1 Man, 1 PC

It's great work, but jeez he must be really lonely. All those hours creating CG women. That would drive me nuts.
 
yep, I guess if you really have the passion, drive and love for making films be it cg or real you can chase your dreams.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
It's great work, but jeez he must be really lonely. All those hours creating CG women. That would drive me nuts.
Click to expand...

Probably not too much different from comic book artists. :)

Considering what he did it on, it looks great, but I'm not sitting here thinking live actors can be replaced yet. Still pretty plastic-looking.
 
For what the guy had to use at the time it's an accomplishment.

I was confused about the story. The falling off the bridge scene...was it dumping the kid because she's screwed up? Or she's losing balance and trying to save the kid? Since it was written by a man I asked my brothers girlfriend for her opinion and she thought it was messed up. Days after she
was still commenting on how warped it was. Story is always paramount as I've learned.

I will never understand replacing real actors with CG. Aliens & alien worlds yes. Comics yes. 300 had the same problem. They tried making it look real, it sucked. Tried making it look artistic, it worked. Beowulf is a another example. Why? Why bother to even shoot it CG? Why recreate reality when it's right there in front of you? With real landscapes and real actors. Money? Nope. CG wise it was ground breaking. I like Zemeckis other stuff a lot better but can understand what he's trying to do.

CG works for me if it's a fantasy world or as an effect.

In the big picture no one cares what anyone does to get the job done. 1 PC or 1000. The bottom line is, does it work? That's why we post stuff here like me and everyone else. Does it work? No. Okay, why not?

Bottom line honestly? Great job and congrats. Impressed? No.
 
Yeah I was on a rant there too. Zemeckis was just the director, not the producer so I'm surprised I'd recieived no flack there. Not his doing.
(Where are the crits ?)

And I'll say it again. I was impressed with OneInfiniteLoop's earlier job (1 PC).
Because it worked. But not this vid, because it didn't. Even though it was more work and took 2 years.

I almost want to appologize for my opinion cause I feel like a prick but I can't.
 
Last edited:
Raptor365 said:
Yeah I was on a rant there too. Zemeckis was just the director, not the producer so I'm surprised I'd recieived no flack there. Not his doing.
(Where are the crits ?)

And I'll say it again. I was impressed with OneInfiniteLoop's earlier job (1 PC).
Because it worked. But not this vid, because it didn't. Even though it was more work and took 2 years.

I almost want to appologize for my opinion cause I feel like a prick but I can't.
Click to expand...

Thank you, kind sir...not 100% sure which one you're talking about, but thanks :)

Although this video is definately something to be proud of, and it obviously took a lot of work...I'm not sure what the M.O. was for it. In terms of storytelling, I get it, but there are some holes and not so obvious things here and there.

Visually, and technically, you can tell a game designer did this, it feels like a cut scene from a game. Again, this is not bad, but it is what it is, which I'm sure the creator is well aware of. These Siggraph pieces are great, but they mostly are for showing promise. Few hit the "real" home run...I would say The Ark could be called a home run, although it used minituares too. It seems to have that something extra.

Either way, I'm not discounting the work, it's a learning step, but it's not all there. Even on Beowulf, I didn't think it was all there and they were capturing 8.5TB's of mocap data a day plus had the prowess of Sony Pictures Imageworks behind it. I couldn't stop picking the thing apart.
 
I agree with some of Raptors sentiments, CG should be used for what its good for, and CG actors are not whats its good for :) !

I was just admiring the guys sheer motivation and drive!
 
I remember seeing the ARK trailer some time ago and really liked it. I'd like to see the complete version. I think that stuff can work because again the actors are caricatures like in many of the animated films.

I appreciate what this-wonderful-life guy accomplished and might add that for video games I find this type of thing acceptable. And I suppose even for CG crowds in background shots or as distant props could work. But the closeup CG human acting I don't find believable.

Now on the other hand, the humanoid robots in iRobot were believable but I guess because they fall into the caricature category. Greggl's post quite a while back in the Cafe explaining the psychology of how we perceive CG characters pretty well summed it up for me.

:)
 
although we are no where near believeable CG actors, I think the your question is actually very pertinent, i.e. EVEN if you could make believeable CG actors, would we actually want to?

To answer this I would say no, the reason is, CG should'nt try and recreate what already exists, it should do stuff that doesn't exist (monsters, robots, etc, props, environments)

The only area where this tech really works is in gaming arena.
 
That was a pretty good animation. Did a really good job with the expressions and hair. Didn't have a clear storyline and ending that made sense to me (from when she was on the bridge with the kid til the end).

One of my favorite animations is this YYZ/Neil Peart video. Previously posted on DVXuser back in 05, and 06.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top