Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 9 Badge!

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.

Completely disagree. Did you seriously think Prometheus looked "cartoony"? Also, the CGI Yoda in the Blu-Ray Episode 1 was so much better than the rubbish puppet from the theatrical release (regardless of how shit the film is). No matter how good a puppet or animatronic is, it will always be limited in what it can do and especially how it animates.
And if and actor has trouble meeting the eyes of a digital character, that's poor setup, poor direction, poor editing and even poor acting. As I said, it's knowing when to use CGI and when to use puppets/animatronics/models. All can be blended to work well together, depends on the shot.

Ok, so the Yoda puppet was pretty shit, but I think I still prefer it to the CG one. Whether something is believable seems pretty binary to me. Its not as if either version really does a good job of hiding the man behind the curtain. Some CG I am totally fooled by. Backdrops, a lot of special effects but when it comes to something organic, something thats going to be the focus of the camera CG never really holds up. I've seen tech demos of CG faces, and tbh, I can't really tell the difference. I think the problem often is blending this CG in with the rest of the scene. Our brains seem very good at detecting inconsistency in lighting etc, too often CG elements really seem painted on top and it spoils the illusion. A lot of animatronic stuff matches CG in terms of its animation, but because its actually in the scene it never jumps out at you.

But hey, maybe one day our films will be made entirely in front of bluescreens. Pehraps the performers won't even have to wear makeup or costume, it'll all be superimposed on afterwards. For the moment I still think animatronics has the edge in realism.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.


Completely disagree. Did you seriously think Prometheus looked "cartoony"? Also, the CGI Yoda in the Blu-Ray Episode 1 was so much better than the rubbish puppet from the theatrical release (regardless of how shit the film is). No matter how good a puppet or animatronic is, it will always be limited in what it can do and especially how it animates.
And if and actor has trouble meeting the eyes of a digital character, that's poor setup, poor direction, poor editing and even poor acting. As I said, it's knowing when to use CGI and when to use puppets/animatronics/models. All can be blended to work well together, depends on the shot.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Why not just use CGI? It's fast, more cost effective, and looks like pure-fucking-garbage. Win/Win!


Not really. CGI is not faster, it's a lot more expensive and the have you seen Prometheus? Modern CGI is reaching the stage of actually looking like it fits the scene and not completely out of place. Animatronics has limitations, and bad anmiatronics and suits can look just as bad as bad CGI. In the end, both require talented artists, directors and editors

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sad that the best visual effects are from a decade or more ago.


You may think this is true, but there is still some pretty damn amazing animatronic work being done these days. (some more)

There was no way I'd have guessed that Wink from Hellboy 2 was an animatronic when I saw the film, but then I watched the making of and holy crap, that huge creature is a man in a suit with awesome animatronics.

CG is used a lot these days, but there's still room for awesome practical effects... still room.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sad that the best visual effects are from a decade or more ago.


+ John Carpenter's remake of The Thing came out 30 years ago.

Your video, StudioADI Starship Troopers Animatronic Effects, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You are absolutely right, NDT. Of course the original Enterprise is the greatest starship of all time. You'd have to be daft not to know that. Now sit down and shut up, attention whore!

His point was that before this ship, everything was simplistic, boring and ultimately, unimaginative. To the people first seeing the original Enterprise starship it was truly incredible because they had never before seen something like it. No audience afterwards could have quite the same reaction because now that the ship existed, nothing else could reach quite the same level because all others afterwards were derivative of the original. Something along those lines anyway. >> ^doogle:

what's his point here? It's a beautiful ship because what came before it was some sort of saucer from the <garble mumble> movie?

Starship Troopers. Boom, what's up?

Oh wow, got to see this! Love the original Starship Troopers, the sequels were a let-down so I hope this is as spectacular as the first film

This is just one of many reasons Picard is the best starship captain.

To paraphrase a certain starship captain, "What does God need with an amendment?"

The more fat cells you make the harder it is to lose weight and keep it off. Fat cells stay fat cells in your body even when they are not loaded with fat. Takes just as much discipline to get fat as it does to get un-fat.

Yoga can affect changes that seem miraculous (and they are) but anything one does to clear chi as a practice can do the same. Ever see what Pilates can do?? Volleyball? Swimming?

Oh hey, Rottenseed?? You are most likely already hermitized. You should simply stop watching TV with a view to actually getting any real information. News rhymes with lose and like this feel-good journal pimped-out to yoga-man it includes an over-abundance of adverts.

Incredibly cool story. More power to the man who blew out his knees and compacted his lumbar hopping out of transport planes for the empire! Reminds me of that scene from Starship Troopers where the mobile infantry recruiter without legs exclaimed with enthusiasm, "The mobile infantry made me the man I am today!"

...and then you find out this is a Taming of the Shrew sort of movie.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.
Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.
Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php