I wish more movies still used these physical models for a lot of stuff.

I agree with the poster that models should be used more often, but CGI is simply not lazy. It's an insane amount of work in and of itself, which makes it even more frustrating that it dominates as much as it does these days

Oh and SFX is short for Sound Effects, not visual effects which is VFX <---- not trying to be a prick just for future reference

>> ^PalmliX:

I agree with the poster that models should be used more often, but CGI is simply not lazy. It's an insane amount of work in and of itself, which makes it even more frustrating that it dominates as much as it does these days


CGI is lazy, well, it can be. CGI, when used properly can be utterly stunning. Avatar, Golem, Benjamin Button and others all attest to the wonders that CGI can bring to a film, as to the countless 'invisible' improvements that CG can be used for.

Now the problem is that in films of the ilk of Species et al, we are talking about low-mid level budget movies. At this level CG tends to be unpolished and lazy and stands out like a sore thumb. And that's because it does take a lot of work to make it REALLY good, but far less work to make it 'ok', and 'enough'. These types of films used to have physical effects, and quite often you would watch them almost solely for these effects because they were creative and imaginative and wonderful. The way they worked with real objects to get around the limitations in budget are fantastic. The way they get around a limitation in budget for a film with CG is just to half cook the CG.


Even worse though is that because CG is so hard to do 'right' you get even films with insanely huge budgets containing CG that stands out like a sore thumb, where a physical effect would have been better.

>> ^PalmliX:

Oh and SFX is short for Sound Effects, not visual effects which is VFX <---- not trying to be a prick just for future reference


Well, it's used both ways, quite often SFX is used for Special Effects comprising both visual and sound.

You can't really say FX on it's own, well you can, but it sounds silly, and if you're trying to say Special Effects it gets shortened to SFX

Great points spoco2! I couldn't agree more.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^PalmliX:
I agree with the poster that models should be used more often, but CGI is simply not lazy. It's an insane amount of work in and of itself, which makes it even more frustrating that it dominates as much as it does these days

CGI is lazy, well, it can be. CGI, when used properly can be utterly stunning. Avatar, Golem, Benjamin Button and others all attest to the wonders that CGI can bring to a film, as to the countless 'invisible' improvements that CG can be used for.
Now the problem is that in films of the ilk of Species et al, we are talking about low-mid level budget movies. At this level CG tends to be unpolished and lazy and stands out like a sore thumb. And that's because it does take a lot of work to make it REALLY good, but far less work to make it 'ok', and 'enough'. These types of films used to have physical effects, and quite often you would watch them almost solely for these effects because they were creative and imaginative and wonderful. The way they worked with real objects to get around the limitations in budget are fantastic. The way they get around a limitation in budget for a film with CG is just to half cook the CG.

Even worse though is that because CG is so hard to do 'right' you get even films with insanely huge budgets containing CG that stands out like a sore thumb, where a physical effect would have been better.

*scifi *horrorshow

Adding video to channels (Horrorshow, Scifi) - requested by ant.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.