PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV CGI in a nutshell


irishjayhawk
07-14-2008, 06:13 PM
http://bp0.blogger.com/_FBXGhy-QmVw/SHs_jwvMz0I/AAAAAAAAB6U/nD0MCCWZSFc/s320/card1664.JPG

Thoughts?


I would also put Pirates in that category even though it's not a superhero movie.

Rausch
07-14-2008, 06:29 PM
I wouldn't put "Superhero Movies."

I'd add "Current Filmmaking."

Count Alex's Losses
07-14-2008, 06:30 PM
Not true. Example - Pixar.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2008, 06:31 PM
Not true. Example - Pixar.

Pixar isn't CGI, at least in the modern sense of the word. CGI is usually referred to as a live action with computer sequences. Which is different than a full length ANIMATION film.

It could be splitting hairs, but the difference - at least to me - is huge.

Donger
07-14-2008, 06:33 PM
I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place.

Count Alex's Losses
07-14-2008, 06:36 PM
I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place.

No, that's not true. There's some shit in Wanted that was absolutely awesome, and only could have been done with CGI. It was better for it.

CGI is a great tool. The problem is when directors go overboard with it and drench the film in it.

It should be used sparingly, like old special effects were. Digital matte paintings are awesome, as is bullet time. Wacky Indiana Jones trees are not.

Donger
07-14-2008, 06:37 PM
No, that's not true. There's some shit in Wanted that was absolutely awesome, and only could have been done with CGI. It was better for it.

CGI is a great tool. The problem is when directors go overboard with it and drench the film in it.

It should be used sparingly, like old special effects were. Digital matte paintings are awesome, as is bullet time. Wacky Indiana Jones trees are not.

Shut the hell up.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2008, 06:38 PM
No, that's not true. There's some shit in Wanted that was absolutely awesome, and only could have been done with CGI. It was better for it.

CGI is a great tool. The problem is when directors go overboard with it and drench the film in it.

It should be used sparingly, like old special effects were. Digital matte paintings are awesome, as is bullet time. Wacky Indiana Jones trees are not.

What shots, specifically?

Count Alex's Losses
07-14-2008, 06:41 PM
What shots, specifically?

When they assassinated the dude in the car? AMAZING.

Also, the part where he uses that body as a human shield while firing through his head. That was epic.

Count Alex's Losses
07-14-2008, 06:42 PM
Shut the hell up.

How very uncouth.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2008, 06:51 PM
When they assassinated the dude in the car? AMAZING.

Also, the part where he uses that body as a human shield while firing through his head. That was epic.

I'd grant you those along with the bullet cgi. Matrix like CGI I can stand.

However, the stunts they had in the film, especially the car flipping and picking him up or flying overhead of a limo, are the type of CGI that is becoming more and more prevalent. And it's replacing plot and believability.

Rausch
07-14-2008, 06:53 PM
I'd grant you those along with the bullet cgi. Matrix like CGI I can stand.

However, the stunts they had in the film, especially the car flipping and picking him up or flying overhead of a limo, are the type of CGI that is becoming more and more prevalent. And it's replacing plot and believability.

The more it's done the more it's done poorly.

A lot of the stuff out now looks like it's from a Saturday afternoon SciFi channel flick...

Count Alex's Losses
07-14-2008, 06:54 PM
I'd grant you those along with the bullet cgi. Matrix like CGI I can stand.

However, the stunts they had in the film, especially the car flipping and picking him up or flying overhead of a limo, are the type of CGI that is becoming more and more prevalent. And it's replacing plot and believability.

Well, I'd argue it's about the use of CGI within the context of the universe the film is set in.

I had no problem with the CGI in Wanted. I had big problems with the CGI in Indiana Jones.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2008, 07:29 PM
Well, I'd argue it's about the use of CGI within the context of the universe the film is set in.

I had no problem with the CGI in Wanted. I had big problems with the CGI in Indiana Jones.

Why?

Wanted didn't set itself up to be different than our reality. Instead, it merely told us there were assassins (who knew they were stunt drivers too) and they've been in humanity for 1000 years.

What is different about the context of that universe? Contrasting, the Matrix told us everything. It's all computer code and we can manipulate it. Therefore the CGI was a tool in the universe.

Count Alex's Losses
07-14-2008, 07:42 PM
Why?

Wanted didn't set itself up to be different than our reality.

Yeah, it did. In the Wanted reality there are people who can curve bullets and "see" in bullet time.

Not to mention fly out windows.

Deberg_1990
07-14-2008, 07:43 PM
Just watched Hellboy II. Great example of how to seamlessly blend practical effects and makeup with just a little bit of CGI thrown in.

Sure-Oz
07-15-2008, 12:38 AM
Hellboy loves his mexican beer

Silock
07-15-2008, 12:44 AM
I totally disagree. Just look at movies like Terminator and Terminator 2. Good movies, but with today's CGI, they'd have been REALLY awesome.

CGI is fine for things that are clearly impossible to build (like the castles in LotR) or impossible to do in real life. If it is possible to do in real life, though, stunt actors should be used.

I have no problem with CGI.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2008, 08:12 AM
I totally disagree. Just look at movies like Terminator and Terminator 2. Good movies, but with today's CGI, they'd have been REALLY awesome.



Id argue they are better movies without overblown CGI. Heck, T2 was the first movie to use CGI effects to great extent and it seems very modest by todays standards. There was still a ton of on-set effects work done.

CGI is fine, just not overblown. It should only be used to enhance.

chasedude
07-15-2008, 08:18 AM
CGI is fine, just not overblown. It should only be used to enhance.

And give the ****ing movie a decent plot. Spiderman 3 I just lost it. Trying to setup all these villains with backgrounds and Peter Parker twisted in some love triangle, give me a break.

Hollywood has been catering to the brain dead lately, time to produce quality.

jidar
07-15-2008, 08:33 AM
ah.. the jaded, the cynical.

You guys have mostly been alive long enough to realize people have been saying "Hollywood is losing it" for decades right? It makes me wonder when they finally will have lost it all.

Some movies are good, some movies are bad, same as it always has been. CGI is just a tool that winds up in all kinds of movies, sometimes poorly used, sometimes not, but it's new and memorable so it's the scapegoat.

morphius
07-15-2008, 09:11 AM
Pixar isn't CGI, at least in the modern sense of the word. CGI is usually referred to as a live action with computer sequences. Which is different than a full length ANIMATION film.

It could be splitting hairs, but the difference - at least to me - is huge.
I can't agree with that statement at all, Pixar is CGI in its purest form.

underEJ
07-15-2008, 11:06 AM
Actually, the only thing that determines the quality of the VFX (nobody calls it CGI) is the budget at the start of the film, not to be confused with what they ultimately spent. If they choose a VFX company for it's low bid, the work is likely to be poor, and they will spend more in the end trying to fix it. That's where it gets messed up. Also if the schedule is really short, and the producer has to hire multiple companies either at the outset or in a 911 effort to make the release date, the work will also suffer.

None of this has anything to do with bad stories.

Amnorix
07-15-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place.


Yes. I can suspend disbelief under certain circumstances, but too many films go so far past absurd it's impossible.

And yes, the plot to CGI ratio isn't a good one. The key is to have a good plot and use CGI to enhance the storytelling. Too many directors/producers/etc. forget that.

beach tribe
07-15-2008, 12:15 PM
Yeah, it did. In the Wanted reality there are people who can curve bullets and "see" in bullet time.

Not to mention fly out windows.

I knew as soon as I saw the preview where they curved the bullet around the guys head, and blocks bullet with a bullet, it would be way to stupid for me.
I would be rolling my eyes through the whole movie.

Silock
07-15-2008, 12:25 PM
Id argue they are better movies without overblown CGI. Heck, T2 was the first movie to use CGI effects to great extent and it seems very modest by todays standards. There was still a ton of on-set effects work done.

CGI is fine, just not overblown. It should only be used to enhance.

I don't. I'd rather my effects look real, whether they're stunts or CGI.

Rausch
07-15-2008, 12:42 PM
I knew as soon as I saw the preview where they curved the bullet around the guys head, and blocks bullet with a bullet, it would be way to stupid for me.
I would be rolling my eyes through the whole movie.

You didn't want to see Re-Matrix?

Morgan Freeman as Morphius and Uber-bangedout-slut as Trinity?

beach tribe
07-15-2008, 01:18 PM
You didn't want to see Re-Matrix?

Morgan Freeman as Morphius and Uber-bangedout-slut as Trinity?

No thanks.

irishjayhawk
07-15-2008, 01:49 PM
I can't agree with that statement at all, Pixar is CGI in its purest form.

I don't consider full animation to be full CGI. Totally different.

CGI or VFX to me is when they're put into an otherwise live action movie. Animation is just complete CGI/VFX. It's a big difference.

irishjayhawk
07-15-2008, 01:50 PM
You didn't want to see Re-Matrix?

Morgan Freeman as Morphius and Uber-bangedout-slut as Trinity?

:eek:

Wow, I didn't even make that connection. But that's spot on.

It also had shades of Equilibrium. Actually, one of the sequences was straight out of it, I thought.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2008, 02:12 PM
I don't consider full animation to be full CGI. Totally different.

CGI or VFX to me is when they're put into an otherwise live action movie. Animation is just complete CGI/VFX. It's a big difference.

For the most part, id have to agree.

All animation flicks like Pixar are not trying to achieve "photorealism" like a live action movie is.

Animated movies (even the more adult ones like Wall-E) will always want to maintain a certain level of cartoonishness.

Which brings up another subject, what are movies like Beowolf?? Is that still animation??

Otter
07-15-2008, 02:38 PM
The key is to have a good plot and use CGI to enhance the storytelling. Too many directors/producers/etc. forget that.

I think the last movie that had good synergy between plot and cgi was The Lord of the Rings.

Before that uh...Abyss and Jurassic Park come to mind.

Taco John
07-15-2008, 03:22 PM
What about Lord of the Rings?

I'd much rather have CGI than Muppets.

Taco John
07-15-2008, 03:22 PM
I think the last movie that had good synergy between plot and cgi was The Lord of the Rings.

Before that uh...Abyss and Jurassic Park come to mind.

Looks like I was beat by a couple of hours.

Taco John
07-15-2008, 03:24 PM
You didn't want to see Re-Matrix?

Morgan Freeman as Morphius and Uber-bangedout-slut as Trinity?


That's funny. I've only seen the trailer, and that was my first thought: "The Matrix has already been done, but I'll be this one is sluttier."

Stinger
07-15-2008, 07:21 PM
:D

Deberg_1990
07-15-2008, 08:08 PM
:D

haha....hilarious.

and that in a nutshell is the problem. I miss the old costumes. Hellboy II is a throwback to that era. Tons of costume work in that flick.

Adept Havelock
07-15-2008, 08:09 PM
:LOL: http://b.imagehost.org/0824/cylonA.gif

By Your Command.

listopencil
07-15-2008, 09:47 PM
.

Which brings up another subject, what are movies like Beowolf?? Is that still animation??


No, that's called "crap".

KcMizzou
07-15-2008, 10:02 PM
No, that's called "crap".I have to agree.

I was a little excited about that movie too. It was, indeed, crap.

irishjayhawk
07-15-2008, 10:04 PM
I believe Beowoulf was captured so it was basically live action with animation draped over it. I could be wrong, though.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2008, 10:05 PM
I have to agree.

I was a little excited about that movie too. It was, indeed, crap.

Zemekis needs to step away from the techie tools and get back to working with real actors and locations again.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2008, 10:05 PM
I believe Beowoulf was captured so it was basically live action with animation draped over it. I could be wrong, though.


Your right. Thats why i asked that question. Is motion capture animation???

irishjayhawk
07-15-2008, 10:18 PM
Your right. Thats why i asked that question. Is motion capture animation???

Well, I would certainly say it has it's own category. However, if pressed, I'd say it's animation. Reason being is they aren't inserting images into an otherwise live action frame. Instead, they're draping over the entire frame. Thus, animation.