posted
I really, really want to throw something at this UBB. I just typed out a big thread, apparently had a parenthesis in an HTML tag (the fuck? how could that happen) and when I pressed BACK was handed an empty form. Not even a form has timed out dialogue box. Pah! Shorter rewrite follows.
Anyway, I was cruising IMDb (as I tend to do far too often) and noticed that in the last few days an extremely interesting credit has been added to the listing for Star Trek: Nemesis. Under visual effects, one Mr. George Stevens of Digital Domain has been added as a "model maker crew chief." (Mr Stephen's filmography: us.imdb.com/Name?Stevens,+George+(II), presumably the evil link that nuked my post last time)
Two things: Firstly, I think we have every reason to believe this is the real deal. Visual effects sorts tend not to have loud and eager fan clubs (Mojo being an exception, of course) who putter about cyberspace submitting less-than-accurate credit information. Indeed, I'm pretty sure, thanks largely to the piecemeal way that the VFX credits have appeared on the IMDb list over the past two months that the employees themselves are proudly augmenting their own online filmographies.
Secondly, as I'm sure you digital sorts could tell me, a CGI artist could still be considered a "model maker." But a glimpse at Mr. Stephen's filmography will show that's with the exception of other films where he got the vague credit of "model maker" it's pretty clear he's been doing physical model work only; miniatures, props and the like. Indeed, Digital Domain, despite its name, has done plenty of physical model work in the past, with Mr. Stephen working under Rob Legato on that beautiful Titanic model that featured with the decidedly not beautiful Mr. DiCaprio. (It won an Oscar; Leo didn't.)
So, um, it looks like there's a model maker working on Nemesis. Which is interesting.
I think pretty much everyone had accepted it was a foregone conclusion that any sci-fi movie made in 2002 would use CGI. And I'm still pretty sure that the vast majority of these alleged space battle scenes of the films will be exclusively CGI. [sidenote: apparently Terragen is being given a professional-grade test-out to create landscapes in Nemesis, or so say rumblings from the deep.] It is somewhat more likely, however, that for the standard issue lumbering spaceship shots the physical model might be used in the name of closer photo-realism (though, as TMP:DE and ENTERPRISE have shown, any realism gap is now almost completely closed). But there'd still be a fairly limited need for a modelmaker, seeing as ILM's E-E model is certainly up-to-cinematic-snuff and is safely lounging in a crate somewhere.
So, without going into spoiler territory too excitedly (personally, I've been fighting a losing battle against reading plot points beyond the sort of thing a trailer might give away), does anyone have any ideas what may be up here? Models for planet-bound stuff, perhaps?
Thoughts/Comments/Suggestions?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Even the most experienced CGI houses still make use of models for reference purposes. Directors find them extremely useful for blocking shots, for example, animators use them to create their CGI models - all the dinosaurs for all the Parks Jurassic started out as physical models which were then incorporated into the computer. You even see this in some of the behind the scenes snippets of Lord of the Rings.
For Nemesis, I'd suspect that the model makers would be used to create models of landscapes for compositing work, reference models for ships, buildings, etc; and possibly some flat-out design work. That dune buggy we suspect is in the film may need a scale model of it too.
posted
Also, contrary to what a lot of people think, physical models are still used extenively in films, as they tend to photograph as more "real" than CGI objects. Even ILM still uses them on occasion. They just use digital matte techniques.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
----The question is, why in the world would something like terragen be used when those big hollywood companies could afford to make their own progs. [Not that Terragen is a bad program].
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
(digression: Terragen is presently a classmate of mine's obsession in life. I pointed it out to him one day and he's been hooked ever since. It's terrifying how little we see him these days. Femaleware, if you will.)
I assume that the software will be bulked up by DD... it strikes me as the sort of thing that lends itself to tinkering. In any case, Terragen rendered on a small European country's worth of computing power and detailed up with professional-grade textures would certainly be impressive.
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I know a few of the folks at DD, so I'll ask. I do know they are building quite a few CG models, including the E.
Since they already have a physical model of the E and aren't using it, I would be very surprised if they were building a practical of a new ship.
And I cannot agree that phyical models tend to look 'more real.' If that was an accurate blanket statement CG would certainly be doomed.
There is good CG and bad CG, just as there were models that looked a mile across and some that looked like a cheap, plastic 10 foot toy (take a look at the opening of Logan's Run, just a year before Star Wars yet well after 2001).
Because CG is so widespread, there are a lot more CG artists out there than there ever were practical FX people.
This means there is also a lot more BAD CG effects!
posted
Perhaps they are building a physical model of the U.S.S. Titan, because they plan to start a new series with Captain Riker at the helm...
Don't bash me for suggesting that. I know it won't happen, yet the idea is "fascinating", isn't it?
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
same difference.. even the series use CG these days (the end of Voyager mostly dispensed with practicals and Enterprise has been 100% CG i believe
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
An aside... it would appear, after a bit of research on my part, that Terragen is essentially in-house software of Digital Domain's anyway. When Terragen's designer, Matt Fairclough, isn't, well, designing it, he works at DD. Nifty.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
