Computers taking over film making..

[Jonathan Stevenson]

cheaply done in CG? please 1 character can take a dedicated team up to 10 months in look development in CG, gollumn took years, dont say such ignorant things.
cg is not cheap. as for hitchhickers guide to the galazy what are you are comparing a show with characters that 1, are robots, have no facial animation or if they do is very limited.

When I say cheap, I mean it in a relative way, Miguel. Many things that could be achieved practically are more expensive then going the CG route. Gollumn is not an example of bad CG, neither is King Kong, Ben Button, etc, so of course they took years and millions to create. When I say CG is cheap, I also mean that, to me, it feels like a cop-out. It's "cheap" in the sense of it's value to me as an audience member. Practical effects are much more compelling, IMHO.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Pick out a shot from LOTR that looked bad. And I'll probably show you a real live action miniature that you have a problem with. The CG used in LOTR could not have been done any other way. Was there some sub-perfect CG? Sure. But what was the alternative 300billion dollar budget to genetically engineer a giant elephant?

And that Star Wars cinematic is what you get with a decade of R&D. Even then it only looks about as good as the worst shots in the prequels. I will say that some of the animation in the prequels in background characters was less than stellar but ILM has improved dramatically since then. And the VOLUME they had to deliver was insane. There are limits to time and money.

And even then I think you would be shocked to see how much of that isn't actually CG. I would be you that a significant portion of the "cg" shots you think look so fakey aren't actually cg and are actually live action.

That's what I hate most about people whining about CG. It's often times NOT CG that they're bitching about. It's just something about the shot they don't like.

I mean let's just get it over with and just shoot Dogma95 films (and watch the movie industry implode). These films which are "ruining hollywood" are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into making those same CG techniques available relatively inexpensively to romantic comedies, dramas and run of the mill good movies.

Actually you know what's really ruining movies. Sound editors. People are just using explosion sound effects to completely ruin these movies. They think they can just play a bunch of explosion sounds and cover up a mediocre story. Freakin' microphones are taking over and ruining film making. We need to go back to making silent films free of sound where these stupid blockbusters just play a bunch of loud sounds that are obviously fake sounding.

You know who else are ruining movies?
Pyrotechnicians.
2nd Unit Directors.
Stunt men and women.
Fight Choreographers.
Armorers.

Oh please, the Star Wars prequels (excluding Phantom Menace) were nothing more than a 2h cartoon with some real people in it. For gods sake, they even greenscreened an office, a hallway, 90% of the characters were CGI. And like you said it was such an enormous amount of CGI that they had a difficulty delivering it, which as I see it is part of the problem. Its absolutely ridiculous to realise that the old films look more realistic becuase they were actually shot on location in a forest, desert and on a real built stage. And yes I know they did shoot some stuff on location for the new films.

Also actors find it difficult to interact with creatures that arent actually there, walking around a greenscreen talking to themselves basically. How much emotion are you going to get out of that?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

When I say cheap, I mean it in a relative way, Miguel. Many things that could be achieved practically are more expensive then going the CG route. Gollumn is not an example of bad CG, neither is King Kong, Ben Button, etc, so of course they took years and millions to create. When I say CG is cheap, I also mean that, to me, it feels like a cop-out. It's "cheap" in the sense of it's value to me as an audience member. Practical effects are much more compelling, IMHO.

You should go watch Land of the Lost. They have some really really compelling practical aliens.

Let's do a comparison to completely and utterly destroy your theory.

Old Narnia:

New Nearnia:

Wow I find the makeup route so much more compelling!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

For gods sake, they even greenscreened an office, a hallway, 90% of the characters were CGI. And like you said it was such an enormous amount of CGI that they had a difficulty delivering it, which as I see it is part of the problem. Its absolutely ridiculous to realise that the old films look more realistic becuase they were actually shot on location in a forest, desert and on a real built stage. And yes I know they did shoot some stuff on location for the new films.

Most of the locations in Star Wars weren't CG they were miniatures. Like I said. FX yes. CG no.

Also actors find it difficult to interact with creatures that arent actually there, walking around a greenscreen talking to themselves basically. How much emotion are you going to get out of that?

Yeah because VFX artists are incapable of rotoscoping out people now adays! That's why the entire crew wasn't present on the ships in Pirates of the Carribean... oh wait... that's right. Everybody was right there on set. And in Star Wars. The characters' actors were usually on set and painted out. Gollum was on set. And painted out.

Try again.

 

[Peter Lundström]

You should go watch Land of the Lost. They have some really really compelling practical aliens.

Let's do a comparison to completely and utterly destroy your theory.

Old Narnia:

New Nearnia:

Wow I find the makeup route so much more compelling!

Cant really dispute you based on those pictures alone, but...

For some strange reason I just dont think Alien or The Thing would be the same with a CGI alien monster... do you?

 

[Peter Lundström]

Most of the locations in Star Wars weren't CG they were miniatures. Like I said. FX yes. CG no.


Yeah because VFX artists are incapable of rotoscoping out people now adays! That's why the entire crew wasn't present on the ships in Pirates of the Carribean... oh wait... that's right. Everybody was right there on set. And in Star Wars. The characters' actors were usually on set and painted out. Gollum was on set. And painted out.

Try again.

Yes, because building a miniature hallway and greenscrenning it on live footage is somehow more effective and cheaper than... building a hallway. They built parts of a highway for Matrix Reloaded for gods sake, a hallway isnt that much to ask. Clearly Lucas had the budget.

Also, actors not being able to see a realistic world enviroment are not going to be able to give the same performance as if they were actually there. And like I previously said, I have no problem with Gollum, so its pointless to bring him up.

Besides, this is all just personal opinions in the end, you say tomato I say... wait, that doesnt work when typing it... damnit.

 

[MiguelOrtega]

Cant really dispute you based on those pictures alone, but...

For some strange reason I just dont think Alien or The Thing would be the same with a CGI alien monster... do you?

Alien and thing were effective ONLY because of a director who knew the limitations of creature suits/fx. meaning lighting it properly (dark)

i adore alien, i worship the film but the alien suit itself is silly in certain shots. it looks like what it is a man in a suit. and the aliens movements dont match the grace of the design. One of the problems i see with CG effects direction is that directors are not shooting it properly when they hand the shots to us. all effects look better when the lighting is dramatic. notice even the greatest monster suit imho is predator, as awesome as it is, it appears in night shots only, all the day shots hes transparent.

so to answer your question, yes i do think had alien or thing been given to the proper vfx studio you would get something that looks better then the original.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Alien and thing were effective ONLY because of a director who knew the limitations of creature suits/fx. meaning lighting it properly (dark)

i adore alien, i worship the film but the alien suit itself is silly in certain shots. it looks like what it is a man in a suit. and the aliens movements dont match the grace of the design. One of the problems i see with CG effects direction is that directors are not shooting it properly when they hand the shots to us. all effects look better when the lighting is dramatic. notice even the greatest monster imho is predator, as awesome as it is, it appears in night shots only, all the day shots hes transparent.

so to answer your question, yes i do think had alien or thing been given to the proper vfx studio you would get something that looks better then the original.

Problem is that CGI also only looks good (or scary in this case) in night shots. And thats really the key here, directors knew the limitations of puppets and stop motion but few appear to know the limitations of CG effects. To this day I would say that Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump are the two best examples of CG VFX I have ever seen. Not because they were best rendered or textured or such but the were used just about right.

I still dont think you could achieve the scene with Alien coming down the chains or Predtaor fighting Arnold in hand to hand combat better with CG. Those scenes are perfection, how do you improve upon perfection?

Also just so there is no misconception, CGI is an awesome tool and nothing but props to the people who make it happen. My beef is strictly with directors feeling they dont need to try because the CG crew will clean up their mess. And thats practically 90% of all Hollywood films nowadays.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Also a quick thing about the Alien coming down the chains... one of the reasons you dont want that being CGI is there is just so much that adds to the element of realism that would take forever to achieve using CGI. Water dripping, steam condesing on the rubber suit, the depth of field achieved in camera. You COULD do it, but theres no point when you clearly can do it without.

 

[MiguelOrtega]

Also a quick thing about the Alien coming down the chains... one of the reasons you dont want that being CGI is there is just so much that adds to the element of realism that would take forever to achieve using CGI. Water dripping, steam condesing on the rubber suit, the depth of field achieved in camera. You COULD do it, but theres no point when you clearly can do it without.

actually we would do most of that as real effects in our stage, and composite them in, maybe the exception is drool..

 

[MiguelOrtega]

Also just so there is no misconception, CGI is an awesome tool and nothing but props to the people who make it happen. My beef is strictly with directors feeling they dont need to try because the CG crew will clean up their mess. And thats practically 90% of all Hollywood films nowadays.

no argument there

 

[Peter Lundström]

actually we would do most of that as real effects in our stage, and composite them in, maybe the exception is drool..

But then my question becomes... why "composite" it in? Why not just... film it? They managed to film it for real in 1978, surely it can be filmed for real now? The chesbuster scene for instance, now THAT could have used a little CGI facelift.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Also a quick thing about the Alien coming down the chains... one of the reasons you dont want that being CGI is there is just so much that adds to the element of realism that would take forever to achieve using CGI. Water dripping, steam condesing on the rubber suit, the depth of field achieved in camera. You COULD do it, but theres no point when you clearly can do it without.

And you know what I would say if I was VFX Sup? Use a real suit for parts of those shots.

Getting real world interaction is important. It's why on-set motion capture is all the rage. Using practical elements to get that nice drippy druely goodness would be the best choice. But once it gets into motion blur there is no reason to have a guy in a suit. He would just look like a guy in a suit. And that's when you want to transition into a CG alien.

When the aliens in aliens are 'running' they obviously look like guys on rails flailing their arms and happening to move along the ground. The aliens could be much quicker, more violent and fluid with the option of CG.

If a shot looks bad. Then the VFX Supervisor, Director or budget prevented them from using the right tool for the job. Lots of the time that's practical. Lots of the time that's CGI. The right tool for the right job.

Re: Star Wars. I thought the miniature sets looked pretty damn good:

(actually not sure about the kamino shot. I know they used a lot of miniature sets but that one might be CG. I just couldn't find an example of one I know was a miniature.)

 

[Petr Dvorak]

I know that they did waterfalls with rice

What I dislike at SW shots was two DOFs in frame at once. Jedi were in focus, frame of window behind them (piece of set) was naturaly out of focus and city behind window was sharp as hell!!! That was quite stupid.

 

[Peter Lundström]

And you know what I would say if I was VFX Sup? Use a real suit for parts of those shots.

Getting real world interaction is important. It's why on-set motion capture is all the rage. Using practical elements to get that nice drippy druely goodness would be the best choice. But once it gets into motion blur there is no reason to have a guy in a suit. He would just look like a guy in a suit. And that's when you want to transition into a CG alien.

When the aliens in aliens are 'running' they obviously look like guys on rails flailing their arms and happening to move along the ground. The aliens could be much quicker, more violent and fluid with the option of CG.

If a shot looks bad. Then the VFX Supervisor, Director or budget prevented them from using the right tool for the job. Lots of the time that's practical. Lots of the time that's CGI. The right tool for the right job.

Re: Star Wars. I thought the miniature sets looked pretty damn good:

(actually not sure about the kamino shot. I know they used a lot of miniature sets but that one might be CG. I just couldn't find an example of one I know was a miniature.)

Well, I didn' say CGI wasnt the right tool for the right job but for instance in Alien 3 the scene of the alien chasing people was simply a guy with a steadicam running around... it worked great and you never even really saw the alien. Im not saying you couldnt create a realistic looking alien and put it in there, Im more asking why would you want to?

And as far as those Star Wars shots, theyre not really CGI no, but they were composited and I cant help but feel having them walking on an actual set would have enhanced the experience greatly. I saw them all in the theatre and I couldnt help but feel I was watchings ome cartoon or something. There was simply too much VFX in every shot. When every scene is "fake" it transports you further and further away from thinking its in some form of reality. As it stands now, the old films look better overall even if you take into account the shabby rubber suits.

And again... my opinion, Im not saying youre wrong.

 

[Eki Halkka]

To this day I would say that Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump are the two best examples of CG VFX I have ever seen. Not because they were best rendered or textured or such but the were used just about right.

Though both are great, i'm pretty sure you've seen other stuff that's just as good, if not better. You've just not realized you've been watching CGI. Outside the obvious spaceships etc., people tend to realize there's effects involved only if for some reason (budget, schedule, direction, talent, whatever) the effect is not top notch. The good stuff passes as real.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Though both are great, i'm pretty sure you've seen other stuff that's just as good, if not better. You've just not realized you've been watching CGI.

Well, then its all good... like I said I dont mind CGI. As long as it doesnt make you go, "great another overblown show off CGI moment" Im all happy.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Everything has a place within budget. I am in favor for using everything if possible, like PJ did for LOTR. Layers... special effects with visual effects and everything in between.:cheers2:

 

[Jonas Rejman]

How much CG was there in Gran Torino? (I felt like the only VFX were the titles)

I watched this film, and then afterwards The Spirit. I had this strange detachment with this movie, but thought that every shot in itself brilliant. But somehow it seemed, that they did not work together. Like Sin City i felt too much in a unreal world. With 300 hundred it was a bit less.

I also watched "The Crow" later to double check, and then the original Star Wars, followed by Bourne Ultimatum. I felt very immersed in those films, not really "noticing" the effects.

Why is it, that at some films, I feel that the CG is taking over, whereas others I do not even seem to notice them? Is it the amount of "reality"?

Is it my eyes, who love the less complicated CG in the older movies, where CG was so expensive, that it was only used at the peak of the movie? I loved Matrix one, but when the second opened with an effect that was the peak of the first movie, I was kinda turned off.

Is it that I need some sort of progression in the CG effects throughout the movie, starting with less and culminating in the big bang? Or am I just not able to process the visual excesses anymore?

 

[Joseph Ward]

How much CG was there in Gran Torino? (I felt like the only VFX were the titles)

I watched this film, and then afterwards The Spirit. I had this strange detachment with this movie, but thought that every shot in itself brilliant. But somehow it seemed, that they did not work together. Like Sin City i felt too much in a unreal world. With 300 hundred it was a bit less.

I also watched "The Crow" later to double check, and then the original Star Wars, followed by Bourne Ultimatum. I felt very immersed in those films, not really "noticing" the effects.

Why is it, that at some films, I feel that the CG is taking over, whereas others I do not even seem to notice them? Is it the amount of "reality"?

Is it my eyes, who love the less complicated CG in the older movies, where CG was so expensive, that it was only used at the peak of the movie? I loved Matrix one, but when the second opened with an effect that was the peak of the first movie, I was kinda turned off.

Is it that I need some sort of progression in the CG effects throughout the movie, starting with less and culminating in the big bang? Or am I just not able to process the visual excesses anymore?

I feel the same way, maybe its because we were used to the "old feel of older movies"? My nephews and nieces loose the suspension of disbelief with older films, while I loose it more often with newer ones.