Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1977 Star Wars Computer Graphics

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the real-time-racing-it-is-not dept.

Noryungi writes "The interestingly named 'Topless Robot' has a real trip down memory lane: how the computer graphics of the original Star Wars movie were made. The article points to this YouTube video of a short documentary made by Larry Cuba, the original artist, that explains how he did it. In 1977."

10 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Better Then CGI by doroshjt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie. What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.

    1. Re:Better Then CGI by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. Look at the Hitchhiker's Guide movie. The scenes where the Vogons are done with puppetry are amazing, the scenes where they're CGI are 'meh'. Same goes for the original Alien vs the A v P movies, as soon as I see CGI (especially for characters/animals) the emotion center of my brain says 'nope' and shuts down.

    2. Re:Better Then CGI by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What made the original star wars great was the animitronics for all the characters instead of jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.

      What made JarJar obnoxious was not how his image was created for the film. That's like blaming YouTube for the abundance of noisy idiots on-line.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Better Then CGI by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >CGI has ruined movies

      Are you kidding? Yoda looks like a rag doll in the originals. The cantina puppets are pretty bad and Jabba's palace is a B-quality muppet showcase. If anything, CGI is producing a seamlessness that is impossible with the old techniques.

      If you cannot suspend your disbelief then thats your problem, not anyone else's.

      >jar jar binks super imposed cartoon characters.

      Thats an implementation issue, not a technological one. There's tons of CGI in those movies that looks amazing. In fact, I suspect its so good you dont even know its CGI. Blame Lucas and his people for skimping out when it came to their ridiculous Jamaican amphibian. If anything, it was probably a design decision to make JarJar look more cartoony and less realistic than the other CGI.

    4. Re:Better Then CGI by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CGI has ruined movies, they are so in your face that you can't enjoy the movie

      It's not just the graphics, it's the film-making.

      Did you notice on this one how the initial shots of the Death Star graphics are a wide shot showing all the pilots slouching around listening to the briefing? That was the point, not the graphics.

      Today they would have framed that shot tight on the graphics with the speaker on one side. But by not focusing on the graphics they're more powerful - in this universe, it's just commonplace, nothing that needs highlighting (until the detail is small enough that the audience wouldn't be able to follow, so they zoom in then). To somebody watching in 1977 the effect is heightened.

      The point here is the briefing and the reactions of those assembled to highlight just how ridiculous and impossible (without an assist from the "more powerful than you can possibly imagine" Ben Kenobi) the task is. But they're going to try anyway because humans fight to be free.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Better Then CGI by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, AOL was to blame for that.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    6. Re:Better Then CGI by Disgruntled+Goats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if there was no CGI used in the prequels they still would have sucked. Jar Jar wouldn't be less annoying and less unfunny had it been an animatronic. Hayden Christiansen's stilted acting would have still sucked had the environments not been CGI rendered scenes. The midichlorian angle would still have been stupid. The failings of the prequel trilogy had almost nothing to do with the CGI and all to do with a poorly written story with piss-poor acting by many of the main actors. Using animatronics and non-digital effects wouldn't have somehow made this different.

    7. Re:Better Then CGI by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1920's Sound has Ruined movies, they are so in your face you can't enjoy the movie.
      1940's Color has Ruined Movies, they are so in you face you can't enjoy the movie.
      1960's Elaborate Costumes have Ruined moves....
      1980's Animtronics ...
      2000 CGI...

      It is just a new toy that its use hasn't been fully realized yet. And excuse to hate something new. They made bad movies in the past and they will do so in the future. It is not CGI but bad use of it. Jar-Jar was a stupid character who wasn't needed especially as they kept the droids. Having him as not a CGI character wouldn't make him any better.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Better Then CGI by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Look at the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.

      Do I have to?

      People got so hung up on the "Ford isn't supposed to be black" thing that they seem to have forgotten about the "Ford is supposed to be funny" thing...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  2. Re:2001 Space Odyssey "computer graphics" by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you sure? I was so certain that the last part of that movie was directed by a random number generator.