• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Technically speaking whats the best CGI in a film today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JGS said:
Who couldn't tell Davy wasn't CGI?

Many people I spoke to regarding Avatar had no idea that everything but the people on Pandora was CGI. In fact, it's not even something you think about while watching the movie unless that's what you came to the movie to look for.
Click to expand...

Most people couldn't. Hell I couldn't and I have an eye for it. Not once did it cross my mind that he was 100% CG. I was mind boggled about that. With Avatar though, it's quite obvious in many cases that it is. The animals really stand out. The animation kills it in many cases. In fact I'd say that a lot of Avatar looks better in stills than it does in motion because of how the lighting and movement give it away that it's not real. The jungle however in most of the daytime sequences definitely looked great. At night it started to give away that it was CG, but daytime was great.


StudioTan said:
Mind pointing out the flaws in this? Aside from the abnormal size of the eyes, if you told someone who didn't know anything about Avatar that this was a person with makeup and prosthetics they would believe you.
Click to expand...

Like I said above. You can't do it in stills because stills look better than in motion.
 
Also, when Avatar 2 comes out and it's running at 48fps, all the haters' jaw will be on the floor.
 
Thread summary:

WETA Digital is fucking incredible. Between Avatar and District 9 they've shown they can do wonders no matter how much goddamn money they have at their disposal.
 
JGS said:
Who couldn't tell Davy wasn't CGI?

Many people I spoke to regarding Avatar had no idea that everything but the people on Pandora was CGI. In fact, it's not even something you think about while watching the movie unless that's what you came to the movie to look for.
Click to expand...


Yeah I have no clue where the Davy Jones argument works. Multiply that times 10,000 and you get what they accomplished on Pandora. They made a world and it worked.

In Pirates they made a pirate.
 
Loxley said:
Thread summary:

WETA Digital is fucking incredible. Between Avatar and District 9 they've shown they can do wonders no matter how much goddamn money have at their disposal.
Click to expand...

Planet of the Apes was insane too. Some of the monkeys I couldn't tell were CGI.
 
WrikaWrek said:
Arguments supporting Avatar seem so flawed to me, because CGI in Film is meant to replace reality.

That's basically it, the less you understand it as CG the better it is. Trowing a love letter to Avatar, is trowing a love letter to scale, not unlike throwing a love letter to FF CGI. It's big and impressive, but you can distinguish between real and cgi on the second. There's never any doubt.

Pirates? Man people had to LEARN about Davy Jones being CG.
Click to expand...
The only reason you could tell Avatar was CG was because there was no way it existed. It was obviously an alien world. That has nothing to do with the quality of the CG
 
krypt0nian said:
Yeah I have no clue where the Davy Jones argument works. Multiply that times 10,000 and you get what they accomplished on Pandora. They made a world and it worked.

In Pirates they made a pirate.
Click to expand...

Because it's not about quantity; it's about quality. It doesn't matter if they have 10,000 objects compared to one object if those 10,000 objects are clearly CG. The best CG is when you can't tell that it's CG; you think it's a practical effect, or it's real. That is why Davy Jones works as an argument because most people don't assume he was CG and if they do assume there is CG involved, they don't assume he's 100% CG.

thezerofire said:
The only reason you could tell Avatar was CG was because there was no way it existed. It was obviously an alien world. That has nothing to do with the quality of the CG
Click to expand...

Davy Jones doesn't exist but that fooled people.
 
As long as the CG work is consistent in the world presented, then I am never taken out of it.

You can argue all day about "well you know it has to be CG because so and so" but that leads to nowhere.

CG that takes me out of the movie = Crap like the mummy returns, or something similar.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Like I said above. You can't do it in stills because stills look better than in motion.
Click to expand...

In motion that scene is utterly convincing.
 
StudioTan said:
In motion that scene is utterly convincing.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it depends on the scene in Avatar. Some stuff looks great, other stuff not so great and it's jarring. Showing stills however won't do anything because it doesn't reveal the flaws that point out when CG is more obvious. Those flaws typically are about animation/motion, lighting, interacting with the scene, etc. A still never shows those things.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Because it's not about quantity; it's about quality. It doesn't matter if they have 10,000 objects compared to one object if those 10,000 objects are clearly CG. The best CG is when you can't tell that it's CG; you think it's a practical effect, or it's real. That is why Davy Jones works as an argument because most people don't assume he was CG and if they do assume there is CG involved, they don't assume he's 100% CG.
Click to expand...
Pirates 3 proved that (no wait LOTR did) that you can have a convincing side character that is entirely CG and it wont pull audiences out of the movie.

Avatar proved you can have an entire cast that is entirely CG and not only carry the movie but relate to audiences as well.

Quality, or quantity, Avatar still wins.
 
krypt0nian said:
Yeah I have no clue where the Davy Jones argument works. Multiply that times 10,000 and you get what they accomplished on Pandora. They made a world and it worked.

In Pirates they made a pirate.
Click to expand...
lol this. c'mon people, put down the hatorade and recognize accomplishment when it exists.
 
Obviously not NEARLY as good as everything mentioned in this thread, but I was really surprised when watching LotR on blu-ray and noticed how Gollum is really well made. Definitely hold up today:

jzUtN.jpg
 
Yoshichan said:
Obviously not NEARLY as good as everything mentioned in this thread, but I was really surprised when watching LotR on blu-ray and noticed how Gollum is really well made. Definitely hold up today:

jzUtN.jpg
Click to expand...

Nah, it always looked fake
 
StudioTan said:
In motion that scene is utterly convincing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look real.

It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a 2 feet or 10 feet character. Our eyes deceive us into believing something impossible is actually real. That's what happened with Davy Jones, I know that thing can't exist, but fuck it looks real, it could literally step out of the screen and just look part of this world.

Avatar looks like something that doesn't exist, it doesn't look real, and it doesn't fool me into believing it's real.

I don't get taken out of it because it's still so well done that you get fully immersed, but then so do you when you watch animated movies, you just take it a it is and forget that it doesn't look real.
 
The world in Avatar was impressive. I have never been impressed by the Navi.

When they started releasing the first few clips, my reactions went like this:

Me: "Yeah, it looks good. CG isn't too hot though."
Friend: "The entire jungle, the water, everything, is CG."
Me: "Oh goddamn!"

Different studios handled the backgrounds and characters, right?
 
Dead said:
Avatar proved you can have an entire cast that is entirely CG and not only carry the movie but relate to audiences as well.
Click to expand...

Toy Story proved that long before Avatar did.

This has nothing to do with how enjoyable or the amount of work that went into Avatar. I easily acknowledge the hard work and the effort involved with doing so much CG in that movie. I'm not even saying it isn't ever convincing either. The point is a lot of the time it's not convicing. It's not jarring enough to say fuck this movie, but it is jarring enough to say, yep that's CG.

Again, the best CG is when you never once consider it being CG. Davy Jones is an example of that. I'd even say some close up shots of the Clone Troopers in Episode 2. Avatar as a whole is not. Parts are. Daytime jungle for example, but man the animation and motion gives it away so often in a lot of scenes.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Because it's not about quantity; it's about quality. It doesn't matter if they have 10,000 objects compared to one object if those 10,000 objects are clearly CG. The best CG is when you can't tell that it's CG; you think it's a practical effect, or it's real. That is why Davy Jones works as an argument because most people don't assume he was CG and if they do assume there is CG involved, they don't assume he's 100% CG.

Davy Jones doesn't exist but that fooled people.
Click to expand...

Put it this way, if you kept all of Davy Jones' facial animation in tact, but changed the slimey octopus skin to blue Na'vi skin, people would immediately call it CG, no matter how good the animation was. The difference is we've seen what Octopus skin looks like in real life, but not blue skin.
 
StudioTan said:
neytiri-beautiful-warrior-in-avatar-wide.jpg


Mind pointing out the flaws in this? Aside from the abnormal size of the eyes, if you told someone who didn't know anything about Avatar that this was a person with makeup and prosthetics they would believe you.
Click to expand...

What is that black necklace with THRT on it? Is that supposed to be there?
 
Rengoku said:
Put it this way, if you kept all of Davy Jones' facial animation in tact, but changed the slimey octopus skin to blue Na'vi skin, people would immediately call it CG, no matter how good the animation was. The difference is we've seen what Octopus skin looks like in real life, but not blue skin.
Click to expand...

What? We've never seen blue skin before? Nobody has ever painted their skin? Hell we can point to movies with people in makeup to have blue skin. Come on now....
 
Suairyu said:
The world in Avatar was impressive. I have never been impressed by the Navi.

When they started releasing the first few clips, my reactions went like this:

Me: "Yeah, it looks good. CG isn't too hot though."
Friend: "The entire jungle, the water, everything, is CG."
Me: "Oh goddamn!"

Different studios handled the backgrounds and characters, right?
Click to expand...
No same studio
 
WrikaWrek said:
It doesn't look real.

It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a 2 feet or 10 feet character. Our eyes deceive us into believing something impossible is actually real. That's what happened with Davy Jones, I know that thing can't exist, but fuck it looks real, it could literally step out of the screen and just look part of this world.

Avatar looks like something that doesn't exist, it doesn't look real, and it doesn't fool me into believing it's real.

I don't get taken out of it because it's still so well done that you get fully immersed, but then so do you when you watch animated movies, you just take it a it is and forget that it doesn't look real.
Click to expand...

You say it doesn't look real. What about that still I posted doesn't look real to you? (Aside from the obvious anatomical impossibilities).
 
District 9 > Avatar

Avatar looks plastic. It's like the equivalent of spamming bloom and postprocessing on everything in games.

District 9 looks real through and through. And it's a ten times better film than Avatar.
 
zmoney said:
What is that black necklace with THRT on it? Is that supposed to be there?
Click to expand...

It's a communicator that Jake gives them for the last battle.
 
StudioTan said:
You say it doesn't look real. What about that still I posted doesn't look real to you? (Aside from the obvious anatomical impossibilities).
Click to expand...

It's a still. That screen looks amazing, but I've seen the movie 3 times now and in the movie it doesn't look that good. Maybe because it moves.
 
StudioTan said:
You say it doesn't look real. What about that still I posted doesn't look real to you? (Aside from the obvious anatomical impossibilities).
Click to expand...

A lot more CG would look real in stills compared to in motion. Using that accomplishes nothing. Why are we trying to eliminate the motion, physics, and interaction out of CG?
 
you're all wrong

ZODIAC, motherfuckers. (to a lesser extent, also Curious Case of Benjamin Button).

dh2yjd.png

Completley CGI.

sqjz2s.jpg

The original neighborhood of the murder wouldn't let the filmmakers in because they wanted to shed that history from their image, so they digitally recreated the entire fucking neighborhood.

Can't believe it was only posted once. Fucking sacrilegous.

Behind the scenes of the murder CGI and the opening shot of the San Fransisco waterfront.

That's right, they recreated the ENTIRE FUCKING WATERFRONT, just for a 10 second shot.

Good shit.
 
StudioTan said:
You say it doesn't look real. What about that still I posted doesn't look real to you? (Aside from the obvious anatomical impossibilities).
Click to expand...

Suspension of disbelief is not a selection; it comes in a package.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Toy Story proved that long before Avatar did.

This has nothing to do with how enjoyable or the amount of work that went into Avatar. I easily acknowledge the hard work and the effort involved with doing so much CG in that movie. I'm not even saying it isn't ever convincing either. The point is a lot of the time it's not convicing. It's not jarring enough to say fuck this movie, but it is jarring enough to say, yep that's CG.

Again, the best CG is when you never once consider it being CG. Davy Jones is an example of that. I'd even say some close up shots of the Clone Troopers in Episode 2. Avatar as a whole is not. Parts are. Daytime jungle for example, but man the animation and motion gives it away so often in a lot of scenes.
Click to expand...
Dont agree that its the same

Toy Story was still regarded as a childrens film, in the end it was simply animation and was never regarded as anything more.

Avatar not only got recognized and viewed as a live action film, as it wanted to be sold as, but even got audiences to cheer against and support the defeat of a clear analog to western military, in the US even, based off the strength of how well its CG world and characters were sold as "actual" live action material.
 
the walrus said:
you're all wrong

ZODIAC, motherfuckers. (to a lesser extent, also Curious Case of Benjamin Button).

The original neighborhood of the murder wouldn't let the filmmakers in because they wanted to shed that history from their image, so they digitally recreated the entire fucking neighborhood.

Can't believe it was only posted once. Fucking sacrilegous.

Behind the opening shot of the San Fransisco and the murders (also, partially CGI)

That's right, they recreated the ENTIRE FUCKING WATERFRONT, just for a 10 second shot.

Good shit.
Click to expand...

Zodiac has some good compositing done in it. Definitely a good example.

I'm solely in the belief that it doesn't qualify unless you couldn't tell it was CG to begin with. Just because it doesn't exist isn't an excuse for CG.
 
It's a toss-up between Avatar and PotC, but Davy Jones totally wins for me as there were moments in Avatar where it was very obvious.

Both though are incredible to watch.
 
The CGI in Transformers--especially the way lighting and reflections is handled glinting off metal and shining through fake destroyed buildings--is incredible. The building collapse in Transformers 3 was especially impressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

whats the best tasting sparkling water flavor
25
356
mopspear replied
The Fifth Element | My return to a fun film
2
59
479
ReBurn replied
Elden Ring film
7
211
Hyet replied
TimeOut’s Best Cities in the World 2026
2
80
1K
LyricalShrike replied
Amazon banned a book, it is now in the top 5 best seller list
2
55
546
delirium trigger replied
Top Bottom