channel five documentry!

[Gideon Fell]

The streets were all GGIs and appeared pristine. Actors can't smell or get dirty from CGI. I only suggested it as had the streets been shown in their proper filthy state they would have appeared more realistic. Sorry I mentioned it I'm obviously wrong to do so.

[Ally]

I may be wrong (again, haven't seen it), but I believe the creators took advantage of knowing Jake had already done the re-constructions to show Whitechapel geography. The CGI was not specifically created for the documentary, but has been an ongoing project that was aimed, not to show historical cultural context (.i.e filth, vermin, litter, crowds...) but to give an idea of the scene at the time. So they used information that was already created, rather like a book or whatever. Again, my opinion only, but I believe Jake's aim was to show locations, not necessarily every bit of cultural context.

If you are talking about something other than Jakes reconstructions, the actors might not get ill from wading through filth, but I would still get ill from watching it!

[Monty]

Gideon,

The idea was to show the locations as were in terms of buildings, lighting etc as it stood in 1888.

Im not sure how aware you are regarding CGI reconstruction but these things take a massive amount of time and money. As the budget was limited (CGI costs fortunes) and time constraints also severe (Channel Five only gave the go ahead in August and wanted the programme aired in December originally), Jake did a pretty good job at getting his images out as quick as he did. Given more time and financial backing his work would have been as he visioned it.

The accuracy regarding the CGI location of lights and buildings is phenominal. Ive worked with Jakey and he is a perfectionist, even the brickwork is spot on. To state the streets were too clean, lighting was too bright is, in my humble opinion, petty. The idea was to give the viewer, especially those new to the case, an idea as to how the scene of crimes looked in relation to witness location and layout.

Some people are never happy.

Monty


PS Jake had already done Mitre Square, as part of out article, and worked on and off on Berner Street, Bucks Row etc as and when funding and his work commitments allowed. The final results, though impressive in terms of building accuracy, is not as he would wish it. However, as stated, he did what he did with the tools he had.

It must be remembered that a majority of those who worked on this project have 'day jobs' and do not work in TV full time.

[Hoxton Creeper]

I enjoyed it and agree, great that it was factual rather than pushing a case for identifying the Ripper.

You can stand in the area today and try and imagine what it looked like but the CGI work was great, OK not enough Horsey poo or smoke or litter or, or but.............it gave a good indication, for me, of how gloomy the East End was at night.

I'll be watching part two for sure!

[lynn cates]

teeth

Hello Monty, Ally. And yet Karloff had his bridges taken out and clay applied to his eyelids to help him look like a cadaver.

Now THAT'S dedication to one's art.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

And for it Karloff became the highest earner in Hollywood Lynn.

Monty

[c.d.]

What is CGI?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

billing

Hello Monty. Well, and the greatest actor of all time deserves the highest salary. Not to mention that, by 1935 in "The Bride of Frankenstein" he could be billed merely as "Karloff."

Now HE could have played a great "Ripper" suspect.

Cheers.
LC

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

As far as I know, this documentary was specifically made for the general public who know nothing about the case and not for other Ripperologists, which does make a big difference. If it was designed to get laymen interested in the case I think it did a good job.

I actually enjoyed it a lot - and more importantly - my husband, who is a complete novice, but who has been forced to watch every JtR documentary and film ever produced, under duress, said that he thought it was the best one he'd seen. As he represented the target audience, I'd say that it did the job it set out to do. He was pleased that it concentrated, not on gore and sensationalism, but on getting over the general facts of the case in a clear and entertaining way. Like Caz, he did have to put up with me saying 'Oh that's so and so.' all the way through it.

There were a couple of errors, but a lot less than most documentaries I've seen.

What did impress me was that the actors and actresses, for the most part, did look astonishingly like the people they portrayed, even down to PC Neil having a lovely ginger tache. They were all a bit clean, but as someone else pointed out, I think the aim was to show the settings and give the facts rather than concentrating on the squalor. I did like that they showed the victims in a sympathetic way, and I actually got quite choked up a few times.

Alright to be fair, the acting was a bit hammy, and gave me a few chuckles, but in a topic as depressing and unpleasant as serial killings, I actually found it quite welcome. Small details like Liz having teeth certainly wouldn't have been noticed by the general viewer. To be fair, Liz's accent did irritate me a bit, but that really is being picky. I thought generally the actors and actresses did a good job. Pearly Poll creased me up, especially when she pinched the soldier's cheek on the identity parade.

I think that all of the researchers shown did a great job in giving their views on the murders, and all looked surprisingly sober; Lovely to see Lindsay in the line-up as well, representing female Ripperologists.

Jake's reconstructions were so accurate and well done that he deserves a medal. I am totally in awe of his talent. The work he must have put into those is mind boggling.

Yes okay, they couldn't all have the incredible detail that he put into his Mitre Square project, (which will be coming up on Thursday hopefully, and which will leave everyone with their mouths hanging open) because he would have been 150 before he could possibly have got them all finished. They did show viewers what the murder scenes actually looked like though, rather than the film team just trotting off to some back alley somewhere that looked vaguely pre-war and shot it there. I thought that Buck's Row particularly was wonderful. The lighting was too bright, but unless we wanted to sit there staring at a black screen for a few minutes, there wasn't much else they could do. Some liberties were needed for the sake of clarity.

Just following on from Neil's post. A mate of mine works at The Mill where a lot of the major CGI production is done, and just one of their programmes can cost £15,000 - that's just the cost of one programme, without production costs and wages. The CGI for an episode of Primeval, for instance, can cost a million quid quite easily. For a small budget programme I think they did a phenomenal job.

Overall, I thought it was good stuff and I'm really looking forward to Thursday.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi CD,

CGI = computer generated images. This can cover anything from flat reconstructions, to super-realistic stuff like Avatar, done with green screen and motion sensors.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Shelley]

Oh heck, i missed the first part, well now i know about the documentary so hopefully i can get to watch the 2nd part..........

I wonder if there will be any repeats? Anyone know? Cheers, Shelley.

[Chris]

Oh heck, i missed the first part, well now i know about the documentary so hopefully i can get to watch the 2nd part..........
I wonder if there will be any repeats? Anyone know? Cheers, Shelley.

It's available for the rest of the month here:

http://www.five.tv/shows/jack-the-ripper-the-definitive-story/episodes/episode-1-285

I assume you have to be in the UK, though I don't know for sure.

[Ally]

What did impress me was that the actors and actresses, for the most part, did look astonishingly like the people they portrayed, even down to PC Neil having a lovely ginger tache. .....

Alright to be fair, the acting was a bit hammy, and gave me a few chuckles, but in a topic as depressing and unpleasant as serial killings, I actually found it quite welcome.

I think I would have preferred good acting to identical lookalikes. I don't like ham under the best of circumstances but I think I'd find it kind of disrespectful for cartoonish acting in a topic like this and think whoever managed those scenes possibly should have toned it down. Again, not seen it myself, have no valid opinion, just my thoughts on what I've been told/read about the doc.

[Stephen Thomas]

And hubby didn't even get fed up when I kept saying: "I know him, I know her, I know him" all the way through.

You're lucky, Caz. I'd have liked to have done that but I watched it on my own

Dead good though wasn't it?

[spyglass]

Hi all,
Very enjoyable, just thought it lacked something but cant put my finger on what. I was surprised though that they did not mention the items found at Chapmans feet, or is that all to be mentioned in part two along with other myths and legends with the case.
I do also hope that they dont choose or highlight any particular suspect.