card and 256 channel sound card
>PC. :)) Highly paid performers kill Hollywood. Digital actors will save
>it.
> Still now, Hollywood is like a big dinosaur which will be extincted in
>any minute...latgely due to the salary.
Peter, this isn't the case by any stretch of the imagination. As
computing power increases, all it gives is a more realistic vision for
the artists who are creating the work. Digital avatars will never
replace the star of a feature, BUT like Jurassic Park, the stars
themselves may be vehicles onto their unique films. Think Predator,
Aliens, JP, etc. CGI/SFX characters will always be present with live
action counterparts, but they are just a tool to add to the story-
they are not the guiding force of the story. And in films like Toy
Story, it is the life behind the characters, not how they are created,
that draw the audience in.
And people have been predicting the death of Hollywood for tens of
decades now... it isn't going to happen. Hollywood is synonymous with
entertainment, and whether you enjoy playing a video game, watching a
movie, catching your favorite TV show, etc. it's still all
'Hollywood'. And the big salaries won't change, it's only the people
who get them that will. Today it's the film's stars. Last generation
it was the producers and studio heads. Next generation, the writers?
the effects wizards?
------------------------
Digital Domain CGI
"More human than human is our motto..."
Remove the '*' from my address to reply.
Joe Othello
That explains why those new alien's ships looked familiar (ala Vorlon
shuttles)..
Joe
Kay-Yut Chen
>
>> 10 years later it will change. You will be able to pay less and less
>> for digital actors(even in your Intel-986 2000Mhz, 16GB, 2.5TB with
>> 300million polygons per second graphic card and 256 channel sound card
>> PC. :)) Highly paid performers kill Hollywood. Digital actors will save
>> it.
>
>Ummm, not likely. As much as I'd like to see it, it is nice to see a
>familiar actor in a film. They draw people in. Just as you don't see no
>name actors in a big movie (with the exception of Star Wars, of course),
>you won't see completely big-name free movies. In fact I'm sure digital
>actors will be used as stand-ins. I think avatars will replace stuntmen
>before Hollywood 'talent'.
>
>Oh, and a scene an actor can breeze through would require a *lot* more
>effort to animate and render. And for complex, emotional scenes, with
>lots of close ups, how well will an avatar hold up?
>
Probably the best solution is to employ an "actor" (one who acts out
expressions, emotions ...) and an avatar. The performance can be
captured digitally (scan facial expression or whatever) and then
re-acted by the avator.
The advantage is that no longer one would attach much importance to
the face of the actors but only his/her skills. Since there is
probably many competent actors/actresses out there, probably the
competition will drive down the price. After all, there is only one
man with Tom Cruises' face but probably many with the acting skills
that he has.
=====================================================================
| A Traveler between dimensions | |
+ ------------------------------+ |
| |
| In the Kingdom of Drakkar, I am known as <Narius the Mentalist> |
| To the denizens of Britainnia, my name is <Seldon the Avatar> |
| The Terran Confederation pilots call me <One the Cat Slayer> |
| |
| Seldon Dragon |
| #UDIC# |
| |
| <<Kay-Yut Chen>> |
| |
=====================================================================
Gregory Durlandt Wood
> Probably the best solution is to employ an "actor" (one who acts out
> expressions, emotions ...) and an avatar. The performance can be
> captured digitally (scan facial expression or whatever) and then
> re-acted by the avator.
I thought of that too. Kinda like how stop motion animators can still be
used in Computer Graphics: move a model that corresponds to the digital
'actor'. But seems kinda like going overboard to me. For a specific
character, why go through that much trouble? Unless you wanted to do
something cool like make an alien that no human being could fit into (as
in a costume).
Unless there's a specific reason, why would they do it? For instance, I
could write this entire message in binary ASCII. But why? I could get the
same thing just by using the computers resources.
> The advantage is that no longer one would attach much importance to
> the face of the actors but only his/her skills. Since there is
> probably many competent actors/actresses out there, probably the
> competition will drive down the price. After all, there is only one
> man with Tom Cruises' face but probably many with the acting skills
> that he has.
Yes! But if you were faced with spending $1 million dollars on an
established star for a movie, or spend $100,000 on a truly talented (but
ugly actor), and spend another $700,000 digitizing him, cleaning up the
input, etc? Sure you save $200,000, but is it worth it?
Oh, and there are plenty of talented people who look attractive that are
actors and actresses. It's all about star power. It's great to say that
they could be replaced by a machine, but so could most people. It's just
a matter of practicality.
Greg
Gregory Durlandt Wood
> I disagree.
And I disagree with your disagreeing :)
> Some of the best action films ever had realtive unknowns.
> Everything from ESCAPE FORM NEW YORK
Kurt Russel was an unknown at the time? If he was, he was still part of
an established acting dynasty...
> to DIE HARD.
Bruce Willis and Bonnie Bedilia? Bruce Willis was well known (his career
just hadn't taken off to the extant it has now).
> Lets also not forget ID4
> whose actors may not have been unknowns but were certainly not familiar to
> alot of people.
Will Smith - Successful TV show and starred in at least one previous
action movie
Jeff Goldblum - Many, *many* movie under his belt
I think those two, if no others are recognizable to the common man
> > Oh, and a scene an actor can breeze through would require a *lot* more
> > effort to animate and render. And for complex, emotional scenes, with
> > lots of close ups, how well will an avatar hold up?
>
> As the technology advances it will be increasing easy...
Yes, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can render a *new* scene
in which a really simple action takes place. For example: Actor says
line, bends over to kiss actress and walks off camera. Not a lot of
effort to do for real. But to animate and render, I'd be surprised if
someone can do that in *twice* the amount of time the actor takes to do
it. Maybe with some kind of stock animations, plus a small bit of
randomization can cut down on time, but it is impractical to do
everything in the computer.
> > Yeah, just like Baseball. It seems all the fans are still harping over
> > that big strike. Oh wait, they seem to have completely forgotten about
> > the whole thing. And yet the salaries grow...
>
> I stopped watching Baseball.
I never really did. And I still get disgusted when I hear the news
stories.
> > Let's face it, Hollywood stars generate bucks. I personally agree with
> > you, they shouldn't. But how many people watch the Oscars? How many
> > people read up on the gossip on their latest actor? How many
> > Entertainment shows are out there? And how many people will watch an
> > avatar do the same?
>
> It would put those shows out of business. That does not nessecarily mean
> that the movies themselves would be out of business.
But an entire industry exists on Star Talent. You can't just dismiss it
with a wave of your wand. People want to talk gossip about famous people.
Personally I don't give a rat's ass who's dating who, but a LOT of people
do. The same people who go to see movies.
> > Digital actors won't replace real actors, merely *enhance* them.
>
> Now that is a possibility.. At least until the avatars are so advanced that
> they cannot be distingished from the real thing.
It will be a *long* time before that happens. Some stuff is easy, but
until I see something like a boxing match with complex motion, sweat,
etc, it will never be the same as the real thing.
I agree that digital actors could take the emphasis off of the star
power, and put it where it belongs: the storyline. But people don't know
how good the storyline is until they see it so they'll base everything
off of the individuals.
I don't think digital actors will ever replace the real thing. Even if
they *do* look exactly the same, it would be very impractical. Kinda like
making Big Blue physically move the chess pieces. Could be done, but why?
Greg
Peter Choi
> Peter, this isn't the case by any stretch of the imagination. As
> computing power increases, all it gives is a more realistic vision for
> the artists who are creating the work. Digital avatars will never
> replace the star of a feature, BUT like Jurassic Park, the stars
> themselves may be vehicles onto their unique films. Think Predator,
> Aliens, JP, etc. CGI/SFX characters will always be present with live
> action counterparts, but they are just a tool to add to the story-
> they are not the guiding force of the story. And in films like Toy
> Story, it is the life behind the characters, not how they are created,
> that draw the audience in.
I wish. Digital actors will never be replace real actors in a next few
centuries. (But we still want to make some home-made stuff, right? :))
We dunno what's really gonna be in next 10 years. 10 years ago I used
Apple II. At that time even a XT with a monochrome monitor looked
magnificient. Well, Intel 486 was developed in 1989, 8 years ago and now
it's nothing but a piece of crap to even me who do largely 2D CG
paintings.
Maybe there will be a kind of script language to direct digital actors
how to move and speak. If there is such kind of algorythms we won't have
to stick to keyframers or IK stuff. Beside, even now we have voice
synthesizer(still crude) in Macintosh.
>
> And people have been predicting the death of Hollywood for tens of
> decades now... it isn't going to happen. Hollywood is synonymous with
> entertainment, and whether you enjoy playing a video game, watching a
> movie, catching your favorite TV show, etc. it's still all
> 'Hollywood'. And the big salaries won't change, it's only the people
> who get them that will. Today it's the film's stars. Last generation
> it was the producers and studio heads. Next generation, the writers?
> the effects wizards?
>
Writers and directors definitely. Someday we will make movie like
writing novels. We need more imaginative story tellers and visual
artists for movies.
> ------------------------
> Digital Domain CGI
> "More human than human is our motto..."
>
> Remove the '*' from my address to reply.
--
-=UDIC=-
Evangelion "The saddest" Dragon
**********************
DIE OMID KHEILTASH DIE
FILTHY PERSIAN WHORE
BURN IN HELL
DIE OMID KHEILTASH DIE
FUCK THAT DANNY PAGE
**********************
You know why people invented laugher? Because they live in misery.
Anger is like a big old piece of leather which wraps me around so
comfortably.
My exact portrait.
Peter Choi
> I thought of that too. Kinda like how stop motion animators can still be
> used in Computer Graphics: move a model that corresponds to the digital
> 'actor'. But seems kinda like going overboard to me. For a specific
> character, why go through that much trouble? Unless you wanted to do
> something cool like make an alien that no human being could fit into (as
> in a costume).
>
Yes, many traditional animators works in CGI industry like ILM, Phill
Tippett Studio and PDI(I visited here yesterday). Still there is a
possibility that we won't need sophisticated technic to animate models
in some simple movement. Well, maybe we will be able to give a command
to an avatar to 'walk' by simply clicking the command and giving some
parameters how it gonna walk. maybe human movements will be stocked and
categorized in some library files.
jru...@ix.netcom.com
Roger Christie <rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
>Gregory Durlandt Wood wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Let's face it, Hollywood stars generate bucks. I personally agree with
>> you, they shouldn't. But how many people watch the Oscars? How many
>> people read up on the gossip on their latest actor? How many
>> Entertainment shows are out there? And how many people will watch an
>> avatar do the same?
>>
>I think theres a real possibility of the eventual emergence of
>'virtual' stars. See William Gibson's (?) latest novel.
I think that the 'stars' will still be real people. I just wonder if
they will have to appear in person to make a movie or just sell the
production company the right to use their 'virtual' selves in movies.
Meanwhile they can stay busy with the important job of staying in the
public eye and making billions people wait breathless for their next
act. So we'll have Tom Cruise the celebrity who doesn't act at all -
he just leases his image/voice/mannerisms to the movie makers.....
Rusty
Cronan, Norman and Leanne
Gregory Durlandt Wood <wo...@negia.net> wrote
> Kurt Russel was an unknown at the time? If he was, he was still part of
> an established acting dynasty...
Explain...
> Bruce Willis and Bonnie Bedilia? Bruce Willis was well known (his career
> just hadn't taken off to the extant it has now).
I had never seen Bonnie Bedilia in anything prior to that. Bruce Willis was
on a mid rated dramady. That does not qualifiy as fame.
> Will Smith - Successful TV show and starred in at least one previous
> action movie
I think the best way to judge exactly how famous a star is to look at their
salary.
> Jeff Goldblum - Many, *many* movie under his belt
He is still not a star. I don't understnad why he has something 1.5 billion
dollars worth of movies under his belt but he is not a star.
> I think those two, if no others are recognizable to the common man
I don't think so. They may say, "Hey isn't that the guy who did that other
movie?" but I doubt it went beyond that.
> Yes, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can render a *new* scene
> in which a really simple action takes place. For example: Actor says
> line, bends over to kiss actress and walks off camera. Not a lot of
> effort to do for real. But to animate and render, I'd be surprised if
> someone can do that in *twice* the amount of time the actor takes to do
> it. Maybe with some kind of stock animations, plus a small bit of
> randomization can cut down on time, but it is impractical to do
> everything in the computer.
It is impractical as of now. Think about the advances from The Last Star
Fighter to The 5th Element. When you look at that level of improvement and
think about 10 more years of intense advancement with huge amounts of
funding being poored into it you have got to admit that there is no upward
limit. I can see the Summer of 2017 as the year movies moved from Hollywood
to Silicon Valley....
<<snipped>>
> But an entire industry exists on Star Talent. You can't just dismiss it
> with a wave of your wand. People want to talk gossip about famous people.
> Personally I don't give a rat's ass who's dating who, but a LOT of people
> do. The same people who go to see movies.
Those same people will find something else to talk about so long as the
movie entertains.
> It will be a *long* time before that happens. Some stuff is easy, but
> until I see something like a boxing match with complex motion, sweat,
> etc, it will never be the same as the real thing.
How long is a long time? I am 17 and since I have begun really paying close
attention to the Fx industry and the technology behind it the advances have
been stunning. A boxing match would not be the same because it matters that
those are real people fighting it out in a movie your whoel purpose is to
suspend disbelief.
> I agree that digital actors could take the emphasis off of the star
> power, and put it where it belongs: the storyline. But people don't know
> how good the storyline is until they see it so they'll base everything
> off of the individuals.
They needn't though. It could be a VERY good thing that people go int othe
threatre with less thoughts of seeing so and so more interest in seeing a
film. I also think that there is the possibility of buying an actors
"image" per film.
> I don't think digital actors will ever replace the real thing. Even if
> they *do* look exactly the same, it would be very impractical. Kinda like
> making Big Blue physically move the chess pieces. Could be done, but why?
If you could put big blue in a humanoid body, give it facial expressions
and body language then having it move the chess peices would be a very good
thing.
Jonathan Gibbs
: > Yes, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can render a *new* scene
: > line, bends over to kiss actress and walks off camera. Not a lot of
: > effort to do for real. But to animate and render, I'd be surprised if
: > someone can do that in *twice* the amount of time the actor takes to do
: > it. Maybe with some kind of stock animations, plus a small bit of
: > randomization can cut down on time, but it is impractical to do
: > everything in the computer.
: It is impractical as of now. Think about the advances from The Last Star
: Fighter to The 5th Element. When you look at that level of improvement and
: think about 10 more years of intense advancement with huge amounts of
: funding being poored into it you have got to admit that there is no upward
: limit. I can see the Summer of 2017 as the year movies moved from Hollywood
: to Silicon Valley....
As someone who has been doing research in just these matters over the last
three years, I just wanted to add that the distance from The Last Star Fighter
to the 5th Element is very small compared to the distance from today's state
of the art technology and cost-effective digital actors. We are a LONG way away.
Human are much harder than dinos, dragons, and toys. I haven't seen anything
close to a human animation that could pass for real. Not even close. And,
one I do see it, we are still a long way from it actually being a good way
to replace an actor. You think Tom Cruise cost alot, what do you think ILM
charges?
--jono
--
"I don't want to know. I don't need it. I don't want the information
that millions of people have. I don't want to be fed these boring
facts and figures. Then you'll become one of the masses. I'd rather
starve my mind a bit and have to search out nutrition in stranger
places." --Henry Rollins
<Home Page: http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~jono>
Peter Briggs
In article <5m473f$4...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, jru...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I think you're all barking up the wrong tree.
Sure, the day of the avatar might be amongst us soon. SO WHAT?
We're talking about QUALITY of acting. Like Alec Guiness saying "Oh, he's
not dead. Not yet. He's me" in "Star Wars". That little twinkle in his
eye? That's spontaneous. To get that, you have to PROGRAM it. That means
avatars are only going to be as good as the people who wiggle their
joystick or waldo.
A silicon valley t-shirt with the Olivier battle cry? I'll believe it when
I see it.
Besides. A lot of performance comes from improvisation, and chemistry. I
don't see two avatars interfacing as a very reliable or interesting
possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Briggs
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk
"Wind the frog!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
jru...@ix.netcom.com
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk (Peter Briggs) wrote:
>We're talking about QUALITY of acting. Like Alec Guiness saying "Oh, he's
>not dead. Not yet. He's me" in "Star Wars". That little twinkle in his
>eye? That's spontaneous. To get that, you have to PROGRAM it. That means
>avatars are only going to be as good as the people who wiggle their
>joystick or waldo.
No argument from me. I think there will always be a premium put on
the efforts of 'real' people - sort of the 'hand-made' of the 00's
perhaps? But I do think the technology will eventually (and probably
sooner than we expect) allow a computer construct to provide a
performance that is as convincing as that of a real person. If your
'Tom Cruise the Actor Expert System' is complex enough perhaps you can
tell it, "More anger, let me see your eyes, don't slouch. Pick up the
coke and take a drink while you look at Jenny over the top of your
glasses. Smile and say, 'You are such a liar.' Say it a little
louder. Frown and say it again." And then you can run it and run it
and run it again with minor variations until you get a result you
like. Lacking in improvisation and chemistry? Maybe. But if your
control is fine enough how many times do you have to run a scene
before you get a result that looks like it was full of chemistry?
Rusty
Peter Briggs
In article <01bc6785$4768e7e0$2f3192cf@default>, "Cronan, Norman and
Leanne" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I had never seen Bonnie Bedilia in anything prior to that.
You weren't looking!
> I think the best way to judge exactly how famous a star is to look at their
> salary.
I think that's the most ASININE thing I've ever heard! Is this how to
gauge acting ability also? Arnold over Kevin Kline? I don't THINK so!
> He is still not a star. I don't understnad why he has something 1.5 billion
> dollars worth of movies under his belt but he is not a star.
Says WHO? Where do you GET this stuff? How do you BASE your criteria?
Unreal!
> It is impractical as of now. Think about the advances from The Last Star
> Fighter to The 5th Element. When you look at that level of improvement and
> think about 10 more years of intense advancement with huge amounts of
> funding being poored into it you have got to admit that there is no upward
> limit.
Wrong. Dennis Muren himself commented on the quantum leap that "Jurassic"
made, and admitted that in the few years since then, very little of a
quantum advance had been made. Think of it as the "Relic's" "Callisto
Effect", if you will.
> How long is a long time? I am 17 and since I have begun really paying close
> attention to the Fx industry and the technology behind it the advances have
> been stunning.
Well. I'm 32, and since I was knee high I'VE been watching the advances in
FX technology since then (I've every issue of "Cinefex" since no 1, and my
fave book as a kid was John Brosnan's seminal "Movie Magic") It's not THAT
stunning. Look at what was achieved with "2001", which still stands up a
lot better than many of the movies that came afterwards.
> They needn't though. It could be a VERY good thing that people go int othe
> threatre with less thoughts of seeing so and so more interest in seeing a
> film. I also think that there is the possibility of buying an actors
> "image" per film.
I don't understand this argument at all. I remember being excited when the
first of the computer graphics cam into being (remember the first time we
saw Catmull's X-Wings? I don't even get a blast like that from "Fifth
Element" effects. The last time I got an FX blast was "Jurassic'"s T-rex,
and THAT was predominantly because of the craftsmanship of the integration
into the story.
Anyhow. This is a generation that's throwing away Dumas for a Kevin
Anderson "Star Wars" novel.
Terrifying.
John Diedrichs
Auf 23 May 1997 14:20:34 GMT, also sprach "Cronan, Norman and
Leanne" <mal...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
>Gregory Durlandt Wood <wo...@negia.net> wrote
>> Kurt Russel was an unknown at the time? If he was, he was still part of
>> an established acting dynasty...
>
>Explain...
Okay: "The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes"; "Now You See Him, Now
You Don't"; two out of a *flock* of "Medfield" movies put out by
Disney in the late 60's and early 70's. Russel was QUITE well
known when he made "Escape From New York". Though he certainly
wasn't a "super-star/box-office-magnet" at the time, I wouldn't
exactly call him that today, either.
>> Bruce Willis and Bonnie Bedilia? Bruce Willis was well known (his career
>> just hadn't taken off to the extant it has now).
>
>I had never seen Bonnie Bedilia in anything prior to that. Bruce Willis was
>on a mid rated dramady. That does not qualifiy as fame.
Granted, Bedilia was only a "familiar-looking" face, but Willis
was VERY WELL-KNOWN from his TV role in "Moonlighting". You call
it a "mid-rated dramady", but it was one of the most popular,
most talked-about shows on TV for a while there.
>> Will Smith - Successful TV show and starred in at least one previous
>> action movie
>
>I think the best way to judge exactly how famous a star is to look at their
>salary.
Wrong. It's how you judge their market value, not their fame.
And that is based on a lot of factors, not all of which are well
understood, even by those who "set the prices".
>> Jeff Goldblum - Many, *many* movie under his belt
>
>He is still not a star. I don't understnad why he has something 1.5 billion
>dollars worth of movies under his belt but he is not a star.
I can almost quote you directly for rebuttal: I don't understand
how you can believe he's not a "star" when he's got something
like 1.5 billion worth of movies under his belt! ??
Of course he's a "star", and has been for years! He had a
right-good spate of hits from "The Right Stuff" and "The Big
Chill" in 1983 to "The Fly" in '86. But perhaps you didn't
notice, since you weren't even in kindergarten yet...
>> I think those two, if no others are recognizable to the common man
>
>I don't think so. They may say, "Hey isn't that the guy who did that other
>movie?" but I doubt it went beyond that.
Maybe to 17-year-olds...
But getting back to the real question, which is the feasibility
of digital actors...
Yes, I believe digital avatars will play a bigger role (and
sooner) than some others in this thread, but I think their
presence will be limited to special uses (eg: aliens, animals,
etc.) and it will be a LONG TIME before they can be totally
"interchangeable" with live actors.
Yes, there are already examples. There's a kid's TV show that
features a dog-critter cartoon character whose movements are
"programmed" by an "actor" wearing a VR suit. Then his cartoon
dog-costume is digitally rendered in.
There's a new pop star on the scene in Japan who's totally
digital. She is featured in music videos and such.
Perhaps in 5 to 10 years we could have a stereoscopic camera
system that would allow a person to direct the speech and facial
mannerisms of a digital avatar with their own face... sort of a
"face-pointer" instead of a mouse-pointer. With this blending of
live-action and digital FX at the point of creation, I could see
individuals or teams "painting" very realistic avatars that would
be damn-near indistinguishable from live actors.
But I think 5-10 years is really optimistic, even for that.
For the time being, star-actors are the money-makers in
Hollywood, with star-FX-wizards and star-directors running a
distant second. Although digital avatars may attract attention
as curiosities, it'll be a long time before they pose a serious
challenge to live actors for fame, and box-office drawing power.
My $.02
-- JD
++ John Diedrichs ++
++ jo...@asiaonline.net.tw ++
++ Tech-Support Manager, Asia On-Line Taiwan ++
++ http://www1.asiaonline.net.tw/~johnd ++
++ Why, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! ++
Peter Briggs
In article <86444668...@kaukau.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>, ghaw...@Comp.VUW.AC.NZ
(Graham Hawkins) wrote:
> Computer generated actors are an impossibility in the sense that they won't
> be able to "act". They will never replace real actors or be anywhere near
> realistic.
<snip>
> BTW the notion of CGI actors replacing real actors someday is clearly
> ridiculous, and the niche for this sort of technology is in (and IS) something
> less exotic than the hype about such matters would suggest.
FINALLY, someone on this forum that understands!
For a machine to even be able to understand, it'd have to have true
artifical intelligence. And if it did, it'd be too busy interfacing with
Skynet to get the nukes flying, than making silly little movies! <g>
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Peter Briggs <pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk> spake:
>In article <86444668...@kaukau.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>, ghaw...@Comp.VUW.AC.NZ
>(Graham Hawkins) wrote:
>> Computer generated actors are an impossibility in the sense that they won't
>> be able to "act". They will never replace real actors or be anywhere near
>> realistic.
>> ridiculous, and the niche for this sort of technology is in (and IS) something
>> less exotic than the hype about such matters would suggest.
>FINALLY, someone on this forum that understands!
>For a machine to even be able to understand, it'd have to have true
>artifical intelligence.
You're both presuming A) that the human actors now understand their parts,
B) can act, as opposed to just reading lines and showing whatever overall
facial expressions the script says, and C) that even primitive artificial
intelligence isn't better than natural stupidity.
These are quite open to debate.
-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
Beezel
>> BTW the notion of CGI actors replacing real actors someday is clearly
>> ridiculous, and the niche for this sort of technology is in (and IS) something
>> less exotic than the hype about such matters would suggest.
>
>FINALLY, someone on this forum that understands!
>
>For a machine to even be able to understand, it'd have to have true
>artifical intelligence. And if it did, it'd be too busy interfacing with
>Skynet to get the nukes flying, than making silly little movies! <g>
Agread! On the side of athentisitey, computers are best suted to
rendereing imedges of ther fellow masheans.
Well see alot of this in Avatar. Giant black, fier breathing
helicopters with rotery rocket lanchers atatched to large tilting
wings.
It's gona be good!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the inconvenence of reading through my posts!
However...
I will not respond to >un-frendly< comments regarding my
spelling.Dislexia does NOT equal stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------