Poll: Too Much CGI!
- Thread starter Soviet Heavy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Funnily enough, I watched that today, and it was what prompted me to make the thread.Corum1134 said:
That's unfair. One is a scene from a good movie with now-dated effects and the other is a scene from a mediocre movie with significantly less dated effects.Soviet Heavy said:
Imagine if Jedi had the technology of Sith to tell that same battle.
The problem isn't the use of CG, but the fact that the story being told by the battle is significantly weaker.
Be happy, you were the first to bring it up. Blade Runner is a perfect example of how extensive model work can produce a scene as good if not better than CGI. Attack of the Clones borrowed a lot of imagery from Blade Runner, but none of it looks as good as the original source.JochemDude said:
Still, taken on a technical level, aware of the limitations during both time periods, Jedi pushed forward with technology, while Sith was just another space battle. There really isn't anything in it that I feel pushes it beyond what we'd already been shown in Phantom Menace or Clones.Zachary Amaranth said:
I loves me some CGI, yes I do. I thought the new Star Wars films looked great, I loved 300, I loved Avatar; I just like CGI.
Having said that, I do agree that puppets are better for gore & horror (like the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth, JESUS CHRIST that thing was terrifying), and often do have a more physical presence on screen than a CGI creation - presumably due to, you know, actually being there.
Having said that, I do agree that puppets are better for gore & horror (like the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth, JESUS CHRIST that thing was terrifying), and often do have a more physical presence on screen than a CGI creation - presumably due to, you know, actually being there.
Some of it can be pretty good, but usually no. Why? It looks unnatural. It tends to be obvious and out of place. Now, if it's something like an epic space battle, then yes. But usually? No. Detract from the feel of the movie. It doesn't feel in the least bit organic.
Hence why I was so unimpressed with Avatar. He spends millions making flyby shots of a jungle that he could have done for less just by flying a helicopter over the Amazon. Why bother making something fake when you could work with the real one?Troublesome Lagomorph said:
^This. If the video is any less awesome, it was due to the lesser script, not the effects.Woodsey said:
You can't bring yourself to believe it's real? You believe the rubber T-Rex to be real then?
CGI - when done right and it's easier, if more expensive, to get right in comparison - looks far more believable than props. If you've got a thought in your head going "I know that's not real", sorry to tell you but that's your 'problem'. I get it, it's not that I don't, but you or someone else put that thought there, it's not something based on logic or reality of the situation.
Which is fine if you take Star Wars as nothing but scenery porn, but the visuals of all six movies should have been there to advance the narrative. That the limits no longer needed to be pushed should have been a good thing with the last prequel. It's a shame the narrative wasn't up to the same tier as the visuals, because that would have been top notch.Soviet Heavy said:
It's actually sort of this reason I'm glad CG is becoming commonplace. It's no longer the novelty it once was, and it can't drive bad movies at the box office the way it once did as a result. Not to say it can't at all, and Hollywood is trying to find new ways to make this happen (3D, for example), but at some point this is going to bottom out, the arms race will be done, and we'll have one less way to cover up bad filmmaking.
In some ways, you're right. CGI can do some sweet stuff in films. The effects from ILM in I Am Number Four were spectacular, coupled with the movie itself, which I liked.Aylaine said:
However, CGI has a place. It being the whole experience in a film takes a lot out of it for me. (See Avatar)
Left the first part in because I totally agree. Second part made me grin, because I grew up on a Superman that was filmed rather blatantly with wires and sideways camera shots. You could see through the Snowspeeders in Empire, but I loved that scene with the Speeders vs the Walkers because it was intense and imaginative. THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T MAKE TANKS QUADRIPEDS, YOU IMPERIAL BASTARDS!Vrach said:
Indiana Jones had some very "fake" shots, but it was a good series. CG didn't help it any, but that wasn't the real problem with The Lost Kingdom of Camp Crystal Skull.
But honestly, I've ALWAYS hated the "that looks fake" response, because they used to be able to make you BELIEVE A MAN COULD FLY with wires and trick shots. If you can believe in models, you can certainly believe in CG, but honestly, it shouldn't be that hard to buy anyway. Especially since the WORST CG and models look a thousand times better than they did ten years ago.
I don't care much for Star Wars, but I'll say that Revenge of the Sith was a trifle more fun to watch.
I go for the story of the film, not the visual aesthetics. I don't care if it looks gorgeous as fuck--if it's got a shitty story, it's a shitty movie.
Also, OP, have you ever been invested in a video game? Because that's nothing but CGI, my friend.
I go for the story of the film, not the visual aesthetics. I don't care if it looks gorgeous as fuck--if it's got a shitty story, it's a shitty movie.
Also, OP, have you ever been invested in a video game? Because that's nothing but CGI, my friend.
So... Your reason for not liking CGI is because you know it's not real... But the robot with plastic skin is... I'm sorry, I've heard the argument and to each their own, but "it doesn't seem real" when it comes to a robot or a puppet or a lil model just makes no sense. At least with CG you can actually make it look and react properly. Hell, I'll take the Nolan-Hulk over Lou Ferigno painted green any day.
Besides which, arguing you don't like CG when you're on an almost exclusively gaming site seems off. It's all CG.
Besides which, arguing you don't like CG when you're on an almost exclusively gaming site seems off. It's all CG.
I could go on about the problems I have with Revenge of the Sith, but right now I'm just focusing on the visual aspect. Take the two shots at face value. Before you see any characters, who or what do you think is fighting?EcoEclipse said:
The ship designs also play a major role in characterizing each faction. The Rebels in Jedi have more organic, rounded ships, which are starkly contrasted by the dagger shaped Star Destroyers.
In Revenge of the Sith, you are given a flyby pan of dozens of different ships slugging it out with each other, everything is moving way too fast to get a good grip on the scene, and you don't know who is firing at who. It's just a big clusterfuck of ships blasting each other.
If you pay close attention, you can even see one of the Separatist cruisers ramming another Separatist ship for no reason.