• pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      To be fair, they added way too much hair to that puppet. It does look better than the dated CGI though.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        Original Yoda looks great. That puppet from TPM has too much hair, has its eyes too wide open, is lit poorly… it’s just a laundry list of how not to use a practical effect.

        • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          That picture is a great example of how to light a puppet. Overhead diffused lighting gives the hair an airiness that makes it feel like an aura around the puppet head. TPM is diffused side lighting like they are lighting a person, but it highlights the differences that make it not a person. Plus the puppet is ugly and only tangentially like Yoda.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    The death star trench run briefing was one of the first computer generated sequences in a movie.

    But as for CGI good or CGI bad, you don’t notice the good CGI. But models are definitely more fun to look at behind the scenes.

    Relevant no CGI is just invisible cgi https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Damn I’ve been watching this all morning. Really interesting watch. The main takeaway is that the “practical vs CGI” debate is entirely fabricated by the media, but doesn’t exist in the film industry. Though it seems likely that studios have something like Non-disclosure Agreements with actors and directors where they have to talk around it.

  • HWK_290@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m enamored with these old models and techniques. Light And Magic on D+ is a phenomenal retrospective of ILM. Through watching that, I learned recently that the Mandalorian’s ship was, in fact, a physical model. Presumably enhanced and composited using CGI.

    Nevertheless, it was a weird realization. There is an old charm to the techniques of the 80s, matte lines and all. Even with the same approach (physical models and motion control), the shots in the Mandalorian just looked too clean, too smooth.

    The moral is: it’ll never go back to what it was, and even if it does, it won’t be the same.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    These models were pioneers of visual effects. I think they were one of first to use tracking shots for minis that replicated the full scale moves. They also created the way of moving the camera just enough during an exposure to give it realistic motion blur.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think this is really a good assessment. Plenty of movies then looked terrible and plenty now look amazing. The recent Dune films look absolutely phenomenal. It’s a matter of how the films use the technology available, whether that means miniatures with camera tricks or it means completely CG stuff