zero shift
Banned
Films work the best when they mix practical effects and CGI such as The Lord of the Rings or Mad Max: Fury Road.
Also, I don't buy the argument that "I can recognize CG, therefore CG is bad" either because, most of the time, you can clearly recognize practical effects as being practical effects. And there are plenty of great CG shots that are clearly CG, but embrace their own artificial-ness.
Fincher's been referenced a few times before, but it really can't be emphasized enough how smart his use of CG is. In stuff like the Social Network and Zodiac, it's all very cleverly veiled, but even when it's out in the open, it's never a problem.
The most iconic shots of Fight Club are all 1) dated, and 2) very clearly CG. The trash can, panning out from the brain to the gun, the airplane explosion, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the IKEA scene was heavily CG also. So what? They still are impossible to recreate otherwise and define the film.
Poseidon had some damn good CGI, even if it wasn't a good movie.
That looks fucking godawful.
Holds the Guinness World Record for most detailed model. 181,579 individual objects.
I can't properly convey how dumb that gif is without access to my PC, but trust me it's really fucking dumb.
I think this picture will never stop being relevant.
Films work the best when they mix practical effects and CGI such as The Lord of the Rings or Mad Max: Fury Road.
And it looks fucking godawful. Just look at that lighting.
I can't properly convey how dumb that gif is without access to my PC, but trust me it's really fucking dumb.
It will also never stop a lazy, misguided contribution to whatever discussion it's inserted in.
Holds the Guinness World Record for most detailed model. 181,579 individual objects.
Aren't you just a peach. I've contributed quite a bit to the discussion already.
But, fine, you want a more worthwhile contribution?
It's the embodiment, in short-hand, of the fallacy of relying solely on CG special effects to tell a story or a movie at the expense of the human element involved in the prior productions.
The original trilogy, not just through props and models, used tangible, physical actors and puppets to interact with the actors and actresses. They had something to actually see, something they could reach out and touch, something to respond to, something to fight, something to carry, something to act alongside with.
The prequel trilogy, replacing these elements with the endless sea of green screen, resulted in actors speaking into nothing, talking to nobody, responding to silence, and guessing what the "thing" they were talking to and fighting even looked like. The whole ordeal felt artificial because it was. It had countless, nearly infinite small mistakes or quirks that made your brain question what you saw and sucked you out of the experience nearly every single second of those prequel movies.
I'm not saying the original trilogy was perfect, but as an example of using practical effects, props, puppets, and ingenuity, it is a masterclass of doing so much with so little and making an ultimately more believable, emotional, and satisfying product.
The story of the prequels would have still sucked with puppets, but it would have felt largely less artificial with more sets, characters, and props there to ground it in reality instead of the endless cartoony sea of CG and unbelievable artifice.
There. Satisfied?
What you actually seem to be saying in this post is that you have no idea how many practical effects were utilized in the prequels.
NO.
I'm saying they used it in the wrong places, for the wrong things, where it didn't belong, for characters and scenes that would have benefited from practical effects rather than CG.
It was an over-reliance on CG that became a crutch they leaned too hard upon, and the crutch broke under so much weight.
It doesn't matter if the film was 99% practical sets and props (it wasn't... by far), if they misused CG, it would worsen the film and cheapen the movie. It would be less believable and throw up yet another barrier between the audience and the film itself.
Hot take: the opening space battle of Episode III actually looks really good.
NO.
I'm saying they used it in the wrong places, for the wrong things, where it didn't belong, for characters and scenes that would have benefited from practical effects rather than CG.
I think this picture will never stop being relevant.
Yep the prequel trilogy was literally nothing but cg.
Aren't you just a peach. I've contributed quite a bit to the discussion already.
But, fine, you want a more worthwhile contribution?
It's the embodiment, in short-hand, of the fallacy of relying solely on CG special effects to tell a story or a movie at the expense of the human element involved in the prior productions.
The original trilogy, not just through props and models, used tangible, physical actors and puppets to interact with the actors and actresses. They had something to actually see, something they could reach out and touch, something to respond to, something to fight, something to carry, something to act alongside with.
The prequel trilogy, replacing these elements with the endless sea of green screen, resulted in actors speaking into nothing, talking to nobody, responding to silence, and guessing what the "thing" they were talking to and fighting even looked like. The whole ordeal felt artificial because it was. It had countless, nearly infinite small mistakes or quirks that made your brain question what you saw and sucked you out of the experience nearly every single second of those prequel movies.
I'm not saying the original trilogy was perfect, but as an example of using practical effects, props, puppets, and ingenuity, it is a masterclass of doing so much with so little and making an ultimately more believable, emotional, and satisfying product.
The story of the prequels would have still sucked with puppets, but it would have felt largely less artificial with more sets, characters, and props there to ground it in reality instead of the endless cartoony sea of CG and unbelievable artifice.
It wasn't the CG itself... it was how it was grossly misused and served to replace things that would have benefited from practical effects.
There. Satisfied?
[IMG]http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-4/ksar-hadada-ruin.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/8jWuWLZjQAgIkG1ZTGpu2DsyHSDk4bH-rpYisbhIqatoCs9ZPUtNqwR-XgBav6t6E0KMfSfJr1AKMwdZz1UFwINAsukhC5wn/image014.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sep02/brave/images/image1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://s14.directupload.net/images/131229/7lcvwhk8.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140104/dukp3fjd.jpg[/IMG]
I do CG and 3D modelling for a living. I know first-hand the difficulties in making something computer-rendered pass for "real". It's difficult, largely because the human eye can detect fake-ness rather easily.And I'd be willing to bet that you, without researching first, could not accurately point out everything that was CG. I know that I've had people tell me "The worst CG in Episode * was *." and picked things that weren't CG.
Your strawman is in another castle. I never claimed it was nothing but CG. Please re-read my posts. I said the problem was an over-reliance on CG where it wasn't needed and CG that was supposed to work not doing its job.Yep the prequel trilogy was literally nothing but cg.
I'm very familiar with the sets and props that were made. Thanks for the refreshers.Here you go.
Small taste...
There's a lot more in the link. Have at it.
Even a physical set and practical effect can be ruined by unnecessary and poorly done CG, after all.
Fincher is the master of effects, so long as they're not the focal point of the frame.
Cameron is still the master of CG (and practical, for that matter).
It's been almost 6 years since Avatar and still nothing has topped it. Only Gravity has come close.
All of those could be done as well or better with CGI these days.
No they wouldn't. The CG would hold up for a few years max and then look like ass from then on. All of those practical effects have held up over decades.
The lack of practical effects isn't what made the new Star Wars films bad. Directors like Fincher and Cameron along with effects studios like ILM produce gorgeous stuff that stands up with some of the best effects of all time.
I like practical effects, but not everything was a John Carpenter masterpiece of animatronics or Jim Henson level puppetry.
Forget Davy Jones. Forget Avatar.
The new standard in CG was reached with Smaug, arguably the most incredible on screen depiction of a dragon ever. The detail, his facial expressions, the size/scale, the way he moves, none of that could have been accomplished with animatronics or any of the older movie tricks. CG, when done well, is fantastic. The Hobbit films are far from perfect, but Lord have mercy was Smaug impressive.
I have to say, if I didn't know better, I'd think Smaug here was animatronicForget Davy Jones. Forget Avatar.
The new standard in CG was reached with Smaug, arguably the most incredible on screen depiction of a dragon ever. The detail, his facial expressions, the size/scale, the way he moves, none of that could have been accomplished with animatronics or any of the older movie tricks. CG, when done well, is fantastic. The Hobbit films are far from perfect, but Lord have mercy was Smaug impressive.
No, but it did contribute to some of the terrible cinematography. Limited space for actors to move in green screen sets resulted in many extremely boring scenes.
https://youtu.be/ABcXyZn9xjg?t=1h20... in the use of both practical and cg effects.
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.
Did anyone currently engaged in an argument in this thread actually watch the video posted in the OP?
Or did we all just go screaming past the link in a rush to get in the same ol CG vs Practical fight we always get in?
[/IMG]
Yep the prequel trilogy was literally nothing but cg.
CGI is cancer to anime.
CG is just a medium. It can look great or terrible.
Great CG looks like this:
Terrible CG looks like this:
How about this?Haha what a terrible example. That CG is clearly outdated. Lighting looks terrible. Video game level.
CGI is great at doing anything. Good CGI is the result of years of work from a incredibly talented team with an enormous budget, budget being one of the biggest concerns because modern day CGI can literally be indistinguishable from real life. But things like horror movies don't have the budget for that. So when you see bad CGI, it's not because CGI is a terrible replacement for practical effects, and let's not pretend like practical effects is the end all be all, there's are hundreds of examples of bad practical effects in film that have aged poorly.Well yeah CGI is great at doing spaceships, I don't think anyone would advocate for spaceships to be done with practical effects when you can get much better results much faster with CGI.
Holds the Guinness World Record for most detailed model. 181,579 individual objects.