Support NeoGAF

[optimiss]

I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses for practical effects. I agree that they have their charm but they are all almost universally fake looking when it comes to anything "living".

The best CGI always looks better than the best practical effects in my experience. A well designed blend of both can blow either solo technique out of the water.

 

[mnannola]

Hobbit is the worst offender in recent times. Didn't see the third movie, but the first two movies have so many spots where the CGI is an eyesore and detracts from what the movie is trying to do.

Recently re-watched LOTR and I feel that the CGI in those movies holds up better than the Hobbit movies. Not sure why as I'm pretty sure WETA did both.

 

[Garlador]

Hobbit is the worst offender in recent times. Didn't see the third movie, but the first two movies have so many spots where the CGI is an eyesore and detracts from what the movie is trying to do.

Recently re-watched LOTR and I feel that the CGI in those movies holds up better than the Hobbit movies. Not sure why as I'm pretty sure WETA did both.

Because they used CG when it was necessary, not "just because".

A very clear example is that most of the orcs in LOTRs are actual people in make-up and actually there. In The Hobbit, they CG'ed the orcs and they look like cartoons.

 

[3N16MA]

Can't have this thread without Davy Jones.

 

[Loxley]

Ooh, can we turn this into a "Good CG/Bad CG" thread?

Bad CG:

True story, I saw Tron Legacy with my dad and as we were leaving the theater he told me how amazed he was at how much the actor who played CLU looked like a young Jeff Bridges.

I blew his mind when I told him it was just a CG face on a body double.

Avatar is 8 years old and the CG in that movie is still insane. Will Avatar's CG ever look shitty?

Sure, when Avatar 2 comes out. Weta Digital are gonna kick their own asses.

Hobbit is the worst offender in recent times. Didn't see the third movie, but the first two movies have so many spots where the CGI is an eyesore and detracts from what the movie is trying to do.

Recently re-watched LOTR and I feel that the CGI in those movies holds up better than the Hobbit movies. Not sure why as I'm pretty sure WETA did both.

Weta Digital was stretched pretty thin during the production of The Hobbit films. Back during the LOTR days, they were only working on The Lord of the Rings, so they had enough time and resources to handle whenever Jackson came to them with last-minute changes or revisions to characters/scenes. Nowadays, Weta are working on seemingly a dozen films at any given time. The sudden split of the Hobbit movies from two films to three also increased the number effects shots they needed to complete by a considerable margin.

If you see a heavily CG'd shot in either DOS or BOFTA and it looks bad or unfinished, you can bet it was likely because Weta simply ran out of time.

 

[klausbert]

I think a much bigger problem today than CGI is cinematography. You could have a great movie with mediocre CGI if the cinematography is right.

 

[DrGonzo615]

I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses for practical effects. I agree that they have their charm but they are all almost universally fake looking when it comes to anything "living".

The best CGI always looks better than the best practical effects in my experience. A well designed blend of both can blow either solo technique out of the water.

The big problem I have is that 95% of the time the CG is very obviously CG and it feels like its not even in the scene. Practical effects, for all their limitations, are actual objects inhabiting the environment with the actors and I think that the audience can sense this. Not only that but you actually have a physical thing for the actor to react to instead of some floating ball that will become a monster in post.

I think Jurassic Park was probably the best example of blending both together though. Close up dinos got the practical effect treatment, while dinos at a distance are CG.

 

[maniac-kun]

Can't have this thread without Davy Jones.

One of the best effects to date.

 

[Lucumo]

I don't know, the mech scenes in Knights of Sidonia look pretty amazing.

Haven't seen that one but there is always good cancer and bad cancer.

 

[jett]

That was a nice vid.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Red Letter Media in their prequel reviews breaks it down a lot better, watching George Lucas and his team of people come together to make a trio of space opera epics in the original trilogy be reduced to a single cult of personality sitting with Starbucks in front of a greenscreen studio and watching actors dolled up in robes (that makes no sense within the Star Wars lore, but that's another subject for another time) try to put on a convincing performance to a giant wall of green - it was a shitton of over the top CG that the movie relied on as a crutch when everything else was falling apart, and it shows. The point is you simply cannot use CG VFX as a crutch to stand on.


Mad Max: Fury Road is heavy on CG, yes, but the film is constructed to maintain the viewer's focus and attention on the practical, the tangible, the real - and is paced and constructed in such a manner you don't take the time for your brain to pick out what's real and not real, for the vast majority of the film. That's why it's so effective - the CGI is a background element to enhance the overall picture, not be the picture itself.
.

So basically it's not CG itself, but how it's used just like any other tool.

 

[Rated-G]

Ooh, can we turn this into a "Good CG/Bad CG" thread?

Good CG:


Bad CG:

I dunno I think the latter is actually pretty good considering they showed examples of iterations even more convincing in the BTS material, and instead opted for what they referred to as the "unfinished" version because they wanted him to look artificial and have a subtle glitchiness, to fit his character as a dated and rampant program. They even put intentional moments of noticeable lag between the head and body movements, if you watch the neck, in scenes where he's supposed to be processing something, and showed versions where the head was a projection coming from his collar, sort of like the original teaser, sans helmet, and apparently opted against it because it was too much, and they liked the reactions of uneasiness the version they went with got from test audiences. Essentially neither the completed, or projected versions got the reaction they liked.

And damn, the rest of the movie still looks impressive.

I was trying to find examples, but the CG and scene extensions in The Lone Ranger are top notch, I think there's only one scene where the camera movement makes the "seams" obvious.

 

[Garlador]

I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses for practical effects. I agree that they have their charm but they are all almost universally fake looking when it comes to anything "living".

The best CGI always looks better than the best practical effects in my experience. A well designed blend of both can blow either solo technique out of the water.

The best practical effects always trump CG.

My humble opinion.

 

[Sephzilla]

The best practical effects always trump CG.

100% agreed. If you want a more recent example, see Mad Max Fury Road

 

[Gravidee]

A very clear example is that most of the orcs in LOTRs are actual people in make-up and actually there. In The Hobbit, they CG'ed the orcs and they look like cartoons.

There were still practical orcs used in the movies such as during the assault on Bard's house. Most people only seem to focus on Azog though, who is obviously not a practical orc.

 

[not_so_special]

im so tired of the CGI is a bad thing people

really fellas its cgi its not the problem,budgets,little time,bad directors,etc are the problem

mad max HAD a ton of cgi and people dont noticed

100% agreed. If you want a more recent example, see Mad Max Fury Road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6P9NILm7Hs

 

[Marty Chinn]

The best practical effects always trump CG.

My humble opinion.

I want to believe that but I'm not sure that's true. I'll just use Davy Jones for example. If that was 100% practical, I'm not sure it would look better than the CG version. In fact, I honestly think it might not look as good with the fluidity of his face.

 

[Loxley]

There were still practical orcs used in the movies such as during the assault on Bard's house. Most people only seem to focus on Azog though, who is obviously not a practical orc.

Also, this whole notion that literally all of the CG in The Hobbit films is universally terrible is just classic internet hyperbole. I know they're a favorite punching bag for CGI detractors, but An Unexpected Journey in particular had a number of stellar VFX shots, aside from the chase sequence with Radagast and Azog's CG (although he'd been fixed by the time DOS came around).

You know what ruins a lot of the (otherwise good) VFX shots on the Hobbit films? The weird, ethereal glow filter that Jackson applied liberally in the final two films. It adds this layer of artificiality to everything and tends to just cheapen a lot of the effects. It's a real bummer.

 

[Salsa]

*District 9 and Davy Jones pics*

yeah the hyperbole of old CG that is supposed to be a good example of something realistic has been posted once again

video is good cause the actual "CG can be used in a realistic way" example is something like Zodiac, not fuckin District 9

 

[Garlador]

Also, this whole notion that literally all of the CG in The Hobbit films is universally terrible is just classic internet hyperbole. I know they're a favorite punching bag for CGI detractors, but An Unexpected Journey in particular had a number of stellar VFX shots, aside from the chase sequence with Radagast and Azog's CG (although he'd been fixed by the time DOS came around).

You know what ruins a lot of the (otherwise good) VFX shots on the Hobbit films? The weird, ethereal glow filter that Jackson applied liberally in the final two films. It adds this layer of artificiality to everything and tends to just cheapen a lot of the effects. It's a real bummer.

Clean room with a dirty sock analogy. The better some things are, the more the faults stand out.

 

[More_Badass]

Seamless CGI like the city backgrounds in Cloverfield and other movies is awesome

 

[jmdajr]

It's all one big computer.

Spoiler

I don't hate cg. It's tool that can be used good and bad.

 

[maniac-kun]

The best practical effects always trump CG.

My humble opinion.

You do realize that the T 1000 is cg?

 

[Lord_Balkan]

CGI is fine when done right, but horror movies are much more creepier and dirtier with practical effects. Everything is too clean and unnatural with so much CGI. At least for horror, practical effects hands down.

 

[Sephzilla]

You do realize that the T 1000 is cg?

You do realize that was a practical effect, right?

mad max HAD a ton of cgi and people dont noticed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6P9NILm7Hs

Mad Max used CGI to enhance what was already there, not straight up be a replacement for what's already there. This is the mistake I feel like happens too often in Hollywood these days.

 

[Sephzilla]

double post sorry

 

[Sinatar]

CGI needs to be treated like a tool in the toolbox. Use it when appropriate, use it to enhance practical effects. Using it as a crutch for everything sucks.

 

[More_Badass]

You do realize that was a practical effect, right?

So good

 

[whitehawk]

Avatar is 8 years old and the CG in that movie is still insane. Will Avatar's CG ever look shitty?

Where did you get 8? It's 6 years old later this year.

 

[Garlador]

You do realize that the T 1000 is cg?

You do realize that was a practical effect, right?

I was hoping someone was going to mention the T1000 and think it was CG. It was SUCH a great practical effect.

 

[More_Badass]

Although great CG can be amazing

Like I always the jeep here was real. It's not. It's CG

 

[Son Of D]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that all cgi is bad

I've seen some drive-by posts on Gaf of people saying that CG sucks/is shit.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

You do realize that was a practical effect, right?

Holy toledo.

 

[Rooster12]

What about that doesn't look real? If you told me that was animatronic, I'd believe you.

That looks real to you???

The FUCK?

 

[lastflowers]

You do realize that was a practical effect, right?

never knew that, awesome.

 

[NastyBook]

The best practical effects always trump CG.

My humble opinion.

Agreed.

 

[Son Of D]

Mad Max used CGI to enhance what was already there, not straight up be a replacement for what's already there. This is the mistake I feel like happens too often in Hollywood these days.

This is the way I like the most personally. Using a mixture of both practical and CG to get the best effect. Having them both complement each other.

 

[Purkake4]

This is the way I like the most personally. Using a mixture of both practical and CG to get the best effect. Having them both complement each other.

Agreed, it's too easy to go all CG and end up looking shitty, mix it up and don't overdo it.

There's no excuse for CG blood, ever.

 

[Zombine]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is one of those films where the CGI in the first 5 minutes is so jarring and cheap looking you may be ready to check out before it begins. Suddenly, and maybe people have other examples where this happens, the movie snaps right in place and it has some of the best CGI facial expressions I've ever seen. Yes, you know you're watching CGI, but like this video states, once a film immerses you in its story you are willing to forgive the few faults it has.

I am still curious about the transition between the hunt and the rest of the film though.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

The big problem I have is that 95% of the time the CG is very obviously CG and it feels like its not even in the scene.

If you just watch movies without any additional information, the percentage of obvious CGI should be 100%. Also, all toupées look fake.

 

[Five]

The best practical effects always trump CG.

My humble opinion.

All of those could be done as well or better with CGI these days.

 

[More_Badass]

All of those could be done as well or better with CGI these days.

How or why would CGI make them better?

The fact that people thought T2 was CG like 20 years later pretty much disproves your point. The practical effects were so good that people thought it was CG

 

[Five]

How or why would CGI make them better?

Because they look like puppets.

The fact that people thought T2 was CG like 20 years later pretty much disproves your point. The practical effects were so good that people thought it was CG

I don't think that's a compliment.

 

[DrGonzo615]

Avatar is 8 years old and the CG in that movie is still insane. Will Avatar's CG ever look shitty?

The CG is hugely impressive but it feels like two different films to me. One film with actual actors and another thats a big computer generated cartoon.

 

[Shaanyboi]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that all cgi is bad

I see those arguments from time to time. Usually towards the dumbest things.

 

[More_Badass]

Because they look like puppets.

The atmosphere and weight of a physical presence in the environment and opposite the actors can't be achieved with CG.

Compare 80s The Thing to modern CGI The Thing

 

[optimiss]

The best practical effects always trump CG.

My humble opinion.

I would say they have charm out the wazoo but all look very fake. I think it is the wobbly/stiff movement (almost always one or the other). You can tell they weigh less than they are supposed to.

The only one of those that is really convincing is the Alien and that's because of all the dripping goo. That would not hold up nearly as well in CG.

Edit: The predator is really good too.

 

[Nerdkiller]

Greed, it's too easy to go all CG and end up looking shitty, mix it up and don't overdo it.

There's no excuse for CG blood, ever.

If you're forced to work on a tight deadline (particularly a TV show), CGI blood is almost a necessity, since the time required to reset a shot can be painfully long. Not that the blood ever looks good in the first place though (you'll never convince me that Walking Dead's blood looks appealing).

 

[ultracal31]

All of those could be done as well or better with CGI these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7_7dSbaOk

I don't....know about that

 

[jtb]

CG is fine. There are bad CG effects. There are bad practical effects.

Great CG can accomplish things that you can't accomplish with practical effects.

Anyways, you can't even notice CG in 90% of films these days, so the complaining about is usually overblown and misdirected.