I loved the animated movie, but this seems to be a disappointment judging by critics. I might still see it, I'll just keep my expectations at the 'Ghostbuster Reboot' level. Right next to the trash.lacktheknack said:Nooooooo! I really wanted this to be good. I loved the book. ;__;
True, but what makes practical effects the better alternative is that the animated creatures actually look like they're there in the same scene as the actors, because they are.Samtemdo8 said:But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.
Live actors in impressive make-up using camera tricks would work just as well as CGI for the giants. And well designed sets can create the world. It's not like anything that doesn't exist in the real world has to be done through CG. The most impressive visual effects in movie history have always been practical effects, occasionally with CGI touch-ups.Samtemdo8 said:I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.
I MY case I really don't care if its "There" or not. And full CGI movies like King Kong and Pirates 2 and 3 convinced me that we don't need Robots and Make Up anymore.evilthecat said:True, but what makes practical effects the better alternative is that the animated creatures actually look like they're there in the same scene as the actors, because they are.Samtemdo8 said:But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.
CGI and practical effects both have advantages. Jurassic Park used both, and did so really really well which is why it totally holds up better than a whole lot of modern, crappy, floaty CGI work which looks like it's just been transplanted from a video game.
Additionally, the modern film industry often seems to still work on the assumption that if you just stick lots of impressive rendering on screen people are going to be blown away, when actually modern audiences are incredibly desensitized to CGI. We don't find it amazing or wonderful just because it exists any more, in fact we are extremely finely tuned to noticing when something about it is off.
Actually, a lot of the best CGI work produced in the past few years are things people assumed were practical or often never even registered at all. The problem is not that CGI is bad, it's that CGI only becomes worth mentioning when it's bad. When it's good, it just becomes part of the illusion of the film.
Mabye its a generational thing because I did not grew up watching movies like Alien and Robocop and Temple of Doom and The Thing and others in the theaters I mean I grew up in the era of early CG movies like Godzilla 1998 and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (They used many CG effects) and I did not mind their CGI effects (I liked the Troll scene in Harry Potter one)RJ Dalton said:Live actors in impressive make-up using camera tricks would work just as well as CGI for the giants. And well designed sets can create the world. It's not like anything that doesn't exist in the real world has to be done through CG. The most impressive visual effects in movie history have always been practical effects, occasionally with CGI touch-ups.Samtemdo8 said:I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.
Ditto.MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:I was turned off by this film as soon as I saw their interpretation of the bad giants ... In the animated film the giants are genuinely quite frightening, especially for a child audience, which is as it should; the new giants on the other hand, just large people ...
The Fleshlumpeater from the 1989 film, by comparison:
Yes, except CGI has a double layer of fakeness, since not only is it displaying something that doesn't exist, it isn't even physically in the scene. This is why having a mixture of special effects is generally the right way to go, so that your eye doesn't get too use to just one kind of illusion.Samtemdo8 said:Eh more Anti CGI Snobbery
I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.
The mere showcase that I see something that does not exist means by its very nature is fake. Whether they used CGI or a Robot.
But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.
I mean people loves to point the Dinosaur robot in Jurassic Park but they were just standing there, just standing. And after watching the behind the scenes and the fact that they are robots now that magic is gone
Go back and watch Lord of the Rings again. You'll actually notice something interesting: most of the shots are practical effects. And the ones that are all CGI are usually the least convincing effects. And none of the shots that made the hobbits and dwarves look shorter than other people are CGI. They're all done with camera tricks and doubles shot. Size is the easiest thing to fake as a practical effect.Samtemdo8 said:Maybe its a generational thing because I did not grew up watching movies like Alien and Robocop and Temple of Doom and The Thing and others in the theaters I mean I grew up in the era of early CG movies like Godzilla 1998 and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (They used many CG effects) and I did not mind their CGI effects (I liked the Troll scene in Harry Potter one)
King Kong 2006 still looks good to me.RJ Dalton said:Go back and watch Lord of the Rings again. You'll actually notice something interesting: most of the shots are practical effects. And the ones that are all CGI are usually the least convincing effects. And none of the shots that made the hobbits and dwarves look shorter than other people are CGI. They're all done with camera tricks and doubles shot. Size is the easiest thing to fake as a practical effect.Samtemdo8 said:Maybe its a generational thing because I did not grew up watching movies like Alien and Robocop and Temple of Doom and The Thing and others in the theaters I mean I grew up in the era of early CG movies like Godzilla 1998 and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (They used many CG effects) and I did not mind their CGI effects (I liked the Troll scene in Harry Potter one)
In games, it's a different thing altogether, because the entire thing is CGI. In a live-action film, the CGI clashes with the real stuff and looks odd. The human brain is really good at picking up inconsistencies, such as the lighting being off, textures being wrong, subtle effects of distance (blurring and scale) because being able to recognize these things is a survival trait. That makes it really hard to integrate CGI effects into live action convincingly. Your brain can usually recognize it's not actually there, so it doesn't sit well with you, even if you don't consciously realize what's wrong about it. That's why practical effects work so much better. Sure, you usually know it's not real - especially if the practical effect is like a puppet - but because something is actually there, it doesn't trigger that part of your brain that's looking for something wrong.
Films like Cameron's Titanic, for example. Almost all of that film's effects are practical. Miniatures mostly, occasional camera tricks. The only CGI in the film is used to enhance a few of the shots using miniatures. The original Jurassic Park has a grand total of 25 seconds of CGI in it and all the rest of it is practical effects. Both of those films still look really good today, but most of the films made with CGI today will look bad in a few years, because CGI effects age poorly and they age quickly.
2001: A space odyssey still looks good to me.Samtemdo8 said:King Kong 2006 still looks good to me.
Pirates trilogy still looks good to me.
Hobbit still looks good to me.
Alot of movies with good CGI still looks decent to me.