I was just wondering if I’m the only one who misses the days when model builders ruled the Sci-Fi movie screen. I can’t help but feel if the latest version of the Enterprise had been built with the same skill as the “Motion Picture” Refit model, it would be more awe inspiring and realistic. Remember when you first saw the Refit in space dock? It took my breath away! I also wonder if they have to put all that surface texture on modern CG ships to trick the eye into believeing it is a huge, real vessel. So do you like your studio models made up of pixals or plastic, wood, and metal?
they still use models , lord of the rings used lots of models
i am a 3d modeler and taking it in college and i prefer real models and sets
You have to trick the eye into thinking a miniature is full sized. It’s the light that make practical models better than CGI. Fake light makes fake looking shots. Also the quality of the FX shots in ST:TMP are of the highest calibre. I think they outshine anything ILM has ever done. Viva la Douglas Trumble!
Agreed. The slow pan of the Enterprise in ST:TMP and the beautiful flyby of the Cygnus and it’s awakening in “The Blackhole” are two of my favorite model shots in Sci-Fi films.
oh but you guys are missing the outstanding flyby shots of the Star Destroyer from Starwars and the beautiful flyby of the Battlestar Galactica in Battlestar Galactica but of course ILM did all the models and effects in so many memorable movies but you forgot to thank George Lucas for creating ILM along with the many hundreds of master modelers in his employ.
Don’t like CGI ships personally. Just something about them. And let’s not forget the Valley Forge, one of my faves.
Im not forgetting. I really don’t think they are nearly as interesting or as well put together shot when compared to the first ST movie and Bladerunner. I would rather thank John Dykstra for sharing his motion controll technique with ILM. Lucas tried to sue him over it but Mr. Dykstra had the foresight to protect his interest just like Lucas did with the SW property.
Gotta give some credit to Kubrick as well, the Discovery flyby was quite a site and has held up fairly well. I too agree that too much CGI has made effects seem rather uninspired, but I don’t think it’s really an either/or issue. CG can be used to enhance model would and has been done very effectively. I think the biggest problem with CGI is that it has robbed us of much of the thrill in seeing a great shot. In day gone by we would see a massive ship, crowd or epic sweeping shot and marvel about how they ever got it done. Now we shrug and think: “nice CG work”
I prefer actual models also. They just look more ‘realistic’.
My fav shot is in ST2 when the Enterprise is heading for the nebula & flys overhead from the top-left to centre screen.
Hello Topher, Welcome to the form.
Another thing about physical models is there is a chance that you could get to see the original studio model in person. I would love to look at the 11’ Enterprise in person!
Real Models for me all the way.
IMHO, a LOT of the current CGI work would look better and more realistic if a Model would have been used, but alas the time and cost to build those models makes it unlikely that we will see more of them.
Have stood next to the those Studio Models at shows:
Original TV-Series Enterprise
BattleStar Galactica
Space Viper (different scales)
Perryr Rhodan Ships
Star Wars Models (AT-AT 3 metres high, etc)
and a few others
Physical models all the way. CGI just look so…CGI.