Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Adult DVD Reviews | Video Game Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-25-04, 10:18 PM   #1
Wannabe
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,016
"'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why?

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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 10:21 PM   #2
Matthew Chmiel
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 12,413
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.
__________________
Google+ / Instagram / Letterboxd / Spotify / Twitter
Find me on Nintendo Network / PlayStation Network / Xbox Live / Steam: cupboardoflove
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 10:22 PM   #3
Robert
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,490
Here we go again...

__________________
DVDs
HD DVD
Blu-ray
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 10:36 PM   #4
RichC2
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 26,297
Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 10:39 PM   #5
fumanstan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Posts: 39,442
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*
__________________
3x Sheep Champion

VG Round 1b | VG Round 7 | NFL
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 11:58 PM   #6
jaeufraser
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 12:00 AM   #7
Thrush
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Under a dead Ohio sky
Posts: 4,202
Quote:
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 12:46 AM   #8
calhoun07
DVD Talk Legend
 
calhoun07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,370
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.
__________________
You can only please a woman with a dick made out of chocolate that ejaculates money.-Rhemus
Windowless vans do NOT have candy, only rape.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 12:52 AM   #9
Kal-El
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Kal-El's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fortress of Solitude
Posts: 6,950
FYI Sony Imageworks did Spidey. Not ILM.
__________________
Vader was framed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 01:36 AM   #10
Supermallet
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 46,514
Quote:
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.
__________________
"You already knew this, Mallet, but you're obviously a better man than I (expect this to be quoted in a sig). " -creekdipper
Watch me squawk on Twitter: @Supermallet
Check out my vinyl collection!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 02:37 AM   #11
tanman
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 4,565
Quote:
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.


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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 03:09 AM   #12
Rivero
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germantown Maryland
Posts: 2,488
Re: "'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why?

Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 03:59 AM   #13
zero
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Modesto
Posts: 4,289
Re: "'I, Robot"'s bad computer animation - Why?

Quote:
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.
__________________
The question is not how far, the question is do you posses the constitution...the depth of faith to go as far as is needed?
XBL GT-Bandit Rev0lver
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 06:28 AM   #14
Seantn
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,602
Quote:
"'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.
__________________
"Why don't you get a blog where you can tell others to get a blog?" - Parcher
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 07:44 AM   #15
Wannabe
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 08:01 AM   #16
PixyJunket
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 23,217
Quote:
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.
Good call man.
__________________
Twitter, Wii U and Xbox 360: PixyJunket
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 10:07 AM   #17
JustInsane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hollywoodland
Posts: 471
oh goody, another thread on bashing CGI. Haven't seen one of those in at least a few hours.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 11:03 AM   #18
Chad
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Chad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere Hot Scoville Units: 9,999,999 Zodiac Sign: Capricorn
Posts: 9,227
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 11:24 AM   #19
Artman
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 7,753
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.
__________________
Keeping sight of the vow we made / Holding fast to the hope - Relentless Intolerance
http://trukid.dvdaf.com/owned/blu-ray
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 12:32 PM   #20
Abob Teff
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Springfield, IL USA
Posts: 7,239
I thought that they did a fantastic job animating Will Smith's acting skills . . .
__________________
Don't believe everything you read on the internet; that's how World War I was started.

dvdjunkie32 forgets how Otterville works: I only asked for some simple advice, not 7 pages of mockery.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 12:54 PM   #21
tanman
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 4,565
Quote:
Originally posted by Abob Teff
I thought that they did a fantastic job animating Will Smith's acting skills . . .
!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 12:55 PM   #22
Terrell
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Has anyone seen Master & Commander? The film was filled with cgi work
Actually, Master & Commander had very little CG in it.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
Compare that to today where 500 is not uncommon.
Actually, films like LOTR, Star Wars, and Matrix have 1500 to 2000 shots.

Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 01:13 PM   #23
Wannabe
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
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)

And is this your idea of spectacular?

Last edited by Wannabe; 05-26-04 at 01:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 01:35 PM   #24
kcbrett5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe
(edited due to my lack of reading comprehension)

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 01:45 PM   #25
Rivero
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germantown Maryland
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Rivero; 05-26-04 at 02:13 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Rules - DVD Talk - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.