|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#1
03-24-2008, 03:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
CGI Discussion
This isn't a CGI vs non CGI effects debate ..
it's something i got thinking about because of a couple of comments in another thread. Someone mentioned bad CGI. What do folks consider bad CGI vs good CGI. what are examples of it done poorly ??? One example I can think of is in the otherwise excellent Blade II when for a brief second there were a couple of vampire ninjas flipping around. it didnt look natural .. the figures were stretched out and plastic looking. good CGI - the Jurrasic Park movies, 10,000 BC (not a great movie but the effects were pretty awsome), King Kong. when people say 'bad CGI' i'm curious to hear why they say it was bad specifically (and not the 'they shouldn't have used CGI at all" arguement - thats for another thread)
__________________
You make stupid look smart. 
|
|
#2
03-24-2008, 03:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lord of the Rings - was great cgi. the characters and situations were so real and fleshed out that even the cgi seemed natural. Golem was so three dimensional because the character seemed so deep.
__________________
Winner HDC Battle Royale I & HDC Battle Royale IV 
|
|
#3
03-24-2008, 03:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
CGI should be a supplement- not an indulgement. A wise filmmaker will use CGI in small doses, and if it plays a more crucial role in the film, its appearance should be brief or sheltered by shadow or some other real obstruction.
Example of good CGI: The Mist (to use the forementioned discussion). Every creature in the film is oozing with CGI. Why does it work? Because we see the creatures in quick, flashy doses (pterodactyl things aside). Another good example of the same technique would be the first half of The Host. The second half fell apart for me...mostly because I got too good of a glimpse at that video game-like dinosaur thing, and it lost all credibility. Example of bad CGI: Exorcist: The Beginning. When a filmmaker tries to pass a human being off with a full body suit a' CGI, complete with face and expressions, it doesn't work- most especially when this subject is in full visibility for minutes on end. The genious of the original Exorcist's make-up design was that it was so...well, for lack of better words, real-looking. Audiences could see every texture of every lump and scar on Regan's face because it was really there. Thirty years later, when audiences watch this "new and improved" possessed being, she looks more like a Spider-man villian. CGI in large doses serves as a distraction, and therefore only detaches the viewer from what is happening. That's how I see things anyway...
__________________
|
|
#4
03-24-2008, 03:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bad CGI to me is things not looking natural like you mentioned or things look too fake (I felt some of the explosions in John Rambo suffered from this).
Overuse of CGI is something that kills films for me. I think the worst CGI I've seen was in Escape From LA... that shark haha :) My favorite CGI stuff was probably in T2. The technology was pretty new then so it was a bit more of a novelty to me (the 'wow did you see that' factor) and it had a good balance of CGI/traditional effects.
|
|
#5
03-24-2008, 04:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Skip to about 2 minutes.
|
|
#6
03-24-2008, 04:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
03-24-2008, 05:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I haven't seen a good CGI werewolf transformation yet. American werewolf in Paris...Van Helsing...suck and suck.
The Hulk CGI was pretty bad as well.Too cartoonish for me. As stated above LOTR, Jurrasic Park, King Kong....they got it right.
|
|
#8
03-24-2008, 06:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good: The Mist, Lord of the Rings (bad movie though)
Bad: Van Helsing, Dead Birds,
__________________
stop the world - I want to get off 
|
|
#9
03-24-2008, 07:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wanna see bad CGI? Watch any BBC show. BBCGI is barely above Veggie Tales in quality.
__________________
 ===  WATCH MY MOVIES(UPDATED: 5/7/08, "No Exit") RING OF HONOR: BEST WRESTLING IN THE WORLD  TOO GOOD FOR THE HDC BATTLE ROYALE
|
|
#10
03-24-2008, 09:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I Am Legend has both
post-humanity NYC looks amazing and it is done with digital mat painting. It's how I've always wanted to see D.C. in Logan's Run (but the old-school mat paintings in that one are rather pleasing) The creatures looked plastic and unnatural Mechanical objects are always easier to render than organic ones, which worked to stunning effect in Transformers; a film I hated, but couldn't help but marvel at the amazing effects. What really sells CGI is the attention to "lighting" the rendered object. If the light source doesn't seem to match the lighting scheme in the live action plate, then it always looks like shit. And of course this all has to do with budget. No animator wants thier work to look crappy, but rendering time is money...the more time spent rendering he tiniest details of CGI (smoke, hair, thermal distortion, etc) the better, but it also becomes more and more expensive with each hour you are paying a highly specialized motion graphics expert to work on your film.
__________________
"Little, vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies." Earl of Chesterfield "A man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well." Francis Bacon
|
 |
|
|
