Old Skool Techniques or CGI?

After reading ?Future Noir? I understand why the producers of BR haven?t made a sequel, it was a relentless struggle of arguments and compromises from beginning to end. However, things have changed, BR has achieved a certain status and widespread acceptance justifying a sequel. Also given the fact that Computer Generated Images have reached a very high level of sophistication, perhaps an attempt for a sequel would enable Ridley Scott and co-producers to incorporate scenery they intended to include in the BR universe, such as the monorail that arrives in LA from the desert, and the cremation of Replicants in space. Would you support CGI techniques, the original old school techniques used, or a combination? I?m in favour of using the same techniques used in the original. Maybe I?m stuck in the 80?s, I don?t know, I love CGI in films like ?The Mummy Returns?, but for Blade Runner I?d like the same effects ?cause it would provide a sense of continuity from the first film. Making a sequel with CGI could ?take? from the first film. For instance, after watching episode 1 of Star Wars, I thought much less of the 3 first SW (although they were much better in terms of screenplay). I wouldn?t want that to happen with BR. Same with the electronic musician Jean Michelle Jarre, if I?m not mistaken, he produced his latest tracks of ?Oxygen? with the same instruments he produced his first version of ?Oxygen? in the 80?s. <BR><BR>Note: I?m not referring to a remake, that would be a crime, I?m referring to a sequel or even a parallel story. (I don?t like prequels)<BR><BR>
[addsig]

I share the same view as you - I don't think CGI is quite there yet - if they ever made a sequel, I would hope that they use a combination of real models enhanced by CGI, rather than creating whole scenes from CGI...<BR><BR>Remember the Mars train sequence in Total Recall? - that was made with models and looked brilliant - I always imagined the LA monorail scene to be of a similar type and quality...<BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR>Richard Gunn<BR>News and Content Manager for Bladezone<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><A HREF="mailto:richardg@bladezone.com">richardg@bladezone.com</A><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2002-03-08 05:34 ]</font>

I think after watching <!-- BBCode Start --><B>the Fellowship of the Ring</B><!-- BBCode End --> that CGI has reached a very good level of realism. 2002 will see some amazing stuff.<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><B>Blade Runner</B><!-- BBCode End --> was the pinnacle of model work, Douglas trumbell and Syd Mead did a superb job in bringing the city to life..it must also be noted that <!-- BBCode Start --><B>The Mummy Returns</B><!-- BBCode End --> is far from the pinnacle of CGI. A mistake often made when gushing over old techniques, such as stop-motion, is comparing the best of the past to the worst of the present.
[addsig]

D.K.- Yes, "The Mummy Returns" isn't the pinnacle of CGI (especially the Scorpion King at the end was really bad), I thought LOTR was centuries ahead also (so did everyone else I guess) I was just giving an example of a film that used CGI to create a great environment. ?Realism?, as you put it, is not the point I'm trying to get to, I believe that in terms of achieving realism for a BR sequel, or remake, or whatever, the CGI used for The Mummy Returns or LOTR, would score almost equally in being better than BR's old skool effects (IMHO).Not my attempt to downgrade the work of CGIists, I love make CGI myself, just that my personal opinion is that BR created an aura, a vibe, call it what you will, based on the tools and effects it utilised. If a sequel were to be produced, I would like it to be made with the exact same tools and methods, just to preserve that aura/feeling of the first BR. Otherwise the first BR will be attached with a "fake" "has been" flavour in contrast to its ?realistic?sequel.<BR>My point is not about realism, it is about vision.<BR>
[addsig]

to cgi or not to cgi, that is the question...
[addsig]

LOTR did take CGI to a new level. <BR><BR>I was a little turned off after seeing the upcoming Spiderman preview. The scenes where he's swinging is ALL CGI. I don't mind the background being CGI, but at least use a real person to swing in front of a blue/green screen.<BR><BR><BR>

I'm for the props and old techniques.
[addsig]

i dont know a lot about these techniques but i think a completely cgi scenery wouldnt produce the same images as the ones in blade runner and would certainly take away from a sequel(or prequel) the special "atmospheric" element that i felt every time i watched it <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> perhaps a cgi and old technique combination would make a better or equally good result i guess that is for the will-be producers to decide ...!?
[addsig]

Missing the point.<BR><BR>A.I. created a future CGI city. It wasn't any better than the Blade Runner city. Use of models, mattes and overlays hasn't disappeared, but it is not currently de rigeur. A shame in my view as there are some things that just don't work right when you draw them.<BR><BR>The BR modelling wasn't perfect, but let us not forget that they were under extreme time pressure. If you've seen that last Star Wars thing, was their big city any better?<BR><BR>Real sets, such as the Bradbury and the Ennis-Brown house add so much to the flavour of Blade Runner.<BR><BR>However, I started by saying "Missing the point" - that is because the point in a BR2 has nothig to do with how much CGI is used. It is quite clear from Ridley Scott's own comments in interviews, particularly regarding Gladiator, that the CGI merely assists him in creating his rich, visual worlds, but that the story is the thing. No amount of CGI makes up for a crap story.<BR><BR>BR2 only works for me if they can possibly come up with a story at least as good as Blade Runner, with its characters and moral questions. Otherwise don't bother.<BR><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BRmovie on 2002-03-11 09:35 ]</font>

When done right the old school teqniques are always preferable.
[addsig]

well, of course all the scenery would have to be authentic stuff, I think almost all CGI backgrounds and such look like a sophisticated video game, that's all. other things, such as spinners and the like would preferrably be done with computers, if only they'd make absolutely sure it doesn't look Nintendo.