[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAzQr3Ml0UI[/media]
has quite a lot of views so might be old news to some people but i thought it was mega interesting. always thought that scene was animatronics/cgi
It's like thinking of how they could possibly make a Tremors movie today.
They couldn't. At least not properly.
makes me wonder whether cg is much cheaper than the engineering and imagination required for this sort of thing? because these creations look way better than 99% of cg
I love the Stan Winston youtube channel.
They actually listen to and care about their fans. I remember seeing screencaps on the JPLegacy forums of an email conversation between a Jurassic Park fan and someone from Stan Winston about how they were hoping for some more footage of how they did Dilophosaurus scene.
And look what they posted a few days ago:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IJQjhdLbbo[/media]
I want, no NEED that costume
Reminds me of the suits they made for the '98 godzilla movie.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it2oxGrYa98[/media]
I would kill for one of those costumes.
The Thing prequel had similar animatronics and suits but they CG overlayed it so much it didn't even matter.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgzXVc1sbq4[/media]
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
The Cabin in the Woods also had suits and animatronics for almost everything.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39905333]makes me wonder whether cg is much cheaper than the engineering and imagination required for this sort of thing? because these creations look way better than 99% of cg[/QUOTE]
Movies like The Thing and Aliens make me smile. Being as old as they are they still look better then CGI movies released recently. CGI is a art form of its own, but it is sad to think they're moving away from stuff like this because this stuff take more talent and innovation then anything else.
The problem I have with CGI is that it always looks glossy to me.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;39907178]The problem I have with CGI is that it always looks glossy to me.[/QUOTE]
that, and it's too fluid and smooth. Animatronics looks real because it IS real. Stop motion is great for horror flicks because it looks jumpy and unnatural, so it looks really creepy if done right.
Good God, by the end the raptor seemed like it was real, excepting its lack of arms. Stagecraft like this, and the set construction for the LoTR movies always amazes me at its detail.
That's amazing!
Also, why don't those homemade raptor suits(if you know which ones i'm talking about) try to get their legs to look more like these ones instead of having the user's real legs sticking out running funny.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39905333]makes me wonder whether cg is much cheaper than the engineering and imagination required for this sort of thing? because these creations look way better than 99% of cg[/QUOTE]
From what I've heard, CG is cheaper in some cases, but not all. CG is often the go to these days due to being faster for production. The advantage of CG is less pre-production, but it leads to lots more post.
Animatronic and puppeteering are much harder to pull off today, as there are significantly less professionals these days.
So CG doesn't really save time or money, but it allows a film to get shot faster, which unfortunately means there's usually less work done with the film, as little needs to be worked out until after it's shot.
[video=youtube;mT9aZiQqQ84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9aZiQqQ84[/video]
kind of had this stuff going for AI too.
God I love animatronic/ puppeteering stuff in movies.
[QUOTE=Gunner th;39909395]From what I've heard, CG is cheaper in some cases, but not all. CG is often the go to these days due to being faster for production. The advantage of CG is less pre-production, but it leads to lots more post.
Animatronic and puppeteering are much harder to pull off today, as there are significantly less professionals these days.
So CG doesn't really save time or money, but it allows a film to get shot faster, which unfortunately means there's usually less work done with the film, as little needs to be worked out until after it's shot.[/QUOTE]
For example look at "The Things" physical costume engineering and designing; that looks expensive which is why they may have cut a lot for CGI.
[video=youtube;fBzpT7VmSaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU[/video]
(Just noticed how creepy the thumbnail is haha!)
I don't understand why so many studios end up trashing things like this at the end of shooting, instead of auctioning it off for charity or putting it in a film museum.
[QUOTE=ijyt;39910267]I don't understand why so many studios end up trashing things like this at the end of shooting, instead of auctioning it off for charity or putting it in a film museum.[/QUOTE]
movie animatronics (unlike amusement park animatronics) are not built to last but to be totally believable on film. that means have to rely on perishable materials like foam latex and silicone.
I really hope Jurassic Park 4 will use animatronics like the original did. Jurassic Park is my favorite movie of all time, and I love the work they put in to it.
Stan Winston was the best. May he rest in peace.
Jurassic Park is the most pure example of movie magic I can think of. When I was the kid this was the greatest thing ever made. When I go back and watch it now I get teary eyed.
Animatronics look so much better than almost all CGI.
Plus the issue with CGI is that as the years pass and the better it looks, the older stuff will start to look really dated and bad, which doesnt really happen with animatronics.
Think of all the starwars prequels, those are almost 100% cgi, everything was pretty much CGI, and its gonna look like complete garbage someday.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;39912536]Animatronics look so much better than almost all CGI.
Plus the issue with CGI is that as the years pass and the better it looks, the older stuff will start to look really dated and bad, which doesnt really happen with animatronics.[/QUOTE]
A lot of movies can only be done with CGI. Imagine of The Hulk in The Avengers was real, it would look wrong.
[QUOTE=Scot;39912590]A lot of movies can only be done with CGI. Imagine of The Hulk in The Avengers was real, it would look wrong.[/QUOTE]
Im not saying CGI doesnt have a place because you are right, and the CGI fits in those movies, but look at Starwars prequels again.
Almost every single backdrop is CGI, even hallways or simple rooms that could have been made out of real objects and created a set.
The originals didnt have that, it had some on some things, but most things were just miniatures.
So not even animatronics, just real shit.
That was great.
Woah, at 3:11.
If i saw that in in my backyard, i would seriously consider it being real.
Reminds me of this which was also posted a few months back. I was honestly surprised that the Prometheus stuff wasn't all cgi
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA[/media]
Imagine being a fucking raptor for Halloween, god damn.
[QUOTE=Gunner th;39909395]From what I've heard, CG is cheaper in some cases, but not all. CG is often the go to these days due to being faster for production. The advantage of CG is less pre-production, but it leads to lots more post.
Animatronic and puppeteering are much harder to pull off today, as there are significantly less professionals these days.
So CG doesn't really save time or money, but it allows a film to get shot faster, which unfortunately means there's usually less work done with the film, as little needs to be worked out until after it's shot.[/QUOTE]
Faster production = cheaper
Most of the cost of a movie is spent on paying everyone's salaries
CG is [I]way[/I] cheaper in many cases, simply because there's such a high demand/pool of cheap CG artists to hire and the pipeline for CG is much quicker and more flexible. Costumes are more expensive because generally the only people who have the skill to pull it off in holywood are the type of people who have been working in the industry for 20 years and are expensive to keep on the duration of an entire project. It also takes more time in pre-production to make it look good and not something that's easy to reshoot/redo in post, plus the actual cost of materials required and paying actors to fill the roles. And when your movie has a short pre-production deadline because you are just trying to manufacture something for the theaters in 6mo time, you don't have time to put a lot of thought into the visual/costume design of actors.
However it does look way better. And ironically costumes can be cheaper if you don't have the financial access to get a CG studio to do all your shots, since generally CG is only going to be avalable for the big budget blockbuster films.
Its a shame that CG is so overused but eh... that's the state of the film industry now. It's better to make a quick buck off of making everything CG rather than having a full make up/costume team working on your crappy little popcorn flick movie designed purely to sell a bunch on opening night and then get forgotten for the next flavor of the week. Because then you are actually [I]commiting[/I] to a real, highly developed film.
An example, compaire the orcs in Hobbit to those of the LotR series. LotR is famous for having industry-leading costume design, and it shows. The orcs looks totally belivable and not uncanny at all. meanwhile Hobbit's pure CG approach to the orcs just looks bad in compairson. It seriously cheapened them for me.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;39912660]Im not saying CGI doesnt have a place because you are right, and the CGI fits in those movies, but look at Starwars prequels again.
Almost every single backdrop is CGI, even hallways or simple rooms that could have been made out of real objects and created a set.
The originals didnt have that, it had some on some things, but most things were just miniatures.
So not even animatronics, just real shit.[/QUOTE]
The prequel did have some built sets.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.