Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > SHADO Operations > Control Room

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2008, 08:17 PM   #1
FALLINGSTAR
Communications Officer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 805
Default The RHINO - only thing that spoiled new C.Scarlet!

I liked the new C.Scarlet series from a few years back but I wish they had a slightly updated SPV in it instead of that Rhino. Don't get me wrong it wasn't terrible but the original SPV was quite a striking looking design whereas I thought the Rhino was pretty bland. I know it can be argued that the Rhino was really an updated SPV but I think it should have looked much more like the original which was much more memorable. Anyone else think that?
FALLINGSTAR is on duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2008, 09:14 PM   #2
saturnapollo
Medical Officer
 
saturnapollo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 2,704
Default

Totally agree. Personally I didn't really like any of the NCS vehicles with the exception of the large Condor aircraft.

Keith
saturnapollo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2008, 08:24 AM   #3
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

From what I've seen of the vehicles I'd have to agree. I love the smooth lines of the originals rather than the the cg ones, but each to their own in this case I think.
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2008, 02:37 PM   #4
Lee S
Eagle Pilot
 
Lee S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand, Earth, Sol Sector
Posts: 690
Default

Actually it was the new SPC I wasn't keen on, but that's another story.
Lee S is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2008, 06:21 PM   #5
Transporter
Life Support Officer
 
Transporter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CH
Posts: 1,847
Default

I liked the Rhino and the Albatross, and of course their combination, but I think the Choppers were quite ugly.

The really cool craft in my opinion was the Russian Druzynik Tank. But of course not everybody has the same taste...

Transporter is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 13-10-2008, 07:50 PM   #6
Mark42
Chief Eagle Pilot
 
Mark42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nottingham, England
Posts: 1,204
Default

No, I like them.
Like you I was not impressed to begin with but have seen all the episodes several times now and I like most of the designs except for the helicopter.
I just wish they had been real and not just cartoons.
__________________



....... S.I.G David Mark Sisson
Mark42 is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2008, 07:11 AM   #7
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

Same thing for me. Wish they were real
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2008, 07:45 PM   #8
FALLINGSTAR
Communications Officer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark42 View Post
No, I like them.
Like you I was not impressed to begin with but have seen all the episodes several times now and I like most of the designs except for the helicopter.
I just wish they had been real and not just cartoons.

I like most of the designs too but I just think the Rhino looks a bit bland compared to the SPV. As you all may or may not know Anderson said he didn't have the SPV in the new series because he wanted to keep the new and old series separate - a logic I don't agree with because if you're remaking CS then remake CS not remake it and leave highly important icons like the SPV out. That was the biggest non human star of the original show. It's like remaking Thunderbirds and leaving Thunderbird 2 out. As I said the Rhino is still a quite an interesting design and even though it's sort of SPV like, it's not the SPV that we all love. They could have kept the overall design with a very similar look [ same metallic blue type colour and white writing also ] but modernised it a bit such as making it look a bit sleeker etc - instead of changing it so much and then renaming it the Rhino.
FALLINGSTAR is on duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2008, 07:47 PM   #9
FALLINGSTAR
Communications Officer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporter View Post
I liked the Rhino and the Albatross, and of course their combination, but I think the Choppers were quite ugly.

The really cool craft in my opinion was the Russian Druzynik Tank. But of course not everybody has the same taste...


I thought that tank was one of new Scarlets best designs also.
FALLINGSTAR is on duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 07:13 AM   #10
A Study in Scarlet
Computer Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 222
Default

When the series was first being touted,somewhere i saw a drawing that was a direct evolution of the SPV and called ,somewhat logically,SPV Mark 2.
A Study in Scarlet is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 16-10-2008, 01:31 PM   #11
TonyB
Forum Supporter
 
TonyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire UK.
Posts: 5,272
Default

I have to agree with the comments from Mark42, I too have watched the series through completely at least three times now and individual episodes several times over and think that the vehicles are just fine, yes they took a little getting used to at first, but once you got over the fact that they were not the same vehicles as seen in the classic series you began to appreciate the designs more, well at least I did at any rate.

Granted the Hummingbird (Helicopter), can be argued to be one of the weakest of the new vehicle designs, but even then I have no complaints regards it overall.

And as previously mentioned it would have been nice to have had 'real' models as opposed to the CGI ones, but they are far from what I would call 'cartoons' as well.
TonyB is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 04:43 PM   #12
Eagle-2
Chief Eagle Pilot
 
Eagle-2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FALLINGSTAR View Post
The RHINO - only thing that spoiled new C.Scarlet!
The ONLY thing? What about the music? Blimey...
__________________
"Can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations."
Eagle-2 is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 05:43 PM   #13
Troy
Medical Technician
 
Troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 160
Default CGI models

I have to take issue with anybody that calls a CGI model a 'cartoon'. Don't you think that's a little insulting to those that create CGI models, several of which have been highly praised in this very forum
Troy is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 06:13 PM   #14
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

If something looks like a cartoon, it's a cartoon. The Hulk movie was a combination of live action and cartoon. At no stage did anything in NCS look remotely real. It looked the same as Toy Story, not Jurassic Park III.

The CGI SHADO Mobile in one of the other threads is one of the best I've seen BUT it's still instantly recognisable as CGI and not real.

If I was totally honest, I have to say that I'm not very impressed by CGI models. There isn't much skill in creating the shape. I admit that there may be some skill in the artworking of the surface but anyone, once they're familiar with the program and given time, can do it. CGI building is just a bunch of geometric shapes put together in the computer and it's why all CGI series look the same and why NCS failed to be noticed above the others (well, one of the reasons).

Last edited by DX-SFX; 16-10-2008 at 07:37 PM.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 07:40 PM   #15
MkIXHawk
Communications Officer
 
MkIXHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 1,460
Default

I agree. The problem with CGI vehicles or even people, is that they don't interact with their environment. Ok, you could program exhaust plumes or dust but they'd still only be an approximation which never looks right.
Even if it was casting a shadow, the original puppetgs were part of the scenes they were filmed in, not just another layer of a composite
MkIXHawk is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 16-10-2008, 09:01 PM   #16
thundergod
Astrophysics Technician
 
thundergod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: St Helens , Merseyside , U.K .
Posts: 479
Default

Here we go again , the "C.G.I is crap , real models are great " argument raises it's head again! I love "physical" models , that's why I follow this forum , but I also have friends who work in C.G.I professionally and I consider them to be artists of the first order . The problem is ,the quality of C.G. images , exactly like "real" models are dependant on many factors , mostly the budget of the production and the time to create them and so , the results can be less than impressive . Don't get me wrong , I agree that the majority of C.G.I looks inferior than it's physical counterpart , but it is a relatively new technology ( look at model work from the 50's) and to dismiss it and it's creators , as talentless button-pushers, or suchlike, is rather unfair . In my opinion , the only example of this technique which is completely indistinguishable from the "real" is in the recent Iron Man movie . By the way , I liked the Rhino and to say it's not meant to be an S.P.V update is rather pointless . It's big , armoured , fast and blue . 'Nuff said .
thundergod is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 09:27 PM   #17
MkIXHawk
Communications Officer
 
MkIXHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thundergod View Post
look at model work from the 50's) .
I seem to recall that the model work in the 1953 'War of the Worlds' was pretty good, and the film was easily as good as the recent remake - it's only in the last 10 years that I've stopped having nightmares about the War Machines

Don't get me wrong,I'm not rubbishing CGI; it's A tool , one of many. Unfortunately, many filmmakers seem to think it's the ONLY tool. Of course, part of the problem is Hollywood being run by accountants
MkIXHawk is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2008, 11:46 PM   #18
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

I wonder if it's like a conjuring trick? When you know how it's done and everyone else is doing the same trick, it ceases to be impressive, particularly if the execution of the trick is not great.

It's only when CGI looks genuinely real that the audience are impressed. Poor to moderate CG is now available to anyone with a laptop and the appropriate software. I'm not saying that that person is unskilled in doing what they do but if everyone else can do it, by definition, it impresses far less unless you're doing something way above average. CGI on TV that looks inferior or even equal to what you can do in your bedroom will always fail to impress because you say "Hey, I could do that. What's the big deal."

There is a modelling analogy here too. A well assembled plastic kit built straight from the box and competently painted takes skill but it's in the realm of a great many people. The same can be said for generating a CGI shape by assembling a collection of smaller shapes in a CGI program. Colouring that shape in a way it looks real, whether made from plastic or pixels, is far more down to the skill of the modeller but again if the work is done for you by providing a pre-prepared electronic wallpaper or large sheets of aztec decal in the case of a kit, one is far less impressed by the skill on show since it has taken no more skill than the next guy to get to that point.

The most impressive models and the most impressive CGI are both the ones that strike you as looking real where the creator has achieved results far better than everyone else and the method it's been achieved with is not immediately obvious. Going back to the conjuring thing, if you can't see how something is done, you've created genuine magic on screen.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 04:00 AM   #19
CommanderStraker
Life Support Technician
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 82
Default

One example of bad CGI in a current (or recent) production is Sanctuary. I tried to watch that last Friday (Amanda Tapping is still a hottie), but just had to turn it off after the first few minutes. Too much ridiculous action and the lighting and CGI background looked awful. It was terrible compared with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow four years ago, which also used an all-CGI environment. Granted, that cost a lot more to make, but lighting actors properly does not cost a penny more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DX-SFX View Post
If something looks like a cartoon, it's a cartoon. The Hulk movie was a combination of live action and cartoon. At no stage did anything in NCS look remotely real. It looked the same as Toy Story, not Jurassic Park III.

The CGI SHADO Mobile in one of the other threads is one of the best I've seen BUT it's still instantly recognisable as CGI and not real.

If I was totally honest, I have to say that I'm not very impressed by CGI models. There isn't much skill in creating the shape. I admit that there may be some skill in the artworking of the surface but anyone, once they're familiar with the program and given time, can do it. CGI building is just a bunch of geometric shapes put together in the computer and it's why all CGI series look the same and why NCS failed to be noticed above the others (well, one of the reasons).
Nothing in NCS is supposed to look realistic. The CGI characters couldn't be realistic, so it would have been jarring to put them in realistic surroundings.

It's arguable that there isn't much skill in creating models for SF shows. Some basic shapes, then tack on a bunch of parts swiped from other models to add surface texture. I look at any model work on TV or in movies and I can also claim to be able to immediately know that they're scale models, not real. As for the "anyone can do it" argument, that's been proven wrong time and again in every field. Just because anybody can use a word processor and learn the basics of screenwriting hasn't produced a flood of great scripts. Anybody can use a digital camera, but I still see an awful lot of bad snapshots. Everybody can learn how to use Illustrator, but 99.9999% people can't produce any good artwork.

Last edited by CommanderStraker; 17-10-2008 at 04:14 AM.
CommanderStraker is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2008, 10:22 AM   #20
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

Quote:
Nothing in NCS is supposed to look realistic. The CGI characters couldn't be realistic, so it would have been jarring to put them in realistic surroundings.
They succeeded.

In fact there is so much wrong in that statement that it's self evident and doesn't need pointing out.

Quote:
It's arguable that there isn't much skill in creating models for SF shows. Some basic shapes, then tack on a bunch of parts swiped from other models to add surface texture.
Yep, no specialist skill involved at all. If only it was about just sticking kit bit spaceships together.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfx_films/hangarman.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfx_films/venice.jpg

Out of all the different professions in the film industry, the modelmaker is one of the most undervalued. Where there are separate groups who specialise like the chippies who do all the woodwork, plasterers who do nothing but plasterwork and painters who do nothing but painting, your film modelmaker has to be good in ALL the disciplines and working with all materials, wood, plastic, metal, fibreglass, resin, plaster, paint, animatronics, radio control, latex/silicone, fabrics, electrics, electronics....

Quote:
As for the "anyone can do it" argument, that's been proven wrong time and again in every field. Just because anybody can use a word processor and learn the basics of screenwriting hasn't produced a flood of great scripts. Anybody can use a digital camera, but I still see an awful lot of bad snapshots. Everybody can learn how to use Illustrator, but 99.9999% people can't produce any good artwork.
Those are both recording mediums and neither of them offer the author pre-finished parts of the work. The design aspect needs skilful creative input (like a modelmaker or any work of artistic merit) but that's different from the skill needed to physically produce the finished item once the design aspect is finalised.

Last edited by DX-SFX; 17-10-2008 at 10:52 AM.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com