Page 4 of 6

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:45 pm
by Al Shut
I goota give Winslow that

If one defines cinema soley as the art/craft of putting things on celluloid without any digital involvement CGI really is a bad instrument to achieve that.

For all other purpose it can be okay, depending on context.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:54 pm
by Fievel
The Vicar wrote:
instant_karma wrote:
Lord Voldemoo wrote:Banned WinslowLeach.

Next?


Quick! Somebody call Harry!! Moo's gone admin power crazy!!

(as we all knew he would)


WTF is this, some half-assed sequel to Raging bull?


I thought it was the sequel to Oliver Stone's new film "W".
:D

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:58 pm
by so sorry
Image


(OK, back on topic please!)

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:30 pm
by havocSchultz
If Papa and Winslow were actually banned, I hope Moo ushered them out of the forum himself and didn't just press a button to inflict said banning...

Cause in my opinion, that would be an impure banning otherwise...

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:36 pm
by Fried Gold
havocSchultz wrote:If Papa and Winslow were actually banned, I hope Moo ushered them out of the forum himself and didn't just press a button to inflict said banning...

Cause in my opinion, that would be an impure banning otherwise...

You would be a grade-A moron to think that all it involved was a few clicks of some buttons.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:37 pm
by havocSchultz
Bah!!!

I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:38 pm
by travis-dane
Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:42 pm
by instant_karma
travis-dane wrote:Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.


I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:44 pm
by Fried Gold
havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!

I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...

That's it, you just can't insult this guy. You call him a moron and he just stands there, grinning moronally.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:45 pm
by travis-dane
instant_karma wrote:
travis-dane wrote:Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.


I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...


OH NO!!!
:wink:

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:46 pm
by Chairman Kaga
travis-dane wrote:
instant_karma wrote:
travis-dane wrote:Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.


I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...


OH NO!!!
:wink:

They of course won't be good enough.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:48 pm
by havocSchultz
Fried Gold wrote:
havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!

I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...

That's it, you just can't insult this guy. You call him a moron and he just stands there, grinning moronally.


More on this later...

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:48 pm
by Leckomaniac
Chairman Kaga wrote:
travis-dane wrote:
instant_karma wrote:I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...


OH NO!!!
:wink:

They of course won't be good enough.


It just isn't the same. Personally, I am for "pureness" in the Zone. If they are hell bent on recreating those two, I would hope for it to be done practically.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:49 pm
by Fried Gold
instant_karma wrote:
travis-dane wrote:Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.


I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...

But what actual work will they have to do?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:49 pm
by Leckomaniac
havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!

I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...


shameless plug.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:52 pm
by havocSchultz
Leckomaniac wrote:
havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!

I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...


shameless plug.



We like our plugs to be pure in THEhavocROOM...
None of these CG plugs...
If you're gonna plug something...
Plug it right...



Is it more on than off...?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:54 pm
by Leckomaniac
This is going to get real ugly, real fast.

I just hope there isn't any CGI blood. It never looks real.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:59 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Fried Gold wrote:
instant_karma wrote:
travis-dane wrote:Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.


I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...

But what actual work will they have to do?

Virtually none. I just pressed the button for papa and now I have to take a break before pressing the Winslow button. Phew, I need a raise.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:00 pm
by RogueScribner
I don't hate CGI. I hate poorly utilized/rendered CGI. A crap effect is a crap effect, be it practical or digital. Why does CGI get so much more criticism? Because it can do things we've only dreamed of seeing in film and it can make us believe in what we're seeing. When that illusion is spoiled, when it's even more apparent that what we're seeing never should have made it to print, it's frustrating and it breeds contempt. Practical effects can blend into a practical environment seamlessly and even when they don't, well, at least they tried. But CGI? How DARE they not get it RIGHT every time???!!!

I think that's where a lot of it stems from. I can make allowances for a practical effect that didn't quite hit the mark, but it's a lot harder for me to make the same allowance for CGI. I'm not saying it's right or logical. It is what it is.




I miss all the fun.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:05 am
by Pacino86845
Yeah whenever I see poor CGI I wonder why the effects guys didn't click the "Add More Realism" button. :wink:

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:33 am
by Al Shut
Please press <b> for better.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:35 am
by RogueScribner
I thought it was <Del> for deliver.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:46 am
by Al Shut
Or maybe a lot of CGI is not very good because people are looking for the <any> key?

I think I#ll stop now

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:16 am
by Doctor Gonzo
The rat that walks across the railing at the end of The Departed is actually CGI.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:23 am
by Nachokoolaid
Doctor Gonzo wrote:The rat that walks across the railing at the end of The Departed is actually CGI.


Terrible shot. Almost ruined the ending for me.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:09 pm
by MDew
Join the Anti-CGI Revolution! Make it stop, please! Let our voices be heard!
http://www.youchoose.net/campaign/the_a ... revolution

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:11 pm
by tapehead
MDew wrote:Join the Anti-CGI Revolution! Make it stop, please! Let our voices be heard!
http://www.youchoose.net/campaign/the_a ... revolution


Welcome to the zone, MDew, I must say, I think I'll enjoy your optimism.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:41 pm
by TheBaxter
i can't be completely against CGI. if it weren't for CGI, there'd be no LOTR trilogy. there are a lot of things in movies that wouldn't be possible to portray on screen without CGI.
but i do wish they'd stop using CGI for things that could be, and for years and years have been, done better with practical effects. like blood, there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood. i would sign a petition to ban CGI blood.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:46 pm
by Chairman Kaga
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:35 am
by TheBaxter
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.


that's not a good enough excuse.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:39 am
by Fried Gold
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.

Even Sleepflower and I used CGI blood in our two minute short. Yet still managed to ruin a hardwood floor with my special recipe fake blood.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:03 am
by tapehead
Fried Gold wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.

Even Sleepflower and I used CGI blood in our two minute short. Yet still managed to ruin a hardwood floor with my special recipe fake blood.


Fuckit! I think I'm still on the lease there.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:36 am
by papalazeru
Fried Gold wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.

Even Sleepflower and I used CGI blood in our two minute short. Yet still managed to ruin a hardwood floor with my special recipe fake blood.


The new Zatoichi didn't look too bad and that was all CGI swords and blood. Of course there was some ropey moments.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:52 am
by Peven
TheBaxter wrote:i can't be completely against CGI. if it weren't for CGI, there'd be no LOTR trilogy. there are a lot of things in movies that wouldn't be possible to portray on screen without CGI.
but i do wish they'd stop using CGI for things that could be, and for years and years have been, done better with practical effects. like blood, there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood. i would sign a petition to ban CGI blood.


yeah, Bax has a good point. cgi has been a great boon in one respect, like the LOTR films, but it has ended up being over used. kind of analogous to make-up for a chick. they say the best make up job is one where she doesn't look like she is wearing make-up, only use just enough. bad cgi is like a chick using heavy blue eyeshadow and bright red lipstick, looks fake.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:44 am
by TheBaxter
Peven wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:i can't be completely against CGI. if it weren't for CGI, there'd be no LOTR trilogy. there are a lot of things in movies that wouldn't be possible to portray on screen without CGI.
but i do wish they'd stop using CGI for things that could be, and for years and years have been, done better with practical effects. like blood, there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood. i would sign a petition to ban CGI blood.


yeah, Bax has a good point. cgi has been a great boon in one respect, like the LOTR films, but it has ended up being over used. kind of analogous to make-up for a chick. they say the best make up job is one where she doesn't look like she is wearing make-up, only use just enough. bad cgi is like a chick using heavy blue eyeshadow and bright red lipstick, looks fake.


i prefer to compare cgi to fake b00bs. bad cgi is like a b00b j0b where they look and feel like overinflated basketballs with nipples that point up towards the sky.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:12 am
by Peven
TheBaxter wrote:
Peven wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:i can't be completely against CGI. if it weren't for CGI, there'd be no LOTR trilogy. there are a lot of things in movies that wouldn't be possible to portray on screen without CGI.
but i do wish they'd stop using CGI for things that could be, and for years and years have been, done better with practical effects. like blood, there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood. i would sign a petition to ban CGI blood.


yeah, Bax has a good point. cgi has been a great boon in one respect, like the LOTR films, but it has ended up being over used. kind of analogous to make-up for a chick. they say the best make up job is one where she doesn't look like she is wearing make-up, only use just enough. bad cgi is like a chick using heavy blue eyeshadow and bright red lipstick, looks fake.


i prefer to compare cgi to fake b00bs. bad cgi is like a b00b j0b where they look and feel like overinflated basketballs with nipples that point up towards the sky.


i wouldn't know, have never felt a boob job before :( :oops:

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:19 am
by papalazeru
TheBaxter wrote:i prefer to compare cgi to fake b00bs. bad cgi is like a b00b j0b where they look and feel like overinflated basketballs with nipples that point up towards the sky.


What about the poster to 'Herbie Fully Loaded',

They took those puppies down.....do you here me Bax?

They took those puppies down!!!

:( :( :( :( :( :(



:roll:

Erm, yes...a Dichotomy.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:31 am
by TheBaxter
Peven wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Peven wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:i can't be completely against CGI. if it weren't for CGI, there'd be no LOTR trilogy. there are a lot of things in movies that wouldn't be possible to portray on screen without CGI.
but i do wish they'd stop using CGI for things that could be, and for years and years have been, done better with practical effects. like blood, there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood. i would sign a petition to ban CGI blood.


yeah, Bax has a good point. cgi has been a great boon in one respect, like the LOTR films, but it has ended up being over used. kind of analogous to make-up for a chick. they say the best make up job is one where she doesn't look like she is wearing make-up, only use just enough. bad cgi is like a chick using heavy blue eyeshadow and bright red lipstick, looks fake.


i prefer to compare cgi to fake b00bs. bad cgi is like a b00b j0b where they look and feel like overinflated basketballs with nipples that point up towards the sky.


i wouldn't know, have never felt a boob job before :( :oops:


then you're going to the wrong strip clubs.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:04 am
by Spandau Belly
I tend to agree with the above. Not so much about Lord of the Rings, because I didn't really like that movie, but in that I think CGI is a tool and it's more a question of how and when you use it.

I think CGI is great for creating cities and animating spaceships flying around and stuff. It's ideal for non-organic creations.

It's even fine for living creatures sometimes, like when a creature is running around and stuff. But when you're looking at its face while it's talking, then you should switch to a puppet. I hated looking at that CGI Yoda talking in those Star Wars prequels. I'm also fine with a 50-50 approach, like a puppet where they enhance some of its lip and eye movement through CGI.

And yeah, CGI blood doesn't really make any sense to me. I vote to stick with squibs.

I will also add that these Robert Zemekis movies creep me the hell out. That trailer for Beowulf gave me nightmares. I don't know how people can stand to watch entire movies in that creepy living wax musuem style. I'm fine with animating humans in 3D, but do it in a stylized cartoonish way like The Incredibles.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:47 am
by Chairman Kaga
TheBaxter wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.


that's not a good enough excuse.

Wow you sure are a hell of a debater Baxter. By this logic why doesn't anyone just whip out "you're opinion isn't good enough".
CG has greatly sped up shooting schedules and freed up downtime between setups through minor things like CGI blood. Less downtime and more setups per day is good as it frees up revenue in the budget. "Oh no that fake blood that shot out of that guy is fake instead of another kind of fake". Why not complain that the blood is fake period and demand it be real?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:47 am
by papalazeru
Spandau Belly wrote:I think CGI is great for creating cities and animating spaceships flying around and stuff. It's ideal for non-organic creations.

It's even fine for living creatures sometimes, like when a creature is running around and stuff. But when you're looking at its face while it's talking, then you should switch to a puppet. I hated looking at that CGI Yoda talking in those Star Wars prequels. I'm also fine with a 50-50 approach, like a puppet where they enhance some of its lip and eye movement through CGI.


And the best example of this....Starship Troopers. Excellent use of CG over Space ship models, their layering worked a treat. The Arachnids were also very impressive and certianly had a presence and depth of size but the blood...was a little poor, espeically when the creatures went stabby stabby.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:57 am
by TheBaxter
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.


that's not a good enough excuse.

Wow you sure are a hell of a debater Baxter.


almost as good as you are at recognizing jokes.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:05 pm
by Chairman Kaga
TheBaxter wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.

It's more efficient during production on set as coverage doesn't have alot of a down time between takes to clean everything nor do you have to setup actors with squibs etc.


that's not a good enough excuse.

Wow you sure are a hell of a debater Baxter.


almost as good as you are at recognizing jokes.

Perhaps the thread's title needs to be changed then.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:14 pm
by MDew
TheBaxter wrote:i can't be completely against CGI. if it weren't for CGI, there'd be no LOTR trilogy. there are a lot of things in movies that wouldn't be possible to portray on screen without CGI.
but i do wish they'd stop using CGI for things that could be, and for years and years have been, done better with practical effects. like blood, there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood. i would sign a petition to ban CGI blood.


I'm with you there, that's about my feelings exactly on it. There are definite exceptions, like LOTR where CG was used in combination with miniatures and practical fx and it actually looked really good - and there probably wasn't any other way they could've achieved the shots without CG. However, as you said as well, they need to stop using CG to replace things that can be achieved more realistically by other, more traditional means. It just seems filmmakers are getting lazy and pushing the CG too far (eg. George Lucas) and I'm sick of looking at it! Fantasy and sci-fi movies I have less of a problem with, but what really bugs me is how it's used in action movies that are supposed to look and feel realistic.
The worst for me is digital stunt doubles, where they are trying to pass of a completely-digitally animated model as an actor during action scenes. They always tend to exaggerate movements way too much and it always stands out like a sore thumb.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:18 pm
by papalazeru
The problem is, I think, the over saturation of effects nowadays in lower budget films. There's tons where it's not neccessarily needed. There are so many middle of the road films which rely mainly of special effects to push the story through, whereas if they had a decent script, they wouldn't have to be so dependent on them.

I really hope that Clash of the Titans goes for a combination of models and computer graphics. Robo Harry Hausen Jr, please.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:20 am
by Retardo_Montalban
papalazeru wrote:The problem is, I think, the over saturation of effects nowadays in lower budget films. There's tons where it's not neccessarily needed. There are so many middle of the road films which rely mainly of special effects to push the story through, whereas if they had a decent script, they wouldn't have to be so dependent on them.

I really hope that Clash of the Titans goes for a combination of models and computer graphics. Robo Grande Rojo Hausen Jr, please.



Ugh... This post is so GOD damned boring. You know what it needs? Some flashy text, with all kinds of colors and fonts. Then a giant purple CGI dragon can fly in and maybe do some skate board tricks and a hot naked chick can ride it, yeah. Maybe a couple of dwarves singing around the edges with some smoke and mirror effects.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:24 am
by Gerald Fried
Retardo_Montalban wrote:
papalazeru wrote:The problem is, I think, the over saturation of effects nowadays in lower budget films. There's tons where it's not neccessarily needed. There are so many middle of the road films which rely mainly of special effects to push the story through, whereas if they had a decent script, they wouldn't have to be so dependent on them.

I really hope that Clash of the Titans goes for a combination of models and computer graphics. Robo Grande Rojo Hausen Jr, please.



Ugh... This post is so GOD damned boring. You know what it needs? Some flashy text, with all kinds of colors and fonts. Then a giant purple CGI dragon can fly in and maybe do some skate board tricks and a hot naked chick can ride it, yeah. Maybe a couple of dwarves singing around the edges with some smoke and mirror effects.

Your post is too silvery. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few CGIs in my time.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:36 am
by papalazeru
Retardo_Montalban wrote:Ugh... This post is so GOD damned boring. You know what it needs? Some flashy text, with all kinds of colors and fonts. Then a giant purple CGI dragon can fly in and maybe do some skate board tricks and a hot naked chick can ride it, yeah. Maybe a couple of dwarves singing around the edges with some smoke and mirror effects.


Bloody Purist. :wink:

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:16 am
by DerLanghaarige
bastard_robo wrote:Honestly, besides JP and maybe a few handful of other films, What has been good in CGI?


Dude, you would be surprised! There are TONS of great CGI effects out there - but you don't recognize them! And this is the point: People are always complaining about CGI because crappy F/X are easy to spot. So they see them and say: "Oh, CGI, this sucks." but they don't realize that maybe even in the same movie there are probably lots of invisible F/X shots. A good example (that just came to my mind) Is Spider-Man 2, where audiences complain about the fake looking CGI Spidey in some scenes but are surprised when you tell them that the shot of the drowning Doc Ock was 100% CGI. Maybe there are even some great F/X in Van Helsing.
(P.S. It's also strange that we have less problems with watching Stop Motion effects than bad CGI? I love Ray Harryhausen's work, but 'realistic' looks different.)

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:46 pm
by bastard_robo
DerLanghaarige wrote:
bastard_robo wrote:Honestly, besides JP and maybe a few handful of other films, What has been good in CGI?


Dude, you would be surprised! There are TONS of great CGI effects out there - but you don't recognize them! And this is the point: People are always complaining about CGI because crappy F/X are easy to spot. So they see them and say: "Oh, CGI, this sucks." but they don't realize that maybe even in the same movie there are probably lots of invisible F/X shots. A good example (that just came to my mind) Is Spider-Man 2, where audiences complain about the fake looking CGI Spidey in some scenes but are surprised when you tell them that the shot of the drowning Doc Ock was 100% CGI. Maybe there are even some great F/X in Van Helsing.
(P.S. It's also strange that we have less problems with watching Stop Motion effects than bad CGI? I love Ray Harryhausen's work, but 'realistic' looks different.)


I would say some of the best CGI was in DARK CITY....