|
clownfoot -> RE: Excellence in Practical Effects (5/4/2012 4:01:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: King of Kafiristan
I just want to take a moment to apologize for my tone in addressing the CGI effects in JURASSIC PARK. I come from an American film world where many people I know are fond of claiming that not only are JURASSIC PARK's CGI effects revolutionary, masterful and beautiful, they're still somehow objectively THE MOST REAL CGI EFFECTS of all time. These people claim that no CGI creature has looked more real since.
I am used to tilting against the windmills of that argument, and so I was trying to preemptively cut it off at the knees with my initial post.
What cannot be denied though is that the JP CGI effects were perfectly used and the animation holds up without a doubt. The Phil Tippet people who assisted ILM in the animation had a background in claymation and physical effects. CGI was a new technology, and so painstaking care was taken to ensure the movement of the REX looked perfect.
In years since, many CGI creations fling themselves about weightlessly, looking for all intents and purposes like a live action cartoon rather than an animal or creature that could possibly exist in the real world. For the JP CGI REX, however, months were spent studying lions and how they move, hunt and stalk prey. People familiar working with clay ensured that the CGI wireframe models were imbued with a sense of weight that has rarely been matched since.
All I was trying to state with my criticisms of the CGI, such as they were, is that they no longer appear "photo real". They work perfectly in the scene and any limitations in rendering can easily be excused given the age of the film, I was just saying that they don't fool your eye the way the robot still can.
Doesn't Jurassic Park benefit in some way that the audience has never seen a dinosaur in the flesh, so we're able to suspend our disbelief that these are photo-real creatures on screen because we have little to objectively measure them against? Even when other animals have been watched to give an idea of how to animate them, the texture of the creatures is overlooked by the viewer because of the 'wow, it's a dinosaur factor'. I'd content that the Burly Brawl in the Matrix Reloaded is a better use of CGI, but that has been flagged with criticism because it was not totally photo-real - something the viewer can never get away from objectively as we view the human face and form everyday so know what to expect. It means the transition from real Neo to CGI Neo is sometimes a little obvious (at other times you can't really tell which is impressive). Until I watched Tintin the other night (and I've actually no idea of how the visuals were captured in Tintin - I presume it's a combination of CGI for the faces with actual body movement) I don't think any film has done a better job of capturing the human face in such a marvellous way. The Burly Brawl remains a pretty amazing spectacle, though, if you can get past the issue of the photo-realism not being quite there in 2002. There were some shots involved that you would never get from a conventional special effect.
Saying that, I still love the shot in Jedi viewed from the Falcon's cockpit where the mass of Tie-Fighters swarm over the rebel fleet at the start of the Death Star attack. Not even the space shots in the largely CGI-impressive Starship Troopers can top that. (Although Rico riding the beetle is proper shit. Like Legolas riding that massive creature in Return of the King is also proper shit).
|
|
|
|
