Matrix FX vs Star Wars FX

[Gservo]

Newsweek posted an article on the upcoming Matrix sequels. The follow Star Wars related comment came up:

Four years ago “The Matrix” arrived out of nowhere and grossed $171 million in the United States alone—terrific for an R-rated film. But it accelerated into a phenomenon thanks to DVD, becoming the format’s first title to sell a million copies. Fans watch it again and again, each time discovering cool new bits, like how the phone conversation that opens the film foreshadows a key betrayal and how scenes inside the Matrix have a green tinge while scenes in the “real world” are blue. (Sorry, geeked out there for a second...) Critics, meanwhile, lauded writer-directors Larry and Andy Wachowski for bringing an elegance and choreography to American action films that had been missing since the days of Sam Peckinpah. On a basic level, though, “The Matrix” was simply good storytelling. “I’ve heard the ‘Star Wars’ people boast about shooting frames that are 97 percent digital, and lo and behold, the movies are soulless,” says John Gaeta, visual-effects supervisor for all three “Matrix” movies. “They traded the whole idea of depth in filmmaking for this supertechnological hype. It helped us focus our own philosophy: the story drives everything.”
Visit the link above for more. Thanks to ComingSoon.Net (http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1040588492,81534,) for the alert!

[speculative]

Hmm... I don't think that the Star Wars movies are soulless though because of the use of CG - and here's the proof in the pudding: Darth Vader.

Did you ever get to see Darth Vader have a facial expression? NO! He was behind a mask the whole time. But was he still just as strong a character, or even stronger a character, than those in most films? YES! This was because of good writing and good acting. Nothing less, nothing more. CG characters can have thousands of facial expressions, yet they are "soulless??" If so, it is not their fault - it is the fault of the writer/director/actor or a combination of all three. And the Darth Vader character is proof of this.

-speculative

[Fallguy]

Originally posted by speculative
Hmm... I don't think that the Star Wars movies are soulless though because of the use of CG - and here's the proof in the pudding: Darth Vader.

Did you ever get to see Darth Vader have a facial expression? NO! He was behind a mask the whole time. But was he still just as strong a character, or even stronger a character, than those in most films? YES! This was because of good writing and good acting. Nothing less, nothing more. CG characters can have thousands of facial expressions, yet they are "soulless??" If so, it is not their fault - it is the fault of the writer/director/actor or a combination of all three. And the Darth Vader character is proof of this.

-speculative

Darth Vader has not (yet) been rendered in CG, and has nothing to do with why SW Ep I and II are souless.

I would say the effects in SW 1 and 2 are pants, most of the time at least, because you can tell they aren't real. In the Matrix they have cleverly blended the real and computer generated to give superb effects but without looking 2 dimensional. In essence whilst there are scenes in SW that look almost real (the chase scene on Coruscant is a prime example) there are some scenes that are truly and terribly artificial, and obviously so. For all that Lucas claims that special effects have come a long way (they have) I don't think CG has come far enough to do SW justice.

For example, in the Jedi temple, when you see Yoda, Obi-wan and Mace Windu walking down the balustrade, the lighting is all wrong on the real characters, and right on the CG character (Yoda). In essence it looks composited (and lets face it, it is). The same happens again and again through the film - the CG works reasonably well on its own, the actors work on their own, but put them together and it looks as artificial as Sinbad the Sailor..... :(

If Star Wars were 100% artificial it might work better in the sense of the lighting, but I have yet to see any artificial characters that really behave as if they existed - again in small ways they don't look right. Their clothing doesn't react to the environment in quite the right way, their hair doesn't react to movement, its all just not quite there. It will take much superior physical modelling to meet the demands of genuine realism..... :(

For all the giant leaps CG has made in recent years, it still has a long long way to go before it looks real. Over-reliance on this technology now will make the SW films look very dated in 10 years time.

Fallguy

[wyles]

dont forget that they are trying to keep the continuity going with the SW saga. I gather the object is that EP 3 will blend seamlessly into EP 4, which (by then) will have been made 25+ years before (despite the "new edition" it still looks it).

I remember laughing (in a good way) during attack of the clones when they did the ol' slidin' scene change....first down, the up, then diagonal.......I reckon it added to it....a CG film with 70's effects! :D

one big "boys own" adventure

[speculative]

Lol... I think we're thinking along completely different lines... I guess I suspend my disbelief a little further out over the ledge. ;) I thought we were arguing they weren't as good because of the characters - I didn't realize it was because you could tell they weren't real.

-speculative

[The Therion]

indeed the first SW trilogy had more juice than this one.This one looks ....plastic somehow ! It has a good script,but it also has weak performances , too much SFX (a recent comparison between Lucas and Spielberg with minority report brings to the conclusion that Speilberg USES SFX while Lucas IS USED BY the SFX ! ;) )

Still its something big and classic and entairtaining.

But surely different from The Matrix which is for more mature audiences...