Page 2 of 6

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:43 am
by doglips
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Next big one for me is Transformers in 2007. I'm hoping that Superman will use CGI a little more sparingly. I know there will still be a lot of it, but Transformers is going to be riding on the quality of its CGI in many ways.

Presumably they have a fairly simple origins story planned, which shouldn't be too hard to get right - do we know anything about the script for the actual movie yet?


Here you go dude!

Variety reports – and IGN FilmForce has confirmed – that screenwriter John Rogers (The Core, Catwoman) has been tapped to script The Transformers for DreamWorks and Paramount Pictures.
The project is a live-action version of the popular Hasbro toy, comic book and animated series. Swell Dude, Tom DeSanto and Lorenzo di Bonaventura will produce the film with Steven Spielberg executive producing.
The trade adds that " DeSantowrote the story that Rogers will adapt."

DeSanto wrote the story for X-Men, so that is a fairly good start I suppose......

Although some may see the Catwoman connection as a bad start I suppose........

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:00 am
by havocSchultz
thedoglippedone wrote:
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Next big one for me is Transformers in 2007. I'm hoping that Superman will use CGI a little more sparingly. I know there will still be a lot of it, but Transformers is going to be riding on the quality of its CGI in many ways.

Presumably they have a fairly simple origins story planned, which shouldn't be too hard to get right - do we know anything about the script for the actual movie yet?


Here you go dude!

Variety reports – and IGN FilmForce has confirmed – that screenwriter John Rogers (The Core, Catwoman) has been tapped to script The Transformers for DreamWorks and Paramount Pictures.
The project is a live-action version of the popular Hasbro toy, comic book and animated series. Swell Dude, Tom DeSanto and Lorenzo di Bonaventura will produce the film with Steven Spielberg executive producing.
The trade adds that " DeSantowrote the story that Rogers will adapt."

DeSanto wrote the story for X-Men, so that is a fairly good start I suppose......

Although some may see the Catwoman connection as a bad start I suppose........


although some may also see The Core connection as a bad start too i suppose...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:44 pm
by Chairman Kaga
ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Next big one for me is Transformers in 2007. I'm hoping that Superman will use CGI a little more sparingly. I know there will still be a lot of it, but Transformers is going to be riding on the quality of its CGI in many ways.

Presumably they have a fairly simple origins story planned, which shouldn't be too hard to get right - do we know anything about the script for the actual movie yet?


I wonder if it got canned though since Dreamworks was sold off.....

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:46 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I wonder if this following line will help solve the argument...

What do you prefer, fake breasts or real breasts?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:53 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Wouldn't it also help if people here narrowed what aspect of CG they don't like? I suspect most people when they think of "bad" CG think of a CG character composited into a scene with practical/live elements or of a live person interacting with a CG character or element. I doubt most people are complaining about set extensions, advances in compositing (perhaps the best thing since the Alpha matte), particle/smoke/cloud/water effects, crowd scene generation, difficult to impractical camera work generated via virtual sets, animatic previs etc etc.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:24 pm
by Neo Zeed
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I wonder if this following line will help solve the argument...

What do you prefer, fake breasts or real breasts?


Real all the way!

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I generally have a gripe when CG replaces something that could have been filmed pretty much with the same relative effort or maybe expense. Stunts, location shots, vehicles, fucking Clonetroopers (I'll never elt that one go) etc.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:46 pm
by thomasgaffney
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I wonder if this following line will help solve the argument...

What do you prefer, fake breasts or real breasts?


Selma Blair's breats in A Dirty Shame. A combo of fake and CGI. And fucking MASSIVE!

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:48 pm
by bluebottle
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I generally have a gripe when CG replaces something that could have been filmed pretty much with the same relative effort or maybe expense. Stunts, location shots, vehicles, fucking Clonetroopers (I'll never elt that one go) etc.


Right.

If the project has no $$$ and can't compose the desired effect naturally, then that is one thing. But if someone like Lucas, who has all the money in the world, just does it because it's 'easier' or 'neat' then it's pointless and indulgent.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:30 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Bluebottle wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I generally have a gripe when CG replaces something that could have been filmed pretty much with the same relative effort or maybe expense. Stunts, location shots, vehicles, fucking Clonetroopers (I'll never elt that one go) etc.


Right.

If the project has no $$$ and can't compose the desired effect naturally, then that is one thing. But if someone like Lucas, who has all the money in the world, just does it because it's 'easier' or 'neat' then it's pointless and indulgent.

Yet again how is it "easier" or "neat"? I assume based on what Rob Coleman and others have stated that the reason they went with CG Clone troopers is the same reason they went with an all CG Yoda to keep them looking consistent from shot to shot within the the same film. If they switched back and forth from a "real" puppet Yoda or stuntmen in clone armor to CG versions they thought it would be even more distracting to they eye.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:34 pm
by bluebottle
a good example is in Spidey 2. As posted above, Spidey himself was no where near perfect, he moved in ways that defied physics, and at times it was distracting.

But Raimi used a combination of puppetry and cgi for Doc Ocs arms, and i thought that was quite effective.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:39 pm
by Chairman Kaga
I completely agree about Docs arms.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:55 pm
by Nachokoolaid
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I wonder if this following line will help solve the argument...

What do you prefer, fake breasts or real breasts?


Depends on who is handling them, just like the CGI effects.

ZING!

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:16 pm
by tapehead
Bluebottle wrote:a good example is in Spidey 2. As posted above, Spidey himself was no where near perfect, he moved in ways that defied physics, and at times it was distracting.

But Raimi used a combination of puppetry and cgi for Doc Ocs arms, and i thought that was quite effective.



Cartoon physics aren't real-world physics - graphic novel lighting dynamics and physical world are almost always exaggerated, over the top, 'heightened' or strange - that said Spiderman2 was a great leap forward from the 1st feature - the train sequence and Doctor Oc and Spidey chasing each other up and down buildings- though not realistic, are the finest sequences in these movies so far

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:32 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I think one of the things that absolutely fucking sucks about CGI is Lee bloody Tamowhoree, the director of Die Another Day, and Along Came a A Spider.

His reliance on CGi is so unnecessary, as not only does he create scenes that don't need to be there, but scenes that look absolutely shite.

I don't just mean the windsurfing scene in Die Another Day (it might be a good scene to ad to thte film, if it worked) that looked absolutely fake, and why do a CGI Bond double when a stunt one or heh, even Brosnan would do, but the scene at thebeginning of Spider where that car chase is going on, and results in an OTT effect of a car spinning out like a cartoon then going unrealistically flying off the road.

1. There is no call for a car to go spinning out like over 10 times in a split second, any other REAL atunt would do.

2. Again, it looked shit! Unreal, like a cartoon, one of the most pathetic animated effects I have scen lately. It took you right out of the film, which up to that point had ben fairly gritty and engrossing.

Anyone else seen this scene or would like to comment on that windsurfing bit?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:47 pm
by dimnix
Lee Tamahori also likes to dress up like a woman and try to prostitute himself. He's a man of great skill and judgement.

I've met him, actually. He seemed like a bit of an asshole, a cocky vibe about him.

And yeah, I know the shot in Along Came A Spider. Horrible. And the Die Another Day stuff, especially the windsurfing... it's such ugly CG. yuck.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:20 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I think even Pierce Brosnan slagged the CG use in Die Another Day. God hope that Casino Royale doesn't have it.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:48 pm
by dimnix
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I think even Pierce Brosnan slagged the CG use in Die Another Day. God hope that Casino Royale doesn't have it.


Casino Royale should be fine. I've worked with Martin Campbell, and the man's a big fan of doing as many practical effects as possible. It looks like Casino Royale's just full of good ol' fashioned stunts, car wrecks and explosions.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:56 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Campbell may be a fan of realistic effects, but then again, how many times have I heard a director bang on about how his movie is gonna be free of such CG fakery only to find out that it contains much more than he said would be? On this occasion, judging from the trailer it does look like he is right though. Looks like a 70sish movie in many ways.

It'd be great if it influences such movies on the way that this kinda thing should be done wouldn't it?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:54 pm
by RogueScribner
From the R.I.P. thread:

Chairman Kaga wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:Well, you have to admit, there's a lot of cgi garbage out there. I'll take the shittiest practical effect over the shittiest cgi effect anyday.

The idea that one type of special effect is more worthwhile than another regardless of quality is ridiculous.


I prefer practical effects over computer generated ones. It's not about being worthwhile. There's a lot of great cgi work out there, but there's also a lot of crap. And I'm sorry but a crappy cgi effect is a lot more distracting than a crappy practical effect. I admire Winston for the work he did in making the fantastic "real". Far too often these days filmmakers choose to solve all their problems with cgi and oftentimes it can look downright cartoony. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying I have a preference for the practical effects because it's easier for me to make allowances for those effects over cgi effects that missed the mark.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:11 am
by bastard_robo
RogueScribner wrote:From the R.I.P. thread:

Chairman Kaga wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:Well, you have to admit, there's a lot of cgi garbage out there. I'll take the shittiest practical effect over the shittiest cgi effect anyday.

The idea that one type of special effect is more worthwhile than another regardless of quality is ridiculous.


I prefer practical effects over computer generated ones. It's not about being worthwhile. There's a lot of great cgi work out there, but there's also a lot of crap. And I'm sorry but a crappy cgi effect is a lot more distracting than a crappy practical effect. I admire Winston for the work he did in making the fantastic "real". Far too often these days filmmakers choose to solve all their problems with cgi and oftentimes it can look downright cartoony. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying I have a preference for the practical effects because it's easier for me to make allowances for those effects over cgi effects that missed the mark.


This is true, but then again, there are really shitty pratical FX's out there. Just like CGI, for every Jurassic Park, there's A SOUND OF THUNDER. For every Predator, there was a RAWHEAD REX.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:00 am
by judderman
I have to wonder, as everyone else has, about what Stan Winston's death means for the future of cinema. With James Cameron as usual dictating it, we seem to be moving ever closer to total animation, which means that by 2020 every blockbuster movie will be a cartoon. I am cautiously optimistic that eventually CG will achieve the standard of total realism that it has promised since 1991; we've come a long way, but there is still far to go. But the era of the monster-makers is over. The great FX men, the ones we remember through the ages, were all practical; Willis O'Brien, Ray Harryhausen, Bill Tuttle, Jim Henson, Rick Baker. I wonder, genius though he is, will we mourn so deeply when Denis Muren dies?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:13 am
by Chairman Kaga
bastard_robo wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:From the R.I.P. thread:

Chairman Kaga wrote: The idea that one type of special effect is more worthwhile than another regardless of quality is ridiculous.


I prefer practical effects over computer generated ones. It's not about being worthwhile. There's a lot of great cgi work out there, but there's also a lot of crap. And I'm sorry but a crappy cgi effect is a lot more distracting than a crappy practical effect. I admire Winston for the work he did in making the fantastic "real". Far too often these days filmmakers choose to solve all their problems with cgi and oftentimes it can look downright cartoony. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying I have a preference for the practical effects because it's easier for me to make allowances for those effects over cgi effects that missed the mark.


This is true, but then again, there are really shitty pratical FX's out there. Just like CGI, for every Jurassic Park, there's A SOUND OF THUNDER. For every Predator, there was a RAWHEAD REX.

I believe Rogue is being very generous with what he considers a crappy practical effect vs a crappy CG effect.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:16 am
by RogueScribner
See, I have no idea what Sound of Thunder or Rawhead Rex is. But I do know what RoboCop and The Mummy Returns is and I'll take ED-209 over Scorpion Rock, thank you.

Or on another point, for some reason, to my eye, the opening credits to the original Star Trek series looks more realistic than the opening credits for Babylon 5, yet about 27 years separate those two series. They're both television series using the technology they could afford and was available at the time, yet ST comes off better than B5. Models and paintings will always photograph better than computer generated art. Technology gets better, but it seems only the really high end stuff cuts the mustard these days whereas median value practical effects can be very believable.

Again, I'm not saying I hate cgi; there's some good examples of great work out there. But when it isn't great, I feel the end effect comes off worse in cgi than in a practical effect. Practical effects degenerate into stitled bits of steel and plaster. Computer generated effects degenerate into cartoons. Cartoons are more jarring in an live action environment than bits of steel and plaster.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:09 am
by havocSchultz
RogueScribner wrote:See, I have no idea what Sound of Thunder or Rawhead Rex is. But I do know what RoboCop and The Mummy Returns is and I'll take ED-209 over Scorpion Rock, thank you.



He's kinda like Pumpkinhead...if Stan Winston had nothing to do with Pumpkinhead...



For further reference, check out the Imp in Sorority Babes in the Slime Ball Bowl-A-Rama...
(there might be a brief, split second of NSFW-ness in the trailer...)

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:30 pm
by Chairman Kaga
RogueScribner wrote:Practical effects degenerate into stitled bits of steel and plaster. Computer generated effects degenerate into cartoons. Cartoons are more jarring in an live action environment than bits of steel and plaster.

I see what you are trying to get at but that's a huge oversimplification.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:43 pm
by Fried Gold
Ignoring the fact that there was no innernetting movie forums back then...

Do you think if this was 1967 people would be complaining Ray Harryhausen’s use of stop motion body doubles in One Million Years BC?

“OMGZ It’s just so obvious when that T-Rex eats that guy that he's not real and just a lump of plasticine"

Why do the "digital doubles" appear to bother current moviephiles?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:09 pm
by WinslowLeach
I think the big difference is the fact that the old films were all hand crafted, today a director can just have some guy on a computer press some buttons and add some CGI. Look at PJs King Kong. I still feel that that movie is the biggest CGI turd Ive ever seen. Id take the original and even the 1976 version over it anyday.

Watch the transformation scene in American Werewolf in London. Thats beautifully done live action in camera FX. Its not some simplistic CGI BS that pulls you out of the movie and that you forget.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:44 pm
by Chairman Kaga
WinslowLeach wrote:today a director can just have some guy on a computer press some buttons and add some CGI.

:roll: Perhaps if you had the slightest understanding of the medium you wouldn't be so dismissive about it. Applying your oversimplification to any art in film making I could just as easily state Cinematography is just pointing a camera at something and letting the camera do all the work, in camera matte effects are just slapping paint on some glass, makeup is just about throwing some blush on the actor's face, acting is just pretend, directing is just bossing people around, editing is just pushing some buttons on a computer...ad nauseum. Wow through that lens suddenly nothing in film is worthwhile because it's all just simple garbage.
Fried Gold wrote:Why do the "digital doubles" appear to bother current moviephiles?

Because current "moviephiles" enjoy picking everything apart and are about as educated as Winslow's above statement. They like to pretend that the computer does all the work while "a guy" presses some buttons and voila, instant CG. It's seen as a cheat for some reason.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:23 am
by RogueScribner
Fried Gold wrote:Ignoring the fact that there was no innernetting movie forums back then...

Do you think if this was 1967 people would be complaining Ray Harryhausen’s use of stop motion body doubles in One Million Years BC?

“OMGZ It’s just so obvious when that T-Rex eats that guy that he's not real and just a lump of plasticine"

Why do the "digital doubles" appear to bother current moviephiles?



RogueScribner wrote:Or on another point, for some reason, to my eye, the opening credits to the original Star Trek series looks more realistic than the opening credits for Babylon 5, yet about 27 years separate those two series. They're both television series using the technology they could afford and was available at the time, yet ST comes off better than B5. Models and paintings will always photograph better than computer generated art. Technology gets better, but it seems only the really high end stuff cuts the mustard these days whereas median value practical effects can be very believable.

Again, I'm not saying I hate cgi; there's some good examples of great work out there. But when it isn't great, I feel the end effect comes off worse in cgi than in a practical effect. Practical effects degenerate into stitled bits of steel and plaster. Computer generated effects degenerate into cartoons. Cartoons are more jarring in an live action environment than bits of steel and plaster.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:14 am
by Fried Gold
Babylon 5 is an odd one....watching it back there CG shots which still quite amazing, then there are shots which look like they could be improved nowadays using MS Paint. But then you have to consider that it was something of a pioneer in the field, so one might forgive it.

However, I have equally as many problems looking back to Star Trek's original visual effects - but again one can forgive it, because of the era, budget etc

...and above all because the stories allow you suspend disbelief for half-an-hour or so.

WinslowLeach wrote:I think the big difference is the fact that the old films were all hand crafted, today a director can just have some guy on a computer press some buttons and add some CGI. Look at PJs King Kong. I still feel that that movie is the biggest CGI turd Ive ever seen. Id take the original and even the 1976 version over it anyday.

Watch the transformation scene in American Werewolf in London. Thats beautifully done live action in camera FX. Its not some simplistic CGI BS that pulls you out of the movie and that you forget.

I would tend to agree with Chairman Kaga that this is a ludicrously dismissive statement to make. Not that I'm in any way an expert in the field, just from watching various documentaries on the subject it seems like massive amounts of work goes into, to paraphrase you, such "CGI turds".

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:21 am
by papalazeru
I think Luxo Junior should have been done with stop frame animation.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:26 am
by TonyWilson
I think the problem with CGI today (or certainly my problem with it) is that it can look astounding, but very often it looks shit.
I still go back to Jurassic Park and marvel at the way CGI is used there. Or with Del Toro's films - he understands CGI is a tool like any other and its purpose is to seamlessly blend with everything else in the shot, he uses practical effects and meshes them with CGI to find a balance that isn't distracting to the eye.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:19 am
by WinslowLeach
Chairman Kaga wrote: :roll: Perhaps if you had the slightest understanding of the medium you wouldn't be so dismissive about it. Applying your oversimplification to any art in film making I could just as easily state Cinematography is just pointing a camera at something and letting the camera do all the work, in camera matte effects are just slapping paint on some glass, makeup is just about throwing some blush on the actor's face, acting is just pretend, directing is just bossing people around, editing is just pushing some buttons on a computer...ad nauseum. Wow through that lens suddenly nothing in film is worthwhile because it's all just simple garbage.


If I actually thought that about films I wouldnt have just said that about the older FX artists who did things by hand. How the hell can you compare Rick Baker's genius to some computer geeks using programs to make a CGI image? It takes no actual artistic talent to do that stuff. It just takes computer knowledge.

Its the difference between creating a cartoon character from scratch by hand and some guy using a pre-made computer program that will make a cartoon character for you.

Peter Jackson sitting in a computer room on a couch eating chips n dip while some guys on 100 computers in a building whip up some crappy looking King Kong footage?

However you want to call it, I still think (most) CGI is lazy.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:22 am
by Chairman Kaga
WinslowLeach wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote: :roll: Perhaps if you had the slightest understanding of the medium you wouldn't be so dismissive about it. Applying your oversimplification to any art in film making I could just as easily state Cinematography is just pointing a camera at something and letting the camera do all the work, in camera matte effects are just slapping paint on some glass, makeup is just about throwing some blush on the actor's face, acting is just pretend, directing is just bossing people around, editing is just pushing some buttons on a computer...ad nauseum. Wow through that lens suddenly nothing in film is worthwhile because it's all just simple garbage.


If I actually thought that about films I wouldnt have just said that about the older FX artists who did things by hand. How the hell can you compare Rick Baker's genius to some computer geeks using programs to make a CGI image? It takes no actual artistic talent to do that stuff. It just takes computer knowledge.

Its the difference between creating a cartoon character from scratch by hand and some guy using a pre-made computer program that will make a cartoon character for you.

Peter Jackson sitting in a computer room on a couch eating chips n dip while some guys on 100 computers in a building whip up some crappy looking King Kong footage?

However you want to call it, I still think CGI is lazy.

That's because you are ignorant.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:24 am
by WinslowLeach
You can insult me til the CGI cows come home. I just dont really respect CGI computer people as much as I do artists who create things from scratch. I'll never look at a CGI movie like King Kong and be impressed. Sorry.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:29 am
by Chairman Kaga
No need to apologize. I'm merely stating you are ignorant of the process and the skills of the people involved to create the work thus your above statements that it takes no artistic knowledge or talent and the computer does all of the work. It's as ignorant to believe that the computer does everything in CG as to believe the camera does everything in a live action film. If you feel pointing out your complete lack of knowledge on the subject is an insult, too bad.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:33 am
by Pacino86845
But the only relevant distinction to be made is that the practical guys are actually playing with things by hand whereas the CGI guys are playing with computers by hand... except CGI is actually harder to pull off, ergo the need for much larger teams of effects specialists than is needed with practical effects. I mean, how can you say that a detonation expert is more of an artist than a guy who digitally paints a realistic explosion onto a scene from a film, and then animates said realistic explosion?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:41 am
by TonyWilson
Winslow, computers are very fast and very accurate and stupid, people are very slow and very inaccurate and brilliant. The computer only does what it's told and it's there that the talent for creating good CGI lies. It's the same place the talent for creating great practical effects lies. Both techniques require the skillful handling of tools to do the job and a large amount of creativity.

EDIT: Or what Pacino said.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:46 am
by WinslowLeach
Chairman Kaga wrote:No need to apologize. I'm merely stating you are ignorant of the process and the skills of the people involved to create the work thus your above statements that it takes no artistic knowledge or talent and the computer does all of the work. It's as ignorant to believe that the computer does everything in CG as to believe the camera does everything in a live action film. If you feel pointing out your complete lack of knowledge on the subject is an insult, too bad.


How am I completely ignorant about it? You think I dont know how those guys make CGI? They use computer programs right? What else do they have to do? Measure something or click on a button to add color and action? What exactly is so damn impressive about it? Wheres the people who use CGI to make me forget Im watching a fantasy movie? For all their talents and genius, they dont even know how to use it.

All that BS aside. It comes down to what the audiences/fans like more. Personally I think people are tired of constant CGI FX anyways. Regardless of how damn talented and artistic the guys who make them are. There is a certain lack of quality when youre watching CGI FX over live action FX. Thats just a fact at this point.

Show me a CGI artist that makes movies that impress me more than live action movies. You can't.

Theres also the fact that certain movies require CGI over live action. Of course if youre making fantasy movies, thats something else. But still, using CGI to get out of doing things in live action is another.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:54 am
by tapehead
I think what really proves each discipline is when we talk specific films - with contemporary CGI technique, when it's done well, only the most discerning eye will notice. I bet we can come up with a few films that will surprise people who think they are adverse to CGI. The other point worth mentioning is that FX artists have moved from practical effects to matte painting and compositing into CGI - it's not as though the Industry was suddenly overrrun with computer nerds, there's a progression (reading about the two brothers, John and Thomas Knoll, one of whom pioneered at ILM, while the other started Adobe photoshop is quite an illuminating anecdotal case in this regard).

CGI artists are artists with different sets of tools - they are still artists and designers.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 am
by WinslowLeach
I can agree that they are artists too, but still its just overall as a movie fan I dont respect them as much I guess. Ive seen guys making things on computers. I know they're smart people with artistic ideas, but then I'll watch King Kong and be like: Holy shit, PJ had 1000 diff FX guys working on this shit? Its sad to me.

Im not as a hardcore anti CGI person as I used to be though. I still think its gonna take awhile before CGI impresses me alot. I just dont really care that much about CGI. Its either used well or its not.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:02 am
by Chairman Kaga
Since you want to continue this....
WinslowLeach wrote:How am I completely ignorant about it?

You are laughably ignorant about it. It's obvious from your grossly inaccurate above statements. You don't like it and that's fine, no one in here is stating you should, but you want to spill that dislike of the medium over onto the people who create the work by stating that they are talentless, ignorant, do nothings which is not correct.
WinslowLeach wrote:You think I dont know how those guys make CGI?

I don't think you don't, I know you don't.
WinslowLeach wrote:They use computer programs right? What else do they have to do?

Creators of practical assets use cameras, right? What else do they have to do?
WinslowLeach wrote:Measure something or click on a button to add color and action?

You sure have summed up all computer use, it's all just measuring and clicking. I should alert the media.
WinslowLeach wrote:What exactly is so damn impressive about it?

To someone who knows about as much about CG production as a Gopher Tortoise knows about the Moon Landing, obviously nothing.
WinslowLeach wrote:All that BS aside. It comes down to what the audiences/fans like more.

Glad you admit your statements were BS. So all artistic merit is based on if the audience likes it or not? So movies that make the most money = the best quality, got it.
WinslowLeach wrote:Personally I think people are tired of constant CGI FX anyways.

So you are psychic?
WinslowLeach wrote:Regardless of how damn talented and artistic the guys who make them are. There is a certain lack of quality when you're watching CGI FX over live action FX.

Apparently a certain indefinable something you are not at liberty to divulge at this time.
WinslowLeach wrote:Thats just a fact at this point.

You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the definition of fact.
WinslowLeach wrote:Show me a CGI artist that makes movies that impress me more than live action movies. You can't.

When was I or anyone else in here trying to do that?
Now I demand you show me a six legged dragon that impresses me. You can't.

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:05 am
by WinslowLeach
Kaga: Are you an artist by any chance? Do you have any actual artistic talents? Can you do anything besides hang out in this forum arguing about how CGI is so great? Prove something to me other than youre a nerdy jerk!!

And WTF is up with your stupid "quote every line I say and reply" shit? You are an idiot! What is this? 8th grade?!

Look, if you arent a CGI artist yourself. You need to shut yer piehole I think. You dont know shit about anything to do with art.

To all you CGI artists: You guys are real talents. Im glad youre out there helping make great movies!! YEAH!!

:lol:

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:14 am
by Pacino86845
Now now, let's stay in debate territory, eh guys?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:16 am
by WinslowLeach
Kaga is wearing his I <3 WETA shirt, blasting the score from King Kong right now...

:lol:

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:17 am
by Chairman Kaga
You're hilarious Winslow, spewing grossly inaccurate "facts", whitewashing thousands of artists as talentless, making laughably poor guesses about other Zoners you attempt to "debate" all mixed in with a helping of angry defensiveness. It's very cute. Should this thread be retitled "I Spit on your CGI"?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:20 am
by WinslowLeach
Kaga: Youre just bitter cuz deep down you know I'm right.

The poll is at 44% LESS CGI btw. So I think the people have spoken.

You got nothin!! NUTTIN!!

Excuse me now Im going to go watch Doom.

:lol:

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:23 am
by Chairman Kaga
WinslowLeach wrote:Kaga: Youre just bitter cuz deep down you know I'm right.

Some more of that startling psychic prowess for which you are so well known.

WinslowLeach wrote:The poll is at 44% LESS CGI btw. So I think the people have spoken.

This proves that CG artists aren't artists and are talentless, how?

Re: The Great CGI Debate

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:24 am
by Pacino86845
Funnily enough Peter Jackson's Kong did make use of lots of practical effects... I remember reading somewhere that they shaved like 400 yaks to make Kong's fur. NOW STOP PICKING ON EACH OTHER!!!!