I insist old-school film styles

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by RebelWabbit, May 29, 2011.

  1. RebelWabbit

    RebelWabbit Second Technician

    Messages:
    72
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Though we all know as time goes on, the demand from studios gets more feisty to move along with technology. On the other hand, I found Red Dwarf to be more humorous without graphical effects. I saw that there were plenty of 'small' effects in the previous series which had been fine. But to see almost everything filmed this way now almost gives it a since of fake reality, but of course I understand there are yet still many people who oppose this opinion. I think it would relate more to the older series if it were done with less graphics and art, and concentrate mainly just on the old puppets and toys you guys would film. Tragic to think almost everything were to be computer animated :-(

    Thanks for the views, express your opinions lightly please!
     
  2. Nicko1

    Nicko1 First Technician

    Messages:
    131
    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    In terms of CG vs. model shots, I guess that budget will dictate that the look will be very similar to Back to Earth. In an ideal world the production team would be able to spend a fortune on models and lavish sets, but considering that the specials were made on a shoestring, I don't think that there are many people who would argue that they looked excellent and Mike Seymour (I think that's right) did a great job.

    I would agree though that trying to get laughs from the effects (Blue Midget dance in Series VIII, skutters in Back to Earth) didn't work. As Doug altered one of the skutter moments in the director's cut, I guess he partly felt the same way. If they can't afford to build the skutters properly then I just wouldn't use them again. They were absent from several series and it didn't do the show much harm...
     
  3. RebelWabbit

    RebelWabbit Second Technician

    Messages:
    72
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    That was where I noticed most of the problems, not that it even really matters to have scutters anymore. They were kind of the background humor you'd barely notice, but on the other hand. I thought the scene on Back to Earth where the sea monsters attacked the crew was a little bit "new" of a feeling, but I could adapt to it. I'm just used to seeing puppets and silly objects they would use on camera. Other than that, I found the new stuff to be pretty spectacular. Voice opinions guys, the Red Dwarf producers I am sure look over threads.
     
  4. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,920
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    It's the way of the world now unfortunately. Everything is CGI and 3D and the kind of effects you are talking about have become a (sadly) dead art.

    However the idea that anyone associated with Red Dwarf ever intended the show to look cheap as a way of adding humour is a false one. Doug, clearly, always wanted the show to look a million dollars and has tried a variety of methods over the years to achieve this. It's one reason (of many) why I suspect he pursues the idea of a film so vigorously. TV has never and will never give him the budget he needs to achieve it...but the ship in Back to Earth looked great in my view so I'm sure they can do some impressive looking episodes if they contain the action of series ten to the Small Rouge one.
     
  5. tortexturtle

    tortexturtle First Technician

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    TX, USA
    anyone who wants to can read my passionate rants against cgi. but why would you want to? they've all been posted here before, i'm sure. Great looking video/film production is like a good magic trick. you're entirely engulfed in the spectacle, convinced that what lies before you is real. CGI is sterile, superficial, and for me creates quite a big disconnect.
     
  6. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,920
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    I'm already doing that Kryten ambivilence face over the prospect of the forthcoming prequel to the John Carpenter classic The Thing. The original is probably one of my favourite movies of all time and I so desperately don't want to see it tarnished by a prequel that could end up a CGI 3D Baygasm.

    I feel so bad for all those who used to lovingly craft, animatronics, puppets, masks and FX now that everything is done on computers. I know its probably incorrect but I have an image of them seeing their craft overtaken and replaced by technology. I'd love to see a real big name film-makers film-maker make a movie where they explicitly go out of their way to NOT use CGI and be as old school creative as possible.
     
  7. tortexturtle

    tortexturtle First Technician

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    TX, USA
    Not that the film didn't have a ton of stuff going against other than the cgi, when Spielberg talked about Indy 4 (before it was released) he absolutely insisted on just what you said, bedford falls. That they'd use "old school", practical film effects like they did in the first 3 films. Instead what we got was cgi pants and cgi ants, amongst other things being cgi derived I'm sure.
     
  8. Paul Taylor

    Paul Taylor Console Officer

    Messages:
    4,362
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Peterborough UK
    Smeg it, I thought they'd decided not to bother with that. And the moment my back's turned they go and make it anyway. The original is one of the most perfect films made, and I doubt anyone could come close to it now.

    Reaction shots of gophers was a new low!
     
  9. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,920
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    I'm hoping the prescence of Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje will save it. Then again he chose to do G.I Joe over taking a central part in Lost so I'm not sure he necessarily has such a fine eye for scripts!

    Still it might not be terrible.
     
  10. RebelWabbit

    RebelWabbit Second Technician

    Messages:
    72
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Now that I've had a glance back at Back to earth, I think I have given a little more thought about CGI. It looks fine, but I must agree that the pressure to make a laugh using CGI is far more difficult than the old school way. I love it either way its done, never the less... Red Dwarf cannot practically get any worse if the crew is still around and healthy :-D

    Charles, Chris, Norman, Robert and Danny... stay as silly as possible and you can't fail... and show us clips sometime! Don't let the critics kill the fun, no one likes them either... lol
     
  11. Mardroid

    Mardroid Console Officer

    Messages:
    2,952
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    To be fair, I don't think the CGI was meant to generate a laugh (unless you include the comedy skutter). The same can be said for the older affects. With the exception of the Holly Hop drive, the comedy wasn't derived from the sets. (Not that they looked bad.)

    There were some other affects that were obviously comedy, I.e. drunk driving Blue Midget for example, but those things were done well with both the model and CGI. I.e. it was what the objects DID from which the comedy derived, not the STYLE of the affects. (Especially as the model shots generally looked better than the CGI of that day anyway. I do like the remastered Blue Midget design though.)
     

Share This Page