PixyJunket

I just think you have a set agenda concerning the Star Wars prequels.

Kal-El

Josh H

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

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

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.

Adam Tyner

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

devilshalo

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

Josh H

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

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

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

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

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

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

*cough*
Claymation
*cough*

jaeufraser

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

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

They used computer graphics. Duh.

devilshalo

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

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

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

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.

devilshalo

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

Supermallet

WHAT!?!

I thought Big Fish was a documentary!

I want my money back.

jaeufraser

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

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