pauljeremiah
Gold Member
The Giant Claw
"It's a big as a battleship."
but that wasn't CG, that was a puppet from Mexico.
The Giant Claw
"It's a big as a battleship."
Nothing beats Tron at how poorly effects have aged.
Another obvious victim of aging are '80s animatronics or effects like in The Thing.
Attack of the Clones
I think the episode 3 opening shot still looks greatEpisodes II and III look like PS2 cutscenes
Mustafar is the only part of Episode III is the only part that still looks decent
Yeah, I vividly remember thinking the CG people and clothing in that part looked bad right on release day. It also didn't help that the fight just went on and on. Probably the most disappointing effect in a high profile movie release for me, me and my friends were so hyped at the cinema.I remember thinking this looked terrible when it first came out.
Attack of the Clones
Another obvious victim of aging are '80s animatronics or effects like in The Thing.
Attack of the Clones
I disagree. Animatronics really didn't get any better, they were replaced (unfortunately, imo) by cgi. The Thing and Lifeforce are still spectacular. There are things to consider beyond photorealism, like craftmanship.
But that 'digital editing' is just odd. Editing shouldn't be about changing entire shots after the fact. You should have shot it correctly in the first place
The thing with animatronics and other kinds of practical effects is that the people working on the film were generally much more aware about the limits of what they could reasonably show off. So they adapted the whole filmmaking process with camera angles, lighting, etc to work in conjunction with that.
Attack of the Clones
Isn't a lot of the effects practical, like the mangalores faces?Threads like this always remind me of the opposite end of the spectrum, and how well The Fifth Element has aged despite releasing in the 90's.
I do this for a living too and seeing vfx-related posts in GAF is about the same as seeing the gaming side whine about 60fps vs 30fps. Basically, very uninformed bashing with little understanding of the actual subject.
Yeah going from that to this:
In 5 years is actually quite impressive as far as CGI milestones go. Fake pic of Michael Douglas actually looks more real than actual pic of Michael Douglas.
On topic, this makes me wince every time I see it:
But I can forgive it because the movie was made for like $5 by some Canadian trucker.
holy shit who thought that was good enough?
Man you can't call spoilers on a scene that the GOAT Dave Chappelle made 12 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ji1-BqaLaE
Batman vs superman in I am legend? Wtf.
Or is that a common logo?
Spy Kids movies had shitty visual effects even for the time though. I remember thinking how ugly it was as a kid.
I'm not saying every shot is perfectly convincing, but in general isn't the thing still considered pretty much the holy grail of practical effects? I saw it twice in the last couple of years in cinema and it still has a ton of impact.
Well he's already have the stormtrooper models on the computer for the big fancy shots, so it probably wouldn't cost much to reuse them.
But that 'digital editing' is just odd. Editing shouldn't be about changing entire shots after the fact. You should have shot it correctly in the first place
That gif from Attack of The Clones isn't even the worst CGI in that movie. In fact, compared to other scenes it's quite good:
This is by far the worst CGI in the film.
Tron looks so bad now
That is not noticeable when in motion.
IMO, there are very few films with CGI effects that look convincing. Even modern ones. In fact, i'd argue that many modern CGI fests look even faker than older movies trying to look convincing using CGI. Now they don't try to look convincing, they try to look impressive and flashy.
When CGI doesn't look like CGI or someone tells you that x scene was CGI and you didn't notice it the first time... that's when CGI is good.
If you have the DVD make sure you watch the "Making of" featurette. They put a RIDICULOUS amount of work into the effects on that movie, and I'm not just talking about the CGI stuff.
It was the logo of 2003's "Batman/Superman" comics series, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was used somewhere before that.Batman vs superman in I am legend? Wtf.
Or is that a common logo?
Yep, it was surprisingly noticeable at the theater. I kept trying to get into the scene but every cut to full CG Neo kept throwing me off. It was a legitimate disappointment at the time.Yes it is. Very much so. I remember seeing this in a theater thinking: What the hell is this?
I remember the first time i saw the movie back in 1993, i thought the brachiosaurus looked fake enough (but impressive nonetheless).Jurassic Park's Brachiosaurus doesn't look particularly "real" anymore, but it doesn't really visually stand out in a disturbing way. It matches the rest of the film rather well.
The bit I love is that the (still frame) film stock they used in one of the compositing stages varied between batches, and the batches were shuffled together before being used in production, which meant that when the frames were reassembled, the exposure would occasionally flicker to a brighter level. It was too late to fix it, so they added an *extra* SFX with a little bead of light zipping along a circuit in the background and added a "zzzzziip beep" sound effect, which made the overexposed frames look like they were the result of a bright light in the scene. Once you're aware of them, you see them happen all the time in the movie. Really adds to the atmosphere but was a complete accident
Bloom effects look like Oblivion