Babylon 5- The Lost Tales *SPOILERS*

[Carl Sagan]

So say we all.

Welcome, Carl Sagan!

Jan

Cheers, it's good to finally be here, there are far too many B5 fans in my life these days.

[Carl Sagan]

Waitasec--- If Carl Sagan is posting here after he's died, does that mean he was wrong in his belief that there is no afterlife?


Seriously, though, welcome to the boards CS. (Wherever you're posting from.)

I have always been here...

[B5_Obsessed]

I know you're probably joking around, but the way the camera is handled is a function of the direction, not the effects house. And since JMS is handling the direction, it's not a question of JMS letting them do this or that; if JMS wants the camera to shake it will, if he doesn't it won't.

I'd like to talk a bit more on the CGI camera direction though, since I think it is an interesting topic. I finally finished up my season 1 boxset of new BSG, having watched the finale a few days ago (the final scene is still ringing through my head). And having seen the entire season, I can say that the only place I was really bothered by shakeyness was the miniseries. There I can remember even some dialogue scenes that happened to take place on a spaceship using unstabilized shots.After that, they toned it down a good deal, and the things that did work about the camera style they chose to experiment with in the mini were polished up a bit and made to work really well for the show, I think.

Now, I wouldn't want TLT to try and replicate BSG, since B5 is its own thing. But I do appreciate that they decided to experiment a bit, and try to do some new things. Some of it worked, some of it didn't, but experimenting a bit in the beginning is a good thing. I hope TLT will do so too; try to reinvent itself, and maybe do some new things in television CGI direction again like the original did. And I think they might, looking at this quote by JMS:


One of the things I'm looking forward to as far as the CGI direction goes (and the directing in general, of course) is how JMS makes use of the modern day "openness and experimentation in television directing" he perceives. Some of it might not work, but despite that I welcome experimentation.

No I wasn't joking, Shabaz. I assumed the shake, zoom, and pan motions were tools at the discretion of the FX house to increase realism, much like blur and lens flare. I assumed the director gave the FX house descriptions of the action in a scene and then approved or rejected ideas based on test video. If that's the case, I guess I should say I hope JMS doesn't adopt the too-shaky-zoomy style of Galactica.

IMHO, there are never any "beauty shots" in Galactica because the camera doesn't linger ANYwhere long enough to have one. B5 had loads of beautiful imagery. Galactica has bits and fragments of what could have been beautiful imagery... if we'd actually gotten to see it.

[Shabaz]

Well, it depends on the director of course. But from his descriptions of himself as a fairly hands on writer/producer during B5, the fact that he knows his way around CGI and how to use it having worked on 2 shows pioneering the use of that technology in television (Captain Power and B5), and the fact that one of his explicitly stated goals when asked about him choosing to direct is to take on the CGI and get that right, I think it is a well founded assumption that JMS will not be the kind of director who can't be bothered to exert directorial control when it comes to the work the effects houses do.

However, even if he would let Atmosphere use things like "shake, zoom, and pan motions" at their own discretion, I doubt they would go the BSG way. They did work on Dead Like Me, on the Stargates, on Andromeda. Each of them free of BSG's recognizable style of camera direction. And the reason why BSG does have that is not because the effects houses added that at their own discretion. It is because the creative team, the writer/producer and director, made a very clear and concious choice to approach the space shots in a certain way. They intentionally didn't do the beauty shots, and didn't want it because they felt it worked better in a dramatic way and worked better with the narrative they were trying to tell. I don't know if you have the DVDs, but they talk a bit about it in the miniseries commentary track, and it is very clear that the specific style of camera direction originated at the main creative team, not the effects house. It's not something that the effects house inserted because they felt it increased realism.

And finally, even if it was the effects houses that thought up the iconic BSG space camera style (which they didn't), it would've been ZOIC, not Atmosphere who would've done so. ZOIC did the miniseries and most of the early season 1 episodes, where the style could've been established, where Atmosphere took over only later.

In short, I think your fears are unfounded, and I wouldn't worry. We've known JMS would direct for ages now, and he will be the one most likely responsible for the camera style of the CGI. If this didn't make you apprehensive before, it shouldn't do so now.

[Joseph DeMartino]

I assumed the shake, zoom, and pan motions were tools at the discretion of the FX house to increase realism, much like blur and lens flare.

Blur and lens flare aren't done "at the discretion of the FX house" either. Do you really think an FX house is just going to throw something like that in and hope the client likes it? What if the client says "no lens flare"? The FX company would have to go back re-do the shots at its own expense. Such decisions are made based on short tests and client feed-back long before a single frame of actual footage is rendered.

Regards,

Joe

[B5_Obsessed]

Blur and lens flare aren't done "at the discretion of the FX house" either. Do you really think an FX house is just going to throw something like that in and hope the client likes it? What if the client says "no lens flare"? The FX company would have to go back re-do the shots at its own expense. Such decisions are made based on short tests and client feed-back long before a single frame of actual footage is rendered.

Regards,

Joe

Joe, I don't think the FX house is going to ask the director how to properly animate an object to make it look lifelike. It would be like the set builders asking what gauge nail to use. From what I understand, in the early days Ron Thornton had fairly free creative reign over ship designs and staging of effects sequences.

As for blur, and lens flare: ILM animators began adding blur to stop motion with limited success in the 1980s and 1990s for such stellar projects as "Howard the Duck" and "Coneheads" (Narfle the Garthok!). Similarly, the lens flare effect was created to mimic the effect of a light source on a camera lens as it pans by. However, by the time of "Attack of the Clones", savvy moviegoers were already mocking ILMs use of the effect for the Coruscant scenes.

B5 itself pioneered use of the camera zoom in "And Now for a Word", but the scene in question was for a SecureBot feed. There's also another good zoom in on Marcus' Whitestar in "Endgame". Several others are sprinkled about over the course of the series, but not to the point of being a distration. B5 also used camera "concussion" shake in proximity to explosions ("Between the Darkness and the Light"), a trick used everywhere nowadays - in fact, it's used whenever an object passes by a camera at high speed, whether it be a space ship or a CGI whale on the Discovery Channel.

I see all these as tools of the artist, and typically outside the scope of the director - unless he's really involved (like Lucas or JMS).

[Jan]

I see all these as tools of the artist, and typically outside the scope of the director - unless he's really involved (like Lucas or JMS).

Of course, the discussion is about what they'll do on this project of JMS's, not usual projects. Also, when it comes to whether the director will be consulted or not, I'd have to say that s/he almost certainly would be. After all, the effects cannot be slotted in until the director's and producer's cut is completed and the exact timing of each effect is known. Certainly there'd have to be agreement as to how long each effects sequence would be and what would be shown. Shot lists are generally the purvue of the director.

The animators are also working from concept art that's been approved by JMS, don't forget. While there's definitely artistry involved, they don't have a free hand by any means.

In addition, remember that JMS has said that he's 'directing on the page' more than before (and that was already considerable). If you've seen the script books, you know that he often has instructions with exact angles and numbers of ships and pans and zooms indicated in the script already. Some directions are more detailed than others and sometimes he just indicates if it's a stock establishing shot.

And finally, JMS has said that he wants to keep the 'feel' of B5 and the BSG jerkiness was never part of that.

Jan

[Carl Sagan]

I'm beginning to have doubts, finally saw Legend of the Rangers for the first time tonight. It was a real big pile of stinking shite. Please god let TLT not be ANYTHING like that.

[Jan]

Question...exactly what didn't you like? There's a massive difference between something being bad and you just not liking something. Blanket statements like yours give no information.

Me, I liked it. I especially liked the characters and the interaction that we got between Martell and his crew. Yes, there were some flaws but IMO, compared to "The Gathering" it was a much better pilot.

And why would you be concerned that the Rangers movie would resemble TLT? It's not as if anything else resembles each other, is it? Does "Thirdspace" resemble "In the Beginning" for example?

Jan

[Satai Delenn]

I'm beginning to have doubts, finally saw Legend of the Rangers for the first time tonight. It was a real big pile of stinking shite. Please god let TLT not be ANYTHING like that


Your opinion obviously but don't judge something you have not seen.All of the movies had there ups and downs,including Rangers I think it had potential to be something better ,but we won't know .

[B5_Obsessed]

Question...exactly what didn't you like? There's a massive difference between something being bad and you just not liking something. Blanket statements like yours give no information.

Oh, no! Let's not open up that discussion again!

Me, I liked it. I especially liked the characters and the interaction that we got between Martell and his crew. Yes, there were some flaws but IMO, compared to "The Gathering" it was a much better pilot.

Some parts I liked and others I certainly did not. I know for a fact that I was guilty of wanting to like it a bit too much for my own judgement. I was not pleased with the effects (and I'm not talking about hyperspace), but we all know the backstory on that anyway. Yes, it had potential. I'll just leave it at that.

And why would you be concerned that the Rangers movie would resemble TLT? It's not as if anything else resembles each other, is it? Does "Thirdspace" resemble "In the Beginning" for example?

Aside from the having all the B5 actors and Netter Digital, I can't think of any similarities between "Thirdspace" and "In the Beginning".

It's funny how all this chat arose from one throw-away line. I just hate shaky cameras. whether real or virtual. I was never able to watch NYPD Blue because of it and several other shows have come along afterward where I just wanted to strangle the camera operator. I remember a scene in BSG with Adama and Tigh sitting at a table that looked like my home movies of my daughter dancing at Showtime. Lock it down and slowly walk away.

I simply hope JMS maintains his theatrical approach (the stipple on the new set walls is a good indication) and doesn't try to emulate the current visual trend.

P.S. I really am looking forward to great establishing shots inside the garden habitat.

[Shabaz]

It's perfectly fine to dislike BSG's camera work B5_obsessed. What all the chatter was about was more about how you framed your concern I think; that because Atmosphere is handling effects it has become more likely that B5 will have a BSG style camera direction, or that the effects house may even try to do something like that at their own discretion.

As for why BSG has its particular camera style, it is because they modelled it after Gulf War footage, where previously WW2 dogfights had often been used as models. This is I think also why certain shots in B5 used similar sharp zooms: because they were emulating real life camera men behaviour. It's an effective technique, and I think BSG uses it well, in a way that work for and aids the narrative.

Joe, I don't think the FX house is going to ask the director how to properly animate an object to make it look lifelike.

I doubt that a director would block out individual keyframes for the animators, yes. But before we get to the stage of actually animating objects and the camera, an effects scene will have gone through multiple stages, and in at least some, if not all, things like camera style will have been discussed. As would fairly major visual style cues like blur and lens flare.

It would be like the set builders asking what gauge nail to use. From what I understand, in the early days Ron Thornton had fairly free creative reign over ship designs and staging of effects sequences.

What gauge nail to use is a fairly minor technical detail that has almost no visual impact, and has mostly bearing on the structural integrity of a set. Things like blur or flares do have significant visual impact, so the comparison doesn't really fly. JMS may have let Thornton go, but I doubt he didn't first make sure that they both were thoroughly on the same wavelength. However, Thornton is part of the original creative team JMS assembled when he tried to pitch B5, I believe, and Thornton was charged with creating the visual style for the CGI out of nothing. That was his job, and as creator of the style letting him loose on a scene could be sensible enough. This is a different situation from now, where there is a pre-established style, and there is some will by the director/producer to redesign it. They are not the originators of the original visual style that already exists, and the new one hasn't been established yet. So I cannot see JMS letting them establish things that will significantly impact the new TLT CGI visual style entirely at their own discretion. While I'm sure they'll have plenty of input, it will most likely be a collaborative process, and will almost certainly go through several stages of approval.


As for the walls being scumbled again; I think that's for visual consistency of the sets more than anything else. I wouldn't extrapolate it meaning that JMS will be shooting things in a very theatre like way, or say that it means very much at all with regards to directorial style. However, I will say again that I personally welcome and embrace experimentation and doing new things, but ymmv.

And with regards to Sagan's comment about LotR giving him doubts about TLT; I think LotR's biggest weaknesses with regards to the writing were indeed because it was a beginning. He used what I think was one big McGuffin to drive the plot, probably intentionally mischaracterized some people to twist things around later, and used plot devices that could've been useful to build upon when it had gone into a full series, but which fell flat without a continuation. TLT is exactly the opposite of a beginning, which doesn't mean the writing will necessarily be better, but I think it is fair to say that if there are weaknesses with regards to TLT's writing they will probably be of a different nature. If your beef with LotR was because of different concerns, like acting or how it was directed, then I don't think it is fair to let that reflect on TLT, since (as far as we know) no LotR actors will be appearing in TLT, and if you want to form an opinion on TLT's director it is probably better to look at his only previous work, Sleeping in Light.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

I'm beginning to have doubts, finally saw Legend of the Rangers for the first time tonight. It was a real big pile of stinking shite. Please god let TLT not be ANYTHING like that


Your opinion obviously but don't judge something you have not seen.All of the movies had there ups and downs,including Rangers I think it had potential to be something better ,but we won't know .

Rangers wasn't alllll that bad. I think it had an interesting premise for a big overarching story that could have been cool, as you suggested. TLT is going to be straight up Babylon 5 though, so we don't have to worry about that.

[Jan]

Shabaz gets an answer about the effects:

Title: Re: JMS: The time has come...
Author: [email protected]
Date: 13 Dec 2006 00:20:28 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected] com>


Shabaz wrote:
> On a related note, if JMS is still reading this; since one of your
> explicitly stated goals when asked why you took on directing was to get
> the tone and design of the CGI right, and updating the look for the
> modern world while keeping the feel the same, I was wondering if you'd
> be willing elaborate on how much involvement you have with the CGI side
> of things as a director/producer? It came up in a discussion with a
> fellow fan this week, and it has gotten me curious too. Do you actually
> direct the CGI camera, how much use of things like storyboarding and
> previz is made, and in general how much stages of approval do these
> things go through?
>

First storyboards get done shot-by-shot, with me and the artist, then
those go to the efx house for reference. Based on these they do
animatics, which we've discussed in advance as to the basic look and
feel I'm going for in the cgi, what kind of animation or action I do or
don't want. I'll often describe the shot in more detail. They do the
rough animatics, send them on for approval, and I may or may not have
notes. Then they do the final render. I've always been hands-on that
way.

> Also, these "director's blogs"; these would be video production
> diaries, like they had on kongisking.net during King Kong production?
> Those sound fun, and with JMS in them, I'm sure they will steal the
> hearts of many internet denizens. <g>
>

Yeah, my mug in front of the camera a la Jackson. Like THAT'S gonna
sell copies. People will be bringing these things back in droves, just
to appease the horrified children....

jms

Jan

[Shabaz]

I know we have a seperate thread on the year end update already, but I thought I'd copy-paste the TLT specific bit into this thread too:

>
> Oh, and how's post-production going on TLT?
>

I turned in the director's/producer's cut last Friday, the studio
viewed it yesterday, loved what they saw, and now we've locked the cut.
Friday I have a music spotting session with Chris Franke, and up
north, Atmosphere is churning out CGI as fast as they can. (We're not
going for the shakey-cam look that BSG has made something of its house
style in order to not poach, out of courtesy. Our production offices
at the Vancouver Film Studios were right next door to the BSG offices,
incidentally. And just two stages down they were shooting the Fanastic
Four sequel.)

Fairly soon, probably starting late January, the director's blogs will
start showing up on the net. I can't tell you how much I hate being in
front of the camera.

I think with this and the answers to my questions pretty much all of B5_Obsessed concerns have been either addressed or refuted. It does sound like he is indeed fairly hands on, and that they get made from storyboards of an artist he sat down with. From what I understand, the two most important things that get established in storyboards are probably framing and camera movements (zooms, pans, etc.), so it seems he fairly directly influences those. Can't wait to see the final result.

And those video blog things do sound like fun, and I'm sure JMS will do just fine, despite him not being exactly comfortable in front of a camera apparently.