CGI

GAAman

Am i the only one who is finding the use of "copy paste" cgi really annoying? I don't mean the likes of Avatar, Inception etc but the use of it in an almost insulting way in movies lately.

A few examples the Captain America movie, in the beginning he is short, skinny and basically a runt and after the transformation he is built like a brick s*ithouse, the only problem is that for the movie before the transformation scene it looks like someone copied and pasted the actors face onto a skinny body using windows movie maker (See first 30-45 seconds of video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J3HfllvXWE

Another one, i watched The Social Network last night and the "twins" in it are one actor recorded twice and looks cheaper than a 3 dollar hooker. Would it have been so hard to actually look for identical twin actors in america who are tall and blonde-ish???

Last one (i swear) this new movie called The Change Up, it is freaky friday meets big and not a hint of a rip off at all........no not even a bit! Judging by the tv trailer they paste the heads around because maybe they think people are too stupid to follow. Anyway keep an eye out on tv for the aforementioned cgi vomit i have the trailer below but being honest it is far more noticable on tv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-L2mO7GcM

Am i the only one bothered by this or should i just chill the f*ck out?

Sad Professor

I thought the effects used for the twins in TSN were really good. I didn't notice anything cheap about it.

chin_grin

As far as Captain America goes I heard they shot his scenes in front of a green screen then "skinny'd" him so it's not just his head on another persons' body.

The only latest movie that annoyed me cgi-wise was Green Lantern. Woeful.

Mickeroo

I think both what you mentioned in Captain America and Social Network were excellent and barely noticeable, particularly social network.

I'm pretty sure (but could be wrong) they don't swap heads at all in The Change-Up, you're seeing things that aren't there in that case imo.

GAAman

Sad Professor wrote: »

I thought the effects used for the twins in TSN were really good. I didn't notice anything cheap about it.

I have to disagree, there were a few scenes where they were sitting together and it looked really obvious to me

chin_grin wrote: »

As far as Captain America goes I heard they shot his scenes in front of a green screen then "skinny'd" him so it's not just his head on another persons' body.

The only latest movie that annoyed me cgi-wise was Green Lantern. Woeful.

I have to admit i thought it was someone elses body, but look at the trailer when he is trying to enlist it looks really ropey and not natural at all

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think both what you mentioned in Captain America and Social Network were excellent and barely noticeable, particularly social network.

I'm pretty sure (but could be wrong) they don't swap heads at all in The Change-Up, you're seeing things that aren't there in that case imo.

Haha that thought had crossed my mind that i might be imagining it but i am nearly 100% certain, if you watch the ad on the tv (i dont think it is in the vid i posted here) watch out for the part where reynolds is trying on clothes and there is a close up to him that has caught my eye a few times the head and neck look really wrong

I will admit i used to be a proof reader so i spot the smaller things like that without even meaning to

nyarlothothep

I dislike CG when its used like in Transformers, ie just for the sake of showing CG in a demonstration of spectacle without reason or depth or just the technical wankery of the CG/post production department. However I don't mind dodgy CG which isn't photorealistic if its different, unique or conveys an atmosphere. For example the CG in Spartacus is a bit ropey but its very evocative of Roman times at least in my mind.

Mickeroo

GAAman wrote: »

Haha that thought had crossed my mind that i might be imagining it but i am nearly 100% certain, if you watch the ad on the tv (i dont think it is in the vid i posted here) watch out for the part where reynolds is trying on clothes and there is a close up to him that has caught my eye a few times the head and neck look really wrong

I will admit i used to be a proof reader so i spot the smaller things like that without even meaning to

Heh I'm remaining sceptical since I think the plot just involves their minds swapping bodies, so it makes no sense for that to happen, but I'll keep an eye out for it anyway

krudler

GAAman wrote: »

Another one, i watched The Social Network last night and the "twins" in it are one actor recorded twice and looks cheaper than a 3 dollar hooker. Would it have been so hard to actually look for identical twin actors in america who are tall and blonde-ish???

its two actor's bodies with the one guy playing both twins faces and voices,I thought it was pretty flawless for the most part, The Social Network is an example of how to do cgi correctly. It has more cgi shots than most huge summer blockbusters, over 1000, and barely any of them are noticeable, maybe the cgi breath in the winter scenes and a few others but the rest is amazing work.

I like cgi when its not noticable or essential, say in stuff like LOTR, where it augments a real set, not completely replaces it ala the Star Wars prequels. Christopher Nolan uses it sparingly and builds real sets and finds other ways to shoot complex sequences.
I hate hate, haaaate how many stunts are being replaced with lazy cgi shots, it takes you out of it and you know you're just watching a movie. go back to stuff like the older James Bond movies and it was exciting to watch the making of the action sequences as it was real stunts being done with real people. These days Goldeneye would begin with a cgi stuntman jumping off a bluescreen backdrop and probably have some impossible camera angles added in for extra unrealistic effect.

There's certainly a place for cgi, and when its done well its fantastic to watch, like Davy Jones in the Pirates movies, still one of the greatest cgi creations ever, I thought Bill Nighy was wearing some prostethics and costume and the tentacles were cgi when I first saw it, but he's ALL cgi:

Galvasean

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I dislike CG when its used like in Transformers, ie just for the sake of showing CG in a demonstration of spectacle without reason or depth or just the technical wankery of the CG/post production department. However I don't mind dodgy CG which isn't photorealistic if its different, unique or conveys an atmosphere. For example the CG in Spartacus is a bit ropey but its very evocative of Roman times at least in my mind.

Couldn't disagree more. The CGI in Transformers was amazing. If you can think of a better way to create a realistic looking and agile giant robot on film I'd like to hear it.
I also thought the CG in Spartacus was very tacky looking and distracted from the feel of ancient Rome more than anything.

Goldstein

The one unfair complaint I can't abide about computer generated visual effects is the one that goes "Aw man, it's so obvious that it's CGI" just because they know it must have been computer generated - e.g. a dinosaur, a massive spaceship, or even those twins in TSN. If people hadn't read about it (Or inferred that such things cannot exist in reality yet alone within the scope of a movie) I doubt many would have noticed that anything was amiss and would have been oblivious to the digital slight of hand that had taken place. That's success in my book.

I, as are I assume many others here, am a big fan of using scale models augmented subtly with VFX instead of the lazier wholescale CGI route. However, in the past you didn't hear people complaining that what they're looking at is clearly "just a model" or obviously "just animatronics" so in those (admitedly few) times when CGI is skillfully employed (e.g. District 9, Children of Men, LOTR etc) the effort shouldn't be distained purely by virtue of the medium of its execution.

I think a lot of the apparent dual standards regarding successful CGI in particular could possibly be traced back to our response to the uncanny valley whereby as the lines are increasingly blurred between what is real and what is artificial, once we reach a certain point, the effects stop being judged as effects and start being judged as a sub-standard reality. The perception of this discontinuity often elicits a negative emotional response. (e.g. The T-800 in T Salvation, Clu in Tron Legacy, Jue in Final Flight of the Osiris, Beowulf etc.).

Everyone knows magicians don't posess supernatural powers - The good ones nevertheless can still awe you with the illusion that they do.

nyarlothothep

Galvasean wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. The CGI in Transformers was amazing. If you can think of a better way to create a realistic looking and agile giant robot on film I'd like to hear it.
I also thought the CG in Spartacus was very tacky looking and distracted from the feel of ancient Rome more than anything.

Yes, teh CGI in Transformers was technically amazing but as art, as special effects that leave an impression on the mind it was just crass, bland and unoriginal. Pure technique over imagination, all I remember are perfected effects shots by the numbers. Contrast that with special effects from the 70, 80s and early 90s when they had to work within technical constraints and be original, who can forget the total recall de-pressurization effect or the T1000, or Gozer's temple in Ghostbusters, or the Delorean from BTTF which was originally going to be a massive time station site but they had to go with the former because of budget constraints and so history was made. That and all 3 Transformers films are abominations and crimes against humanity, I saw Transformers 3 and was angry and upset at the end. In contrast the CG in Spartacus draws me into the world with its warm orange/yellow hues and light to dark gradients.

johnny_ultimate

I'm surprised at the criticism of the twins in Social Network - it's one of the few uses where, honestly, I didn't spot any noticeable disconnect. Captain America, on the other hand, asked a leap too far. The gruff voice coming from the "puny" body was just inherently wrong and overly incredible. The Captain's ass-kicking capabilities I rarely doubted, yet his pre-transformation physical stature was far less credible than him fighting a red headed devil man in the reality Johnson conjures up.

In general, I'd be a strong opponent of CGI for various reasons. Again, I can only agree that used tactfully it can enhance. The Lord of the Rings (bar perhaps the already somewhat aged creature design) remains a pinnacle of the technology for me. It's the mixture of detailed, realistic scale models, and physical sets that are augmented by technology rather than entirely built by computers. The result is a fantastical but believable world, where the place feels distinctly real by using a combination of artificial elements and a distinctive physical presence.

What gets me about CGI is when it's used as the sole tool rather than one of a plethora of effects options. Going back to Captain America (a film I quite enjoyed despite the flaws) it often stood out that the backgrounds were computer generated and seemed entirely artificial as a result. The difference between them and the actual sets - such as the camp but beautifully designed lab where the mad experimentation goes down - is distressingly clear. Super 8 was a film I loved, but my enthusiasm soured when an over-CGIed alien made its appearance. It just entirely abandoned reality, and was hard to believe as a result. And these are examples that mildly taint rather than utterly ruin films. Zack Snyder seems to have abandoned all pretense of reality in his films in favour of increasingly absurd green-screen work, while the Star Wars prequels go to show how much charm is lost when sets and location work are replaced by bizarre, over-realised worlds.

TBH, my main sticking point is that CGI is like a weaker form of animation. It's like there's two distinct artforms - live action cinema and animation. Over CGI creates a strange compromise between the two. In animation, the audience can accept higher levels of absurdities because the animator has far greater capacity to control and design the world. It, by virtue of being entirely artificial, can happily transcend reality, and the audience has appropriate expectations. Same with (even more appropriately to my argument) video games. Hell: even books. But with CGI in live-action films, there's often a worrying disconnect between reality and artificiality that just doesn't work. If you want to create a whole new world, you need far too many resources too achieve it credibly and your best working in the other mediums that are friendlier to your ideas. It's telling that the one film that created a rich, vivid fictional planet was also the most expensive evermade. Not every director will enjoy the blank cheques they allow James Cameron to cash. Transformers is the most damning example of something that works well and makes a weird sort of internal sense in cartoons and games, but falls apart when you try to put these giant, sentient robots in the real world.

The key is subtlety. Let it quietly enhance rather than dominate the screen.

Mellor

GAAman wrote: »

A few examples the Captain America movie, in the beginning he is short, skinny and basically a runt and after the transformation he is built like a brick s*ithouse, the only problem is that for the movie before the transformation scene it looks like someone copied and pasted the actors face onto a skinny body using windows movie maker

How would you suggest they did it?

Another one, i watched The Social Network last night and the "twins" in it are one actor recorded twice and looks cheaper than a 3 dollar hooker. Would it have been so hard to actually look for identical twin actors in america who are tall and blonde-ish???

That's not what they did. It's two actors.
Can't have been that obvious if you weren't even aware of what they did.

Last one (i swear) this new movie called The Change Up, it is freaky friday meets big and not a hint of a rip off at all........no not even a bit! Judging by the tv trailer they paste the heads around because maybe they think people are too stupid to follow. Anyway keep an eye out on tv for the aforementioned cgi vomit i have the trailer below but being honest it is far more noticable on tv

What?
Why would they need to do any CGI here? They swapped minds, not bodies. All they need to do pretend to be the other guy. it's Ryan Renolds head, on his own body

Seriously you remind me of this guy;

Zubeneschamali

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I dislike CG when its used like in Transformers, ie just for the sake of showing CG in a demonstration of spectacle without reason or depth or just the technical wankery of the CG/post production department.

That's not bad CGI, though, that's very good CGI used to make a very bad movie. Those CGI robots could do Hamlet, but instead they are trapped in a series of Michael Bay movies, each one stupider than the last.

bnt

In robotics there's a concept called the uncanny valley, and I think it's useful in movie CGI too. It's like this: we like it when it's highly realistic, and we can also handle it when it's quite unrealistic (cheesiness), but there's an uncomfortable feeling when it's just a bit off.

It's most obvious when the aim is to simulate people. I can't think of that many instances of it happening in Hollywood, to be honest. Not in SimONE, for example, where the computer character was played by an actress. (It's a film about a synthespian, but it doesn't actually use a synthespian in the role.) We don't have a problem with the T-1000 because they morphed between the actor and the obvious CGI character, with nothing in between.

But if we extend the concept to non-human "characters", such as crashing vehicles, you can see the problem straight away. There are cartoon crashes, there are real crashes, and then there are CGI attempts at realistic crashes. They don't seem to have the "weight" of real crashes. I was annoyed by the huge crash near the end of The Bourne Ultimatum, which was a mix of real crash filmed from a safe distance, and CGI-composited closeups from inside the car. There were more realistic crashes earlier in the series - even the same film - but that one just fell over the edge in to the "uncanny valley", I thought. That and the pacing of the editing - a car crash doesn't take that long and sound so drawn-out.

Ebert's review of the new film Drive puts it very well:

I mentioned CGI earlier. "Drive" seems to have little of it. Most of the stunt driving looks real to me, with cars of weight and heft, rather than animated impossible fantasies. The entire film, in fact, seems much more real than the usual action-crime-chase concoctions we've grown tired of.

Kiith

The twins in The Social Network were one person? I probably should have noticed that...

Miguel_Sanchez

I thought the Uncanny Valley referred solely to the revulsion people feel at humanlike creations. The closer they get to humanlike the more we like them until a point when we feel repulsed. So I don't think a CGI car crash can be classed as falling into it as we don't get that weird repulsed feeling from it, we just notice that it's not real.

Films like the Polar Express fall into it sometimes don't they?

bnt

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

I thought the Uncanny Valley referred solely to humanlike creations so I don't think a CGI car crash can be classed as falling into it. The phrase was first coined in reference to robots that were being made to look like humans back in the 70's.

Yes, I know how the term has been used so far, but I was extending the concept to apply to CGI too. I can do that if I want to, can't I? You don't have to agree, but "that's not how it was done before" doesn't make me wrong for playing with the idea. Where's your sense of adventure? :cool:

Getting back to the OP's question about The Social Network: personally, I was totally fooled by the twins as I was watching the film, which makes it a success in my opinion. I might have spotted the face replacement had I been looking for it, but so what? I can nearly always spot flaws if I am looking for them, but I was too busy enjoying the performances and the rezt of the film.

FlashD

Wow! This is news to me.

I didn't know the twins in 'Social Network' were CGI'd.

Maybe it's because it's the last type of movie I expected to see CGI..interesting.

Miguel_Sanchez

bnt wrote: »

Yes, I know how the term has been used so far, but I was extending the concept to apply to CGI too. I can do that if I want to, can't I? You don't have to agree, but "that's not how it was done before" doesn't make me wrong for playing with the idea. Where's your sense of adventure? :cool:

It's not a case of how it's done before. It's merely a case of what the term refers to. The term has been used exclusively to do with human replicas because humans don't feel that weird repulsive response to other forms of replication.

Unless you do.... for car crashes.... which sounds a bit J.G. Ballard to me!

Mellor

FlashD wrote: »

Wow! This is news to me.

I didn't know the twins in 'Social Network' were CGI'd.

Maybe it's because it's the last type of movie I expected to see CGI..interesting.

Kiith wrote: »

The twins in The Social Network were one person? I probably should have noticed that...

Their bodies were two separate people, but the head of one was CGI'd over so they looked alike.
There was a reason for it, something to do with the guy they found was perfect but not a twin.

johnny_ultimate

I'd have to agree with Jeff - we can't really stretch uncanny valley to include non-human subjects. Take Tron: Legacy for example. They managed to create an entirely computerised world largely removed from reality. Most were able to buy into that, even when recognisable objects like motorbikes were subverted. But there were bits when Clu - impressive creation though he was - moved his head that bit incorrectly, the lips twitched a little oddly or the lighting seemed ever so slightly off. It wasn't Jeff Bridges: it was a computer Jeff Bridges, and though it was well done, it was imperfect. You'll find more people criticising that than the effects in the fantastical lightcycle races.

Miguel_Sanchez

Mellor wrote: »

Their bodies were two separate people, but the head of one was CGI'd over so they looked alike.
There was a reason for it, something to do with the guy they found was perfect but not a twin.

I heard Fincher wanted him cloned as a first option but went with CGI as a timesaving second option.

Theboinkmaster

In terms of modern day films i think Dark Knight is perfect in it's use of CGI - very sparingly.

What's more worrying is the fact that in the 90s all the Hollywood A listers had themsevles digitally scanned so they could be in future films as their younger selves, they're just waiting for the technology to develop

Mark Hamill

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm surprised at the criticism of the twins in Social Network - it's one of the few uses where, honestly, I didn't spot any noticeable disconnect. Captain America, on the other hand, asked a leap too far. The gruff voice coming from the "puny" body was just inherently wrong and overly incredible.

Really? The voice is what throws you off? I had a 10 year old neighbour once who had a voice like he ate cigarettes for breakfast. I couldn't see any problem with the gruff voice matching the body.

Look at the guy who voices batman in the animated series, its almost his real voice and he's hardly a big guy. You dont need to be big to have a big voice.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd have to agree with Jeff - we can't really stretch uncanny valley to include non-human subjects. Take Tron: Legacy for example. They managed to create an entirely computerised world largely removed from reality. Most were able to buy into that, even when recognisable objects like motorbikes were subverted. But there were bits when Clu - impressive creation though he was - moved his head that bit incorrectly, the lips twitched a little oddly or the lighting seemed ever so slightly off. It wasn't Jeff Bridges: it was a computer Jeff Bridges, and though it was well done, it was imperfect. You'll find more people criticising that than the effects in the fantastical lightcycle races.

Human features will always be the ones that we pick up as being wrong instantly, light cycles, orcs, dragons, transformers, huge sprawling castles and mountains of doom are all things we have no real world reference for so its easier to accept in a digital form.
we see people every day so know the nuances a human face makes. digital faces arent perfect yet, but they're well on the way. give it 5-10 years and you wont know the difference. Clu did look amazing in some shots, it was the lips and eyes which game him away but the opening of Tron Legacy where he's seen in side profile talking to the kid is pretty amazing.

Its crazy that some of the earliest movies to use cgi are still the most impressive. I still think the T-rex in Jurassic Park is cgi's crowning moment.

norrie rugger

Biggest problem with Clu, for me, was they actually managed to get the lip-synch wrong

GAAman

krudler wrote: »

I thought Bill Nighy was wearing some prostethics and costume and the tentacles were cgi when I first saw it, but he's ALL cgi:

I thought the same myself that is pretty cool

Mellor wrote: »

How would you suggest they did it?

Very simple really, in Castaway Tom Hanks lost a lot of weight for the two halves of the film, before the crash and when he was on the island and would obviously lose weight. The main character could have shot the entire "super" part of the film, then lost a good bit of muscle mass and weight to shoot the pre transformation scenes.

But no instead they want it done ASAP at the cost of believeability, look at Christian Bale in The Machinist, Donnie Wahlberg in The Sixth Sense. Both very visual and both very real.

Mellor wrote: »

That's not what they did. It's two actors.
Can't have been that obvious if you weren't even aware of what they did.

Really? So i am wrong that Armie Hammer was not recorded twice? He, a single actor in fact did NOT play two roles? But you are right of course, it was not obvious. I most certainly was not on IMDB within minutes of seeing the "twins" in the movie to check was i right. Regardless of whether there were two or twenty two different bodies it was one actor recorded for the roles :rolleyes:

Mellor wrote: »

What?
Why would they need to do any CGI here? They swapped minds, not bodies. All they need to do pretend to be the other guy. it's Ryan Renolds head, on his own body

Seriously you remind me of this guy;

That is the point!!! They dont need to and i have already stated at least once that i could be wrong but have asked people to keep an eye on the ad to see if i am. Watch reynolds carefully in it, maybe they did it instead of reshooting a scene, maybe they did it to illustrate the switch between characters. Either way if that is the case then it ties in with my whole point here.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd have to agree with Jeff - we can't really stretch uncanny valley to include non-human subjects. Take Tron: Legacy for example. They managed to create an entirely computerised world largely removed from reality. Most were able to buy into that, even when recognisable objects like motorbikes were subverted. But there were bits when Clu - impressive creation though he was - moved his head that bit incorrectly, the lips twitched a little oddly or the lighting seemed ever so slightly off. It wasn't Jeff Bridges: it was a computer Jeff Bridges, and though it was well done, it was imperfect. You'll find more people criticising that than the effects in the fantastical lightcycle races.

I will be honest, i had more of a problem with the Flynn character at the start of the movie. They could have just had a voice over conversation between him and the son at the introduction to lay the foundations of the story rather than the painfully obvious cgi-ness they used

Mickeroo

GAAman wrote: »

Very simple really, in Castaway Tom Hanks lost a lot of weight for the two halves of the film, before the crash and when he was on the island and would obviously lose weight. The main character could have shot the entire "super" part of the film, then lost a good bit of muscle mass and weight to shoot the pre transformation scenes.

But no instead they want it done ASAP at the cost of believeability, look at Christian Bale in The Machinist, Donnie Wahlberg in The Sixth Sense. Both very visual and both very real.

I see where you're coming from but there's a big difference between a character getting thinner from lack of food and living on an island to one that gets buffed up(and taller) from a super soldier serum. One is physically impossible without at least some sort of special effects for a start!

Chrisitan Bale was skinny for the whole running time of the machinist I thought? same for Wahlberg? they would have had months to prepare for the roles. Plus I think you're also forgetting that Christian Bale is insane :P

Zubeneschamali

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Look at the guy who voices batman in the animated series, its almost his real voice and he's hardly a big guy. You dont need to be big to have a big voice.

Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus Prime since the 80s, is not a huge guy either. IMdB says he's 5'8".

Galvasean

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In contrast the CG in Spartacus draws me into the world with its warm orange/yellow hues and light to dark gradients.

I disagree again. Those hues are not really much to do with the implementation of CGI, but clever colour grading, which is a very common technique even in films with no CGI whatsoever. Grading can be used very subtly or dramatically (in instances like Spartacus).

GAAman

Mickeroo wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but there's a big difference between a character getting thinner from lack of food and living on an island to one that gets buffed up(and taller) from a super soldier serum. One is physically impossible without at least some sort of special effects for a start!

I know i was just giving examples of it being done cgi free, i would have respected something like that alot more than what they actually did

Mickeroo wrote: »

Chrisitan Bale was skinny for the whole running time of the machinist I thought? same for Wahlberg? they would have had months to prepare for the roles. Plus I think you're also forgetting that Christian Bale is insane :P

Yeah but contrast how Bale looks in the machinist against how he looks normally, plus with Wahlberg alot of people did not recognise him such was the difference. You are right Bale was skinny for the whole film i just used them as examples to show it could be done naturally. In the case of Captain America it would take awhile but in the process of him losing the weight they could have been editing and processing the footage from the rest of the film and then shot the initial scenes

For your last point, i still don't believe he was actually acting in American Psycho

al28283

GAAman wrote: »

I know i was just giving examples of it being done cgi free, i would have respected something like that alot more than what they actually did

You may have respected it more but that doesn't mean it would look any better. Your example is similar to Willow being filmed with midgets and LOTR's Hobbits being filmed as effects. One is real but lame and the other is fake but gets the idea across better.
Captain America wasn't just some guy who took some weight gain powder and started working out. He was a tiny kid who was given a "super-serum" which went beyond what could be done naturally.

Duggy747

Still the daddy, looks far more believable than ensuing films that have come out since it first appeared almost 20 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEbm-xLjEwk

I always believed it worked so well because of little touches that made it seem like it was actually there. Headlights bouncing off it, partially hidden under the heavy rain, not too glorified to show it off, and interchanging between CGI and Winstons giant animatronic just made it work and still look great.

When it's subtle, CGI is fantastic as many times you never notice it because you're not looking for it or know it's there.

But, nowadays it's far too saturated with companies trying to out-power each other with who's got the bigger server-farms. It all feels like a giant reel for these companies to advertise themselves rather than to actually emphasise a scene.

nyarlothothep

Galvasean wrote: »

I disagree again. Those hues are not really much to do with the implementation of CGI, but clever colour grading, which is a very common technique even in films with no CGI whatsoever. Grading can be used very subtly or dramatically (in instances like Spartacus).

yeah whatever, I was discussing the general overall effect, which includes compositing, its all part of the pipeline. In any case I like the CG even if it is a little cheesy, the fluid dynamic effects for the blood wounds, eg Solonius receiving the fatal wound in the arena, which was re-used I would think, but I can't forget it because while it looked fake it was pretty well done for a show probably made on less than a hollywood film budget under time constraints.

Phony Scott

krudler wrote: »

Am I the only person who would be curious to see the entire movie without the CGI parts? Davey Jones and his crew look like they escaped from a cheap knock-off of Tron or Logans Run or something sci-fi-y. :pac:

Galvasean

nyarlothothep wrote: »

yeah whatever, I was discussing the general overall effect, which includes compositing, its all part of the pipeline.

On a related note, have you seen my goalposts? They seem to have moved...

nyarlothothep

Galvasean wrote: »

On a related note, have you seen my goalposts? They seem to have moved...

:rolleyes: ....

...

...
...

...
...
:rolleyes:

don ramo

i think CGI has it advantages and disadvantage, like how visually stunning tranformers is, but how terrible almost everything else was in the 3 films, there was a script in there somewhere i dunno where but its there:D,

i dont really mind dodgy CGI, it really doesnt bother as long as it can convey the visual aspect its trying to, like in spartacus and sanctuary, both shows use mass CGI on low budgets and TBF both do a great job with it, when you see films like clash of the titans with there multi million dollar budgets being out done by shows with 2mill and episode budget you have to ask questions,

like almost everthing in the industry its all down to hands of the people the studios get to do it, id happily hand over a 4 million dollar state of the art camera to james cameron or michael bay, simply cause id trust them to use that camera to the best of its functionality, wheras if someone like martin campbell (green lantern) asked me for a E200 handheld camera i would refuse to give it to him if he offered me E400 for it, cause i dont believe he could frame a shot never mind film one with it,

CGI will only be as good as the the person who is using it, and that will always be the case

Mellor

GAAman wrote: »

Very simple really, in Castaway Tom Hanks lost a lot of weight for the two halves of the film, before the crash and when he was on the island and would obviously lose weight. The main character could have shot the entire "super" part of the film, then lost a good bit of muscle mass and weight to shoot the pre transformation scenes.

But no instead they want it done ASAP at the cost of believeability, look at Christian Bale in The Machinist, Donnie Wahlberg in The Sixth Sense. Both very visual and both very real.

Not even remotely similar,
First of all Hanks but on fat to symbolise the lazy and excessive life, then lost fat and muscle to reprsent the island.
Bale lost a **** load over months to get ready. He lost everything.

In Captain America, the actor had to to on muscle to paly the role, he was in pretty good shape. And it would of taken a decent amount of time to get this weigt on, then he's had to starve himself to lose it. But, i'll admit, that do-doable, just not practical.

But the whole concept wasn't just about getting stronger. He was taller (which could of been faked with trick photography) and his bone structure changing (which couldn't of been faked). It was simply not possible to get that effect without using CGI. So they could of settled for less and went the machinist route.

I think they prob should of done it like the social network, A real body from a different actor, and CGI the head on. Might of been smoother, but I'm just guessing here.

That is the point!!! They dont need to and i have already stated at least once that i could be wrong but have asked people to keep an eye on the ad to see if i am. Watch reynolds carefully in it, maybe they did it instead of reshooting a scene, maybe they did it to illustrate the switch between characters. Either way if that is the case then it ties in with my whole point here.

You are still not getting the point.
IF they did, what would it possibly achieve? Why would di ut. In the other example there is a reason, like not using twins, or to show the body change.
That kind of CGI would be more effort than a reshoot imo. The switch happens off camera too afaik

I've watched the ad and I'm not sure what part you are refering to. So I can't say if I think you are wrong.
Right now, I believe you are nit picking so much regarding CGI that you are inventing stuff in your head.

FlashD

That Pirates Caribeen shot is hilarious ..... i'm not a fan. Way too much CGI for my liking.

Correct me if i'm wrong but Terminator 2 was the first movie to use CGI or at least it was the first I remember seeing.

Miguel_Sanchez

FlashD wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong but Terminator 2 was the first movie to use CGI or at least it was the first I remember seeing.

I'm correcting you.

FlashD

^^^^Hmmm...What is it so?

Just checked wiki, should be a good read for everyone.

I knew T2 had some significant history...blew me away at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television

Zubeneschamali

don ramo wrote: »

id happily hand over a 4 million dollar state of the art camera to james cameron or michael bay, simply cause id trust them to use that camera to the best of its functionality

Jesus, I wouldn't give Michael Bay an etch-a-sketch!

Miguel_Sanchez

FlashD wrote: »

^^^^Hmmm...What is it so?

Not sure what the first was but even Cameron was using CGI in his earlier films - The Abyss had very similar effects in parts.

Also there was a film called Tron once upon a time.

foxyboxer

Stained Glass Knight from Young Sherlock Holmes?

Mickeroo

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Not sure what the first was but even Cameron was using CGI in his earlier films - The Abyss had very similar effects in parts.

Also there was a film called Tron once upon a time.

Lets not forget the awesome Lawnmower Man too :pac:

krudler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Jesus, I wouldn't give Michael Bay an etch-a-sketch!

saw what you want about Bay making brainless movies but his technical ability can't really be faulted, just too much frenetic action editing he needs to pull the camera back and let us see the 'splosions more. the bridge chase in Bad Boys II is a great example of how to do an action heavy chase without having the camera bounce all over the place, its just overedited so a lot of the impact is lost. his career definitely peaked with The Rock, I wont hear a bad word said about that action classic :pac:

don ramo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Jesus, I wouldn't give Michael Bay an etch-a-sketch!

say what you will about him, but he knows how to shoot a film,

most people think he should start working with bruckheimer again, they made some decent films together, maybe now transformers is over, he might put his efforts into some better quality films, maybe take up some writing classes with aaron sorkin or something,

Mellor

Mickeroo wrote: »

Lets not forget the awesome Lawnmower Man too :pac:

And lets not forget that its not as old as Terminator 2

Mickeroo

Mellor wrote: »

And lets not forget that its not as old as Terminator 2

I never said it was?