Jump to content

Could movies with aged CGI be updated with new CGI?


Recommended Posts

Like, with GotG, there is some clear CG with Rocket and Groot, but it still looks really good, but what about 20-30 years from now? It would be neat to see the same movie just with better CGI. Like, Iron Man could already use some updated CGI, and Thanos could look more real in the future. But yeah, like could you just upgrade the graphics in the future? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Star Wars did it!

I thought about that, but they mostly added rather than change shit around. Tho they did change some things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dualhunter said:

While it isn't CGI to better CGI, Star Trek TOS redid the original effects with CGI. Don't forget that one of the changes to Star Wars was changing Anakin's force ghost in RotJ.

 

From what I remember from reading about the TOS and TNG remasters, swapping in new CGI probably isn't terribly difficult if you plan ahead to leave that option open. I don't know if anyone cares enough to spend the money on that just in case they want to do it later, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the green screen footage doesn't get lost I don't see why they wouldn't do it at some point, as 'good enough" CGI should get cheaper to make. Biggest issue is money.  I don't doubt beloved movies will get a full "remaster" in the future, since those have the best chance of making money.  If green screen footage gets lost it would be harder and more expensive to do, but then maybe deep learning AI could solve this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is a terrible idea. Maybe as an alternative option, but you can't recreate lightning in a bottle. I would hate for Gollum, for instance, to be redone. Everything will age. Even if you update the CG now, it will age again in 10-20 years anyway. Then what? Update movies periodically forever? What about non-CGI dated issues with films like their practical effects, animatronics, models, etc.?

 

No. Just no. Maintain the original artistic integrity of the work. It's partly why people hate the Star Wars special editions. 

  • Like 1
  • Guillotine 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question will be; in the era of streaming with fewer people buying physical movies on disc, is the money they'll make 'selling' new editions of a film worth the cost to the studio to re-do or add new CGI effects in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

No, that is a terrible idea. Maybe as an alternative option, but you can't recreate lightning in a bottle. I would hate for Gollum, for instance, to be redone. Everything will age. Even if you update the CG now, it will age again in 10-20 years anyway. Then what? Update movies periodically forever? What about non-CGI dated issues with films like their practical effects, animatronics, models, etc.?

 

No. Just no. Maintain the original artistic integrity of the work. It's partly why people hate the Star Wars special editions. 

I think people hate the special editions for the changes/additions.  Not for the straight forward improvements to existing visuals.  Making the light-sabers look better, and making some of the cockpits not semi transparent for example are two touch ups that I don't think anyone complained about.  

 

I think if a studio wants to revisit and touch up a classic with just touch up to visuals then that is a great idea.  But when you start tweaking dialog, adding or changing things then I would agree that it is a bad idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, number305 said:

I think people hate the special editions for the changes/additions.  Not for the straight forward improvements to existing visuals.  Making the light-sabers look better, and making some of the cockpits not semi transparent for example are two touch ups that I don't think anyone complained about.  

 

I think if a studio wants to revisit and touch up a classic with just touch up to visuals then that is a great idea.  But when you start tweaking dialog, adding or changing things then I would agree that it is a bad idea.

 

As I said, I'm fine with it as an alternative option, but changing the film negatives or digital file with new CGI is different than restoration and video clean up work. I'm all for the latter, but I'm only for the former if the originals are still offered in the best quality possible as well. I prefer Blade Runner: The Final Cut but I still believe Blade Runner theatrical version should be preserved in high quality.

 

Also, I would not want this becoming standard practice. As I said, updating CGI for every film every 10-20 years just seems silly. The movies are good regardless of CGI and better CGI doesn't make them better or worse. Story, characters, dialogue, stakes - even shitty CGI doesn't bother me if I'm otherwise invested in the film. That's why classics remain classics despite looking dated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

As I said, I'm fine with it as an alternative option, but changing the film negatives or digital file with new CGI is different than restoration and video clean up work. I'm all for the latter, but I'm only for the former if the originals are still offered in the best quality possible as well. I prefer Blade Runner: The Final Cut but I still believe Blade Runner theatrical version should be preserved in high quality.

 

Also, I would not want this becoming standard practice. As I said, updating CGI for every film every 10-20 years just seems silly. The movies are good regardless of CGI and better CGI doesn't make them better or worse. Story, characters, dialogue, stakes - even shitty CGI doesn't bother me if I'm otherwise invested in the film. That's why classics remain classics despite looking dated. 

I think we pretty much agree.  I doubt this will happen to many films.  I mean there is a cost involved to do the work.  They are only going to 'mess' with movies that they think they can make a bunch of money selling special editions of.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, number305 said:

I think we pretty much agree.  I doubt this will happen to many films.  I mean there is a cost involved to do the work.  They are only going to 'mess' with movies that they think they can make a bunch of money selling special editions of.  

 

I think we agree too - my posts are more directly addressing the OP's original ask - if all movies should be doing it, like Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. The way it's already been done for years is my preference. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2019 at 8:54 AM, Greatoneshere said:

No, that is a terrible idea. Maybe as an alternative option, but you can't recreate lightning in a bottle. I would hate for Gollum, for instance, to be redone. Everything will age. Even if you update the CG now, it will age again in 10-20 years anyway. Then what? Update movies periodically forever? What about non-CGI dated issues with films like their practical effects, animatronics, models, etc.?

 

No. Just no. Maintain the original artistic integrity of the work. It's partly why people hate the Star Wars special editions. 

Even though I enjoy the changes that Lucas did with Star Wars, I agree here. Maintain the original integrity of the work.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Watching that reimagined Star Wars fight, it opens up a can of worms about what people have come to accept with what the original the movie filmed versus what this new redux is retelling. It's a fine piece of work, but I've grown up thinking and accepting that the original fight was so slow and unenergetic (story line wise) because Obi Wan was too old. Now when I watch this new piece, it seems so out of place that Obi Wan is doing all of these high flipping moves and hard knock-downs when Alec Guinness never looked like he was capable of doing such things. It's kinda like watching the Star Trek TNG bluray reduxes and the Star Trek TOS reduxes. TNG recreated everything the show did without actually changing their original movements or actions while TOS changed movements and actions and made everything seem really out of place. There's a fine line between making something better by recreating in hd what was on screen shot for shot versus trying to make something better by recreating what you think should have been on screen in every shot, imo.

 

I still say that as long as an original work is kept pristine and available, go ahead and do all these redux's. The Lucas edits are bad, but they're made even worse because the unedited footage is unavailable in a pristine format like the new edits are getting. If I had the choice between watching each version, I wouldn't care. But I don't, so I hate the edits even more. And plus, it's a moment in time. I don't need my movies to all look like they were made last week. I rather enjoy watching spaceships with strings attached to them, and crazy head explosions where for a millisecond you can see the dummy head right before it pops, because it looks better in those older movies versus mixing in a modern cg effect  =)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, number305 said:

I saw this today and it made me think of this thread... so here ya go: 

 

I saw that today too and was going to post it! haha

 

If that had been in the original movie, I would be a HUGE SW fan. But alas! lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

selective fixes would be a great way to refresh and justify purchase of older titles...

 

an instance which immediately comes to mind is from The Crow...the scene where funboy shoots his hand and it heals is distressingly bad... some "bad" cgi should remain an age gracefully, that scene should not...

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NeoJoe said:

I saw that today too and was going to post it! haha

 

If that had been in the original movie, I would be a HUGE SW fan. But alas! lol

Whoever made this has some big talent. There are obviously a few parts that don't look perfect, but it is a fan edit. 

 

To be honest this scene makes more sense than the original one now if you pair this movie with rogue one. Vader was a badass at the end of that movie, so for him to be slow and awkward fighting Obi-Wan is even worse now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Too many stupid cuts, rotations and the darth vader looks like some cosplay dwarf.

Who pissed in your Cheerios? ;)

 

I liked it. It obviously could be better, but considering this wasn’t done by ILM I’d say it turned out pretty good. 

 

It definitely matches the expectation set by other movies and lore far more than the original.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emblazon said:

I would like to see an updated The Last Starfighter. 

I'd rather them put out a release of The Last Starfighter that wasn't DNR'ed to absolute hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...