"Jaxtraw"
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
. > We must draw a distinction between convincing and realism, perhaps
realism> is a bad term to use period. For instance, ghosts don't exist so you
> can't
> portray a realistic ghost. There is no real to strive towards. But
> effects
> crews can certainly strive towards a convincing portrayal of a ghost.
> What
> matters is if it works for the audience.
Ok, now we're moving closer to the same wavelength.
It's not "more realistic," but what the audience *thinks*
is more "realistic," based on the limits of their abilty
to imagine anything different from what they're used
to seeing. Fair point.
> I'm not sure anyone did think of the bits of kits and metal plates
> until
> somebody thought of it, you can see the evolution of scifi "realism"
> through
> say 2001 to Star Wars and on. Are you saying that 50s fx crews sat
> around
> debating whether to stick on bits of model kits or not? I don't think
> they
> did.
No, I think they just looked at the sleek aircraft and rockets of their
time and the proposals that were being put forth by the USAF and
presumed that in the future things would move forward, rather than
backward.
The "bits of kits" originated with the alien craft from "Close
Encounters."
According to magazine interviews of the time, it was done deliberately
to make the ship look "different" from previous renditions of flying
saucers.
They didn't just use random model parts, but also bits of the mold
sprues,
because nobody would be able to tell what any of the bits were in the
dark and spotlights. There was no attempt to present it as something
"accurate" or "realistic" (personally, I would have preferred they use
something that better resembled the drawings made by people claiming'
to be alien abductees, since many elements of real-life claims of same
were incorporated into the film).
> Additionally, it's not just model making. SW added technologies never
> before
> seen; computer controlled cameras, advanced (for the day) compositing
> techniques, the idea of spaceships swooping around in complex ways
> that
> simply couldn't be done before. It was cutting edge.
No arguement there.
> Circular reasoning. It was a cultural phenomenon largely because of
> the
> amazing sfx (the story's nothing to write home about) and for the time
> big
> budget treatment. It set a standard because it looked great. The
> spaceships
> looked like they were really spaceships made of real materials flying
> around
> in space, to the eyes of the contemporary audience.
"To the eyes of the contemporary audience." Again, fair point.
> Your father's work on the Space Shuttle is meaningless to that; it's
> like a
> film maker in 1900 presuming that a futuristic aeroplane must look
> like a
> hot air balloon.
Or a 20th/21st century audience expecting a starship built 200-300
years in the future to have hull plates that are assembled with arc
welders and rivet guns...
> It's much like your previous arguments about how the Enterprise should
> move.
> We don't know how it should move. It doesn't obey the laws of physics
> as we
> know them. What matters is whether it looks cool, and whether it
> convinces
> most ordinary viewers.
Fair point. In space a ship should be able to propel itself in any
direction, turn in three dimentions without having to bank, etc.
My point was, the original versions of things like Star Trek didn't
do that, so what's the point of replacing an admittedly non-
realistic depiction with another equally non-realistic one and
defending it by saying it's more realistic?
> Well, Star Wars was a kids movie primarily about whiz-bang space
> battle FX.
> It wasn't Hamlet.
Bingo. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'd just rather
not see Star Trek turned into it. Especially not old Star Trek
episodes already finished decades ago.
> Blade Runner? Alien?
In case you've forgotten, Blade Runner bombed at the box
office. Alien substituted whiz-bang monster FX for space
battle FX, but it was basically a rework of the 1958 monster
movie "It! The Terror from Beyond Space" and its plot was
hardly what could be called "complex" or"realism-based."
Again, nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake it for
an attempt at anything more than it was.
> Oh, don't be so snobbish and silly.
So you don't think that two hours of whiz-bang space FX
with no plot or characters would do well at the box office?
I would probably have gone to see that over any of the
TNG movies.
GeneK
