CGI is cheating

*geek *engineering

Adding video to channels (Engineering, Geek) - requested by ant.

The movie looked way better than this test. Cool as this thing is it is still stiff and lifeless compared to what the film ended up looking like.
-Karl

I'm so completely tired of CG characters. I believe that's partialy what killed the Star Wars Experience in the new films.

When I was a kid, the magic came from the behind the scenes making of sets, ships and creatures. The CGI aliens just don't have that tangent real feeling. Sure they make a great stand in and I understand certain things just can't be done in reality but use the real Creature Creation wherever possible.

Use the green screen for sets and for group or far shots but at close up, Use Real.

Imagine if all the Orcs in LOTR were CGI. Sure they used CGI but they had a hell of a lot of actual guys in makeup and costume to sell it as well. I know, Gollum was CGI, wouldn't have been my choice but they did put a lot of effort into him.

I believe with today's technology for Real effects, Creature Creation (and added CGI where needed), they could make far more convincing characters where we would identify with them emotionally as well as visually.

Cheaper with CGI. Didn't used to be that way, but it is now.

Hells yes. Bet you don't even remember that Jabba the Hutt was briefly seen in The Phantom Menace.

Watching the animatronic Jabba in ROTJ you can "feel" his weight just by watching him.

But, the march of progress...Avatar sucked, but that CG was a triumph.

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm so completely tired of CG characters. I believe that's partialy what killed the Star Wars Experience in the new films.
When I was a kid, the magic came from the behind the scenes making of sets, ships and creatures. The CGI aliens just don't have that tangent real feeling. Sure they make a great stand in and I understand certain things just can't be done in reality but use the real Creature Creation wherever possible.
Use the green screen for sets and for group or far shots but at close up, Use Real.
Imagine if all the Orcs in LOTR were CGI. Sure they used CGI but they had a hell of a lot of actual guys in makeup and costume to sell it as well. I know, Gollum was CGI, wouldn't have been my choice but they did put a lot of effort into him.
I believe with today's technology for Real effects, Creature Creation (and added CGI where needed), they could make far more convincing characters where we would identify with them emotionally as well as visually.

I like cgi, but it is also the most hardest artform to shake off the "somethings wrong" factor. Avatar was indeed the best imo, the muscle usage and facial animation is the best I have seen.

As for legend, I had no issue with the CGI humans, and imo the above makeup test looks pretty bad. The eyes are clearly mechanical and blink at odd times. The CGI humans offered up a bit of a translucent type skin, also they showed a slimed down body design that only runway models could capture.

the problem with traditional makeup when used with monsters and aliens is that they can get pigion holed into 2 legged designs which is not realistic, or interesting.

the fake picard in wolverine was AMAZINGLY real . .... .

I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.

kceat, alien really was a work of art wasnt it. But they also didnt show many shots of it moving around, nore under bright lights. The majority of shots was of them getting shot up in sprays of acid and goo.

IMO, the best (and most imaginative) practical effects / creature(s) are in John Carpenter's The Thing. Hands down. Rob Bottin really out did himself on that one.

@ Sagemind - WETA is a superior effects company. I find it amusing that Peter Jackson started out baking alien masks in his mum's kitchen oven. Which reminds me, another great prosthetic effects movie is Braindead (aka Dead Alive).

ALL movie monsters need to squeal/scream less.

My favourite era for effects was the late 90s/early 2000s when it was really necessary to be choosy with use of CGI. I think the LOTR movies got the mix just about perfect.

>> ^kceaton1:

I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.


It occurred to me when I read this that there were 7 years between Resurrection and AVP, and there has now been about 7 years since AVP came out... god damn that makes me feel old. When AVP came out, I felt like Resurrection was a whole lifetime ago. But now I feel like AVP is still a relatively new movie..

My personal take: the problem with CGI and 3D anmiation (and it's only been exacerbated by the new trend in 3D moviemaking) is it gives the director too much control. Regarding camera placement, instead of employing traditional camera movement, now that in can be placed anywhere, it has been. We get these rollercoaster spins, pans, trucks and zooms that completely disorient the viewer. In "Tron Legacy", do I really need to see the light cycles in profile, hovering only 2 inches off the ground going 100mph to the right, only to vault over the bike and sweep around to the back of it to showcase another light cycle entering the fray? No. Just because you can place the camera inside someone's butt crack doesn't mean you should.

And with CGI, it gives the director too much leeway in exaggerating scale, movement and proportions. Perfect example: In Stephen Sommers remake of "The Mummy" Imhotep screams and his mouth artificially elongates. If you watch earlier in the film, it does so but only slightly, imparting a sense of the supernatural. But by the end of the film, his screams become so overly done, it comes across as comic and bufoonish, as if I was watching a Tex Avery cartoon. That's OK to do in Jim Carrey's "The Mask" because it calls for it. But not in "The Mummy", nor in "I Am Legend". The vampires in "I Am Legend" aren't threatening, they're evil monster meets Stretch Armstrong.

I like Aronofsky's approach to CGI: Use it as sparingly as you can, and only as a last resort.

I disliked the CGI in the movie and think this or something like it would have been much better. Also, I must have missed the part where turning into a cancer mutant gives you super powers like the ability to unhinge your jaw and such.

Remember this mask is being filmed as a document.
In real filming there would be atmosphere, makeup, film angles, panning, sound and all the little tricks and effects that would push this over the edge. It would look extremely real post production.

And that's not to say some CGI couldn't be added in Post. it would take very little CGI to push an already Real image over the top.
A much better option than just copping-out and going pure CGI

When CGI is used right, it is awesome. With new facial mo cap techniques it can even look almost lifelike. But yes there are certainly times (to often these days) that CG is used as a crutch to carry a film, such as the newer Starwars movies. Actors spent so much time on green sets where cars were just green foam blocks they sat on and they spend almost their entire time talking to nothing, it produced only bad acting and painfully unrealistic CG characters.

I think Avatar was a success because there was very little 'actor to cg' interaction. Most the areas were sets instead of green screen so actors could immerse themselves into their part much better. Sure there was plenty of green screen in the movie. The forest areas, riding on the raptors,etc but it was just the right mix.

I'm to much an old school B movie fan. If you can do something with actual sets and miniatures, with only CG where you really cant do it otherwise, you'll have a much better movie than actors spending all their time sitting on blue foam talking to empty space.

>> ^kceaton1:

I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.


Less is more!

I think Cameron's Terminator 2 is a good example of shrewd use of CGI where absolutely needed and no more. Watching the 'making of' stuff for T2, I was amazed at how things that I thought were obvious CGI were actually not.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^kceaton1:
I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.

Less is more!
I think Cameron's Terminator 2 is a good example of shrewd use of CGI where absolutely needed and no more. Watching the 'making of' stuff for T2, I was amazed at how things that I thought were obvious CGI were actually not.


Terminator 2 was awesome. Another good use was Jurassic Park. Man, that was one hell of an experience in theaters (both were).

Now imagine what I Am Legend would have been like if they had used the ending from the book instead of making up some Hollywood happy/crappy ending bullshit that didn't even make sense of the title. And now imagine what it would have been like if they hadn't got the gdmf Fresh Prince of Bel-Air to play Robert Neville. I simply cannot be tricked into believing that Will Smith is a military virologist.

Two words: Davy Jones.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'steve johnson, sfx, effects, horror, makeup, legend, will smith, i am' to 'steve johnson, sfx, effects, horror, makeup, will smith, i am legend' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Now imagine what I Am Legend would have been like if they had used the ending from the book instead of making up some Hollywood happy/crappy ending bullshit that didn't even make sense of the title. And now imagine what it would have been like if they hadn't got the gdmf Fresh Prince of Bel-Air to play Robert Neville. I simply cannot be tricked into believing that Will Smith is a military virologist.


I thought Smith's acting was phenomenal and the only good thing in the movie. I was really disappointed with the ending. How can you make I Am Legend and completely abandon the story?

>> ^jmd:

kceat, alien really was a work of art wasnt it. But they also didnt show many shots of it moving around, nore under bright lights. The majority of shots was of them getting shot up in sprays of acid and goo.


i think you completely misunderstand the art of film. Would you have been more impressed if you saw these shots? perhaps on a "detail oriented" scale. but from a movie going sense, a sense of mood, timing, suspense, and atmosphere? seeing more would be "seeing" less. In the same way that seeing less is "seeing" more.

Take jaws for example. The hitchcockian approach to the monster is what made you fucking scared. (granted that decision was largely due to the fact it wouldnt work half the time but its still a testament to the fast thinking directors mind that Spielberg has)

I'll never forget when i saw Aliens for the first time and during the Queen reveal scene i had a very serious holy-fucking-shit moment, and that bitch was made out of garbage bags and plastic. Conversely, watching Avatar just made me want to rewatch dances with wolves (or pocahontas)

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:


>> ^kceaton1:
I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.

Less is more!
I think Cameron's Terminator 2 is a good example of shrewd use of CGI where absolutely needed and no more. Watching the 'making of' stuff for T2, I was amazed at how things that I thought were obvious CGI were actually not.

Terminator 2 was awesome. Another good use was Jurassic Park. Man, that was one hell of an experience in theaters (both were).


Another more recent movie that has judicious but totally appropriate use of CGI effects is the Swedish vampire movie Let The Right One In.
When you're watching it, you don't really expect to see well done CGI effects (at least I didn't) so, when the effects are presented it has more of an impact, imo. Maybe it's because they don't promote it as an CGI effects laden movie, which it really isn't anyway. But, when you went to see Terminator 2, most likely you were going to see what cool CGI effects they did. I know I was. Same thing with Jurassic Park, we all went to see the dinosaurs. I was enthralled by both but, nowadays I prefer more subtle CGI.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

And now imagine what it would have been like if they hadn't got the gdmf Fresh Prince of Bel-Air to play Robert Neville. I simply cannot be tricked into believing that Will Smith is a military virologist.


You're right, they should've used Charlton Heston again.