KITT in the new movie - CGI?

[CB2001]

neps- Actuallly, Ang Lee could have used forced persception with a live actor. I mean, director Peter Jackson used forced perception for "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" in order to make the character of Gandalf look taller than all the hobbits.

How could Ang have used this for "The Hulk"? Simple: Some scenes, have the Hulk closer to the camera than others. Or, they could have made scale replicas of the sets a bit smaller than the actual sets, film an actor as the Hulk on them, shoot footage from the real set with the actors and then add them together digitally. This same trick is what the Coen Brothers used for the "Gutterballs" dream sequence for "The Big Lebowski, when the Dude is sliding down the bowling lane. Jeff Bridges' shoulders were actually too wide to pass through the dancers' legs. So the scene had to be shot twice (once with just Bridges, once with just the legs), Bridges was slightly shrunk digitally, and the two were then spliced together.


Of course, if Ang felt that it was necessary to use CGI, then he must have thought it was better because of his skill in film making. That's why when I become a filmmaker, I hope to use a lot of old school and substitute tactics of special effects and shooting. For example: I've found a small tutorial on how to create a gunshot blast splatter effect without the use of any squibs or CGI. Low budget is cool.

[jup]

Put it like this. In the 80s, KITT looked so futuristic for the time. I think I can safely say, there isn't a modern car out there that evokes a similar kind of feeling in people. (Think Team Knight Rider. lol)

Ever see the dash on most any modern vehicle? It's a bunch of mechanical gauges with fibre optic-like needles, right? It's as if there is one company in the world designing dashes and all the car companies buy only from them. And, they only make several models. Is it any wonder the LED look still stands out?

Besides, the style of the Trans-Am is forever unique...in it's own ways.

I mean people complain that CGI is merely eye candy, but if its put to proper usage, people will believe it looks "real". For example, not many people know this, but around 60% of the car chase scenes in The Fast And The Furious are in fact CGI. (If you don't believe me, watch the extras on the DVD. lol)

I blame it on the fact that people are told in advance on what is CGI. Aside from the inferior works, I bet that there are CGI portions in movies that most already accept as real.

A magician should never tell his secrets...

Take Terminator 3, which has had 4 trailers thus far, with 2 months until release. Usually, the best scenes of a film are placed in them, and if the audience isn't "wowed" by the trailer, they ain't going to see the movie. Sad, but true.

Personally, I hate the fact that movie trailers use all the best shots and all the best drama moments and all the best jokes, etc. To me, it's just disecting the movie into some sort of concentrated super movie that spoils the actual movie. Now, I just bought the trilogy BTTF DVD and I got a chance to see the original theatre teaser. NOW THAT WAS GREAT. Not only didn't they use a single movie shot, they gave us a mysterious hint to what the movie was all about. I sort of wish that more movie trailers were just custom built previews that didn't just rob from the real movie.

It also helps that T2 was such a well done, non-stop action fest.

So... fellow fans... what are your thoughts on this? Should the new KITT be CGI? Would you feel alienated knowing that truly this car was not "real" in any sense of the word?

In my opinion, I think we will have no choice. CGI just makes everything easier, flashier and safer to do with far more control by the director. And, seeing as how I just caught TM:R today, I have to say that that CGI stuff has become quite the incredible tool. (Haha...Neo vs. 'The Ten Thousand Maniacs'. Too funny. Now, that's a 'Street Mortality' moment.) When I look at many scenes that people complain about because they declair that the CGI has ruined it, I have to wonder if that's really true, or just the fact that they know about the 'behind-the-scene' secret portion that is ruining it for them. More often then not, I can't agree that the scene is totally trashed. One big exception comes from that 'Lost In Space' movie from a few years back. Now, that's one big example on how NOT to do CGI in movies.

Oh, how CGI has come a long way since that movie where the stained glass window comes alive and threatens that guy's life.

[knightimmortal]

jup, I don't think you give people enough credit. Not to insult anybody here again, but I do think that most people can tell which is CGI, and which isn't without being told. It looks cartoonish as heck, and stands out drastically.

So at least give people a LITTLE more credit than that.

Oh, and once again, sorry for the mindless minion comment. I didn't mean anybody here, unless you really do think CGI is real, and went back to the same movie three times in the same day. I know nobody will ever forgive me, everybody is going to hold it against me, and continue to hold me to a different view than others.

KI

[CSPilot]

Remember that TV show Viper. They used some CGI that made it feel real. I think if they used half and half it would turn out great. I would like to see Kitt do something different then jumping over or through a wall. Look at the James Bond scenes in the last Bond movie. That was one of the best bond car scenes I have seen in a while and they didnt use all CGI. I think some of us not all have to learn what CGI has brought to the film industry in the past decade.

[jup]

Oh, yea. That car scene from the latest Bond was indeed great. Then again, they ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING with the car. (Unlike from that Bond a few years ago where Bond drives in, parks the car on a dock and then it gets sawed in half by that heli with the tree trimmer.)

I suppose the transformation process done by the Viper could only have been pulled off via CGI. I bet KR would have used CGI during the fourth season, had the tech been around.

As for the fake look of CGI, I bet that even the strongest hater of Computerized Graphics can't point out ALL the use of it in a motion picture. And, if there is any reason that even a portion of it can be picked upon, it's usually because the CGI plays a "starring" role AND the artists in charge of drawing the graphics couldn't figure out how to colorize the image to the N'th degree that exists in real life.

I suppose the next level in CGI may require some sort of AI program that can create in ways that a Human's hand/eye interface can't pull off.

[Tarmac]

I personally think that CGI still looks too fake and cartoonish (see: the latest 2fast 2furious trailers, very bad CGI on the cars jumping over the bridge and when they're sliding around a curve, ANYONE can tell that's CGI as the cars are almost highlighted it just looks horrible).

I dread a KR movie looking like that hopefully any CGI will be kept to a minimum, and IMO KITT should indeed be a "real" physical car.

[BlazeFox]

CGI or all Real I don't care. Just so long as they keep KITT as a T/A (preferably a 2002 or so model) I will enjoy the movie. And even if they don't I'm probably still going to go see it simply because its Knight Rider. Its the nostalgic value and the name association.

-BlazeFoxKitsune =^.^=
[brennen_sie_fuchs(at)hotmail.com]

[neps]

forced perspective is good, but it also has its limits, especially in the action wold. You often can see the "short person" who was standing for the full sized one. I think even using CSO could have downfalls. All methods have the potentail of not looking 100%, so Ang Lee did what he thought best.

I agree with the Hulk, I disagree with a cgi KITT.

[Army_F_Body]

I just picked up ST:Nemesis yesterday and was pleased to find that they actually used physical models in the film as revealed by some of the bonus segments on the disk. I remember when ST:Voyager came out CGI was still in its infancy, and it definately showed. I started to dislike Paramount for allowing CGI in the place of physical ship models in the show. I think CGI has evolved quite a bit today and can possibly be quit believable based on the pictures budget. I agree though that a low budget flick would have CGI on par with a PS1 game. It's just that CGI is too accessible to film makers of any level of budget these days. More than likely KR wouldn't have a budget in the league of a Star Trek flick so I agree it would stand out if CGI was entirely relied on.

[jup]

I agree with the Hulk, I disagree with a cgi KITT.

I saw an ad for the new movie "Hulk". I had to hide my eyes from that one. The CGI made it look like a man turning into a cartoon.

[CB2001]

jup- Wouldn't be the first time. The poor excuse for a movie called "Cool World"

[neps]

Funny, I actually rented Nemsis myself last night. Bout the only good thing in there was the sfx. I do remember Voyager being heavy on CGI, and other space movies and tv series (perhaps babaloyn 5?) that had no models at all. It was good to be able to see the quality in a hand model. Again supporting the fact that nothing beats the real thing.

Ugh, Cool World. That had been locked away in my deep subconcious, why did you bring that back again? Who stared in that one? Why does Luke Perry come to mind?

[jup]

Cool World. That ONLY means a name to some movie I've never given the time of day to, to me.

...which doesn't sound like such a bad thing...

[Carlyn Eliz]

see what everybody is trying to say (i hope) is that the movie does not need graphics....in the tv shows did they use computer graphics? no they didn't they used real stunts....Kitt is a car not a holographic computer....all stunts they did with kitt is better then graphic.


i like kitt the way he is....more newer the cars are more "plastic."
also the newer cars are easier to wreck...

-carlyn

[cloudkitt]

If they wanted more recent...why don't they just use a black 2000 Trans Am?

[cloudkitt]

And neps, when it comes to space and Star Trek and such, I think CGI are indeed better. Not for Knight Rider, I mean, why? We have cars.
But, i did like the scenes of the ship in the next generation better than the little model that they threw in front of the camera in the orignal series

[_Mad_Man_2k]

How did they do that intro in the original series (and TNG?)

[neps]

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you there cloudkitt, unless you can show me a frame by frame comparison. The original series, yes, that was pretty crappy. But the TNG stuff was all models, and I believe they switched to CGI for Voyager, and then they went back to models for Enterprise, I recall reading somewhere that the ST community breathed a sigh of relief when this happened... if I remember correctly that is.

There are other space shows, like Bablyon 5, or Andromida, which are all CGI and they have a rubber quality that you don't get in models. the rubber quality just makes it look fake.

[cloudkitt]

TNG was models?! .....there's no way. But if it were models wouldn't it look just like it did in the original series (i can't give a full argument here because i've never watched Voyager.

Do any of you have the Bridge Commander game? I CGs in that game, look exactly like the show, do they use models for video games...?

[AlmostThere]

Yes a lot of TNG was done by mainly by models, with cgi to help it along... Voyager you are right was cgi, DS9 was half half, with the defiant being all cgi...

[cloudkitt]

well i'll be dipped

i stand corrected

but what about that video game?

[Army_F_Body]

Yep, model technology has really come a long way since TOS. Nevermind TNG, I still can't believe that the shots of the Enterprise self-destructing in STIII are of models. That was a pretty wild special effect for 1984!

[cloudkitt]

Shows how much i know...I thought the Original series' movies were no longer models

what can i say, I'm not a trekkie, i don't know all that much about it, i just enjoy watching it.

[CB2001]

Some films still use models. For example, "Independence Day", for the scenes where we see Washington, L.A., and New York destroyed, the buildings and cars are in fact models.