Special Effects & CGI in Film

I dont care who did it, the point is it looked crap.

And what are you basing this on? Is there anything specific that was crap?

you mean from van helsing or LOTR?

Well the point is that it SHOULD have been done on models. Film companies pour literally thousands of dollars into special effects when models are cheaper and look more life like. I can give you some examples if ya like.

Terminator 2 the robots at the start are all models and look great. Starship troopers all the ships, aliens look amazing.

Idependence day. When you see the alien in the vault, the mothership, the mini ships, all models.

And they all look spectacular.

Now CGI, spider man have done just about the best job with it but you can still tell when its the actor and when its CGI.

this is all true but it is rather dificult to do something like all i can say is i'd like to see you try and do a better job .

Well thats not really the point though is it? I mean true i cant do better but the thread is about film compaines. The film companies should use Models coz they look better in films. Now you point would be valid if i was to say, the sprinter is well slow but not when your talking about companies decisions. Savvy?

🤣

i know that but you cann't complain about other peoples work when you can't do it yourself...it is a difficult thing to when your under pressure to get it done for the finish day......AND don't call me savvy...darling...

Lol ok savvy 😄 . Just for the record, im not taking the mick or anything, or im not complaing about their work im complaining about the decisions they are making. savvy?

i believe you ......darling.....but i have to admit the are some shite graphics out there in some movies....

AWWW i cant stay mad at you. Here have a burger. On me for $3.50. (£2.10). 😄

aaaw thnx i'll by the drinks....

Done

cgi has come a long way. the effects are quite realistic but not as real. the werewolves in van helsing could've been done by models (see underworld) but the stunts they pulled required cgi effects, much like the matrix. but for a ,pvie whose sole purpose is to entertain, i say it pretty much did what it was suppose to do...

CGI is great for spaceships and inanimate objects.

It isn't good enough to do living tissue like people just yet. That's why Van Helsing looked so fake.

Puppets and Anamtronics mixed with more subtle CGI looks incredibly realistic.

Jurassic Park, I think is the perfect mix between animatronics and CGI - because everything looks stunning and incredibly realistic.

I hate it in films like Star Wars and The Matrix when they replace the actor with some fake-looking CGI - that's just rubbish!

CGI hasnt mastered the human face yet. And when they do all those stunts, like the fight between Mr.Smith and Neo in Revolutions (in the air) it just looks really fake because we all know ppl cant do that.

rather freaky if they could...

Ah but you cant base fantasy or unrealism with CGI. As red superfly said, look at the T-Rex in jurassic park (the original) and look how incredibly realistic it is. Now they did a bad job in the matric when neos fighting agent smith in reloaded, changing from actor to CGI in a scene like that just doesnt work. It may have worked in spidey man but the CGI was incredible. I reckon CGI is good for still things like fantasy buildings or stuff that wasnt supposed to be realistic or something with a shape or form like a halucination or something. But yeh, the aliens in idependence day (when the guy who plays data in star trek dies) that alien looks really life like and thats what special effects are about.

😄 😄 😄

human cgi's movements are too fluid. real human movements are n ot like that. again as an example, the burly brawl. when the real neo fights, there is break in the movements, the cgi moves too smooth.

I didnt think that spiderman cgi was that good. It looked really fake to me.

I think the main problem is when film makers think "oh, computers can do everything these ays, we'll let them do all the work".

Look at the first Matrix - I think every single piece of special effects in the first matrix is ten times better than that seen in the sequels, despite the fact that Keanu Reaves et al went through ten times the training. Why? Because it used REAL stuntwork.

The Matrix sequels had some brilliant uses of CGI - the bit where Trinity is on the bike going up the wrong side of a freeway is a prime example of how to use CGI properly - because the cars (CGI) were going too fast to be noticed as fake.

The slo-mo sections in particular, give an audience waaaay too much time to go "now thats CGI" - like several bits of the Burly Brawl. The original fight between Neo and Smith in the subway, is for me, far more impressive, because it looks completely real - like it's truly happening, and therefore it's more immersive as a film.

The huge problem with CGI is that animators tend to make actions seem very "cartoony". Looking at certain obvious CG bits in Blade 2, Spiderman, and The Matrix show that the CGI "stunt-doubles" animate differently - too flawlessly and out of synch of the character, and the animations look too "bouncy", adding to a cartoony fake feel.

Not only that, but when CGI is "noticed" - it cheapens all of the REAL LIFE efforts for a particular scene.

Like in The Matrix Reloaded, there are some truly awesome fight scenes during the Burly Brawl, completely marred by pretentious and over-ambitions CGI, and the audience focuses on these bits rather than the GOOD bits.

I think some of the best uses of CGI have come from the likes of Terminator 2 (T3 was CG overload), and Jurassic Park for sure.

I know I much prefered the Star Wars puppets in the originals to the cgi in the prequels. Everything just seemed more real and believable. I so miss Yoda's little shaking ears when he hobbled along. It's easier for the actors too being able to see what they're talking to instead of a green screen.