|
||||||||
New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1051 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,601
|
Yay we've got a Fungus Expert
![]() So that's the plot then, to seek out new forms of Mushroom ? ![]() Surprised Doug Jones has never played a Star Trek alien before. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1052 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,782
|
Quote:
That said for many of the shots we do see today, the only reason you can tell they're not real, but CGI, is because you know the can't be real. For example the Yorktown in Star Trek: Beyond.
Take a look at Civil War (Captain America 3), two scenes with photos: Rooftop Scene #1 Rooftop Scene #2 Until I saw those two pictures (and many others like that) I couldn't have told you that the buildings in the background weren't actually there. Would you have been able too? Quote:
This is an internet forum, tone, mannerisms etc perception is created by the reader. You could read a post in any number of ways based on how you happen to feel at the time.
Quote:
I haven't changed the discussion. I have been consistent throughout the conversation and it on screen for you and anyone to see.
Quote:
Well, you said you believe the fx in the marvel films are real enough, I personally don't and people I know don't either.
Quote:
I know your counter argument to this was that credibility would be difficult given the size, but using this logic, it could be argued that given the destruction and spectacle in the marvel films, credibility is also difficult - yet you can't tell the difference between real & CGI.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm still sceptical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1053 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,187
|
Quote:
It's really not that simple though. If I go to watch a Marvel film, I don't go in thinking I wonder how much of this is realistic. I know that a lot of it is CGI. Moving forward into the future, any film of similar style is going to include/involve CGI; it's impossible to get away from, and if you've got people flying or firing purple energy beams out of their hands, no amount of better special effects is going to convince you that it's real..
Quote:
[That's great, but I'm on the opposite side of the fence, and I too know people who think as I do. That's why I said earlier that we'll have to agree to disagree /period, but you felt the need to add more, rather than a mere 'okay, understood'.
I know you are, you've mentioned it twice already, and on both occasions I've acknowledged and accepted our different points of views (even through you didn't bother to include my aknowledgement in your quote). Accepting we have different views isn't a device to shut down a conversation. In fact in this particular topic the fact that we have perfectly legitimate different points of views only adds to the argument that the people who create the fx won't be satisfied until we are all convinced by the fx. However just to be clear, making this point does not mean I don't aknowledge that you have your own views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1054 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,782
|
Quote:
There are some fx which genuinely do look real, but others still don't. Therefore we haven't reached the pinnacle of (set) fx. At the heart of this is the human angle, the people who create fx don't just do it for the money. They do it for the love of their craft, they are constantly striving to push the boundaries of our perception.
Quote:
However just to be clear, making this point does not mean I don't aknowledge that you have your own views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1055 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,187
|
Quote:
From that perception, fx will never be real enough as these artists will (rightly) strive for perfection; even if it's something that is already perfect by the standard of the common person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1056 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,842
|
Quote:
Take a look at Civil War (Captain America 3), two scenes with photos:
Rooftop Scene #1 Rooftop Scene #2 . I mean - this is a real photo of a roof top and i think the difference is noticeable ![]() There's a reason that the new Star Wars film decided to scale back the use of CGI and go back to practical effects as many fans said that it took them out of the movie. I'm sorry but it's not photo-realistic yet, it's very close but most human brains can tell the difference still. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1057 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
|
Quote:
Thereby bringing Doug Jones' list of pre-production and announced projects up to a mere 8! Very reassuring! Casting at this rate they might just be able to fill a starship by 2020!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1058 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
Yay we've got a Fungus Expert
![]() So that's the plot then, to seek out new forms of Mushroom ? ![]() Surprised Doug Jones has never played a Star Trek alien before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1059 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
That's another interesting observation/point, isn't it? Is the reason that you and RebelScum think this way because you know it's CGI? Think of it more like the placebo effect (best comparison I can come up with); do you recognize things as CGI because you know they're CGI, or do you see things as CGI because they simply don't look that good? Whilst I'm sure the latter is usually the case, I can't help but wonder whether in many instances, people make the claim that CGI doesn't look real enough because they know they're looking at CGI - if that makes sense?
Take a look at Civil War (Captain America 3), two scenes with photos: Rooftop Scene #1 Rooftop Scene #2 Until I saw those two pictures (and many others like that) I couldn't have told you that the buildings in the background weren't actually there. Would you have been able too? ![]() The best sfx are the ones you don't even realise are sfx. You do seem to have missed my general point though, which is that there are still things not seen modelled in CGI in movies because they can't yet model or render them realistically. That's always been the case as sfx in general have progressed. Of the things seen currently in movies overall, as I said, I would say 95%-99% of them are photorealistic to the point where you can't tell the difference. Buildings, set extensions and rigid objects in general, are done convincingly. But, there are a range of other types of object that can't yet always be modelled convincingly. So, if the screenplay needs it, they are done either with traditional, physical effects or the screenplay is modified to avoid the need by substituting something else. Film companies have learned that CGI is not always the cost effective answer and would not always produce the most realistic output. So real, physical effects are often used where they can be when it's lower cost. To use RebelScum's example, no film company in their right mind would choose to use CGI to show a scene where a person walks into a room and sits on a chair. I don't think we've reached the point yet where that could be done in CGI 100% convincingly, but the real reason is that it's far cheaper to pay a real actor and use a real soundstage and a real film crew and actually film the scene for real. Cost and techniques are still the constraints today and they are where improvements are yet to come. We're not yet at a stage where it would be cost effective to produce, say a conventional thriller, entirely in CGI. Nor could the best available CGI render it all realistically. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1060 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,782
|
You make a fair observation GDK, and I suppose on looking at it both you and RebelScum are right for the most part. I guess I wasn't thinking of the grander picture, cause as already established, things like buildings, big bangs and the like aren't that comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1061 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 912
|
It's strange for someone to think that sfx have 'gone as far as they can go', it seems very short-sighted.
Back in the 70s the very concept of CGI was unknown; there were probably people then saying that model work was at its pinnacle and that was as far as they could go. Who knows - in 30 years time there may be some new technology (using principles other than computer imaging) that makes CGI look like a Blake's 7 space battle. (I love Blake's 7 btw) |
|
|
|
|
|
#1062 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
In 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey had models lit by the brightest lights they could find against a black velvet backdrop. It's pretty convincing even today. No matte lines.
In 1977, Star Wars was a breakthrough with computer motion controlled models and cameras. It still looks pretty good (before Lucas tinkered with it) but you can see the matte lines and travelling matte frames. In 1980, in The Empire Strikes Back the snow speeders are slightly transparent over the white snow background to reduce the visibility of the matte lines. And so on. Sfx improve all the time. They all looked good and convincing in their day, but the audience learns to see the joins. 2001 holds up very well, yet it's the earliest film. I guess it's the genius, artistry and perfectionism of Kubrick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1063 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,064
|
Quote:
If that was a quick scene in a movie the you're right, I probably wouldn't notice that it wasn't real. But if they lingered on it then yes, I would notice that there was something not quite right. It's not a massive thing but it's noticeable to me in many occasions.
I mean - this is a real photo of a roof top and i think the difference is noticeable ![]() There's a reason that the new Star Wars film decided to scale back the use of CGI and go back to practical effects as many fans said that it took them out of the movie. I'm sorry but it's not photo-realistic yet, it's very close but most human brains can tell the difference still. BB-8, for instance. They really went out of their way to make everyone believe he was a fully practical, working effect, but he wouldn't have been possible without CGI painting out the people who operate him, or the number of times he's totally CGI in the movie and we don't realise. What JJ Abrams and the new Lucasfilm succeeded in doing was to reignite the fire, bring back the magic. I believed just about everything onscreen in The Force Awakens (except for Snoke, who didn't look good at all IMO, and also Maz, the other totally CGI character). |
|
|
|
|
|
#1064 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jedward Land
Posts: 3,466
|
According to Anthony Rapp (Star Trek's newest Fungus Expert) during an interview on radio 2 (Graham Norton) - filming on the new series will start February/March time - also confirmed it will be more serialised than episodic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1065 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,150
|
Quote:
According to Anthony Rapp (Star Trek's newest Fungus Expert) during an interview on radio 2 (Graham Norton) - filming on the new series will start February/March time - also confirmed it will be more serialised than episodic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1066 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
I don't think this show can air 13 episodes from May.
By the time they get to May they might have three episodes filmed, although post-production will hardly have been done. What a strange situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1067 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
Well, they kind of used that line as spin.... there may be some practical effects, and certainly more bigger and 'real' sets than the last prequels, but there was still a colossal amount of CGI in the movie. ILM are now better at making it all blend seamlessly.
BB-8, for instance. They really went out of their way to make everyone believe he was a fully practical, working effect, but he wouldn't have been possible without CGI painting out the people who operate him, or the number of times he's totally CGI in the movie and we don't realise. What JJ Abrams and the new Lucasfilm succeeded in doing was to reignite the fire, bring back the magic. I believed just about everything onscreen in The Force Awakens (except for Snoke, who didn't look good at all IMO, and also Maz, the other totally CGI character). I didn't think Snoke or Maz were convinceing either. There's still something too... "fluid" in Maz's facial expressions - the way the surface skin moves over the facial musculature beneath looks wrong. You might get away with it by saying she's supposed to be an alien, but it's still not convincing. It's the opposite of all those all TV shows and films that used cosmetics and appliances to alter the shape of the actor's face to appear alien. There was no movement of skin over supposed alien analogues of bony or cartilaginous protuberances. In other films too, where they've used CGI to de-age an actor's face, they still look unconvincing. Going back on topic - I see no need for pessimism at this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1068 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Filming begins in Feb, show airs in May. It's not about pessimism...
It could be about pessimism, that was probably the case with previous Star Trek series. In this case it's clear the production of this show is incompetent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1069 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,187
|
Yay, another armchair Executive Prioducer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1070 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
Filming begins in Feb, show airs in May. It's not about pessimism...
It could be about pessimism, that was probably the case with previous Star Trek series. In this case it's clear the production of this show is incompetent. It's redundant to talk it down at this stage before we've even seen it. Worse, it comes over as wanting it to fail. Perhaps because it doesn't fulfill their precise requirements for what another Star Trek show should be. Or perhaps because they want the "joy" of (they think) being proven right later. I don't get the motivation for such pessimism. You'd probably say it's just "telling it like it is", but it comes over differently. In reality it's "telling it like it seems to be to you". I will be happy to judge and debate its merits or otherwise when I've seen it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1071 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
|
Quote:
According to Anthony Rapp (Star Trek's newest Fungus Expert) during an interview on radio 2 (Graham Norton) - filming on the new series will start February/March time - also confirmed it will be more serialised than episodic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1072 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
|
Quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. Until I've seen the final product, I won't speculate either way. As a long time fan, I simply hope it'll be good. I've no other agenda.
It's redundant to talk it down at this stage before we've even seen it. Worse, it sounds like some want it to fail because it doesn't fulfill their precise requirements for what another Star Trek show should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1073 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
It's not possible to get this show ready for a 13ep run from May.
Even if they got some episodes ready in time they would not be able to keep up with the broadcast. Even a January start was only just possible, with a ton of money spent to get the SFX ready in time. The criticism of the concept is an entirely separate thing to pointing out the car-crash production. 'GDK' is responding to an entirely different thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1074 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
It's not about wanting it to fail or succeed. It is simply a practical matter. It would take an absolutely crucifying schedule to get episodes ready for air in May if they're starting in February. Special effects alone will take an age to get right. The only way to meet such a schedule is to dump a shedload of cash and I find it difficult to believe that there is anything like the budget required. It could still be a roaring success but it ain't going to be if it starts airing in May because only a slipshod product is possible in the time.
Some of the best of Star Trek was made under the immense time and budgetary constraints of a gruelling weekly production schedule. As for "success", I want it to be good so that it will succeed and be enjoyed by a large audience, so there will be more. Some iterations of Star Trek have been poor, IMO, but were considered a success. (I'm looking at you, Voyager.) |
|
|
|
|
|
#1075 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Quote:
It's not possible to get this show ready for a 13ep run from May.
Even if they got some episodes ready in time they would not be able to keep up with the broadcast. Even a January start was only just possible, with a ton of money spent to get the SFX ready in time. The criticism of the concept is an entirely separate thing to pointing out the car-crash production. 'GDK' is responding to an entirely different thing. Yes, production logistics and scripts are two different things. Is it not possible that a distaste for the series setting is skewing your view of the production mechanics and schedule? Calling production a "car crash" at this point is wild exaggeration. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:33.





