Text 16860, 113 rader
Skriven 2007-08-08 02:48:34 av kim (3337.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: "Babylon 5: The Lost Tales" - A Review (SPOILER Warning)
====================================================================
"Mac Breck" <macthevorlon@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:46b90bb5$0$25591$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...
> <StarFuryG7@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1186453959.549081.187230@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> ***: I don't give much away, but read at your own risk
>> nonetheless if you haven't seen this movie as yet.***
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         The special effects work was good, and it pains me to say
>> this, especially since it was one of the better attributes of this
>> production, but I nevertheless think the CGI work in "Legend of the
>> Rangers" was better.
>
> I COMPLETELY disagree with that.  The ONLY things in the B5:LotR pilot
> that were better, was the fact that they had SETS, real, physical sets
> in the B5:LotR pilot;  and Dulann's line about Tannier having been given
> command of The Valen, David's priceless, offscreen reaction, and
> Dulann's innocent reply.
>
> In B5-TLT, IMHO, every space shot and model is exquisite.  Ditto for the
> planetary background on Minbar.  Hyperspace/Quantumspace entry and exit
> vortices, and the almost fabric-like nature of that space itself, are
> the best I've ever seen.  :D
>
> Where the CGI in B5:TLT falls down is the background of Lochley's
> quarters, the hallways in the first story (except for the hallway in the
> very first scene, which looked better than the rest) and the docking bay
> in both stories.  In all of those cases, the CGI backgrounds just didn't
> look real.  In Lochley's quarters, the lamps looked almost 2D, and the
> lampshades looked like one was made and then copied to make the other,
> and both were perfectly symmetrical and sharply edged.  The background
> looked like an illustration in a magazine, 2D.  Same for the hallways.
> They looked too sterile, with an almost "Star Trek: Enterprise" feel to
> them.  To me, the docking bay looked too much like a matte painting.
> Yes, if you looked closely and viewed the scenes several times, you
> could see that almost all the "people" were moving, and moving fairly
> believably, but putting the moving fake people next to the moving real
> people, Lochley and the priest, and Sheridan and Prince Vintari, made
> the fake people "look like" animation.  IMHO, the docking bay scenes
> would have looked better (flaws less apparent) if they'd been less
> brightly lit, less uniformly lit, and shorter in duration.  The docking
> bay needs dirtied-up, and some differences, physical flaws and details
> introduced (e.g. scraped paint, caution tape, warning signs, debris on
> the floor, maintenance materials lying around, etc.).  Those little
> added touches would make it look more real.
>
> One more thing, the destruction scene at NYC was nothing compared to
> what a Vorlon or Shadow planetkiller could do.  Galen's line was off the
> mark because of that.  Both Sheridan and Galen have seen what those
> planetkillers could do.  Heck, even the Centauri use of mass-drivers at
> Narn did worse.  Also, those beams would have looked better if they'd
> blown up buildings with attendant smoke, fire and flying debris.  In
> action, it just didn't look like those beams were doing much.
>
>
>
>> Part of this may well have had to do with the
>> production budget for this feature. I know, for example, that the
>> people working on producing the special effects here were putting in
>> overtime at no charge in order to get the work done,
>
> And that's precisely why I HATE to criticize the docking bay at all,
> because I know how much work and good intentions went into it (having
> read the CG Society articles about B5:TLT).  It was probably just too
> ambitious of a shot to try to make on anything less than a $100 million
> budget feature film.
>
>
>
>> and the lack of a budget showed, even though Straczynski and
>> his team were able to squeak by and finish out this feature.
>
> Yes it did show.  Still, what they did produce was impressive in a lot
> of ways.
>
>
>
>> That's not necessarily saying
>> much, however. Why would Warner Bros. issue an enthusiastic press
>> release concerning their venturing into the direct-to-DVD market
>> beginning with this release, and then not provide adequate funds to
>> make the production a bit more impressive?
>
> Because they're tightwads and wanted JMS & Co. to pull off a miracle,
> even though Warner Brothers themselves handicaped the production by
> losing all the CGI files, and having almost none of the B5 sets, props
> and wardrobe available?  HOPEFULLY, the sales of this first DVD will
> cause WB to give JMS a lot bigger budget, to include a rebuilding of the
> B5 & Crusade sets, CGI , wardrobe and props, and get more of the main
> cast and more extras in the future DVDs..

More extras like the sock puppet jokes you mean? I'd rather have fewer 
extras and more short stories myself. They got away with it this time 
because it's been so long since the last B5 story but next time potential 
purchasers are likely to be far more discerning before parting with the 
cash.

(kim)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)