Go Back   Fanderson Forum > Public Forum > Thunderbirds Are Go!

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22nd November 2018, 12:07 AM
FAB_61 FAB_61 is offline
Moid
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 309
Default Itís not all CGI.........

There’s a lot more model work in TAG than most people seem to think.

It’s a bit too difficult to isolate them, as there are more than just TAG in this set, but if you have a browse round here and click on the right photos there is some info on each:

https://www.instagram.com/uncanny_arts/

Last edited by FAB_61; 22nd November 2018 at 08:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22nd November 2018, 09:28 PM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Aquaphibian
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 158
Default

If it's difficult to tell what is CGI and what are models it seems to be a bit pointless.
I think the main reason those not keen on the CGI show dislike it is because everything in the original series exists in physical form. It may be plastic, fibre glass, wood or whatever but it's real and you can tell.I think that's where it has the upper hand over the CGI series which doesn't really benefit from using models if they cannot be clearly identified

The excellent Captain Scarlet Blurays gave me the nudge needed to watch the original TB series on the US Bluray for the first time in years and many of the shots and sequences of the crafts and models are slow and ponderous and last for a while but because they are "real" it seems worth watching whereas I don't think the CGI series would even try such extended shots (only seen one episode and a bit though) as they want to remain slick and fast moving and I don't think many would enjoy slow moving sequences in CGI.
Alan Shubrook made a similar point (about the real models) although I don't recall if it was on the recent Century 21 Slough dcumentary or the Filmed in Supermarionation one

Last edited by shermeen; 22nd November 2018 at 09:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22nd November 2018, 09:42 PM
Hiram K Hackenbacker's Avatar
Hiram K Hackenbacker Hiram K Hackenbacker is offline
Spacehawk
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: A not so secret island in the North Atlantic
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shermeen View Post
If it's difficult to tell what is CGI and what are models it seems to be a bit pointless.
I think FAB_61 means it's difficult to isolate the TAG and non-TAG photos from that album in one handy link, so a bit of scrolling will be needed, rather than referring to the models themselves.
__________________
War Of Nerves: A Sci-Fi Short Film
http://youtu.be/TwCe3QMTzb0

Thunderbirds Are Go! - Comin' To The Rescue
https://youtu.be/P1C5JE8MZi4
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22nd November 2018, 10:00 PM
saturnapollo's Avatar
saturnapollo saturnapollo is offline
The Snake
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 357
Default

Quote:
If it's difficult to tell what is CGI and what are models it seems to be a bit pointless.
Personally I wouldn't agree. Horses for courses really. As long as the CGI is good enough to look real it does not matter if they are not 3D models. On Star Trek Voyager the only way you could identify the real models from the CGI model was the running lights at the rear.

You may well have watched flms where CGI was intermixed with model work and you never knew. Sometimes you know it must be CGI only because you couldn't get a model to do that. As long as the craft looks like a real craft it does not matter how it was constructed.

Yes some CGI is obviously CGI, but today it is becoming indistinguishable from real models.

Keith
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22nd November 2018, 10:08 PM
FAB_61 FAB_61 is offline
Moid
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiram K Hackenbacker View Post
I think FAB_61 means it's difficult to isolate the TAG and non-TAG photos from that album in one handy link, so a bit of scrolling will be needed, rather than referring to the models themselves.
Hi Hiram,

Thanks for trying to explain - my fault for posting things when I'm half asleep. Though I did note that "there is more than just TAG in this set" which I thought was enough to highlight that there's a lot there and you need to pick the photos of things that are from TAG.

This is stuff from the same company that seems to have done the new "Crablogger" that I posted about the other day.

The main thing I thought was interesting is the background info on some of them, plus the scale of things like the Mechanics vehicle from "Earthbreaker":

https://www.instagram.com/p/BoiDKn4lmJv/

and

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bl0_ecGAG9H/

It's the sort of thing that could go into a "Making of" book if one ever gets produced.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of "what's the point of using models if you can't tell they're models" - surely the aim of special effects is to make things look as "real" as possible - and I recall Brian Johnson making a comment at something I was at noting that he hated special effects that clearly showed that something wasn't real. The example he gave was the camera flying through the body of an aeroplane (can't recall which film) as it felt it completely ruined the the illusion that it was an actual plane.

Now TAG has gone for a specific "look" and it's pretty obvious a lot of the time which is which, but at times it isn't - and I'm interested in photos like the ones here that provide more info on what they did.

FAB_61
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22nd November 2018, 11:59 PM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Aquaphibian
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saturnapollo View Post
Personally I wouldn't agree. Horses for courses really. As long as the CGI is good enough to look real it does not matter if they are not 3D models. On Star Trek Voyager the only way you could identify the real models from the CGI model was the running lights at the rear.

You may well have watched flms where CGI was intermixed with model work and you never knew. Sometimes you know it must be CGI only because you couldn't get a model to do that. As long as the craft looks like a real craft it does not matter how it was constructed.

Yes some CGI is obviously CGI, but today it is becoming indistinguishable from real models.

Keith
Presumably they use CGI as it's cheaper and quicker than making actual models. So if you can't tell which is which what is the point in making any real models?

I'm not sure any of todays CGI would be good enough for viewers not to realise they were CGI if they attempted similar slow moving closeup sequences as seen in the original series.
While todays CGI is very clever it always looks like CGI which is why TAG resembles so many other types of kids shows
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23rd November 2018, 12:02 AM
shermeen shermeen is offline
Aquaphibian
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FAB_61 View Post
I'm not sure I follow the logic of "what's the point of using models if you can't tell they're models" - surely the aim of special effects is to make things look as "real" as possible
FAB_61
Precisely- and if the models and CGI look identical why not just use CGI all the time?
TAG may have all the most modern CGI but for realism (as in making things on screen look like they exist in the real physical world) it doesn't even come close to the original series.

If the model work in TAG resembles CGI that's not really a good thing. If it was the other way round that would be great. But CGI is too perfect compared to the "spit and sawdust" of the model work in the original where you can always tell what you see is real.

Last edited by shermeen; 23rd November 2018 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23rd November 2018, 08:10 AM
VGRetro VGRetro is offline
Skybase Engineer
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 99
Default

It's the love of model making that is the reason much of the live action set production still goes on at WETA... It's kind of their thing.

Look at how they would sometimes use Models for Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. They COULD have just used CG, but for them it's fun to build the models, and it's also fun for them to see people trying to identify what is a model and what is CG.

Like Aardman, they're in it for the passion of it. That's why they spent months recreating the 1933 King Kong Spider Pit Sequence, for example.

They use models when they CAN over CG, whether it looks the same or not ,for one simple reason. Because they CAN.

It's not the most exciting answer, I'll grant you, but the fact is people are like that.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23rd November 2018, 12:13 PM
FAB_61 FAB_61 is offline
Moid
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 309
Default

To be honest this wasn't the debate I was intending to start - I just thought that the photos of the models were interesting and there was some detail given that I'm not sure has shown up anywhere else.

However since we're into the whole "CGI vs Models" debate:

The whole "look" of TAG is a bit unusual in my view - they've used a mix of real sets and models and various CGI elements (and sometimes it switches as to what is being used - for example the main Thunderbirds craft usually seem to be CGI but at times the models have been used instead - the TB-2 crash being one of them).

They've also done some things to make the CGI versions look like models: The models were built and painted, then scanned, and the image info generated was used to "wrap" the CGI equivalents - so they look hand painted in places.

Mainstream films also seem to be pulling back from "all CGI" as well - partly because there is a realisation that some things, despite all the detail you can put in CGI, still work better as models.

Ideally you shouldn't be able to tell - it should all look "real". The problem is the last bit comes down to perception, what you're looking for, and also what the current "state of the art is" (which changes what you are "prepared" to accept").

When the original Superman came out there was a huge ammount of publicity about how you can now "believe a man can fly" - these days those effects look really dates. Event the stuff in Lords of The Rings is now starting to look "poor" in places. However the "internal deck" detail you can put in two Star Destoyers crashing into each other (Rogue One for example) could never be done with models.

Part of the debate about TAG however seems to be based not on "do the effects look real" but "do they look like the model work in the original" - which is great but it looks like "real models" not "real vehicles" - and I'd argue that's not the same question.

Perhaps there is nothing that would make everyone happy - I like trying to spot how things have been done, but overall I''m more concerned about what I'm watching being a good story and keeping me entertained (and if that happens I'd actually be prepared to put up with some fairly dodgy effect work)

As a final challenge - how much of this is real and how much is CGI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg

FAB_61

Last edited by FAB_61; 23rd November 2018 at 12:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 23rd November 2018, 01:24 PM
saturnapollo's Avatar
saturnapollo saturnapollo is offline
The Snake
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 357
Default

Well, as I said previously it is horses for courses. Film productions often use models combined with CGI depending on the requirements. Some shots can just not be done with models.

However some directors prefer to use models.

Or indeed other methods. In Independence Day when the 747 has just taken off from the Washington attack and there is a view of it with an F-15 in front of a sunset, that was just a paper cutout. Whatever works.

Keith
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Fanderson - The Official Gerry Anderson Appreciation Society is a non-profit making organisation endorsed by Anderson
Entertainment Ltd., The Indestructible Production Company Ltd., ITV Global Entertainment and ITC Entertainment Group Ltd.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.