[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]
I firmly believe that a person who [I]makes a living out of pretending[/I] they're someone else, who does things they aren't actually doing, can adapt to technology and also pretend to flinch when a car doesn't explode in front of them
[QUOTE=Cmx;48377762]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.[/QUOTE]
Take off your nostalgia glasses :v:
[QUOTE=simkas;48374385]There are people that just think all CG is shit and all movies suck nowadays because of it.[/QUOTE]
They're about as ignorant as the ones who say all music today is shit.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48377762]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.[/QUOTE]
That's not really true. JP's CGI appears better because 80% of the time the dinosaurs are practical, or otherwise covered in darkness most of the time. If you pay attention to the CGI in daylight scenes, you can notice that the animations of the dinosaurs are extremely stiff and fake looking, but they're usually not on screen long enough for people to notice because Spielberg knew what he was doing.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;48379190]That's not really true. JP's CGI appears better because 80% of the time the dinosaurs are practical, or otherwise covered in darkness most of the time. If you pay attention to the CGI in daylight scenes, you can notice that the animations of the dinosaurs are extremely stiff and fake looking, but they're usually not on screen long enough for people to notice because Spielberg knew what he was doing.[/QUOTE]
The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were still way more satisfying than Jurassic World which didn't look believable.
I agree with what he says, but this video feels like it's only trying to fuel an argument rather than convince anyone. Starting out the gate with a condescending tone to everyone who isn't already on your side, if anything, just makes people on the other side more inclined to disagree.
[QUOTE=Jon MadN;48373780][IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Pvgh1UF.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
Man it's pretty sad to see the Hobbit house like that. All the effort in the previous movies to fake size differences and stuff gone for easy greenscreens.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;48379190]That's not really true. JP's CGI appears better because 80% of the time the dinosaurs are practical, or otherwise covered in darkness most of the time. If you pay attention to the CGI in daylight scenes, you can notice that the animations of the dinosaurs are extremely stiff and fake looking, but they're usually not on screen long enough for people to notice because Spielberg knew what he was doing.[/QUOTE]
Most of the extended CG dinosaur scenes were animated by a practical effects/clay animator using a miniature skeleton that had a fairly accurate bone structure, so the texture and lighting quality don't hold up too well but the movement do. On the full body shots the dinosaurs are usually far away and in groups so it's harder to see the jankiness of the animation.
Spielberg is great at knowing where to use CG, where to use practical effects, and where to blend them.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;48373990]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.[/QUOTE]
Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead without CG would look a lot worse, or would incredibly humongous amounts of effort for them to look maybe just about as well as it does.
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mad.Hatter;48374211][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?[/QUOTE]
Ironically he's probably the reason most people don't like CGI, after all the awful star wars re-releases.
[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]
This is a stupid example because Lucas is a horrible writer and director.
[QUOTE=usaokay;48379286][B]Some [/B]of the unaltered 70s CGIs look considerably worse than the slightly updated versions.[/QUOTE]
70s CGI?
[QUOTE=Jon MadN;48373780][IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Pvgh1UF.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
As the image goes on, it's like Gandalf is a dementia patient coming to reality. :<
[QUOTE=simkas;48373772]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]
Have you seen The Hobbit 3 ?
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
Also he spent the whole video basically saying "CG can't make up for shitty scripts"
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=simkas;48374385]There are people that just think all CG is shit and all movies suck nowadays because of it.[/QUOTE]
why even argue with those idiots.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;48379190]That's not really true. JP's CGI appears better because 80% of the time the dinosaurs are practical, or otherwise covered in darkness most of the time. If you pay attention to the CGI in daylight scenes, you can notice that the animations of the dinosaurs are extremely stiff and fake looking, but they're usually not on screen long enough for people to notice because Spielberg knew what he was doing.[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, Jurassic World has the dinos on screen for most of the movie and they look awful as a result.
When CGI Enhances a scene, I think that's when it's best used. When it's used to create a scene, it's going to be at the movie's expense, generally. Either by making you go Meh because it's uncanny valley, or because the actors are giving a lackluster performance because there's nothing but unnatural green all around them.
Take the scene from Heat where they have the big shootout. Do you think you could get that performance (Or make it look as good) if it was just all green stage rooms with various props as markers, then all the VFX and Sounds were added in post on top of the actors maybe looking a bit disconnected? Even if it was made today instead of in the 90's
Then there's other movies, like Starship Troopers, where the CGI is actually REALLY well done, especially for its time, but it's used in moderation, and to enhance an actual set, such as:
[img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/70/ed/8470edac0cbd64691ee242ee534d94cd.jpg[/img]
The bugs were animated using puppeteers on a scaled miniature that had a lot of engineering put into it, so even though they were CGI, they moved like you'd expect and not all wonky and floaty
Blackhawk Down's practical effects combined with CGI vs Battle LA pure CGI. The suspension of disbelief is broken if too much is used, IMO, and that's mainly because there's just something off, even with the best of the best, that you can't figure out but you know something's just off. Now days it all has that faint film grain effect over it to try and hide it better and blend what's real with it
[QUOTE=Jon MadN;48373780][IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Pvgh1UF.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
The Hobbit is actually the best example. CGI should only be used when necessary. It's like that entire movie wanted to be CG (it can be done ala Beowulf, but it takes a lot of effort).
[QUOTE=Novangel;48379930]Man it's pretty sad to see the Hobbit house like that. All the effort in the previous movies to fake size differences and stuff gone for easy greenscreens.[/QUOTE]
They did build it though. That's where all the other characters are. Gandalf was shot on a greenscreen for the size difference, there's a pretty cool video on how they built an exact scale duplicate of the house in green shapes for ian mckellen to act in, and used some kind of really cool computer system to match the camera movements and focal distances so incredibly exactly that it lines up perfectly
[editline]5th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=vladnag;48374044]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.[/QUOTE]
It still looks great though doesn't it?
In the beginning of the video when he starts talking and does that low voice, he sounds like the dude that voices Farkas in skyrim
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
