DVD Talk
"'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : "'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why?


Wannabe
05-25-04, 10:18 PM
I just saw the new preview for I, Robot; the animation looked really fake. Why does the cgi for movies like I, Robot, the Hulk and Spiderman look so unrealistic? Does ILM sub out all of the "B" team to these non-Lucasfilm movies while the "A" team works on Episode III?

Matthew Chmiel
05-25-04, 10:21 PM
Remember, the trailers never contain completed special effects shots. Some will, but it's rare.

I thought The Hulk had some excellent special effects for being a very crappy movie. I wasn't too happy with Spider-man's special effects (too fake looking), but the effects were better than most movies' effects out there.

Robert
05-25-04, 10:22 PM
Here we go again...

-ohbfrank-

RichC2
05-25-04, 10:36 PM
Does ILM sub out all of the "B" team to these non-Lucasfilm movies while the "A" team works on Episode III?

Considering the CG in Episode I and Episode II was pretty bad (it was a cool animated flick, but they tried to pass it off for real which just didn't work). Hulk had about 60% good CG, 40% average CG. Spider-man had unusually weak CG (no concept of weight). It's basically any movie that relies on characters in and ENTIRE shots in CG looks pretty "off"/fake (with exception of the armor clad).

I've yet to see a movie that has heavy CG look real.

fumanstan
05-25-04, 10:39 PM
Looks fine to me. And like was said, i wouldn't consider Episode I/II's CGI work to be that spectacular.

*waits for Gollum/LOTR CGI rules all reply*

jaeufraser
05-25-04, 11:58 PM
I think these movies look unrealistic mostly because...well they're showing things which aren't real and people these days have no idea how to suspend their disbelief. How any of you guys watched older movies baffles me. Did any of the effects work in Star Wars look real? Did any of the effects work in Total Recall look real? Has ANYONE been able to make these things look 100% real ever?

I'm sorry but the Hulk, the I Robot robots, Star Wars, they're all very well done CGI. Now, whether you like the designs they are using is definately in quesiton, and whether you like the compositions the directors use is another question. But if you can't watch the Hulk without saying OMG those effects don't look real, then I suggest you stop watching special effects movies. I'm sorry, but it's not like you couldn't tell Gollum was an effect and wasn't real. In fact can anyone name ONE movie that had CG characters that were so seamless you didn't know they were fake? I can't...from Jurassic Park to Starship Troopers to Hulk to I Robot...we can all tell they're fake. But if anyone wants to honestly tell me the Rancor from RoTJ or the skeletons from old Harryhausen flicks somehow are better effects work then what they're doing today then...well...you're insane.

People, let's suspend our disbelief a little. We're picking on the best effects work out there, and comparing it to some standard that has never ever been reached. We blame CGI for our dislike of the material, when it isn't CGI but the design and functioning of said effects work in the film. I'm jsut sick of all the CG bashing...especially when it's not even CG! I don't think people realize the ENORMOUS amounts of models used in Star Wars, and I love to hear people bash Hyde from LXG as a bad CG creation (considering he was a prosthetic).

Seriously...basically we're faced with two options...either don't make it, or use these types of effects. Honestly there is no feasible way to do the stuff in I Robot without CG. Or Hulk, or most of these films. At least not to the level of detail and movement that exists in these films.

I'm just the type of guy that loves good films. I can sit back and watch Alien, and even though I can at times tell quite well it's a guy in suit, it's not something I obsess over.

Granted, if you want to blast directors who think CG creatures is enough to make a movie (cough Steven Sommers cough) then go ahead. But was Van Helsing a bad mvoie because of the CG? Or because the director just made a stupid, dumb movie and didn't put those effects into good use. Because quite frankly...you rarely hear people bash the CGI in movies they like. LoTR doesn't get 1/100th the flack these other movies do, and quite frankly the effects in that movie aren't really of any extreme quality over these other movies.

Thrush
05-26-04, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by fumanstan
Looks fine to me. And like was said, i wouldn't consider Episode I/II's CGI work to be that spectacular.

*waits for Gollum/LOTR CGI rules all reply*

The 1st Jurassic Park's CGI rules all

calhoun07
05-26-04, 12:46 AM
Special effects in movies, from the 1910's on, have always been a work in progress. I don't think we will ever arrive at a time in movie making when everything looks 100% realistic, nor do I think these things should look 100% realistic. There is a certain charm in those early movies, esepecially those early stop motion movies. And while I doubt the people complaining about CGI see the charm or the good in it, I will take a CGI Spider Man over that crappy 1970s version any day and I will take a CGI Hulk over a steroid enhanced body builder in green paint any day.

And what jaeufraser already said. I couldn't really say it any better myself, I just wanted to add a few thoughts.

Kal-El
05-26-04, 12:52 AM
FYI Sony Imageworks did Spidey. Not ILM.

Supermallet
05-26-04, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
But if anyone wants to honestly tell me the Rancor from RoTJ or the skeletons from old Harryhausen flicks somehow are better effects work then what they're doing today then...well...you're insane.

While the Rancor wasn't the best, the great thing about models is that you actually light them, and they have physical properties because they're physical objects, with mass and volume and weight.

Meanwhile, I think that the CG effects in AI are especially astounding. I hated the movie, but the CG is so good that at times I had trouble telling where the CG ended and the real stuff in the shot began. To me, AI is still the benchmark for good CG.

tanman
05-26-04, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
I think these movies look unrealistic mostly because...well they're showing things which aren't real and people these days have no idea how to suspend their disbelief. How any of you guys watched older movies baffles me. Did any of the effects work in Star Wars look real? Did any of the effects work in Total Recall look real? Has ANYONE been able to make these things look 100% real ever?

I'm sorry but the Hulk, the I Robot robots, Star Wars, they're all very well done CGI. Now, whether you like the designs they are using is definately in quesiton, and whether you like the compositions the directors use is another question. But if you can't watch the Hulk without saying OMG those effects don't look real, then I suggest you stop watching special effects movies. I'm sorry, but it's not like you couldn't tell Gollum was an effect and wasn't real. In fact can anyone name ONE movie that had CG characters that were so seamless you didn't know they were fake? I can't...from Jurassic Park to Starship Troopers to Hulk to I Robot...we can all tell they're fake. But if anyone wants to honestly tell me the Rancor from RoTJ or the skeletons from old Harryhausen flicks somehow are better effects work then what they're doing today then...well...you're insane.

People, let's suspend our disbelief a little. We're picking on the best effects work out there, and comparing it to some standard that has never ever been reached. We blame CGI for our dislike of the material, when it isn't CGI but the design and functioning of said effects work in the film. I'm jsut sick of all the CG bashing...especially when it's not even CG! I don't think people realize the ENORMOUS amounts of models used in Star Wars, and I love to hear people bash Hyde from LXG as a bad CG creation (considering he was a prosthetic).

Seriously...basically we're faced with two options...either don't make it, or use these types of effects. Honestly there is no feasible way to do the stuff in I Robot without CG. Or Hulk, or most of these films. At least not to the level of detail and movement that exists in these films.

I'm just the type of guy that loves good films. I can sit back and watch Alien, and even though I can at times tell quite well it's a guy in suit, it's not something I obsess over.

Granted, if you want to blast directors who think CG creatures is enough to make a movie (cough Steven Sommers cough) then go ahead. But was Van Helsing a bad mvoie because of the CG? Or because the director just made a stupid, dumb movie and didn't put those effects into good use. Because quite frankly...you rarely hear people bash the CGI in movies they like. LoTR doesn't get 1/100th the flack these other movies do, and quite frankly the effects in that movie aren't really of any extreme quality over these other movies.

:up:

Just wanted to throw my support. I'm tired of all the CG bashers too. There is such a thing as bad CG ie Scorpion King, Air Force One, Harry Potter Series (for the most part), certain jumping scenes in Spiderman but just bashing it just to bash is ridiculous.

But I do think that for the most part LotR has raised the bar on blending several different special effects techniques (including CG) to make it look as seemless as possible.

Rivero
05-26-04, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Wannabe
I just saw the new preview for I, Robot; the animation looked really fake. Why does the cgi for movies like I, Robot, the Hulk and Spiderman look so unrealistic? Does ILM sub out all of the "B" team to these non-Lucasfilm movies while the "A" team works on Episode III?


First of all, it's just the trailer. Sometimes effects aren't finished for the previews so it's best to reserve judgment until the actual movie is released.

Second, the effects for Hulk were actually pretty effective. Other recent films with great effects and expert use of CGI: pretty much ANY Spielberg film that uses GGI, Master and Commander, A Beautiful Mind, The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Fight Club, etc.

And lastly, the effects in Episode I and II are weak. If the whole point of CGI is to create realistic-looking visuals that seamlessly combine the real and the non-real, then these films failed on that basic fundamental level. Watching them, it's as if all of the actors were inserted into a Pixar film, overblown and CGI-masturbatory Pixar films at that.

zero
05-26-04, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Wannabe
I just saw the new preview for I, Robot; the animation looked really fake. Why does the cgi for movies like I, Robot, the Hulk and Spiderman look so unrealistic? Does ILM sub out all of the "B" team to these non-Lucasfilm movies while the "A" team works on Episode III?

I just saw this post for the CG in I, Robot; the post was filled with useless whinng about how "fake" things look. Why do posters for movies like I, Robot, the Hulk and Spider-Man want things to look "real" Do any of these posters realize that even the most "crappy CG" takes a while to render? Does the poster realize that there is no "A" or "B" team for any movie, and until said posters can animate anything we havent seen before (note- A 9 foot tall green beast, or a life like robot with transparent skin arent things we see all the time so why must they look "real") and until said posters can render something better with their home PC they should not post threads that will surely end in flames.

Seantn
05-26-04, 06:28 AM
"'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why?

Mainly because they knew that it would make you, and ONLY you, angry. I guess they accomplished their mission.

While we're on this topic, I'd like to ask...

"Gigli"'s bad script- Why?
"Running Zombies" - Why?
"Catwoman" - Why?

Oh that's right....BECAUSE.

Wannabe
05-26-04, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Suprmallet
While the Rancor wasn't the best, the great thing about models is that you actually light them, and they have physical properties because they're physical objects, with mass and volume and weight.

Meanwhile, I think that the CG effects in AI are especially astounding. I hated the movie, but the CG is so good that at times I had trouble telling where the CG ended and the real stuff in the shot began. To me, AI is still the benchmark for good CG.

Absolutely.

Sure. FX movie, suspend your disbelief occasionally. But the movie experience is a disappointing one when you're constantly reminded that you're watching a movie because the effects seem to violate the physics of light and motion.

Has anyone seen Master & Commander? The film was filled with cgi work, but I had no idea while watching it. I wish that was the case with Spider-man, The Hulk, etc.

PixyJunket
05-26-04, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
I think these movies look unrealistic mostly because...well they're showing things which aren't real and people these days have no idea how to suspend their disbelief. How any of you guys watched older movies baffles me.:lol: Good call man.

JustInsane
05-26-04, 10:07 AM
oh goody, another thread on bashing CGI. Haven't seen one of those in at least a few hours.

Chad
05-26-04, 11:03 AM
Is it just me, or do quite a few films from the early to mid 90's have more realistic looking CG than most of today's films? I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that many of today's films rely on CG so much as well as being rushed to meet theatrical street dates, whereas the earlier ones didn't use it to a point where it was overkill.

Artman
05-26-04, 11:24 AM
I think Jurassic Park only had 50 cg shots or so. T2 even less than that.

Compare that to today where 500 is not uncommon.

Abob Teff
05-26-04, 12:32 PM
I thought that they did a fantastic job animating Will Smith's acting skills . . .

tanman
05-26-04, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Abob Teff
I thought that they did a fantastic job animating Will Smith's acting skills . . .

rotfl!

Terrell
05-26-04, 12:55 PM
Considering the CG in Episode I and Episode II was pretty bad

Yeah right. The effects in Episode I & II were spectacular, and well deserving of both Oscar nominations. The only criticism you could level at those films regarding CG, it that too much is used.

And lastly, the effects in Episode I and II are weak.

Give me a break. You'd have to be a complete tool to believe that. And I love how you hold out LOTR and Matrix as having real looking effects. That's a laugh. You lose all credibility with that statement. All three films have plenty of very-CG looking shots that don't look completely real. Why? Because they're creating things that aren't real.

Has anyone seen Master & Commander? The film was filled with cgi work

Actually, Master & Commander had very little CG in it.

Meanwhile, I think that the CG effects in AI are especially astounding. I hated the movie, but the CG is so good that at times I had trouble telling where the CG ended and the real stuff in the shot began. To me, AI is still the benchmark for good CG.

I still say to this very day ILM should have won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects in A.I. Minority Report also had stellar work from ILM.

How come people always assume ILM does everything. ILM did not do I, Robot or Spiderman!

Compare that to today where 500 is not uncommon.

Actually, films like LOTR, Star Wars, and Matrix have 1500 to 2000 shots.

I think these movies look unrealistic mostly because...well they're showing things which aren't real and people these days have no idea how to suspend their disbelief. How any of you guys watched older movies baffles me.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Bitching about CG has reached even beyond pathetic levels.

Wannabe
05-26-04, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Terrell
Yeah right. The effects in Episode I & II were spectacular, and well deserving of both Oscar nominations. The only criticism you could level at those films regarding CG, it that too much is used. (edited due to my lack of reading comprehension)
http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/gungangrandarmy/img/movie_bg.jpg
And is this your idea of spectacular?

kcbrett5
05-26-04, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Wannabe
(edited due to my lack of reading comprehension)
http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/gungangrandarmy/img/movie_bg.jpg
And is this your idea of spectacular?

Actually I think this does look spectacular. Are you suggesting that a Gungan doesn't look like that? Or perhaps you feel the grass on Naboo isn't exactly that color and texture?

Since I have seen neither, I am going to assume they look exactly like in this shot until you can prove otherwise.

Rivero
05-26-04, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by kcbrett5
Actually I think this does look spectacular.


Then I guess you and I have different ideas on the definition of 'spectacular'. Imo, that does NOT look spectacular, it looks like A Bug's Life. I'm sure that wasn't Lucas' intention.

PixyJunket
05-26-04, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
Then I guess you and I have different ideas on the definition of 'spectacular'.I just think you have a set agenda concerning the Star Wars prequels.

Kal-El
05-26-04, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
I just think you have a set agenda concerning the Star Wars prequels.

:up: :up:

Josh H
05-26-04, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
We're picking on the best effects work out there, and comparing it to some standard that has never ever been reached. We blame CGI for our dislike of the material, when it isn't CGI but the design and functioning of said effects work in the film. I'm jsut sick of all the CG bashing...especially when it's not even CG! I don't think people realize the ENORMOUS amounts of models used in Star Wars, and I love to hear people bash Hyde from LXG as a bad CG creation (considering he was a prosthetic).


I agree 100%. A lot of the problem I have with stuff isn't that the CG is bad, but that the design sucks.

I think maybe they have a lot of CG oriented people who are great at the CG stuff, but not that great at the art design aspect of it, designing stuff and thus it's not as great as it could be.

Thus we get characters that would look stupid in any format, be it CGI, costumes etc. or scenarios where the characters just don't blend well.

Though that's just random speculation on my part though.

Artman
05-26-04, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Terrell
Actually, films like LOTR, Star Wars, and Matrix have 1500 to 2000 shots.


Yes I know. 500 not being uncommon for mid-level films, the big guns have even more.

Rivero
05-26-04, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
I just think you have a set agenda concerning the Star Wars prequels.

No, I really honestly do hate them as much as I seem to. The reasons are neverending: Hayden Christensen, Jake Lloyd, Natalie Portman, lousy writing, lazy acting, boring new space aliens, over-reliance on CGI, taking the "mystery" of Boba Fett's background and shitting on it, John Williams' butchered score, uneven pacing, nonexistent direction, etc. About the only thing I don't have a problem with is Ewan McGregor. He makes a pretty good Obi-Wan. Other than that, these movies are simply not worthy of the name Star Wars. I pray that Lucas is somehow able to perform a miracle, deliver the goods with Episode III, and partly salvage the reputation of this once mighty series.

Adam Tyner
05-26-04, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
Alright, you convinced me, you don't hate them as much as it seems. :lol:

Re-read the first portion you quoted. I think you're misreading.

devilshalo
05-26-04, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Wannabe
Absolutely.

Sure. FX movie, suspend your disbelief occasionally. But the movie experience is a disappointing one when you're constantly reminded that you're watching a movie because the effects seem to violate the physics of light and motion.

Has anyone seen Master & Commander? The film was filled with cgi work, but I had no idea while watching it. I wish that was the case with Spider-man, The Hulk, etc.

Why are you comparing physical things which exist in a real world with things that do not exist at all?

Josh H
05-26-04, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Adam Tyner
Re-read the first portion you quoted. I think you're misreading.

I did indeed. I guess I just didn't think a person would respond to a comment suggesting that they had an agenda against a film series by saying "I do hate them as much as it seems." Kind of a no shit sherlock response, but oh well. What do you expect for someone that posts a star wars bash in a non-star wars thread.

SunMonkey
05-26-04, 04:42 PM
I don't know. I was pretty impressed that each and every clone trooper in Ep. II was completly CGI. I couldn't tell.

Artman
05-26-04, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by SunMonkey
I don't know. I was pretty impressed that each and every clone trooper in Ep. II was completly CGI. I couldn't tell.

Yes they were very well done. But WHY?! Why couldn't they make a few dozen suits and use them for the close-ups and foreground shots? Than just CG the rest. I dont get it.

Were they afraid the extras would give away all the secrets?

DonnachaOne
05-26-04, 05:39 PM
Jaeu, while I understand your point, you should also understand why people have such a problem with CGI. It has little to do with suspension of disbelief; that still holds true today, otherwise Spider-Man would never have made money.

If a film uses the effects as a focal point, however - if they expect you to be blown away by the effects, or worse, they expect you to think it's real - then there's a much greater risk. In Jurassic Park, the effects-at-the-heart-of-the-story worked; the effects do not eclipse the quite-good film. In Hulk, however, we were supposed to believe that Bruce Banner had turned into a mutated version of himself, something that the vast CGI blob used in the film could not convey. Am I saying that CGI couldn't make Hulk work? Not at all. Effective CGI could. Don't try to pass off flawed rendering and too-smooth textures with too much motion blur or fake rain, that sort of thing.

It is not the fault of the "bashers", but the filmmakers who don't understand how, or just don't try, to use CG effects well; a black mark lso goes to certain studios who rush films out of post in order to make a date, even if the film has unfinished work (not just CGI - ANY unfinished work).

BlackBeauty92
05-26-04, 05:47 PM
very interesting reading so far...

i agree that the use of CGI F/X can be good or bad in which ever the creation team/director/or whoever involved in the production handle the scene...

i do have to agree that Star Wars ep 2 got some nice looking CGI battle scene... the white troopers were really impressive. i had no idea that they were ALL CGI. but on the other hand, i can tell the whole background was CGI... which indeed can ruin the enjoyment a little.
SW tried so hard to use CGI as their main tool for creating the environment which sometimes works & sometimes don't... which is a shame really. do i know what planet "yada-yada-yada" looks like? no, but i do have some idea what a real desert looks like, what a mountain looks like, what forest looks like... & SW 2 didn't have the "real" environment feelings to it...
SW 1 was even worse... that screen cap shows the best example... it looks like computer game rather than real situation photograph.

LOTR, AI, & Jurassic park uses REAL environment background & mix-match them with CGI to create more believable looks... & they works. the use of miniatures also helps allot in creating those "real" looks environment... much better than the whole CGI environment in Star Wars

again, i must agree that Jurassic park's CGI dinasours still holds the #1 spot for best use of CGI creation creatures. spider-man & hulk are comic based characters... & yes they looks very... comic. BUT the characters are "supposed to be" human reference... & the CG didn't bring any "human" feel to it... you hardly "see" the weight of it, which i think their worse short-coming of all... the T-REX in JP shows some weight whenever they move & they use of sound & details in their skin/muscle movements shows it all & in turn create such a believable feeling to it... where the case of spider-man, it looks like... ummm... nintendo game (the swinging scene).
HULK is a much better CGI creature than spider-man... the skin texture, muscle movements were much, much better... especially during close-up. BUT when the HULK started to jump around & flying & stuff, that's where i lost my "wow" feeling....

though now everybody pretty much know how they did the "bullet time" in Matrix movies, still... the 1st Matrix still impressive me the most compare to all its sequels. especially the "roof top shot out" scene where the use of "bullet time" was considered impressive... probably because it was original at the time & they didn't overuse that sequence too much (except the ending).
the sequels use the Star Wars approache which brings the CGI feel way too much... even the fight sequence which i believe can be done with mix live action & CGI all togethere rather than completely CG....

i have not seen "I-Robot" yet, so i can't really comment on that... but the trailer looks like crap... it feels like "Lost in Space" with Will Smith.... hopefully the final version will look much better...
i am expecting comic-feel to thei CGI effects rather than "real" feel like LOTR or AI...

just my rumbling

PopcornTreeCt
05-26-04, 06:45 PM
Yes, special effects back in the day were better than they are today. When you use actual models you have something concrete. CGI can be good if used sparingly but even filmmakers knew back in the day to not make movies starring clay figurines.

Supermallet
05-26-04, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
filmmakers knew to not make movies starring clay figurines.

*cough*
Claymation
*cough*

jaeufraser
05-26-04, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
Yes, special effects back in the day were better than they are today. When you use actual models you have something concrete. CGI can be good if used sparingly but even filmmakers knew back in the day to not make movies starring clay figurines.

I can't believe you actually think that. You think models with mediocre motion control and bad matte lines look better than the modern special effects today? Or perhaps you're just being nostalgic. Seriously, which movie are you talking about?

And all this talk of being taken out of the movie. I watched Vertigo recently...boy I was enjoying it, but then they had this scene with Jimmy Stewart driving around...and wow the blue screen was so obvious and the effect was appalingly apparent! I couldn't watch the movie any more! Ok, not really...I can live with what I know to be the limitations of the films.

I think we expect too much. While certain cases it's obvious the work wasn't completed (Air Force One, Scorpion King) in other movies, I think we have as good as it can be now. And that works for me, as long as the movie is good. What I think many of you CG haters would like is not for the effects to be better, but for the companies not to try at all. because if you think that CG is being used in place of a superior method of creating these effects, you're wrong. It's being used in most cases because there's basically no other way to make it look better. I guess my point is...until movies reach that point where perfection is possible...why are we expecting them to reach it now? I want to see a 15 foot tall green guy jumping around smashing things. So it looks a little cartoony, it's still there for me to see. And I'll take that over nothing. Granted, I do understand that some people can't really deal with effects and need seamless to work for them. But I think most of the CG haters aren't those people...they're the types who love the older films with they're now mediocre to bad effects, but for some reason can't accept the new ones.

Let me ask you CG haters...do you like the movie Alien? Ok, now when the chest buster pops out that first time, were you immediately taken out of the movie because you could tell that it was just a glorified sock puppet? because I know I can tell, it's a very obvious effect, but it works nonetheless. And these modern effects are leaps and bounds better than that film, yet we can't accept it now. Why is that?

Supermallet
05-26-04, 11:03 PM
I have a question. What was wrong with the effects in Blade II? I thought they were quite good. I'm not being facetious.

jaeufraser
05-26-04, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Suprmallet
I have a question. What was wrong with the effects in Blade II? I thought they were quite good. I'm not being facetious.

They used computer graphics. Duh. :p

devilshalo
05-26-04, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
And these modern effects are leaps and bounds better than that film, yet we can't accept it now. Why is that?

Because as the advancements in the field of visual effects increases, the expectations also increase for photorealism. And in a lot of cases, the expectation surpassed the advancements. Looks at how far visual effects have come in such a short amount of time.

fumanstan
05-26-04, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Suprmallet
I have a question. What was wrong with the effects in Blade II? I thought they were quite good. I'm not being facetious.

Just some obvious CGI that stood out when Blade was fighting. The fight with him against Nyssa and the other fellow in front of the lights is particularly bad.

Supermallet
05-26-04, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by fumanstan
Just some obvious CGI that stood out when Blade was fighting. The fight with him against Nyssa and the other fellow in front of the lights is particularly bad.

Well, you could clearly tell they were effects, but they're well-made effects. I don't know, they never bothered me.

Wannabe
05-27-04, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
I think most of the CG haters aren't those people...they're the types who love the older films with they're now mediocre to bad effects, but for some reason can't accept the new ones.

Let me ask you CG haters...do you like the movie Alien? Ok, now when the chest buster pops out that first time, were you immediately taken out of the movie because you could tell that it was just a glorified sock puppet? because I know I can tell, it's a very obvious effect, but it works nonetheless. And these modern effects are leaps and bounds better than that film, yet we can't accept it now. Why is that?

The use of minatures and forced perspective has seemed to dry up in today's age of Maya and Renderman. I'm still blown away by the effects of 2001: Space Odyessy, a film that is 35 years old. The special effects of Alien are also superb - that so-called "sock puppet" still scares the crap out of people that are new to the film.

I don't understand why you are so irritated by the fact that people complain about unconvincing CG special effects. Are we not entitled? Because you think f/x sucked in the past, we have to accept cartoon-like animation as a substitute for more creative approaches to achieving the shot? If it looks fake, we have a right to express our disappointment. If the filmmakers can't get it right using computers, perhaps alterative approaches should be considered until the technology (or the users of the technology) improves.

devilshalo
05-27-04, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Wannabe
The use of minatures and forced perspective has seemed to dry up in today's age of Maya and Renderman.

The LOTR trilogy was full of forced perspective and miniatures. As well as in Big Fish.

Supermallet
05-27-04, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by devilshalo
The LOTR trilogy was full of forced perspective and miniatures. As well as in Big Fish.

WHAT!?!

I thought Big Fish was a documentary! -eek-

I want my money back. :mad:

jaeufraser
05-27-04, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Wannabe
The use of minatures and forced perspective has seemed to dry up in today's age of Maya and Renderman. I'm still blown away by the effects of 2001: Space Odyessy, a film that is 35 years old. The special effects of Alien are also superb - that so-called "sock puppet" still scares the crap out of people that are new to the film.

I don't understand why you are so irritated by the fact that people complain about unconvincing CG special effects. Are we not entitled? Because you think f/x sucked in the past, we have to accept cartoon-like animation as a substitute for more creative approaches to achieving the shot? If it looks fake, we have a right to express our disappointment. If the filmmakers can't get it right using computers, perhaps alterative approaches should be considered until the technology (or the users of the technology) improves.

Well, everyone is entitled to complain all they want. But from most people it's like how people complain that movies these days are so much worse than they used to be. I don't think FX sucked in the past, I think they were very effective and quite impressive considering the time frame. Alien was a very effective movie, but I was just illustrating a point. For some reason, people cannot accept a somewhat cartoony effect like the Hulk, but something like the chestburster people are fine with. Why? because it's old? Because it's practical? because most assuredly it's not because it looks real, or is an amazing effect.

I think my main complaint is that the bashing goes to the technical expertise in these films, when the real ire should be pointed at the filmmaking, the production design, etc. I think most of the movies that are picked on are at the top of their class in SFX. I guess I just wonder we were able to suspend our disbelief for movies years ago, but now our standards are so high. I just want people to stop bitching, and start enjoying movies. SFX aren't perfect, and they won't be for awhile.

Now why am i so irritated? Well, I'm not irritated...I just like debating the subject in my I suppose confrontational way. I just think many people are holding modern movies to too high a standard that just can't be reached. And people would enjoy films more, if they relaxed their SFX standards and instead focused on whether the movie works...and blast it for that. Everyone can keep on complaining about bad SFX...I just wish people could see the work and artistry that goes into these things. Instead of looking for the couple of seams in the image, instead focus on what is going on right. And if it still doesn't work for you, so be it. But I get the sense many forum members walk into films with a pre judgement to pick the effects apart, and have lost their ability to just enjoy the ride the movie is intending to take them on. Sure, some movies are bad...but in general it's not because of the effects. I see remarks like "the day after tomorrow has awful Cg effects!" and I just wonder...if that movie has bad effects, what movie in god's name has good ones?

kcbrett5
05-27-04, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Rivero
No, I really honestly do hate them as much as I seem to. The reasons are neverending: Hayden Christensen, Jake Lloyd, Natalie Portman, lousy writing, lazy acting, boring new space aliens, over-reliance on CGI, taking the "mystery" of Boba Fett's background and shitting on it, John Williams' butchered score, uneven pacing, nonexistent direction, etc. About the only thing I don't have a problem with is Ewan McGregor. He makes a pretty good Obi-Wan. Other than that, these movies are simply not worthy of the name Star Wars. I pray that Lucas is somehow able to perform a miracle, deliver the goods with Episode III, and partly salvage the reputation of this once mighty series.


I can save you a lot of pain. Just don't go see the third movie. If you hate them so much, stay home.

kcbrett5
05-27-04, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by BlackBeauty92
very interesting reading so far...

i do have to agree that Star Wars ep 2 got some nice looking CGI battle scene... the white troopers were really impressive. i had no idea that they were ALL CGI. but on the other hand, i can tell the whole background was CGI... which indeed can ruin the enjoyment a little.



How exactly is he supposed to create a city that covers an entire planet without CG. It's not as if he can fly around the universe til he finds one and film it.

How can he create other worlds without CG? I think it is better to see the world as he imagines it that to see every planet be a different sand dune in the sahara desert.

The problem isn't with movies, its with imagination. None of you people can use your imagination anymore and suspend disbelief enough to enjoy these effects. Try reading a few books every once in awhile, it will help you learn.

Troy Stiffler
05-27-04, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by kcbrett5
How exactly is he supposed to create a city that covers an entire planet without CG.

I thought the original trilogy did a good job. :)

Tafellappen
05-27-04, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by troystiffler
I thought the original trilogy did a good job. :)

I agree! I love how the city-planet looks in the original trilogy!

scott shelton
05-27-04, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
I'm just the type of guy that loves good films. I can sit back and watch Alien, and even though I can at times tell quite well it's a guy in suit, it's not something I obsess over.

What are you doing posting in the movie forum? I was under the impression that wasn't allowed here.

Liam Brown
05-27-04, 10:50 AM
I think the problem with CGI compared to using models is how fast everything moves.

If you look at the CG X-wings which were added to the Star Wars Special Edition, they look fantastic because you actually have time to look at the image properly. They aren't whizzing past the camera.

Now everything has to move at a million miles per hour. Not sure if this is supposed to make it more realistic but it looks crap.

BlackBeauty92
05-27-04, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by kcbrett5
How exactly is he supposed to create a city that covers an entire planet without CG. It's not as if he can fly around the universe til he finds one and film it.

How can he create other worlds without CG? I think it is better to see the world as he imagines it that to see every planet be a different sand dune in the sahara desert.

The problem isn't with movies, its with imagination. None of you people can use your imagination anymore and suspend disbelief enough to enjoy these effects. Try reading a few books every once in awhile, it will help you learn.

Mission to mars, total recall, starship troopers, LOTRD trilogy, & even the original Star Wars was able to create it... you can allot of location in around the world can could resemble his vision & he could CG it more to make it even closer to his vision. it a simple trick that happens for ages in F/X (like adding few wierd looking mountain & yad yada yada).... maybe he's trying to keep the secret of filming star wars by staying in one location possible, or try to save money or what have you...

i'm sure Lucas got his own agenda on why he chosed that way rather than going with other technique.... but as long it works, then fine. but the problem is i personally, can tell that it's a CG.

wow, calling others with no imagination? that's pretty arrogant to say, huh? you certainly intitled to your own opinion & i can respect that... but to others watching F/X movies is like watching magic show... if the performer can surpirse you with his/her tricks, then you got your money worth...
yes, maybe i got my standard set way high when it comes to CG effects. but it's part of the challange of movie making & they (the makers) knows that. if the 20-30 years old way of F/X can somehow makes me goes "wow!", then todays effect should easily beat that techniques to create the "wow" factor....

i'm not saying that Star Wars movies were bad... they do entertain me. you can't just say that "just enjoy the movie".... it's like saying that when you watch heavy-drama-character-sudy/driven movie with lousy actors in it... how can you fully enjoy that? the technical aspect of F/X in F/X heavy/galore movies are as important as acting & the story.... if the film makers can't corporate that into the final result, then it becames a flaw rather then the "bonus point" of enjoiying the entertainment

just my opinion

JustInsane
05-27-04, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Liam Brown
I think the problem with CGI compared to using models is how fast everything moves.

If you look at the CG X-wings which were added to the Star Wars Special Edition, they look fantastic because you actually have time to look at the image properly. They aren't whizzing past the camera.

Now everything has to move at a million miles per hour. Not sure if this is supposed to make it more realistic but it looks crap.

That's falls back onto the director and how they want stuff to animate. That has nothing to do with CG. You don't just push the make x-wing fly button and you had a shot. It doesn't work like that. Keyframes lay out the path and speed an object is animated.

Qui Gon Jim
05-27-04, 12:45 PM
Danol? Is that you?

Pants
05-27-04, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser


And all this talk of being taken out of the movie. I watched Vertigo recently...boy I was enjoying it, but then they had this scene with Jimmy Stewart driving around...and wow the blue screen was so obvious and the effect was appalingly apparent! I couldn't watch the movie any more! Ok, not really...I can live with what I know to be the limitations of the films.

I don't know what you're talking about. There is no blue screen used in Vertigo. Hitch didn't use blue screen untill The Birds.

John Spartan
05-27-04, 03:06 PM
As usual for a CG thread, each side is using a slightly different definition of the term "realistic" to make their point.

Pro-CG: Realistic is defined by looking like the real thing. Since the creations are completely imaginary, you cannot know what the real thing looks like.

Anti-CG: Realistic means looking like it is an actual, physical object (or living breathing creature) in the same world as the actors, REGARDLESS of whether there is a real-world inspiration for it. In other words, the light hits the skin properly, physics seem to act on its movements, etc. I guess a less confusing term to use here would be "believable." Or maybe not.

But you do see what I'm getting at? Responding to a CG complaint with "how do you know what a Gungan looks like?" is missing the point. You can intuitively when something looks believable or not. The faces of the alien warrior race in The Fifth Element are obviously more convincing than the Yoda puppet in episode I, but no one has ever met them before.

Having said that, I cannot believe any movie buff would be unable to appreciate the GIGANTIC amount of skill displayed in every frame of the CG Hulk. That thing is awesome. Not entirely believable, but still awesome and there's no other way they could have done it.

kcbrett5
05-27-04, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by John Spartan
Having said that, I cannot believe any movie buff would be unable to appreciate the GIGANTIC amount of skill displayed in every frame of the CG Hulk. That thing is awesome. Not entirely believable, but still awesome and there's no other way they could have done it.

Two words: Lou Ferigno

John Spartan
05-27-04, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by kcbrett5
Two words: Lou Ferigno

See that and raise you two more: Would have looked ridiculous. :)

tanman
05-27-04, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
I just want people to stop bitching, and start enjoying movies.

Unfortunately that seems an impossibility to many people.