Has CGI become any better looking in the last few years? For the most part, I don't think it has, since Titanic or Terminator 2 (one exception that comes to mind is Yoda in Attack of the Clones, with whom I think they did a fine job - too bad the movie was horrible, but that's another thread). Is it because 6-10 years ago, there were far fewer people doing CGI, and the ones that were doing it then were really good? One theory I have is that to make realistic movement, there should be a little bit of blurring, and they haven't pinned that down yet - everything looks too clean.
So, who else HATES THE CGI?
― Ernest P. (ernestp), Friday, 2 May 2003 05:35 (twenty-two years ago)
There are few films where I have found CGI effects that convincing... take Terminator 2 - the shape changing terminator never really looks "real" to me.
but anyway, bring back Ray Harryhausen.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 2 May 2003 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)
― Archel (Archel), Friday, 2 May 2003 08:48 (twenty-two years ago)
For me at it's best CGI looks like a moving matte painting. At it's worst like a video game. Rarely does it acheive seemless photorealism -- usually only in small touch ups, composits or things that are inanimate to begin with robots or the corportate are demolition in Fight Club -- there's a lot of CGI in films all the time that we never even notice because they pulled it off so well.
I was hpyer aware that the much priased Gollum was CGI, to the point of distraction. It was an admirable attempt, but something about it just felt off -- you know what it was -- he looked almost more realistic than the human actors. On the other hand Dexter Jetster (that alien in the "diner")in the sleep inducing Attack Of The Clones is one of the most convincing CGI critters ever.
I think the real problem could be that CGI is still basically in it's infancy and because it's digitally based that magical organic chaos factor that comes with stop motion or optical effects is missing. No matter how hard they try they can't replicate the that inperfect beauty.
How's that for an all over the map answer.
― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 09:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 09:24 (twenty-two years ago)
Didn't Gladiator win best special effects at the oscars? that was diappointing because it did look too real at all.
― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:19 (twenty-two years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)
― earlnash, Friday, 2 May 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)
i didn't like gollum though, i guess because i wanted the two towers to be non-cartoonish fantasy.
― j fail (cenotaph), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)
to me the early clunkier + less seamless cgi has already become a mini-golden-age unto itself. "Bad CG-Monsters I Have Loved": the Anaconda, the Relic, the Deep Blue Sea sharks, the alligators in Eraser.
people with unlimited budgets shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it though - like Lucas&co obsessing for weeks over weird minutiae like whether cg-yoda's mouth is suddenly too expressive. "Maybe he shouldn't have so much control over those M's and P's. Maybe we could x-ray Frank Oz's hand and incorporate the x-ray into the skeletal structure of cg-yoda's face. Or just his thumb, to keep that lower lip rigid for certain elongated vowels" I mean forest-for-the-trees man!! THE FILM YOU'RE MAKING IS INCREDIBLY BAD
also destroy forever: the cgi tunnel shot. recent offenders include sexy beast and donnie darko but the list is endless
― jones (actual), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)
― s1utsky, Friday, 2 May 2003 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)
Eraser... sweeeeeet. "You're luggage". That really was a thing of beauty. Eraser really actually groundbeaking for a straight action movie in it's own way in the way it used CGI to "enhance" images that would have been totally Steven Seagal without it. Charlies Angels Too looks to be taking a similar approach.
An Arnold flic without FX is like a Philly Cheese steak without the cheese. I'm gonna go rewatch TOTAL RECALL now...
― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)
― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)
― j fail (cenotaph), Friday, 2 May 2003 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)
― s1utsky, Friday, 2 May 2003 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)
today: wow next year: hmmm ten years' time: haha 20 years' time: aww 30 yrs' time: wow
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 2 May 2003 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)
But then there's Final Fantasy, which was too perfect and glossy (save for Dr. Sid and his amazing wrinkles).
― Leee (Leee), Friday, 2 May 2003 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― slutsky (slutsky), Sunday, 4 May 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)
cgi in "spider-man" is a cert for future "aww"ness: impossibly liquid motion when the green goblin is performing airobatics, but then he stops moving and there's this adorably clunky, chunky plasticy getup.
― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 4 May 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)
Are there any instances of CGI being intentionally disturbing/unsettling? I'm not talking about uncanny valley stuff unless it's on purpose. I was thinking about this with regard to the trailer for the Thing remake--there have been plenty of practical effects that have been scary/disturbing/creepy but I couldn't think of any CG examples off the top of my head.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 4 August 2011 17:16 (thirteen years ago)