MovieChat Forums > The Last Starfighter (1984) Discussion > Would've been better with models instead...

Would've been better with models instead of CGI

posted 7 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8291)
22 replies | jump to latest

So I just watched this film for the first time a few weeks ago.

And I have to say, the decision to use CGI instead of models seemed to exclusively be about the FX people wanting to show off their new toys and be like, "Look what we can do!" In fact, the whole film came off as more of an effects demo than it did a good, complete, logical story.

If they had used physical models, like the Star Wars and Star Trek films were doing, then not only would everything have looked better but the decision might have also provided for some thrilling battle sequences that are conspicuously missing from the final product.

But alas, I guess CGI had to start somewhere, and the use of CGI in the film is interesting as a historical footnote if nothing else.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

It goes 'way beyond being a historical footnote, pal. It's also interesting as being a sweet movie that has stood the test of time as a narrative and bares up under multiple rewatching; kind of like the Harryhausen version of King Kong. Heart trumps technology every time.

And keep something else in mind: the portal to Alex's adventure is a primitive mid-80s video game. Those games used CGI, not models. The visual paradigm for this movie embraces parallel construction. It would have made no sense for Alex to be auditioning to be a Starfighter in a CGI environment and then put him in a model-based environment once he actually became a Starfighter. The movie has integrity.

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 5 years ago

It would have made no sense for Alex to be auditioning to be a Starfighter in a CGI environment and then put him in a model-based environment once he actually became a Starfighter.

Ironically, what you typed doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In the context of the movie, the video game was a video game, so of course it was CGI that appeared on its monitor, since the "video" part of video games is CGI by definition. However, in the context of the movie, the stuff he did as a Starfighter was real, and the best technology we had for depicting reality in movies in the mid 1980s was practical effects, not CGI. Practical effects at their best look ~indistinguishable from reality (see 2001: A Space Odyssey for example). The CGI in this movie looks like PlayStation 2 or Dreamcast graphics, which brings suspension of disbelief to a screeching halt, because the objects that are supposed to be real in the context of the movie look like cartoons.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 4 years ago

I think you're being generous is saying the CGI was PS2 or Dreamcast level. I'd say more like the PSOne.

Good post, though. The miniatures in 2001 are still gorgeous even today, more than 50 years later.

[–] FredBurroughs (19702) 6 years ago

No way. In fact, the CGI models could have used some more pronounced pixelation to further highlight the video game connections.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

Exactly! Is it perfect? No? Is it great fun? You betcha! In fact, I just thought of something: I design custom audio systems. Some of my clients are very young. When I select demo material like Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin to show them a system that I think will work for them, based on what they told me is their taste in music, they so often say, “Great choice! I just recently discovered him/them.” I think there are a whole lotta love, I mean, millennials, who would LOVE The Last Starfighter.

[–] FredBurroughs (19702) 6 years ago

Great idea.

Also, in another thought of something: Maybe your clients are closer in age to Last Starfighter than Hendrix and Zeppelin.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

No, a lot of my clients are in their 20s. High-end audio (or high-end anything else) need not be elitist or exclusive. I love showing people quality, which does not have to exceed one’s budget! Showing someone how much better a pair of affordable loudspeakers sounds than his/her earbuds really jazzes me. I have clients to whom I could be their grandfather who truly open up to Hendrix and/or Zeppelin, many of whom already know the artist(s). And, you are right, I have other clients who
were actually at Woodstock. My point is that intelligent, passionate people of any age appreciate real art, whether it is high art or popular art. Speaking personally, I think Hendrix was a genius; Zeppelin, less so. I think The Last Starfighter is great pop
art, and that many young people would enjoy being introduced to it today.

I enjoy your comments, Fred.

[–] johnmiller (3350) 6 years ago

Yeah, it didn't work for me from the get go. If they were supposed to be in a video game, that would have been fine. But, since they weren't...

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

You can't really compare it to Star Wars or Star Trek because they were always striving for realistic looking spacecraft. TLS was more interested in focusing on a style which revolved around arcade graphics of the 80s. Its that focus on style that kinda makes it timeless. Tron accomplished the same thing.

[–] Druff (1447) 4 years ago

This movie was a necessary step in the evolution of CGI visual effects. If they'd used practical models instead of CG, we'd be a little behind where we are now.

Doing CGI spaceships was the entire point. Yes, they were showing off what they could do. And believe or not, in 1984, it was impressive eye candy. It didn't look realistic, but it did look like amazing CGI animation, at the time.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I remember when this came out.

The use of CGI throughout the movie did get it a lot of hype. I remember people talking about it a little bit, how the effects were all done with computers.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I haven't watched it but I did see a few scenes on Youtube and, yeah, I think they should have went for models.

[–] Satan2016 (23329) a year ago

Jesus Christ, there was no fucking CGI in 84. Luxo Jr was 2 years later.
8 bit gaming consoles are NOT CGI, they are toy computers connect to a TV.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) a year ago

Hey, retard:

"The Last Starfighter was shot in 38 days, mostly night shoots in Canyon Country. It was one of the earliest films to make extensive use of computer graphics for its special effects. In place of physical models, 3D rendered models were used to depict space ships and many other objects. . .

The computer graphics for the film were rendered by Digital Productions (DP) on a Cray X-MP supercomputer. The company created 27 minutes of effects for the film. This was considered an enormous amount of computer generated imagery at the time."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Starfighter

[–] Valerian (10479) 5 months ago

The coolest thing about the CGI seems to have been that it was done with a supercomputer.

Cray X-MP was the world's fastest computer from 1983 to 1985 and cost $15 million, $44 million adjusted for inflation. iPhone 11 can render those scenes 200 times faster and costs $600.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 5 months ago

I actually thought about that very thing a while back. It's crazy how yesterday's mind-blowing, super-expensive, top-shelf technology would get totally smoked by an entry-level desktop PC today. Computer technology really has advanced by leaps and bounds over the last few decades, I think for both good and ill.

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 5 months ago

it amazes me how people can have seen what star wars a new hope did 7 years earlier with practical and models and think "nahhh i want my film to look like total shit instead"

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 5 months ago

I suspect in this case it was probably a matter of being enamored with the technology and wanting to be a trailblazer. I think the film can probably be thought of as a tech demo as much as it can be thought of as an actual movie.

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 5 months ago

well that is true theres a long list of movies considered "shit" and poorly rated, but looking back have their place in film history for actually trailblazers and led to better adaptation of the thing they pushed but failed to deliver well on at the time

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8291) 5 months ago

While it was not the first feature film to have CGI--as I understand it, that honor actually goes to Westworld, and Tron in 1982 also featured CGI significantly--it was still in that early wave of films to make use of the technology, so the filmmakers can at least take pride in helping to make history. They helped to lay the foundation that Spielberg would later build on when he made Jurassic Park.