The Great CGI Debate

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

I want to see...

MORE CGI
18
32%
LESS CGI
22
39%
None, I hate it!!
3
5%
Don't bother me, I'm busy watching porn
14
25%
 
Total votes : 57

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:47 pm

Good CGI? That aids the telling of the story as opposed to taking you right out of the moment? Two words, my friends...

SIN CITY
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby tapehead on Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:58 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:Good CGI? That aids the telling of the story as opposed to taking you right out of the moment? Two words, my friends...

SIN CITY


Computer generated? I would Say no, as though no doubt digital compositing, rotoscoping and the like are used, film is the basis and the images are not generated on computer as such - special effects, yes, but CGI, no - there's a few cgi shots in there, but a lot of the film's look is achieved via more traditional means. There are no cgi characters in this film, for instance, though a couple of them are cgi-enhanced.

Dunno, maybe I'm just splitting hairs...
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Chairman Kaga on Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:41 pm

tapehead wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:Good CGI? That aids the telling of the story as opposed to taking you right out of the moment? Two words, my friends...

SIN CITY


Computer generated? I would Say no, as though no doubt digital compositing, rotoscoping and the like are used, film is the basis and the images are not generated on computer as such - special effects, yes, but CGI, no - there's a few cgi shots in there, but a lot of the film's look is achieved via more traditional means. There are no cgi characters in this film, for instance, though a couple of them are cgi-enhanced.

Dunno, maybe I'm just splitting hairs...

I think you are to a degree, though when people do complain about CG they are usually bemoaning a CG creature or character. Sin City was full of CG sets/set extensions much like 300 and I assume Watchmen will be. Based on the amount involved in Sin City I think easily more than 50% of everything on screen was CG as opposed to plates.
Go fuck yourself.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby tapehead on Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:10 am

Chairman Kaga wrote:easily more than 50% of everything on screen was CG as opposed to plates.


Wow really? I would have judged it was much less than that, but I guess it's been a long while since I watched it.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Chairman Kaga on Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:14 am

tapehead wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:easily more than 50% of everything on screen was CG as opposed to plates.


Wow really? I would have judged it was much less than that, but I guess it's been a long while since I watched it.

Mulling it over more I think I am concentrating on all of the exterior sequences. So my estimate is probably off.
Go fuck yourself.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:49 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:easily more than 50% of everything on screen was CG as opposed to plates.


Wow really? I would have judged it was much less than that, but I guess it's been a long while since I watched it.

Mulling it over more I think I am concentrating on all of the exterior sequences. So my estimate is probably off.


No, you're correct. According to the Sin City: The Making Of The Movie book which we have at work - and I had a peak in today - the majority of the film was shot on soundstages, with a few props and bits of scenery to help set the tone for the actors, then everything else was green screen. All backgrounds were green screen except for the bar scene. So well over 50% of Sin City is CGI, which brings me to the question - do either of you agree with my original point? :-P
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Chairman Kaga on Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:19 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote: do either of you agree with my original point? :-P

I've long since forgotten it.
Go fuck yourself.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:27 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote: do either of you agree with my original point? :-P

I've long since forgotten it.


Then it is of little relevance, sir.
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby tapehead on Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:48 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:easily more than 50% of everything on screen was CG as opposed to plates.


Wow really? I would have judged it was much less than that, but I guess it's been a long while since I watched it.

Mulling it over more I think I am concentrating on all of the exterior sequences. So my estimate is probably off.


No, you're correct. According to the Sin City: The Making Of The Movie book which we have at work - and I had a peak in today - the majority of the film was shot on soundstages, with a few props and bits of scenery to help set the tone for the actors, then everything else was green screen. All backgrounds were green screen except for the bar scene. So well over 50% of Sin City is CGI, which brings me to the question - do either of you agree with my original point? :-P


I still think it's much less tha 50%, and Kaga agrees with me. Shooting on a soundstage and green screen don't eqate to 'cgi'.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:54 am

So you guys are honestly saying that you would've loved Sin City if they'd done it all with practical effects? I kinda don't believe you, I think the point of the movie was that flat stylized comic book look.

But if you want a pre-digital effects type of comic book noirist film go rent Dick Tracy, but I'm guessing you guys will say the Madonna factor ruined that one.

Man, you fanboys are impossible to please.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby tapehead on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:15 am

Spandau Belly wrote:So you guys are honestly saying that you would've loved Sin City if they'd done it all with practical effects?


No - What I was saying is that a lot of the effects in Sin City don't equate to CGI (computer Generated images), but are rather more accurately Computer augmented shots, and indeed much of the aesthetic of Sin City could, in theory, be achieved with pre-digital effects such as chromakey, rotoscoping, plates, grading and so on. There's a lot more to the history of visual effects in the cinema than a; practical effects and b; cgi.

If I wanted a pre-digital effects comic book style movie I would probably go rent Dick Tracy, which looked very pretty, rather than say, Tank Girl, which looked largely like Ass, and was also a Movie that could have been cool, but SUCKED.

edit: Sepp chimed in while I was obessesively editing my post.
Last edited by tapehead on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Seppuku on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:17 am

Spandau Belly wrote:So you guys are honestly saying that you would've loved Sin City if they'd done it all with practical effects? I kinda don't believe you, I think the point of the movie was that flat stylized comic book look.

But if you want a pre-digital effects type of comic book noirist film go rent Dick Tracy, but I'm guessing you guys will say the Madonna factor ruined that one.

Man, you fanboys are impossible to please.


I don't think anyone here said that at all... Sin City was brought up as an example of CG done right! But I guess it's easy to see why you'd think they were slamming it, considering the conversation's going on in this thread.

Hrrm. I suppose I should really merge all this into the Great CGI Debate thread, but when it comes to having a Readable Thread VS having Everything In Its Right Place, I'd sooner go with option a. Ribbons?

(And I hate to break it to ya, but at 1600 posts, you're officially a fanboy too!)

EDIT: I went ahead and merged it anyway. Merging is fun.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby papalazeru on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:24 am

tapehead wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:So you guys are honestly saying that you would've loved Sin City if they'd done it all with practical effects?


No - What I was saying is that a lot of the effects in Sin City don't equate to CGI (computer Generated images), but are rather more accurately Computer augmented shots, and indeed much of the aesthetic of Sin City could, in theory, be achieved with pre-digital effects such as chromoakey, rotoscoping, plates, grading and so on. There's a lot more to the history of visual effects in the cinema than a; practical effects and b; cgi.

If I wanted a pre-digital effects comic book style movie I would probably go rent Dick Tracy, which looked very pretty, rather than say, Tank Girl, which looked largely like Ass, and was also a Movie that could have been cool, but SUCKED.

edit: Sepp chimed in while I was obessesively editing my post.


Exactly right. It's compositing rather than creating a fake virtual world which was to look real. It was to enhance the image, to fashion it to look like the comic.

They took real footage and altered it to replicate the film they wanted, as opposed to Tranformers where they took the explosions and fashioned the film around what they had :wink:
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:27 am

Sorry, I wasn't talking to tapehead, he did seem like he liked the movie.

My comments were directed to Worst Parts Almost Over who said that it took him right out of the movie.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Seppuku on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:31 am

Spandau Belly wrote:Sorry, I wasn't talking to tapehead, he did seem like he liked the movie.

My comments were directed to Worst Parts Almost Over who said that it took him right out of the movie.


Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:Good CGI? That aids the telling of the story as opposed to taking you right out of the moment? Two words, my friends...

SIN CITY


Damn that was cold, WPAO!

:wink:
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby tapehead on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:41 am

I THINK SO TOO!
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Movies that could have been cool but SUCK

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:11 pm

tapehead wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:easily more than 50% of everything on screen was CG as opposed to plates.


Wow really? I would have judged it was much less than that, but I guess it's been a long while since I watched it.

Mulling it over more I think I am concentrating on all of the exterior sequences. So my estimate is probably off.


No, you're correct. According to the Sin City: The Making Of The Movie book which we have at work - and I had a peak in today - the majority of the film was shot on soundstages, with a few props and bits of scenery to help set the tone for the actors, then everything else was green screen. All backgrounds were green screen except for the bar scene. So well over 50% of Sin City is CGI, which brings me to the question - do either of you agree with my original point? :-P


I still think it's much less tha 50%, and Kaga agrees with me. Shooting on a soundstage and green screen don't eqate to 'cgi'.

Tonight I will consult Cinefx and see if we can find out the definitive amount of CG environments used in Sin City.
Go fuck yourself.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:25 pm

Seppuku wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Sorry, I wasn't talking to tapehead, he did seem like he liked the movie.

My comments were directed to Worst Parts Almost Over who said that it took him right out of the movie.


Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:Good CGI? That aids the telling of the story as opposed to taking you right out of the moment? Two words, my friends...

SIN CITY


Damn that was cold, WPAO!

:wink:


Wink indeed! I don't know how I could've made it any clearer that I was saying Sin City was a GOOD EXAMPLE OF CGI USAGE.
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:34 pm

Taken from the Cinefx Magazine website:

"In Sin City, maverick filmmaker Robert Rodriguez shared directing credit with Frank Miller in a cinematic adaptation of Miller's graphic novels about a dark underworld of crime and retribution. Determined to match, panel by panel, the stark, high-contrast, future-noir look of his source material, Rodriguez turned to a trio of effects houses -- Hybride, The Orphanage and CaféFX -- to devise the film's highly stylized, signature look, achieved through a melding of greenscreened live-action and digital environments. Makeup effects to transform key actors into a host of gritty characters were the work of KNB FX"

Source Link

As I said before, the 'making of' book we sell at work makes it clear that much of the environments were computer generated. Will see if I can borrow the book from work so I can provide more detail.
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:59 pm

I think WPOA's point may have been confirmed by the confusion on just how much CGI is in the movie. My rule of thumb on CGI is that if a computer made it, then it is a computer generated image. I don't care how easily that chair in the corner could have been made with practical effects.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby King Of Nowhere on Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:21 pm

From what i've heard (interviews with RR etc.), the bar was the only set built & the rest was made via computer wizardry.
Doesn't RR film everything at his house anyway?
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Chairman Kaga on Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:14 am

The only house RR has is in Second Life.
Go fuck yourself.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby tapehead on Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:13 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:I think WPOA's point may have been confirmed by the confusion on just how much CGI is in the movie. My rule of thumb on CGI is that if a computer made it, then it is a computer generated image. I don't care how easily that chair in the corner could have been made with practical effects.


But there's a whole range of possibilities in between practical effects and cgi, which was part of my original point - it's not simply a matter of one or the other.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Spandau Belly on Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:53 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Seppuku wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Sorry, I wasn't talking to tapehead, he did seem like he liked the movie.

My comments were directed to Worst Parts Almost Over who said that it took him right out of the movie.


Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:Good CGI? That aids the telling of the story as opposed to taking you right out of the moment? Two words, my friends...

SIN CITY


Damn that was cold, WPAO!

:wink:


Wink indeed! I don't know how I could've made it any clearer that I was saying Sin City was a GOOD EXAMPLE OF CGI USAGE.


Sorry, I misread your comments.

I apologize and think Sin City is great.

But I don't give CGI that hard a time in general.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:59 pm

Sin City was pants.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:43 am

tapehead wrote:
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I think WPOA's point may have been confirmed by the confusion on just how much CGI is in the movie. My rule of thumb on CGI is that if a computer made it, then it is a computer generated image. I don't care how easily that chair in the corner could have been made with practical effects.


But there's a whole range of possibilities in between practical effects and cgi, which was part of my original point - it's not simply a matter of one or the other.


That's why I have to draw a line somewhere or else discussing the topic of CGI becomes moot. As a personal rule, you guys can figure out what you're arguing about any way you please.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:01 am

from the main site's article on AAWWIL remake:

I also received an email from a CG artist offended at what he views are attacks at his profession by little ol' me.


kaga?
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19196
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby max314 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:06 pm

Like any other filmmaking tool or technique, it's not the tool/technique that's to blame for its poor execution.

Just look at how shaky-cam is abused with little understanding of how to use it effectively.

Same thing.

PS
"Good CG" and "realistic CG" are not interchangeable terms.

To me, "Good CG" means CG that is visionary, that shows me something I haven't seen before in a WAY I've never seen before.

The "realism" argument is moot because there are plenty of non-CG effects through the years that have been less than 100% convincing, but are still awesome because of WHAT they are showing.
Weapon of MAX Destruction
User avatar
max314
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby DerLanghaarige on Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:27 pm

Just today I read another "article" (=blog from an uneducated nerd) who used this stupid "Before CGI the audience always wondered how the filmmakers did that" argument, to prove that CGI is the antichrist. Come on, buddy. The answer to "How did they do that" has always been "With Special Effects, duh!"
And IF you think that "making the audience guess how" is a valid argument about the quality of CGI, then you really MUST see the making of's on the Cloverfield DVD. You maybe think: "So what!? They filmed it and put a CGI monster in it." You will be surprised to hear that the monster was just ONE step of the whole process!
Image
User avatar
DerLanghaarige
Lohman's Wet Shirt
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby papalazeru on Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:38 pm

I don't know how or why I came across this thread but it's funny.

So, in memory of Winslow. Fucking Bump!

With 2012 now releasing in Cinema's and Avatar round the corner....is CGI still that important?
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:05 pm

papalazeru wrote:I don't know how or why I came across this thread but it's funny.

So, in memory of Winslow. Fucking Bump!

With 2012 now releasing in Cinema's and Avatar round the corner....is CGI still that important?


Same as it always has been. I think it's pretty important, when handled correctly, but it's not what defines a film. Even films that are created as CGI showcases.

It's interesting that you bring up these two films, though. They are, potentially, an interesting yin and yang in the CGI debate.

I saw 2012 (didn't bother to review it). 2012 is a good example of how far CGI, in and of itself, can take a film. In 2012, the spectacle of the CGI, the buildings collapsing, the 'splosions, etc., are cool for the first 20 minutes, borderline interesting for the next 10 minutes, somewhat boring for the next 30 minutes, and then downright tiresome after that.

I'm HOPEFUL (but far from convinced) that Avatar will show the opposite...just how much a great amount of CGI can ADD to an otherwise solid film.

Both are "CGI Spectaculars" but I'm hopeful that while one shows the limitations of CGI (even well-done CGI) the other will show CGI's ability to take a good movie to a level it would not have otherwise reached.

At the end of the day, though, the defining factors are still the writing, acting, direction, plot, on-screen chemistry, etc., etc. Without that base the film will fail, regardless of the quality of the effects.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:12 pm

I was watching a "making of" featurette about 2012 the other day and it's interesting how different directors use CGI.

Even though Emmerich seems to be criticised for heavy use of CGI, the featurette highlighted that it's only for 50% of the visual effects - clearly you can only destroy a city using a model, and computer graphics models are now the way to go. However, there are still loads of practical effects that need to be filmed to composite in to the CG model - why have someone build a photorealistic CG model of a car getting thrown about when you can just film a real car being fired off a air ram?

Christopher Nolan only used CGI in the Batman set pieces when it was physically inconceivable to do it using practical stunts. Yet other directors now seem to opt for CG and only use practical stuff when they're forced to.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:19 pm

With all due respect, a movie like Batman doesn't need as much effects as a SW or 2012 movie though. So it's easy for Nolan to say that.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:30 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:With all due respect, a movie like Batman doesn't need as much effects as a SW or 2012 movie though. So it's easy for Nolan to say that.

The point is that some directors may have more easily taken the option of using more digital effects for no reason.

Revenge of the Sith featured something like 32,000 individually rendered digital doubles and extras.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:20 am

Fried Gold wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:With all due respect, a movie like Batman doesn't need as much effects as a SW or 2012 movie though. So it's easy for Nolan to say that.

The point is that some directors may have more easily taken the option of using more digital effects for no reason.

Revenge of the Sith featured something like 32,000 individually rendered digital doubles and extras.


Yeah one reasons why I hardly worked on Attack of the Clones and The Phantom Menace and nothing at all on Sith! Or why I hardly work now!

Still only worked one day on Batman 1 and 2 as well as SW 1 an 2 though. So based on my career and me turning up in court to argue against your case, your theory is scuppered by my existence.

How can you explain your way out of that?
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby magicmonkey on Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:55 am

So much post-production is done on these movies that the CGI argument is essentially redundant now. The VFX pipeline is such that even shots you would never even conceive of being VFX are actually VFX, its just easier, safer to do it all in a computer. or use a computer to put it all together. It pisses me off too, but it is ultimately just a digital way based on practical effect techniques. A digital evolution as it were.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Rasputin! on Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:56 pm

I agree that too much CGI can be bad. But mostly its when its sloppy or not quite properly animated and it just looks fake, there is a lot of subtle nuance to the physics of motion when representing people or creatures that we don't consciously notice that we see, but is especially obvious when its not quite right. Filmmakers/animators seem to be getting the knack for using it to enhance live footage without being too obvious and as the art and technology evolves, so does the potential of the medium as an independent art form. I am definitely looking forward to the time when CG is indistinguishable from real film footage... eventually we can tell the studios to go f#ck themselves... Am I the only one who thinks the FAKE Green Lantern movie trailer looks like it would probably be a better movie than the one that's ACTUALLY going to be made by the studio? The studios want a comic movie to appeal to 12 year old girls, people who have no idea what a "Green-Lantern" might even be, and YOUR MOTHER... Seriously... How cool would it be to look for a bittorrent for a comic or game movie and see a couple hundred fan produced shorts and movies with DAMN GOOD production value? Movie studios would rather trick as many people as possible into paying to see a piece of shite than bother with the time and effort and resolve to make something that is true to its own artistic vision...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTiRnqnvDs
User avatar
Rasputin!
GLIB
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:27 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby papalazeru on Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:55 pm

Rasputin! wrote:I agree that too much CGI can be bad. But mostly its when its sloppy or not quite properly animated and it just looks fake, there is a lot of subtle nuance to the physics of motion when representing people or creatures that we don't consciously notice that we see, but is especially obvious when its not quite right. Filmmakers/animators seem to be getting the knack for using it to enhance live footage without being too obvious and as the art and technology evolves, so does the potential of the medium as an independent art form. I am definitely looking forward to the time when CG is indistinguishable from real film footage... eventually we can tell the studios to go f#ck themselves... Am I the only one who thinks the FAKE Green Lantern movie trailer looks like it would probably be a better movie than the one that's ACTUALLY going to be made by the studio? The studios want a comic movie to appeal to 12 year old girls, people who have no idea what a "Green-Lantern" might even be, and YOUR MOTHER... Seriously... How cool would it be to look for a bittorrent for a comic or game movie and see a couple hundred fan produced shorts and movies with DAMN GOOD production value? Movie studios would rather trick as many people as possible into paying to see a piece of shite than bother with the time and effort and resolve to make something that is true to its own artistic vision...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTiRnqnvDs


Are you just here trying to plug your fan made movie?

If you are, that's fuckin' weak. Really weak. And wank.
You seem to have started out so well, making a case Pro/Anti CGI but then you plugged the trailer.

And I have to say that your trailer that you posted fucking rocked 7 balls. The trouble is, I felt that everything you wrote before was to sell the 7 balls of shit out of your trailer rather than to actually discuss a film.

Maybe it's a spambot borrowing from another forum?
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:05 pm

Yeah and what if it's not?! Then you've really fucked up with welcoming a new member here, Papa. You, him/her and the Zone itself.

We don't know who this user is or how deliberate the linkage was.

Think before you go off at the deep end will ya? :roll:

Sorry, Rasputin, if you are genuine.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby papalazeru on Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:47 pm

Hey, I don't want to scare Rasp off. I like his posts, especially his comments concerning Lobo.

If it appears offensive, I'm not Rasp.

I'd worry more about Capn Shit stirrer_2pay.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Fried Gold on Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:55 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:With all due respect, a movie like Batman doesn't need as much effects as a SW or 2012 movie though. So it's easy for Nolan to say that.

The point is that some directors may have more easily taken the option of using more digital effects for no reason.

Revenge of the Sith featured something like 32,000 individually rendered digital doubles and extras.


Yeah one reasons why I hardly worked on Attack of the Clones and The Phantom Menace and nothing at all on Sith! Or why I hardly work now!

Still only worked one day on Batman 1 and 2 as well as SW 1 an 2 though. So based on my career and me turning up in court to argue against your case, your theory is scuppered by my existence.

How can you explain your way out of that?

With all due respect, a movie like Batman doesn't need as many extras as a SW or 2012 movie though. So it's easy for you to say that.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Rasputin! on Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:28 am

papalazeru wrote:
Are you just here trying to plug your fan made movie?

If you are, that's fuckin' weak. Really weak. And wank.
You seem to have started out so well, making a case Pro/Anti CGI but then you plugged the trailer.

And I have to say that your trailer that you posted fucking rocked 7 balls. The trouble is, I felt that everything you wrote before was to sell the 7 balls of shit out of your trailer rather than to actually discuss a film.

Maybe it's a spambot borrowing from another forum?


I'm a MACHINE, not a robot... and I ain't saying what kind!
Actually, I have no clue who made that video, but I agree on the 7 balls part... I gotta talk about a big budget studio movie to be cool?
Screw that! Neither of the Transformers movies can even touch Clerks II, Electric bugaloo!
User avatar
Rasputin!
GLIB
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:27 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:03 am

Are you the kind of 'machine' that you see many 'saleswomen' advertising on their own 'personal' modelling business? Like a pleasured Justine Joli who I have a link to in a 10 second per 3 sample clip right here...

ADMIN EDIT. Kirk, you've been told enough times about posting pronorgraphic links to in this place and how it result in you getting banned. The only reason why you haven't received the last PM warning from JL is that he is absent here, in answer to your previous questions suggesting our 'leniancy'. I'll post it here, and in public for everyone to see, if you post more links to pronographic content you will be banned.

--Pacino.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Rasputin! on Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:32 am

That's friggin hilarious... But back to CGI- in another 8 years you'll be able to get big name actor CG sim-app software packages to use as you please... Wanna see Schwarzenegger fill in for Ellen Barkin in "The Big Easy?" Done... Peter Weller's Robocop as Rhett Butler in gone with the wind? You're there... I'm gonna make a Jim Carrey Plastic-man MUGEN fighter to face off with sir Anthony Hopkins as the Super-Skrull... Its gonna be so ON!

Oh, and also on the pro-CGI side we have a little demon named "Ryuk" who, thanks to CGI was PERFECTLY translated from anime... If you haven't seen Death Note I could almost forgive you for not supporting more digitally rendered film elements... But who could say no to a face like this?
Image

Wow... What a handsome devil!
User avatar
Rasputin!
GLIB
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:27 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Pacino86845 on Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:36 am

I only watched the Death Note cartoon, are the live action movies really that good?
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:57 am

Bergman never used CGI in any of his movies and look how great they all were.

Sigh at Pacino and everyone else in this thread. Stop watching crap and go watch a real movie. Even if it's black and white, old, subtitled and you can't understand one frame of it but you still think it's the best movie EVEEERRRR!!!! - as JL and all top old farty critics internationally unanimously said so!!!

Awwrriii-iii-iiiggghhhtttt??????
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby papalazeru on Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:01 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Bergman never used CGI in any of his movies and look how great they all were.

Sigh at Pacino and everyone else in this thread. Stop watching crap and go watch a real movie. Even if it's black and white, old, subtitled and you can't understand one frame of it but you still think it's the best movie EVEEERRRR!!!! - as JL and all top old farty critics internationally unanimously said so!!!

Awwrriii-iii-iiiggghhhtttt??????


Ok, well lets take something like 'The curious case of Benjamin button' where the CGI is quite integral to the story?

Would you pick on something like that?
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:11 pm

papalazeru wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Bergman never used CGI in any of his movies and look how great they all were.

Sigh at Pacino and everyone else in this thread. Stop watching crap and go watch a real movie. Even if it's black and white, old, subtitled and you can't understand one frame of it but you still think it's the best movie EVEEERRRR!!!! - as JL and all top old farty critics internationally unanimously said so!!!

Awwrriii-iii-iiiggghhhtttt??????


Ok, well lets take something like 'The curious case of Benjamin button' where the CGI is quite integral to the story?

Would you pick on something like that?

The award for the Most Mawkish Visual Effects in a Motion Picture goes to....
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:35 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
papalazeru wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Bergman never used CGI in any of his movies and look how great they all were.

Sigh at Pacino and everyone else in this thread. Stop watching crap and go watch a real movie. Even if it's black and white, old, subtitled and you can't understand one frame of it but you still think it's the best movie EVEEERRRR!!!! - as JL and all top old farty critics internationally unanimously said so!!!

Awwrriii-iii-iiiggghhhtttt??????


Ok, well lets take something like 'The curious case of Benjamin button' where the CGI is quite integral to the story?

Would you pick on something like that?

The award for the Most Mawkish Visual Effects in a Motion Picture goes to....


That's case of invertedness of means to an end or the tools to make a house or something. Rather than unecessary effects put into a film, we have an unnecessary film with effects. So really, those effects needn't have existed as the call for them was rather tongueless as that story had nothing really to say about the nature of life or youth at the end of the day.

That movie was a 4 hour padded out exhaustion over a short story that F Scott Fitzgerald, legendary writer knew should have been nothing MORE than a short story, as someone of his stature and talent and legendary status could only be the best person to ultimately judge the merit of such a story could do! So don't you farking start in my head about what I KNOW I can do or what I can achieve you past voice in my head who I don't have place or reason or EFFECT, farking EFFECT in my life or my future of before I freaking DIE!!!, anymore!!! You can't tell ME!! What my life is about or what I can do with it or achieve, don't farking preach my fate to ME! My fate IS me!!! And I don't need no flipping voice to tell me how things should be, no matter WHAT philosophy that bloody film is trying to make up all on it's own and has NO authority to talk about, as 1. The people behind it have not lived their lives fully. And TWO!!! Fitzgerald hadn't either but still KNEW that what HE was dealing with, in the fullness of concentration upon those parables, KNEW that all their was to say, had already been said in his short story, and anything more would be 1. A betrayal of truth. 2. Excess. 3. Boring.

Benjamin Button was boring. YOU'RE boring. I didn't enjoy my time with you. I just, pretended. The short story of Button was true to it's fable. The film was pretence to being something more than it was. And boring. YOU'RE boring. I WANTED SOMEONE BETTER, DOGDAMNIT!!!!!! Fuck this life, I'm sick and tired of everyone telling me how to live my life. As when they do, they're making it worse. Like Button does. This false! Sense! Of security that things will work themselves out. They won't. They don't. Stop fucking living in a dream world in the clouds and shake yourself. There's no happy endings just because movies say so - and people DO think this is true as they DO fall for movies messages to a big and rather dangerous extent, even though they think they don't - there's just me. And I have to live with that. No - I have to MAKE a live out of that. HOW? Can I change my life when I am me? No, as I AM my life, I am my fate. No, I have to change ME. Will that work? Fuck off would it. As I CAN'T! CHANGE!! FATE!!! FATE will always intervene and CUT myself, my life, those in it, even though I fill in all the pigeonholes of what I am supposed to do, like a paper puncher on a computer. So even though I AM fate to myself. I am NOT! As fate is a force, a life, a POWER all by itself, controlled by God or not, and THAT will always intervene and control my outcome, for better or worse richer or poorer, Shania Twain or Madonna, so slayeth the Lord. So how can MY own fate, or the power that I AM - outwit and outdo that of the fate that breaths, that lingers, that lives, that LUUURRRKKKSS around me?!

How?!


HOW?!

That question has not been answered by me, for me, or to me by anything so far. And certainly not in movies, certainly not in Button.

So go fuck yourself and make me a decent film that does, and I don't no farking Jar Jar telling me how to do it, as he is symbolic of the patronisation of movies in preaching a happy fate that can happen for you too, regardless of who you are, that is to such an extent to be seen that rather than it not being true for all us few intelligent people out there, but it can furthermore backfire onto the proclaimer of such a statement, and the opposite can happen to this source.... it can result in an unhappy fate - death.

So don't watch movies if they're gonna be like this. Watch - out!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Great CGI Debate

Postby papalazeru on Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:50 pm

It amazing how quickly you swan dive when you realise that Avatar will ONLY be a special effects bonanza and nothing more.

No better than Transformers 2, Avatar is just trying to take the Sfx crown for more more more.

In fact, there's probably going to be a cute side character in there and Cameron is trying to recreate the toy franchise that Spielberg had, nothing more.

Proof that CGI can be used well - Benjamin Button, proof that CGI can be used too much - Avatar, proof that CGI can provide us with some of the greatest films known to man - Megashark vs Giant Octopus.

You stink kirk, about as much as you stand by an opinion.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests