"'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why?
05-27-04, 09:40 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
05-27-04, 09:47 AM
#52
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by kcbrett5
How exactly is he supposed to create a city that covers an entire planet without CG.
How exactly is he supposed to create a city that covers an entire planet without CG.
05-27-04, 09:54 AM
#54
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by scott shelton; 05-27-04 at 10:05 AM.
05-27-04, 10:50 AM
#55
New Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-27-04, 11:29 AM
#56
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Jakarta, INA
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
05-27-04, 11:31 AM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hollywoodland
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-27-04, 01:38 PM
#59
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
05-27-04, 03:06 PM
#60
Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-27-04, 03:40 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
