WinslowLeach wrote: "They did this on a bunch of computers, its not really filmmaking".
WinslowLeach wrote:do you think the CGI based films will ever be regarded as classics or masterpieces?
tapehead wrote:I think it was Dino De Laurentiis in some thread recently who pointed out how well the CGI in Starship Troopers stands up 10+ years after the fact - and I agree, but if you look at say, the 'burly brawl' in 'The Matrix: Reloaded'... well, even when I saw that at the movies I thought it wasn't so crash hot - it's all a matter of good design and execution, don't you think? In any developing field there's going to be some trial and error, right?
havocSchultz wrote:the CGI in TRON still holds up pretty well too.... unfortunately the oscars at the time wouldn't nominate them cause they figured using computers for fx was cheating...
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:havocSchultz wrote:the CGI in TRON still holds up pretty well too.... unfortunately the oscars at the time wouldn't nominate them cause they figured using computers for fx was cheating...
Yeah, I remember reading that. Stupid academy putzes.
Although to be fair, Tron contained the first uses of digital in a feature film, rather than CGI - it was too early for any significant CGI. I think that honor goes to Young Sherlock Holmes. A lot of Tron's look came from them painting stuff onto the actual celluloid. It was a painstaking process - but I agree that it still looks cool even today.
WinslowLeach wrote:I also like Spider Man alot. The Hulk I didnt really like, I felt that was too fake looking. They tried, but it just didnt look right to me.
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:That's a funny you mention that, eh? I thought it was a quite a the opposite... the Hulk, he look a very real a to me, anna Spidey was a so apparently a the digital double... his a physics, they were alla wrong. Compare a the any scenes of a the Spidey 1 (anna 2, which was a better, but still not a quite a right) against the scene of a the Hulk inna the desert anna him beating uppa the tanks anna stuff, anna it's a not even a the contest, eh?
havocSchultz wrote:Young Sherlock Holmes - spielberg mentione dthat in the Jurassic Park special features (i got the cool 3 disc pack for xmas) and they showed the clip from it - he mentioned that was pretty one of the first uses of CGI - he also said after the Abyss - and even more so T2 - he realized that the alot of the dino shots in JP could be done by computers...
MasterWhedon wrote:CGI-happy filmmakers need to learn restraint. Just because it says on paper you CAN do something doesn't mean it will be executed okay, and it doesn't mean you should. Emphasis needs to stay on the story and away from the whiz-bang.
MasterWhedon wrote:Spidey 2 was a HUGE improvement over Spidey 1. There are a few missteps in both, but I think the train sequence in 2 is a work of art.
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:
Yup - and I think so far, Spielberg has used CGI in the way it should be used - to SERVE the story, not to BE the story!
Chairman Kaga wrote:Where do people get the idea that using CG is lazy? Someone please cite me an example of someone using CG in a film for a shot wherein they stated "We did this because it's easy". I can understand them stating some aspect was made easier or less costly ut I don't think any production would act as if it is a snap.
What CG gives the director on a film is one single tool that gives them essentially absolute control of everything within a shot. Is this level of control a bad thing?
Chairman Kaga wrote:Where do people get the idea that using CG is lazy? Someone please cite me an example of someone using CG in a film for a shot wherein they stated "We did this because it's easy". I can understand them stating some aspect was made easier or less costly ut I don't think any production would act as if it is a snap.
Chairman Kaga wrote:See MasterWhedon that is what I am getting at. Panic Room is a great example. It saved time and gave Fincher exactly what he wanted instead of settling on the best of a series of takes. But it was still not "Push one button" easy as people like to make the field seem.
Chairman Kaga wrote:
On a side note Cpt Kirks 2pay do you think fully animated films (be it Stop Motion or Traditional hand drawn or CG etc) are less "legitimate" films then live actions shot on location films?
Now, I think people have a problem with bad cgi moreso than bad miniatures, bad makeup, bad puppetry for a simple reason - if you see a bad bit of makeup or puppetry, yeah... you know it's not real. You think to yourself "ah, that's a puppet". (of course, movies ARENT real, and we all know that, but moving on...). But atleast with the bad puppet it was there, it was on set. It was physically real, a camera filmed it. With bad CGI, you know it's fake and you know it was never there... the actor talking to it was looking at a tennis ball on a stick, and it's just a computer creation. Nothing physical. So, I think it stands out alot more. But at the same time... come on, sometimes puppets and matte paintings and other techniques can look terrible too.
dimnix wrote:So what we have is a great relationship between the practical effects and the digital effects. We work together, and the end result looks great.
Peven wrote:there needs to be another choice for the poll. it isn't a simple matter of more or less or none at all, in my book anyway. it is a matter of application; high or low quality, what kind of story is being told, etc. for example, i like sugar, i like a lot in my dessert, some in my coffee, but not any on my steak, so a poll asking me if if i want more sugar, less sugar, or none at all would have to specify what i would be putting the sugar ON.(yeah yeah, i just ended a sentence with a preposition, so what) make sense?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest