The only CG that sucked was that weird fucking point in the early and mid 2000's / late 90's when literally EVERYTHING was CG and it was all low poly poor quality trash that just couldn't help looking super fake. Seriously the best way to do it is to mix practical effects with CG and if done right, it'll look way more real because actors do better with physical props and a scene when possible. But yeah, past that early stage of weird hype and us just not being good enough at it, it's pretty damn great.
I disagree, even with good CGI for settings and shit, it doesn't immerse the actors as easily as practical effects.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;48373754]I disagree, even with good CGI for settings and shit, it doesn't immerse the actors as easily as practical effects.[/QUOTE]
Does it matter though? If it's a good actor, they can still play it off perfectly well to a point where there will be no noticable visual difference in the actual movie.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;48373754]I disagree, even with good CGI for settings and shit, it doesn't immerse the actors as easily as practical effects.[/QUOTE]
That's my main feelings toward it too, it's much easier to work off of real sets and things going on over sitting in front of greenscreens.
That being said, I always thought it was about the right mix of CG and practical effects? Do people really complain about things just because they use CG and not take that into consideration?
[QUOTE=Glitchman;48373754]I disagree, even with good CGI for settings and shit, it doesn't immerse the actors as easily as practical effects.[/QUOTE]
[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Pvgh1UF.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
What an awesome interesting video
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48373794]no actor can be good enough to simulate the gut reaction of a crazy thing happening infront of their face
i.e. (stealing from plinkett) in star wars when grievous does that whirley blade thing and obi-wan just looks at him with absolutely no reaction[/QUOTE]
But that's what this video is about, bad CG is usually bad when it's done really badly. The Star Wars prequels are a perfect example of using CG badly, where everything is green screens to a point where the actors don't even have anything to work with. The right way to use CG is to have the main focus of the scene be done practically in some way and then use CG just to enhance it. That was the whole point of this video.
[QUOTE=draugur;48373651]The only CG that sucked was that weird fucking point in the early and mid 2000's / late 90's when literally EVERYTHING was CG and it was all low poly poor quality trash that just couldn't help looking super fake.[/QUOTE]
Syfy original movies never left that era.
I think Freddie kinda laid out what the main complaints about VFX are, how the best work does whatever they can practically, then supplements what they can't with VFX. A lot of movies nowadays do things they could do practically with VFX. Like that car crash he used as an example toward the beginning, or the explosion and fire at 3:33. Those are things that are completely possible to do practically, but were needlessly CG'd in instead.
Though I definitely agree with him that more of the problem is just with bad movies and storytelling, rather than blaming the badness on the FX.
I'm surprised he didn't mention TV, from what I know CG has greatly increased the type and amount of effects it can do. Its completely transformed the look of shows such as Doctor Who when it came back in 2005 and while it doesn't look as nearly as good as film obviously does the show is not a million miles away either and its something it needs to be aware of because one of the key factors of its decline in the 80s was the fact that big blockbusters like Star Wars had really embarrassed it.
It's an interesting video, especially when he points out how much of films are CG that oyu don't notice.
The problem somes when CG replaces other, more practical stuff, and looks worse because of it, or is purely done to save money or time. That scene fromg gravity with the woman floating that was almost 100% CG is pointless, since you could have made a practical set with wires or camera tricks.
This also stems from me liking how films are made, there's nothing fun about a bunch of guys sitting infront of computers for hours on end, but seeing a director using tricks or miniatures to shoot a difficult scene that looks amazing is awesome.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48373852]i'm talking about the immersion aspect the guy you replied to mentioned, you will see a completely different expression on an actors face if he actually sees a car explode versus a car just sitting there with the director saying "this car will explode in 3 seconds make a face when it does"[/QUOTE]
Exactly. In Alien, only John Hurt knew about the Chestburster, everyone was told he was just going to be sick. The actors were just as scared as the audience was when they first saw it. It's stuff like this that makes people feel more connected and immersed in the movie. There's a whole different energy being captured by the filmmakers, and nothing can beat that.
[t]http://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ludru27O8c1qd39nmo1_500.jpg[/t]
[I] Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an end to themselves. A Special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.[/I]
wait, you said that?
The issue with CG (as mentioned in this thread and a million times over) is that it can't be used to replace a story.
Some movies, even with not-so-great cg, or movies that have CG that aged poorly (see: Jurassic Park) are still wonderful because their [I]stories[/I] are [U]supported[/U] by the CG, not the other way around (see: Star Wars prequels)
[QUOTE=Jon MadN;48373780][IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Pvgh1UF.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
Yeah, bad CG, that's the entire point we're making. "The Hobbit" "films" are the definition of garbage.
Best example of great CG usage :downs:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiDRgDmXGi4[/media]
[QUOTE=draugur;48374243]Yeah, bad CG, that's the entire point we're making. "The Hobbit" "films" are the definition of garbage.[/QUOTE]
you're missing the point of that image
I like Collateral's CG the most. The John Woo films have a special place in my heart though.
[QUOTE=simkas;48373819]But that's what this video is about, bad CG is usually bad when it's done really badly. The Star Wars prequels are a perfect example of using CG badly, where everything is green screens to a point where the actors don't even have anything to work with. The right way to use CG is to have the main focus of the scene be done practically in some way and then use CG just to enhance it. That was the whole point of this video.[/QUOTE]
But isn't this already what people talk about when they're arguing against CG? Overused and unnecessary green screens? I doubt anyone is opposed to CG as a whole.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;48374341]But isn't this already what people talk about when they're arguing against CG? Overused and unnecessary green screens? I doubt anyone is opposed to CG as a whole.[/QUOTE]
There are people that just think all CG is shit and all movies suck nowadays because of it.
The best example of bad CG are star wars prequels. The originals were shot almost 20 years earlier and yet they have aged better even visually than the prequels.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;48373754]I disagree, even with good CGI for settings and shit, it doesn't immerse the actors as easily as practical effects.[/QUOTE]
Not everything CAN be done in real life, and many things are a lot cheaper to do in CGI and will have better results.
Lots of well applied CGI is impossible to notice, and indistinguishable from reality.
I don't get the unreasonable hate for a visual tool.
And yet that "WETA Effect" video gets more views. I hope this video that has actual information gets more attention.
CGI is fine and usually when there are complaints about it in films *cough* the hobbit *cough* it's actually more just that the films themselves are kinda meh
[QUOTE=Glitchman;48373754]I disagree, even with good CGI for settings and shit, it doesn't immerse the actors as easily as practical effects.[/QUOTE]
Good actors can deal with it. And it enhances the experience of the viewer greatly.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;48377364]CGI is fine and usually when there are complaints about it in films *cough* the hobbit *cough* it's actually more just that the films themselves are kinda meh[/QUOTE]
The cg in the Hobbit was really rushed. You can see a significant step up in cg quality with each film cause they had more time with each.
[QUOTE=Pelf;48377620]The cg in the Hobbit was really rushed. You can see a significant step up in cg quality with each film cause they had more time with each.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it was, doesn't help that the films were nowhere near as good as Lotr unfortunately
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48374232]or movies that have CG that aged poorly (see: Jurassic Park)[/QUOTE]
Woah now, jurassic parks cgi has aged a lot better than most other movies. Even 20 years later syfy has yet to get to that level.
Whoa, CG that isn't shit and incorporated with genuine professionalism [I]also[/I] doesn't look like shit in the final product?
Who is this video even aimed towards. The people that absolutely despise CG in any form do not make up even a small portion of the movie going audience and this video isn't going to convince them otherwise, they're completely up their ass about the whole concept.
Anyone else that is dissatisfied with CG implementation and has an inkling about cinema production already knows all of this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
