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?
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...
travis-dane wrote:Maybe the thread should be renamed to "The Great CGI Debacle".....
Sorry to see two ZONERS go.
havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!
I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...
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...
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!!!
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.
Chairman Kaga wrote:travis-dane wrote:instant_karma wrote:I hear ILM are working on CGI replacements for both of them...
OH NO!!!
They of course won't be good enough.
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...
havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!
I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...
Leckomaniac wrote:havocSchultz wrote:Bah!!!
I'm gonna go over to THEhavocROOM and find out for sure...
shameless plug.
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?
Doctor Gonzo wrote:The rat that walks across the railing at the end of The Departed is actually CGI.
MDew wrote:Join the Anti-CGI Revolution! Make it stop, please! Let our voices be heard!
http://www.youchoose.net/campaign/the_a ... revolution
TheBaxter wrote:there is absolutely no reason or excuse for CGI blood.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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![]()
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bastard_robo wrote:Honestly, besides JP and maybe a few handful of other films, What has been good in CGI?
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.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests