Since the discussion on this subject was locked in another thread, it was suggested we try it again, and stick to the subject at hand. So lets try to do that here.
As long as movies have been made, in many cases it was not possible or practical to film some scenes without using miniatures to get a scene made. The subject no longer or never did exist. So film makers used miniature modles or real or fantasy subjects. King Kong, Ray Harryhausen’s Greek Mythology figures, and the original Star Wars Trilogy vehicles being examples of fantasy subjects. Actual subects have included Japans Self Defense forces fighting off various monsters, the Stukas used in the movie Battle of Britain, tanks of the Germans and US forces in Battle of the Bulge, ships and subs in Das Boot, and aircraft and targets in Bridges at Toko Ri. Then came the CGI revolution where miniatures were used in conjunction with computer generated imagery such as 13 Days or even replaced by CGI completely such as in Band of Brothers or Harts War. Results have been from laughable to superb, era notwithstanding. FSM magazine covered some of Hollywood’s miniature model makers with articles on U-571’s miniatures and 13 Days’ U-2.
What does anyone here have to say? (and please lets not get this one locked)
Models in movies and television is what drove my hobby as a young person and ultimately lead me to study CG animation in college. I have done a little of both in my working career. I built a couple of practical models for a film that were enhanced with CGI effects to blend them into the background. I did quite a bit of CGI stuff for a year or two after college for the television show I was working on. Both have their place. Some directors prefer one or the other. Models at one time were considerably cheaper but that gap is closing with the advance of technology. Personally I think they can help each other sell a scene. You are right though, either one done poorly will kill the shot for me.
Well how many kids who built models in the 70s would not have loved to have gotten a job with ILM when they took off. Certainly some of the most famous model makers in this day and age.
Absolutely… I found myself watching more behind the scenes stuff than actual movies. I vividly remember them building several blocks of LA as a large scale model for Independance Day. Hung it on the wall sideways to do the rolling fire scene. Beautiful work!
Some folks do a real job to pay the bills while doing something in their spare time for a one-in-a-million chance to be a movie star, rock star, etc. That ILM job was my version of the “maybe, someday, if I’m lucky” thing while still being realistic in working something normal to pay the bills.
As far as the CGI vs practical models, different projects can benefit from both in different ways. I think that if nothing else, practical effects will continue to have a place as long as the CGI can’t quite handle fire or explosions reliably.
But real models will always have a place. Watched a doco on Weta Workshops a while ago. Their method of doing alot of their ultra realistic CGI monsters is to create a miniature first. Then that gets scanned in 3D. Then its worked through their computers. Animators and artists spend alot of time on them before and after scanning to get them looking just right.
Then you’ve got the toy market after movie release.
For me, the finest miniature work ever shot on film is still Bladerunner. There’s a behind-the-scenes disk in my collector’s set that describes how they made opening scene shot with a floor’s worth of miniature set. It was done with such precision that it still chills me to hear that haunting Vangelis score and see that establishing shot.
It wasn’t really a subject for me until “2001”. IMNSHO that movie remains a “beat me if you can” example of models and good use of them in a movie.
At that point I became aware of ILM and models in movies. I think the genius in that one was Doug Turnbull.
I was already a Kubrick junkie at that time, more about that in a minute.
I applied for a job at ILM, along with a couple of other model companies, but went into architecture, which is where I am and will finish with.
TV in the 1950’s was full of claymation.
Probably the best things I noted from the 60’s were science fiction, like Star Trek.
I buy movie models from time to time. They are usually very crude in general.
In “Dr. Strangelove”, the B-52 was a model that I understand was about 10 feet long. It was suspended on wires in front of a projection screen on which NOE shots of the Arctic were projected. If you look carefully, you will see the shadow of the B-17 that took the film.
I am thinking especially of the CGI planes in Pearl Harbor. When you use CGI planes in movies you must also simulate the dynamics. The Japanese planes looked okay as far as the aircraft modeling but they flew in a completely unrealistic way as far as the dynamics. The people who do this dynamic simulation need to study some aerodynamics to learn how aircraft actually fly. Pearl Harbor was not the only movie that had that problem. Aircraft flight is not the easiest thing to simulate, but they seem to put all the effort into the appearance of the planes and little into how they move.
I loved Fireball XL5 when it ran on Saturday mornings on NBC back in '63 (I was 10 years old)! I remember using my Kenner girder & panel building set (remember those?) to build a model of the rotating Space City control tower. [H]
Just some random recollections:
As I mentioned in the other thread, I thought the large scale ship models (operated by men inside) used in the climatic battle of In Harm’s Way were horrible and looked like big toys.
On the other end of the scale I thought the miniatures used in The Bridges at Toko Ri were very well done.
The Flight of the Intruder used a combination of real aircraft, CGI and miniatures. I remember getting chills watching the night raids when the tracers and SAMs started coming up ahead of them.
I thought the CGI effects in Master & Commander: Far Side of the World were very well done also.
One of my pet peeves has always been submarine movies where there’s perfectly clear water and miles of visibility under water. I guess it’s important for story telling, but not realistic at all.
I think my earliest inspirations were the miniatures of TV shows UFO and Space 1999 by Gerry Anderson. UFO had some very interesting models and was amazing for 1960s TV (about the same time frame as Star Trek - the original series, but much better effects).
Fast forward, I think the later Star Trek series (Voyager and Enterprise) and StarGate series (Atlantis) had excellent CGI (especially considering a TV budget and time schedule).
But I will always have a stronger feeling about detailed miniatures (physical models) used on screen because I’m a modeler. If I was a computer graphics hobbyist then CGI might move me more.
When I first saw Star Wars in 1977, I was blown away by the model-makers… Working at ILM was my DREAM job, lol… Even though now, the matte-lines are obvious, those models were still the way the to go, IMHO… I imagined myself working happily away for days at a time, encrusting models with bits & pieces of every kit imaginable, and with what, for me, would be an unlimited budget…
Even though some parts were instanly recognizable (anyone else notice the Panzer drive-sprockets on the Battlestar Galactica Cylon Raiders?), that kind of stuff really opened up inner my “Gizmologist”… I still remember how I detailed my first Cylon Raider’s interior, with a P-51 wing fuel-tank from a Mnogram F-51D, a 1/48 Huey Hog cockpit, and various other sundry items, gathered here and there…
However, I digress…
Personally, I wish they’d use more in the way of models, and enhance them with CGI effects (like the X-wing pilot’s head turning as it passes by), because no matter how talented the artists are that do the computer graphics, they still look like CGI models, especially in the close-ups…
Sure do, had a set. And I later became an architect designing high rise buildings…
Like Hammer with his Mighty Mo cannon becoming a redleg.
Unfortunately a little later in life i decided that all of those wide flange beams would make great flatcar loads on my HO railroad, so I carefully cut off all of the little dovetails and pins on them. STUPID!
The classic is when the two stupid robots get put in the hold of the sand crawler (think “Dune”) and there’s a talking Tupperware garbage can.
Gizmo at it’s best.
The best I can claim is a sequence in a movie my best friend made in high school titled “War”. I was the Special Effects director.
Super 8, and it ends with a tennis ball, the white kind for you newbies, with the continents drawn on it in felt pens and soaked in lighter fluid: ignited.
I used to marvel at the space ships & things that professionals & enthusiasts made from “stuff” & clearly remember seeing an Imperial Star Destroyer on a kid’s program that a teenager had made from “stuff” - it was simply stunning & completely put my modelling skills into perspective[:(].
By the time CGI came about, some of the bigger budget & carefully done scenes done with miniature (especially space related) were pretty stunning & 100% convincing & if anything CGI was a backward step in it’s earlier days. Having said that some modern CGI, the likes of what you see in the Transformers films is quite breathtaking & completely believable.
To my eye, CGI on real things like aircraft hasn’t reached the believable level yet - don’t get me wrong, some of it is very good but it’s just not there yet. I’m not 100% certain on this, but I imagine that in any given CGI action scene that budget is focused on the “action” of any given frame/scene like a missile being fired or a pilot being ejected, this is fine if you as a viewer are focusing on that “action” part of the scene, but being an aircraft enthusiast I’m usually stepping back & looking at the whole aircraft / picture & while the missile coming of the rail might be perfect, the rest of the aircraft might not be so. Thats possibly why I found the Transformers films so breathtaking - I have no expectations of what a “real” transformer looks like & I’m being sucked into the action & missing the edges.
That being said CGI is excellent for things were not so familiar with & it seems to work well for random & organic things - give me a GCI King Kong any day, but not a cartoon helicopter pasted into a poorly done scene.
Not to minimize the hard work and effort that goes into any CGI production, but it’s a bit easier to convincingly animate primarily black & white spaceships (mostly composed of basic geometric shapes), especially when there is no ‘real world’ basis for comparision for the viewer
The challenge for a film like Red Tails, is that almost everyone has seen actual WWII film footage and have a somewhat prejudiced view of what P-51’s and B-17’s should look like. That plus need to create organic backgrounds (trees & grass, etc) instead of the stark background of space, as in Star Wars, etc.
All that being said, as the technology continues to improve I’m sure the ‘reality gap’ between CGI and the real world will continue to shrink.
Yes, the reality gap is closing. But many times it appears that some films bite off more than they are able to chew with CGI and the attempts are overly ambitious for the results produced. In some cases miniatures have produced effects that were or similar or even superior quality to CGI. In The Right Stuff, the miniature work was superb and in many scenes very difficult to seperate from actual historical footage or real shots of aircraft. Apollo 13 also had great effects with CGI, but certain CGI scenes were more blatantly “obviously animated” in the words of my youngest. Obvious comparison is the re entry sequence of Friendship 7 vs Odessy. And not so obvious would be the NF-104 tumbling fall compared to the Apollo 13 launch.
The kitbashing ILM did was definitely amazing and I’d say worthy of being classified as on a “legendary” scale.
At the same time, getting to see a few of those original minatures when they were on a museum tour several years ago actually helped me to relax a little when it came to making something “just like” the original filming model. After collecting several books for reference pics and looking through them to figure out colors and details to add, I was surprised how many of the models’ panel lines, including the Star Destroyer, were actually done in pencil ( that’s right, most of them weren’t scribed as I’d imagined )! I even noticed a few small bubbles on parts for the Y-wing that had been recast from what I think were tank parts.
While I guess some folks would have been disappointed to find out about such details, I was actually happy to find them. As I mentioned, I was able to relax a little bit regarding trying to make SF kits because finding those “flaws” in the originals made me realize that even the professionals were still modelers and had to deal with the same issues as the rest of us, just on a schedule, and just how silly it was to try to make something “perfect” when odds were the original you’re trying to replicate isn’t “perfect” to begin with.