so, you know how all that new star wars stuff looks fake?

By full CGI do you mean like Episode III? Or do you mean like using CGI to do stuff like full shots of the T Rex in Jurassic Park or rendering New York to look like something from 70 or so years ago?

If your definition of full CGI is of the latter, I would love to hear your idea as to what should be a CG substitute for that stuff.
 
No, the former. (Although I'd rather see a mechanical T.Rex, even a miniature).

Using CGI to change a skyline to age a city, or put back long gone buildings...that's fine. Unless the actors will be (I'd hate to say "interacting" with a building...sounds silly...but you know what I mean), then it would work much better if a freaking set was built.

It's when the actors are playing in front of a screen, where nothing is real. It never looks right. The lighting, the texture, just the way the scenery "behaves" is wrong.

Weird. Take a digital still of something...it still looks "real". Create the same thing from scratch, and it never looks like anything but a computer-generated image, even if it's pixel-accurate.

Maybe *that's* it. Too accurate, too precise? Even if you build in flaws, the flaws are too perfect. :grin:
 
Guys.. the Star Wars prequels are low budget, indie movies when it really comes
down to it.

If you want to talk big budget effects, you're talking Pirates of the Carribean, Pearl Harbor, LOTR, etc.
 
Ger, I totally agree in that case.

I still watch Jurassic Park and think the T Rex was masterfully done. If T Rex still existed, I'd think they were using a real one. The Brontosauri, however, were a bit too CG-y.

And I don't really see how the Star Wars prequels were low budget. Episode III did have a budget in the hundred million range. That's like, 50 indie features put together. according to IMDB, Pirates only beat Ep. 3 by 10 million budget wise.

Also remember that that was shooting with locations and real things. Lucas spent 115 million on a green stage and actors and effects only really.
 
what about CGI that NOBODY notices, thats great CGI, small things like how they might make a fake room or place some object that no ones really payes attention too, but is oh soo important.

CGI is still relativley new, and its only gotten more and more real with time, its evolving and is another tool, some may make wonderful things with it others maybe not so.

Anhar
 
I finally got around to watching Corpse Bride the other night. I love it!!! It was so refreshing and fun to watch the puppets doing all the stuff they were doing and to know they were real. I really got into the movie and felt for the characters. Then I watched the making of it and just lost it. Man, to spend the kind of time and have the kind of focus it took to move everything just one little bit and the results!!!
No cg would ever have looked like this. There is just something so much better about organic.
This said, I agree using cg on a city or a skyline or to hit Paris with a meteor.
 
spencer said:
And I don't really see how the Star Wars prequels were low budget. Episode III did have a budget in the hundred million range. That's like, 50 indie features put together. according to IMDB, Pirates only beat Ep. 3 by 10 million budget wise.
Click to expand...

When you factor in the number of shots and the volume of effects, Lucas' work on
the prequels is pretty much a TV VFX budget. The vfx work in many cases is put
together by various crews that ebb and flow in an effort to keep costs down while
other projects draw talent onto other 'outside' gigs. I always giggle when folks
slam one project and praise another.. and the same crew did both :) In most
cases people are actually discussing whether they liked the film and the CGI
becomes a scapegoat :)

Lets not confuse indie with 'no budget' either. Lucas is essentially self financed.
This creates some interesting accounting issues that you don't see with other
films. Studio production deals are often bundles with VFX houses and any other
supplier. They are 'regular' clients and can leverage/strongarm for cheaper
deals.

Finally, never trust the 'reported' budgets :) The budgets tend to be whatever
the studio needs them to be and once you take talent salaries out of em, then
we can see what the film was actually made for.

The bulk of my work has been on 100+ mil films... Ep2 cut ever corner they
could, seven ways from sunday just to get it done :)

Dave: But movies cost millions of dollars to make.
Robert K. Bowfinger: That's after gross net deduction profit percentage deferment ten percent of the nut. Cash, every movie costs $2,184.
 
Dunno - just watched Incredibles again with the kids yesterday and that thing looks much better to me than Corpse Bride - which, by my own argument, should "look better".

I think, like anything in filmmaking, that it is ultimately about application, skill and technique.

e
 
If CGI is used to ENHANCE physical effects shots (set completions, miniature detailing, etc.), it can be used to very good effect.

But if it's 100% of the effects, it's going to suck. No exceptions.
 
"that thing looks much better to me than Corpse Bride "

Really ? I'm still in love with the old stop motion for animation
 
I'm gonna have to agree with Overland here--Incredibles was just great. The things they could do with color alone were brilliant. I always remember the scene in the preview i once saw where Mr. Incredible is sitting in his tiny little car, and the scenario looks grey and grainy, and I just sat there going "wow, this looks really damn good." I'm always more blown away with the "regular environments" (ie, office, home, town) on a CG movie than I was with pretty much any of the environments in Corpse Bride. Granted, CB had a style to it, but I'm still definately pro-CGI when it comes to comparing Corpse Bride and Incredibles.
 
Greggl said:
If you want to talk big budget effects, you're talking Pirates of the Carribean, Pearl Harbor, LOTR, etc.
Click to expand...

well, I liked pearl h. it is OK. but I hate the LOTR (because the story too) but I think it was a bit "overCGed" you know when nothing is untouchable...

I do not like the story of Pirates of the Carribean too, but I like it's CG. the real-unreal shots are in a good rate.
 
Corpse bride was beautiful, too bad it was sOOOOOOOOOOO boring.... and i LOVE tim burton. i was very disappointed, and turned it off after 45 minutes.
 
I think War of the Worlds is a good example of great CGI, brilliantly used: it's part of the shot, and never reason of the shot.
And it never looks cartoony.
 
I like small, simple CGI work. I never enjoyed a full CGI piece of work like when a space craft is in battle in the galaxy or something. yuk
 
Future user said:
I hate the cg Yoda! I liked knowing somewhere there was a real Yoda. It felt more organic. Like the werewolves in Underworld. Or the Alien. Or the Predator. CG is too slick. It's like watching a cartoon no matter how good it is. Give me puppets any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Amen

Give me "The Dark Crystal" any day over this new CG. There's no way they could remake the magic of that film with CG. It doesn't matter how great the technology is.

The quality of Narnia's CG animals were very surprising to me. Still, not as good as The Dark Crystal in general. If a kid watches that movie and doesn't like it...what a dumb kid. :grin:
 
David Jimerson said:
Give me miniature photography over CGI any day.

CGI can be an excellent enhancer. But it's no substitute.
Click to expand...


Personally I still believe that the best use of a special effect of CGI in the history of film was Lt. Dan's legs in Forest Gump. It added to the story rather being this moment of Awe as in Independence Day. I think that CGI can be used in situations like this to enhance a film, like ketchup enhances french fries (mmmmm, french fries), but the moment you start having french fries with your ketchup then it takes away...

Simple... do you prefer sugar with your coffee or coffee with your sugar?

-Jeremy
 
The Blackhawk going down in BHD is all CGI and amazing

I think CGi is best served to enhance. Nothing worse than spotting crappy CGI work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top