Dpp1978
Posts: 1012
Joined: 2/4/2006
|
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.
Show them this.
quote:
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.
Phil Tippett is a gifted animator. It was his meticulous attention to detail, in both preparation and execution, that created such good results. A good animator will use every reference they can find to create a believable performance, that is irrespective of whether they are using hand drawn frames, physical models or indeed CG.
As with any film-making technique it is the artist and how much time and money they have to work with that is important, not the tools they use.
quote:
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.
Anyway,
As stated in my initial post, CGI is a wonderful tool. It allows for shots that would be impossible by any other means. In modern films I just wish it were used more sparingly, and better integrated into the action. JP does it perfectly, using the robot whenever possible, and the CGI in order to bring it to life outside of the close ups and 'trick shots'. Given the miraculous advances of CGI over the past decades, I'd love to see more films that take masterfully assured practical effects and cover the seams with perfectly blended CGI to extend background, bodies, ETC, in ways that were not at the time possible in JP. Today, for instance, you could have the ROBOT REX HEAD staring down Lex and Grant, in a full view wideshot, with a CGI body matched up. Your eye would be drawn to the head, with the water dripping off the snout, the steam from the nostrils, but the camera would be allowed the freedom to shoot it in such a way that they wouldn't have to worry about covering up the parts of the dinosaur not created practically.
Also, you're right, practical isn't always the way to go. Shot's like the ROBOT REX's arm testing the fence don't quite work, and that's a place where CGI would be perfect if you were making the movie in 2012. It just pains me to see the 'ALL CG, ALL THE TIME' approach that is so often the fallback in today's FX world. Practical has it's advantages, CG has it's strengths, and true movie magic can be achieved when the two are properly blended. It's a shame that with all the advances in technology, this craft is little used in today's film world.
The biggest problem with the puppet, and any large animatronic for that matter is how it moves. It has to use motors and hydraulics which by their nature have a very mechanical way of moving; especially when they change direction. It tends to either be too smooth and precise or too jerky.
They are expensive to build and difficult to operate, not to mention potentially incredibly dangerous. These days the only equity in having something like the big T-Rex on set would be for the actors' benefit. If you are going to comp in a CG body you might as well comp in the whole thing. It'd probably be less work for the animator too.
As to all CG all the time, practical effects and miniatures are still incredibly useful tools. Even the Star Wars prequels (the poster children for "CG overload") used a massive amount of miniatures: each individual prequel had more model work than the original trilogy combined. ILM and Weta still use practical effects for shots where it would be easier and cheaper than CG. It is just their capture and compositing tools are digital rather than analogue.
It comes down to what is the best way to do something. It is still far easier, and far more effective to build a practical miniature and blow it up than to render an explosion in CG. The fact is most of us can't tell whether we are looking at a model, CG or a combination of the two when looking at an effects shot, which is exactly how it is supposed to be. Sometimes we don't even notice we are looking at an effects shot.
Just because we assume everything is CG these days doesn't make it true.
Another example of flawless old school effects work.
Click me.
|
Printable Version
Excellence in Practical Effects - 
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread