Special Effects & CGI in Film

Started by Samas-adian5 pages

T3 was overloaded. But i still enjoy what CGI brought to it. Ex. the nuclear explosion and hunter-killers. I enjoy CGI to an extent. CGI humans or animals i dont like...but machinary i dont mind.

Originally posted by Colabee
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.

Another point well made.

No matter how much processing, re-processing and aligning, re-aligning etc they all do, the actors STILL don't look they are looking into the CGI characters eyes. For me that also destroys the whole thing.

And, for the record, I still think puppet Yoda looks ten times better than anything in the new trilogy. Yes, he needed to do all those flips and everything else, which would mean CGI would be useful - but in the close-ups and stuff, it's so fake looking. Puppets rule!

I was watching independence day yesturday i dont know why but the bit when they're trying to disect that alien and it comes alive and kills them all. Look at how incredible it looks. It was shockingly realistic and in jurassic park the T-Rex when its bashing those cars around, Its incredible.

Do film makers just say...ooo this is the new age lets use CGI. I mean if i went to a place where they make films, then i would probably understand how hard it is to make some things without using CGI but it doesnt make sense to me. Why the heck dont they just stop screwing around and use models?

I think one of the best bits of CGI use in Terminator 2. I liked how they used real robots in Terminator 3, but they went and ruined it with obvious CGI and TOO MANY CGI explosions and crashes.

I still think the T-1000 CGI is some of the best I have seen, mainly because it works so well, and they knew when to quit and use real-life props and actors.

It's getting that balance just right. Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park are probably the best examples I can come up with right now, on how to balance CGI with good old-fashioned techniques.

I thought of another example - Alien. The way they used real models in the first 2 and good old compositing, it looks so much more realistic than any of the CGI rubbish from the 3rd and 4th films.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
I still think the T-1000 CGI is some of the best I have seen, mainly because it works so well, and they knew when to quit and use real-life props and actors.

It is really good but i reckon independence day did it perfectly. They only used CGI on the stuff which would not look life like for instant the shields around the ships and the laser beams it shoots. But apart from that its all models and you just cant complain coz it looks just amazing.

But there is a mix for instance in starship troopers, and the mini ships in independence day, they used CGI to move the models and to change the models positions which is quite effective although while in movement, you can see the CGI surrounding it.

Yeah Independance Day was awesome.

Also, I love it when CGI is used in films that don't make it obvious at all.

I'm sure we've all seen The Rock, with the fighter jets at the end. My jaw dropped when I found out they were all CGI - they were so well editted into the picture I didn't notice.

Also - a quick thought here - has anybody seen Dog Soldiers? It's a completely low budget movie about werewolves, with mainly puppets and costumes. Compare the likes of this movie to something say, An American Werewolf In Paris, you'll notice the awful CGI a lot more, and real puppets look a whole lot scarier, because they actually look like they are on the set, and not just floating over it.

Yeh dog soldiers did it really well. I mean it was just a guy in a suit most of the time but it looked really good. Compared to when you see wolf man in van helsing. It would be like replaceing the zombies in 28 days later or dawn of the dead with CGI zombies there would be no point.

-=- Special Effects -=-

I do not really enjoy today's modern Special Effects, done by Computer mostly, It looks too Fake, i don't care what they can Acheive, I much rather the 80ies / late 80ies efffects Done with Rubber, A good Example of this is in the Movie "BeetleJuice" or the First "Evil Dead",

I'm sure youc an think fo other movies, Such as Alien, Where they sued Giant Scaled Models, And the Alien That poped out of the guys chest, IF it where done today, It would of been "Most Probly" Done on Computer, / Majorly Touched Back on Computer,

So i am Thankfull That it was not done today. Its Seems to me that with the explaoitation of computers, movies have septn more and more on The Special Effects, whichw as somewhat okaya t first, taking the most out of it, but Its time for them to wake up, "Its been done" Now work on the script, Which nowadays mostly Sucks.

That is why I rather Movies that have Less Effects but more Of A Good Plot, Like The MAnchurian Candidate, Wait Bad Example, its A Remake From And Older movie... Then Shawshank Redemption, Not really and Special Effects there now eh? Don't get me wrong, tehre are still some good movies with high Special effetcs throughout.. Like theReturn of the King And... Well eyah thats just about it (Star Wars has gone bad Not the same anymore) And Fight Club was only a bit in the bigining and in the end.

forgetting the Matrix are we? or how about Jurassic Park? Or Terminator 2? Computer animation looks much bettter than the methods they used in the 80's and it makes it much easier for them to make the movie they want to make.

I agree with both of you.

CGI is excess looks like absolute turd - look at the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequels for proof of sh*tty expensive effects.

Jurassic Park used a successful combination of anamatronics and CGI - same goes for Terminator.

Those movies were perfect because they knew when to use each method successfully, and were done with such mastery that you couln't really tell the differences.

Terminator 2 used CGI to show off T-1000, and that was it. Everything else was real. Real explosions, real stunts. It looked real.

The golden age of Special Effects is, in my opinion, now behind us. It seems as though people don't know how to use them efficiently any more. Look at Day After Tomorrow, they used CGI for common wolves, that's just plain lazy, and it looked fake.

The first Matrix movie was brilliant because it used brilliant stuntwork and choreography to drive the action scenes. In the sequels, however, they used CGI cartoony rubbish stuntmen and focussed a few of the major moves on them. It looked absolutely awful.

Lord Of The Rings is one of the few movies that managed to pull off a load of CGI scenes, but that was because there was very little alternative.

Used in correct moderation, they are both brilliant tools. Terminator, Jurassic Park, the Original Star Wars movies, Lord Of The Rings and the first Matrix movie all demonstrate how conventional effects and CGI can be used in perfect unison, sometimes having one and not the other and still pulling it off. Using CGI for dogs/animals and humans out of laziness is pathetic.

and the spiderman movies also did good with special effacts for the most part. except in 2, spiderman looked pretty bad.

Lord Of The Rinsg was Actually A Novel, A Series of Novels remeber?

First Jurassic Park , Well They Actually Made the Giant Brachiosaurous Head, adn they Actually Made A T-rex they used, Same for the Second one.

And don't think we Have Seen the Lasto F CGi, Tehre is going to be "The Mask 2" where there is a Baby that has all the powers of the Mask, And 90% of the time he is compleatly animated.. Urgh, I've seen the teaser:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/thesonofthemask.html

Okay so maybe jusy 75% of the time, Still attrosious..

As For Star Wars, Its Lost compleatly in the Big Ba-da-Booms, t went from A god Triliogy To a blockbusters.

I enjoy them very much , if they're done correctly and with alot of heart n soul.. look at how great matrix came out.. and lord of the rings?.. that was truely awesome.. I dont believe mere man-made props could have given that scale of war.

and I was looking at the Episode III teaser for starwars.. it doesnt look too bad actually.. I like how the clothing is geared towards episode IV (my fave star wars). and hey.. at least anakins stupid whining has turned into nothing but grunts and killing.. 😂

u didnt like the mask 2 trailer ?? it was hilarious didnt do much to advertise the movie IMO but it made me laugh ✅

I personally, am a HUGE fan of CGI animation...it worked miracles for the matrix, without which all you would see is wire fighting at a level barely above a yawn.

also shrek 1+2, the star wars episode 1,2+3, lord of the rings....the list goes on and on

my favorite though.....VAN HELSING....hell yeah

........special effects.........haha..........i dont care if it looks fake. sure, matrix was fake, and the more real the better, but still, neo and the million smith fight was awesome. VANHELSING FOREVER. I thought the first two star wars used the special effects phenominally. sure there are movies that could have done without it, like blade 2. which i loved, but one or two shots were funny looking. Lotr did a nice job. OOO OOO The Pearl Harbor special effects ruled too.

Originally posted by BlazingBarrells
. VANHELSING FOREVER. blade 2. which i loved, The Pearl Harbor special effects ruled too.

Three movies that sucked, really bad.

Originally posted by Curl_Up&Dye
(...)

also shrek 1+2, (...)

That was COMPELATLY CGI and if so I don't really care about it, beacseu well, its mean't to look fake... Fiona in Shrek one was made soo life-like the animators had to step back for her to fit in.

blade 2 what sick. solo, you know it. dont lie. yes, pearl harbor did suck, BUT the special effects were done perfectly, again, hence the thread special effects, not good movies with special effects.