Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who do you think has better computer graphics?
For me it's Lord of the Rings! The new Star Wars movie has way too much noticeable "fake" CGI's. Also, I think they overloaded the whole movie with it!

I agree. Jackson knows that less is better. Lucas is a(edited, no need for cuz words - FINTI) idiot. By having too much CGI it makes the movie look just too fake. If yer gonna have a live action movie mixed with CGI, dont put more CGI in than actual humans, surroundings, etc. Star Wars looks like a Final Fantasy movie sometimes- CGI Clonetroopers?! Bad (edited) idea. They LOOK CGI!!! Thats not aloud. Lord of the Rings has CGI but Pete Jackson knows when to not use it. Lucas uses it cuz hes lazy or hes just stupid and thinks it looks real. Gollum looks amazing, Jar Jar and Yoda have CGI written all over their faces.

My vote: Nerd of the Rings

Yup. Lucas should learn the phrase, "Less is more". He definitely abused the power behind CGI.
Has anyone seen Jurasic Park 2 and 3? Compare those two and you'll agree that the dinosaurs in JP3 looks more real than JP1 or 2. Why? Is it better CGI technology? Not really. The director of the movie decided to go with more Anima-tronics rather than CGI's.

Well not all cgi in LOTR was good, the Ents sucked so in my opinion it would be both have good and bad cgi.
And for one who thinks you sure do a lot of analyzis.
Steve-O if you cant reply without using certain cuz words dont bother to reply at all, next time your entire reply will be deleted

Who's analyzing? Saying things like "I think there should be less CGI here/ there..." isn't analyzing. It's simply a matter of opinion. Analyzing would be like discussing why Anakin Skywalker has a *** tag and how characters in the Star Wars universe cut their hair.

lord of the rings uses special effects better, lucas just seems to do it just to show it off, where as jackson does it to enhance the story.

Well Two Towers had some moments of bad cgi, both films used the potential of the technology to the full. That is as advanced it is at present time. Golum was awesome though

Star Wars does far better digital characters. Whenever Legolas goes into CGI mode he sticks out very badly, whereas there are entire sequences in AOTC that I would not have known were computer effects had I not been told.

Less WOULDN'T be more for Lucas, whose entire raison d'etre for all this is to use technology to create an artificial world. If that is not your cup of tea then fine, but that is his approach and many appreciate it. In LOTR the approach is different, with almost all the scenery being for real, what with Middle-Earth actually being based upon this planet, after all.

Star Wars is still doing more and better things with cgi; the blanket approach may not appeal to all but it is still the better quality stuff.

i can't compare them...lotr has far less cgis then starwars. They're both very good quality, though they were a tad too predominant in aotc.
I can't say anything about TTT cuz i didn't see it yet, but comparing the big monsters, the arena scene in aotc was better immaged then the cave troll in fotr.

gollum looks better than anything GL has ever made, period. and i think the ents looked good. but still, SW has better CGI in general.

LOTR has the best CGI, but I personally feel Pearl Harbor has the best CGI for a film..... but thats just me!

got that right that it is just you

You can't deny that Pearl Harbor has nearly perfect CGI. I couldn't tell what was CGI. Everything looked amazing.

it's not that hard to get those results at todays tech .............and at their financial resources. But the lotr and sw cgis are simply harder to make for they represent fictional actions. (i'm not saying that there aren't war movies with bad cgis)

LOTR has the best cgi!

off course I can , it was good but not all

I'm for LOTR for computer graphics.. the only thing that was a little iffy in that movie was the ents in my opinion, everything else was great. And to tell you the truth... the second star wars movie... well lets just say it was a bit of a dissapointment... sorry to all those fans out there... but I still prefer the old style starwars...

Seriously, the CGI Legolas was VERY iffy! Likewise the CGI Boromir being thrown by the cave troll in the extended DVD scene.

It's ups and downs at who is better at what.

ilm claimes that Pearl Harbor is the best work they have ever done..even better than SW

They dealt with stuff they could study how they moved and stuff in PH, LOTR and SW deals with fantasy creatures that you have to make up how the movements are

Hmm... yup, Legolas CGI does look kinda unreal. Also with Treebeard picking up Merry. But overall I still think LOTR CGI's are better than Episodes I&II.
Just take a look at Anakin jump off that giant flea thing while impressing Amidala; looks really fake. Or how about the bite Amidala made on the floating fruit; simple scene still looks fake. And the whole battle at the end including the Arena makes me wanna puke. The actors look really detached from the whole surrounding.

The fat thing and the apple didn't work, no (DEFINITELY the apple which should not have passed quality control), but I entirely disagree about the final battle, which I thought integreated very well! And yes, LOTR is also deficient on seperation; the Treebeard bit looked as bad as a half-finished scene from AOTC (seen on the DVD)

Each movie does seem to have their own CGI flaws. I guess some scenes may just not really translate well to screen even if it were done by any of the special effects company.
I guess it really boils down to deciding which scenes will work better done in CGI or through other means (or not doing some/whole scene at all).

Every director has a large collection of tools to use in their movies these days; knowing when and how to use these tools proves to be the most difficult.

Neither of them can ever match up to the groundbreaking CGI in Final Fantasy.

Nah, I don't think so, that was good but flawed.

in final fantasy the people had stone faces...when they showed feelings they had stone faces

Clothing was very awkward as well.

the most awkward was that the movie sucked big time!

yeah, twas bad.

indeed,indeed and indeed!

yea absolutely no good
but sw or lotr I dunno both have good and bad things, I still think they are equaly good in the field of CGI

I disagree. Just compare Gollums facial expressions with any of the FF characters. It simply doesn't match up.
Square should just stick to what they do best. Making great RPG's.

star wars and no questions....

True, Gollum's facial expressions were amazing but his overall presence seemed fake. The colours were still evident of CGI.

Gollum was made.....great ! .better CGI then FF and SW

well all the people in the forum cant really talk about n e cgi being "crap" as i would like to see them do it better!

Huh, how is that pertinant? It is possible, and indeed valid, to be able to express an opinion of something without being able to do it yourself.

How many times has someone said a books was crap without being a writer?

How many times has someone sent a meal back in a restaurant without being a chef?

How many film or theatre critics have actually produced or directed a production.

Do I need to continue?

One of my tutors used to work for an effects company and he says technically, Star Wars is still better than anything and I agree with that.

Every movie with fx has some bad ones in it. I judge it on what blows me away and that's TPM and AOTC by a mile.

AOTC blew me away scene after scene and it's not just the big stuff like the Clone battle or the Arena Creatures. One of the best shots in the movie is when Anakin is on the cliff looking down at the Tusken camp and the only thing that's real in that scenes is Anakin.

ILM mixes live action, computer effects, models and matte paintings better than anybody.

you have a valid point i only came across this site doing research about cgi just wondered what everyones opinion is of it as a whole does cg i make things better or not if you know what i mean reply

I don't think CGI makes it better.
An effect is still an effect, it will never be real. But CGI just means you can do things that you couldn't do in the past.

Some CGI is awful but that's not because it's CGI. It's because the people who are using it don't know how.

It's the same with stop-motion. You look at old films and some of it is bad, then you see the good stuff like the Tantaun's in ESB or the Skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts.

CGI isn't any different.