Omni: I’m disappointed, I thought you were on my side about McGann! Also regarding the “anti-gay” thing, I may have slightly overdone it in that last post, as he didn’t actually technically call me anti-gay at all... Oops. :) I agree with you though that the Dr Who argument should come to a close around about now, but that would of course require HIM to concede unconditional defeat, otherwise it’ll probably carry on until one of us dies...

I'm pro-McGann for hopefully obvious reasons.

Anyone see the latest episode of Dr Who -- Human Nature? It was BRILLIANT, not just in that it was awesomely scripted, mature and well acted but because it proved several of my points:

1. McGann IS cannon! In the Doctor / John Smith's sketch book he's drawn all the past Doctors! In the picture is McGann but no Cushing! Told you they'd mention him eventually! Do I win now? Incidentally, the BBC's merchandising policy does not affect whether something is cannon or not: it just means that it can't play anything more than a background part to the series. You could reference it, but you couldn't expect the viewer to know it.

2. It touches on the impact of racism. This expands on the theme of acceptance, a theme that the gay references fall into. See? It's not asking kids to try being gay (hence the "growing-up-too-fast" link), it's just part of a larger scheme to ask them to be unprejudiced.

3. The shadow of World War 1. A wonderfully mature backdrop, but one that contradictorily can also be appreciated by both adults and children, enshrouding the proceedings in a sort of creeping dread that's incredibly atmospheric.

One last thing, on the "bad CG vs models" front: bad CG still looks better than bad models. Real or not, a bad model looked like a bloody model, not like a spaceship. You could see the strings. You could see the bits of toilet roll and the sparklers. Besides, do you honestly think you could achieve all that CG does with models? Complex flying formations? Living suns? Crowds of billions? No. And CG is NOT "the easy way out." Have you tried making some yourself? Plasticine and paper clips are a bloody doddle compared to learning the basics of CGI. People use CGI simply because it can do MORE, not because it's easy. Even if it were easy, what's wrong with that? If I can knock up a fantastic character in five minutes then that's more time for me to develop him or improve particular scenes.

As an aside, the Great Mouse Detective showed a brilliant use of CG in the final fight within Big Ben. Disney animators actually designed the CG and then hand-traced it frame by freaking frame onto animation cells. I know it was primitive, but the effect was very impressive. That film is so brilliant.

Interference, this thread has been going for ages and you are STILL WRONG.

Quote:Originally posted by Interference22

CG is not employed because it's easy, it's employed because of something else you mentioned: it's CHEAP. Computers did NOT make those models, PEOPLE made those models and they work bloody hard. If I made a boat would you say that it was made BY a hammer, saw and chisel? No: they're just the bloody tools. *I* made the sodding thing.
Yes people make the models. Then the COMPUTER DOES THE REAL WORK. Of course CG is easy! If it wasn't it wouldn't be cheap. For example - that Gridlock episode with all those hundreds of cars. Easier with CG or models? CG. Design one car, copy and paste it, Bob's your uncle. Try that with models and you'd be making little cars till Ragnarok.
That's why it's cheap. If something's cheap it's generally easy and vice versa - that's why cleaners are paid less than brain surgeons. If CG was comparatively difficult to produce it would be more expensive.

Of course I couldn't do CG... but I couldn't build a real model up to the required standards either, or build a boat. Because I don't know how. I couldn't read when I was 2 either, but it's a fairly simple task now I've learned, despite the optical recognition and interpretation of written characters being, technically, an incredibly complex task. It's still easy.

You seem to be implying that CG involves endless months slaving over computers, whereas real models are contructed in some kind of fantasy world where an old man and his fairy helpers dance around their workshop with hammers and paintbrushes, singing as they go, knocking out models in a couple of minutes while barely thinking about it and being home for elevenses. Presumably the models then animate and film themselves.
If I remember correctly the original Red Dwarf model cost about half the budget for the entire first series (which is why the sets looked so crap) and that's just one model. Considering how massive and complex it was, I'm betting it took a fair bit more work to create than the CG replacement, which was made up of about sixteen polygons with textures of 8x8. As a side note, they removed the really crap CG stuff from the DVD releases and replaced it with the original model shots, and a good thing too. But the last series got it right, the CG was of a decent quality and model shots were used for the closer-up stuff.

I'm having real difficulty understanding why you think that ANY quality of CG looks better than ANY models. You must be either mad or blind or both.

This all comes back to incongruousness again. Obvious CG inserted into a live action programme causes more of a visual disruption BECAUSE YOU CAN TELL IT'S NOT REAL than live action models. This will happen until CG gets to a high enough standard to pass for reality. If you really are incapable of telling CG from reality then I guess that's OK, but for those of us who can, it's noticeable. CG explosions are crap for example. Ref: Dr Who. Model ones are good: Ref Red Dwarf etc. However much you rabidly claim to the contrary, model shots are real in a reality-based sense, in that they are real physical objects that exist in reality, which itself is real.

Another irritating thing about CG is its use in anime, which is generally terrible - serving only to highlight the low frame rate of the real animation. Incongruousness again. It's like the creators' way of saying "this is how smooth the whole thing COULD look, if we could be bothered. Which we can't. Still, you've already paid". Lowering the frame rate of the CG sections to match the rest of the film OBVIOUSLY wouldn't occur to them. The example that Omni gives is an excellent use of CG in animation, of which I fully approve. In fact they did a similar thing with the early Disney films, tracing over live action footage to get the character movements right.

Dr Who: I am fully aware that McGann is considered canon. The argument (bloody hell, do we have to start this from the beginning again?) is that he shouldn't be. Please try to remember what we're arguing about; it's a fairly essential part of the process.

McGann: That's not what I said earlier? Yes it is! Do not try to confuse me please, as it will probably work, but not this time. I am well aware that he IS considered canon, as I have eyes and ears. However I don't think he should be, as I also have a brain, which in its wisdom has told me to disapprove of him greatly, and I have no choice but to comply with it. And I don't rabidly hate McGann, I just hate him quite a lot. In fact, no, I don't hate him at all, I just hate his Doctor. In fact, no, I just hate his Doctor's film. Or maybe it's all three.

God, you've left this too long, I've forgotten what side I was on about a lot of it...

CG/Models: I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Although I will of course take the opportunity to deride your model-making skills, as I once made an airfix Sea Harrier that could have made an Argentine wet himself. Nobody wets themselves while watching Torchwood, unless the boredom happens to send them into a coma.

Early Red Dwarf CG: They did remove it, you're probably either thinking of something else, or just being a bit mad. See the Japanese-dubbed episode on the Series 1 extras disc to witness the travesty that was thankfully purged in favour of the majestic original model shots.


Look, nobody's going to think any less of you if you just concede defeat on all of these arguments, so please consider it, then we can stop.