Movies and TV CGI in a nutshell - Page 2

irishjayhawk · 07-14-2008, 05:13 PM

Thoughts?

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

Deberg_1990 · 07-14-2008, 06:43 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 · 07-14-2008, 11:38 PM

Hellboy loves his mexican beer

Silock · 07-14-2008, 11:44 PM

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, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

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, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

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, 07:33 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, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

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, 10:06 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, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

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, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

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, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

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, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

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, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

You didn't want to see Re-Matrix?

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

No thanks.

irishjayhawk · 07-15-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

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, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

You didn't want to see Re-Matrix?

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

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.

07-14-2008, 05:13 PM
irishjayhawk Feelin' Alright Join Date: Aug 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	CGI in a nutshell Thoughts? I would also put Pirates in that category even though it's not a superhero movie.
Posts: 16,887

07-14-2008, 06:43 PM	#16
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3694454	Just watched Hellboy II. Great example of how to seamlessly blend practical effects and makeup with just a little bit of CGI thrown in. __________________ Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning: Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down. One of the best plays Matt has ever made.
Posts: 66,914

07-14-2008, 11:44 PM	#18
Silock MVP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $10020882	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.
Posts: 19,908

07-15-2008, 07:33 AM	#21
jidar MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: a Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 5,502

07-15-2008, 10:06 AM	#23
underEJ Veteran Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Los Angeles Casino cash: $6833141	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.
Posts: 1,231