Brain Bug <3 *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ponceleon.

Brain bug = original blue waffle.....?
Amazing work none the less.

These people, their job looks like it's a lot more fun than mine.

Vagina mouth....ew.

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

This movie was a good example of when to use CGI and when to use animatronics, and how to effectively use them together.

CGI is not always cheaper. Film producers learned that the hard way. Peter Jackson could have done every set in LotR or The Hobbit with CGI. Instead they build dozens of miniatures and models and animatronics, because it was faster and cheaper for some scenes than fiddling away for months with computer models and the right amount of virtual lighting.

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

*90s

Adding video to channels (90s) - requested by Trancecoach.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

IF SST was remade today - I'm sure 99% of bugs would be CGI now - but the animatronics still look better than today's CGI - IMO.

This is a good example of how to take a good book and shit all over it. Take some pages and wipe with them. Good effects though.

>> ^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

sweet JEBUS people, just like with everything, there is a human tendency to dive in too deep and too fast initially, then we figure it out, pull back a bit, gain perspective, and find balance.

the same thing is happening with CGI and the film industry.

for movie making that is ahead of the curve, IMHO check out Sherlock Holmes - Game of Shadows and District 9

@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.

>> ^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.

Prometheus looked great to me - in 3d. But so did avatar and it loses a lot without 3d.

I have to say when i saw digital yoda hopping around for the first time i burst out laughing. I think it looked utterly rediculous.

>> ^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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Just saw this in a special cinema showing here today. It really holds up well - as political satire - and the special effects are great. There was more CGI than I remember - but it's cleverly mixed with real models. And pretty damn good animation for '98.