Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Excellence in Practical Effects

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Excellence in Practical Effects Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 11:55:05 AM   
UTB


Posts: 9976
Joined: 30/9/2005
Its one of those films where those that love it remember the good cgi and those that don't remember the bad

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 31
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 11:59:46 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8305
Joined: 31/7/2008
I quite like the film, but even when it came out I thought most of the effects were a bit ropey. Time has not been too kind either.

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 32
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 12:03:14 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1164
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

The CGI Sharks in deep blue sea are pretty terrifying imo.


I think its inconsistent. Some of the CGI is immense and other parts are fucking awful. You can see where they've spent more time in one scene than they have elsewhere.

The scene where a particular actor gets eaten after a stirring speech is laughable - his whole body is CG and his hands are blocks, like a GTA game or something.


It is also over 10 years old. It is hardly reflective of what a shark movie with a decent budget could look like now.

If Jaws were made today there would undoubtedly be a CG shark. Whether or not it would be the only shark; we can only speculate on that.

Animatronics has come a long way since 1975 and CG has come just as far since 1999. Whatever tools they chose to use it would in all likelihood look "better". Whether or not would be better is another question.

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 33
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 12:12:34 PM   
jcthefirst


Posts: 4429
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

Oh before I forget: Audrey 2 in TLSoH is still fantastic.


Nooooo shit, Sherlock.



_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 34
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 12:43:32 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

Regarding Jaws: I think adding a cgi shark for the moments when he swims by instead of just planking along would improve it. Other wise I am quite happy with Bruce.



I don't know. The shot where Bruce swims by the Orca (as seen from atop the crow's nest) gives you a sense of how fucking HUGE that shark really is, and the fact that he hardly moves as he goes by makes him look more majestic. The sequences where the shark's fin powers through the water without effort makes the strength and power of the shark much more impressive.

If it was CG'd, it would be jerky and, OK, realistic, but that's NOT what was intended, I think....



I'm torn here. When I treat it as the film I always loved and know so well, the shark works for me: and you're spot on in that you get a sense of the scale of the shark.

However, if I stop and get out of my normal mindset: the shark is suddenly a laughably parazlyed blob.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 35
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 12:59:17 PM   
darthbane


Posts: 5750
Joined: 27/10/2005
From: Twelve parsecs outside the Rishi maze

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

Has people have said CGI sharks just don't work. How can you be scared of some thing that looks like it has been done in a computer. I have to say that I do like Bruce the Shark and thank god that Spielberg is not like Geroge Lucas  who is busy marking  the Star wars  original trilogy look like the prequel trilogy. Jaws really would suck with a badly done CGI shark. 


Holyshit!!!! 25 posts before this came up

_____________________________

"You're not safe here. No one is" Batman - Arkham City

http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/darthbane

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 36
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:05:34 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4262
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
The whole CG shark vs Practical is an interesting one.

However...I take it that those who are suggesting the benefits of a CG shark are not in favour of some kind of Jaws Special Edition ala Lucas. Right....?

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to darthbane)
Post #: 37
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:08:10 PM   
DazDaMan


Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

Regarding Jaws: I think adding a cgi shark for the moments when he swims by instead of just planking along would improve it. Other wise I am quite happy with Bruce.



I don't know. The shot where Bruce swims by the Orca (as seen from atop the crow's nest) gives you a sense of how fucking HUGE that shark really is, and the fact that he hardly moves as he goes by makes him look more majestic. The sequences where the shark's fin powers through the water without effort makes the strength and power of the shark much more impressive.

If it was CG'd, it would be jerky and, OK, realistic, but that's NOT what was intended, I think....



I'm torn here. When I treat it as the film I always loved and know so well, the shark works for me: and you're spot on in that you get a sense of the scale of the shark.

However, if I stop and get out of my normal mindset: the shark is suddenly a laughably parazlyed blob.


See, again, I disagree. The shark not working is what makes it work.

The irony is that the sharks in the sequels looked worse, despite the supposed advances in technology!

(That said, I always had a soft spot for Bruce IV. No idea why! )

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 38
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:12:06 PM   
darthbane


Posts: 5750
Joined: 27/10/2005
From: Twelve parsecs outside the Rishi maze

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The whole CG shark vs Practical is an interesting one.

However...I take it that those who are suggesting the benefits of a CG shark are not in favour of some kind of Jaws Special Edition ala Lucas. Right....?


I would be interested in seeing what Spielberg could achieve if he gave it a go. I also wouldn't mine paying to watch it so that I could make up my own mind. However I don't think I could stand the inevitable, "Spielberg raped my childhood" meltdown

_____________________________

"You're not safe here. No one is" Batman - Arkham City

http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/darthbane

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 39
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:15:11 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4262
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

Regarding Jaws: I think adding a cgi shark for the moments when he swims by instead of just planking along would improve it. Other wise I am quite happy with Bruce.



I don't know. The shot where Bruce swims by the Orca (as seen from atop the crow's nest) gives you a sense of how fucking HUGE that shark really is, and the fact that he hardly moves as he goes by makes him look more majestic. The sequences where the shark's fin powers through the water without effort makes the strength and power of the shark much more impressive.

If it was CG'd, it would be jerky and, OK, realistic, but that's NOT what was intended, I think....



I'm torn here. When I treat it as the film I always loved and know so well, the shark works for me: and you're spot on in that you get a sense of the scale of the shark.

However, if I stop and get out of my normal mindset: the shark is suddenly a laughably parazlyed blob.


See, again, I disagree. The shark not working is what makes it work.

The irony is that the sharks in the sequels looked worse, despite the supposed advances in technology!



Which again proves the point already made - thank you DPP - that it's not the tools, but how you use the tools that matters.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 40
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:17:10 PM   
darthbane


Posts: 5750
Joined: 27/10/2005
From: Twelve parsecs outside the Rishi maze

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

Regarding Jaws: I think adding a cgi shark for the moments when he swims by instead of just planking along would improve it. Other wise I am quite happy with Bruce.



I don't know. The shot where Bruce swims by the Orca (as seen from atop the crow's nest) gives you a sense of how fucking HUGE that shark really is, and the fact that he hardly moves as he goes by makes him look more majestic. The sequences where the shark's fin powers through the water without effort makes the strength and power of the shark much more impressive.

If it was CG'd, it would be jerky and, OK, realistic, but that's NOT what was intended, I think....



I'm torn here. When I treat it as the film I always loved and know so well, the shark works for me: and you're spot on in that you get a sense of the scale of the shark.

However, if I stop and get out of my normal mindset: the shark is suddenly a laughably parazlyed blob.


See, again, I disagree. The shark not working is what makes it work.

The irony is that the sharks in the sequels looked worse, despite the supposed advances in technology!

(That said, I always had a soft spot for Bruce IV. No idea why! )


I don't agree with that. The shark not working means the Spielberg had to shoot around it. But there's no reason why it still couldn't be made like that in CGI. If the shark was made of pixels, it doesn't mean that it suddenly needs to be more in your face, or more full on


_____________________________

"You're not safe here. No one is" Batman - Arkham City

http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/darthbane

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 41
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:18:13 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4262
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: darthbane


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The whole CG shark vs Practical is an interesting one.

However...I take it that those who are suggesting the benefits of a CG shark are not in favour of some kind of Jaws Special Edition ala Lucas. Right....?


I would be interested in seeing what Spielberg could achieve if he gave it a go. I also wouldn't mine paying to watch it so that I could make up my own mind. However I don't think I could stand the inevitable, "Spielberg raped my childhood" meltdown


Really? You'd be interested in seeing it tampered with? Or are you talking about a hypothetical "if Spielberg made it today" scenario?

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to darthbane)
Post #: 42
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:18:30 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8305
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: darthbane


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

Has people have said CGI sharks just don't work. How can you be scared of some thing that looks like it has been done in a computer. I have to say that I do like Bruce the Shark and thank god that Spielberg is not like Geroge Lucas  who is busy marking  the Star wars  original trilogy look like the prequel trilogy. Jaws really would suck with a badly done CGI shark. 


Holyshit!!!! 25 posts before this came up


And it wasn't even me who brought it up

Say what you like about the prequels, but the effects work was pretty spot on for the most part. As for Jaws, those who are bang into it might correct me, but wasn't the final film a product of Bruce being an unreliable piece of shit? The fact it never worked meant Speilberg had to make a lot of the menace implied (a lot of shark POV shots etc.) which wouldn't have happened if Bruce had worked like it should have. I find that interesting, in that were CGI (or a working animatronic) available it could have been a very different, and possibly less effective, film.

Edit: Darthbane got there before me.

< Message edited by superdan -- 5/4/2012 1:20:15 PM >

(in reply to darthbane)
Post #: 43
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:20:33 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4262
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
The shark is perfectly fine. Suggesting that it could "look better" might be true but that is purely cosmetic. Could it make the film any better? I severely doubt it.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to darthbane)
Post #: 44
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:30:27 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
I am a long-time critic of CGI. Going back to some of Dpp's (as ever) eloquent and well thought out posts, I have to disagree on the basis that, to me, even GOOD CGI still looks like CGI and dates very badly very quickly, compared to GOOD practical effects which still look good today (I'm thinking The Thing as a good example).

Going back to the Jaws vs. Deep Blue Sea example, in my opinion Bruce looks VERY good indeed in certain sequences (especially towards the end where it's Brody V Bruce), whereas I can't recall one CGI shark that looked real (to me, anyway) in Deep Blue Sea. But Deep Blue Sea is an interesting one, because it also used practical effects, and the practical shots look so much better than the CGI.

Generally with CGI there's no weight or substance to anything - it just looks like a computer game - and CG gore is particularly poor, even when it is done "well".

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 45
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:33:04 PM   
darthbane


Posts: 5750
Joined: 27/10/2005
From: Twelve parsecs outside the Rishi maze

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: darthbane


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The whole CG shark vs Practical is an interesting one.

However...I take it that those who are suggesting the benefits of a CG shark are not in favour of some kind of Jaws Special Edition ala Lucas. Right....?


I would be interested in seeing what Spielberg could achieve if he gave it a go. I also wouldn't mine paying to watch it so that I could make up my own mind. However I don't think I could stand the inevitable, "Spielberg raped my childhood" meltdown


Really? You'd be interested in seeing it tampered with? Or are you talking about a hypothetical "if Spielberg made it today" scenario?


Yeah why not. I own the original and will still love the original. I just think it would be interesting to see

_____________________________

"You're not safe here. No one is" Batman - Arkham City

http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/darthbane

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 46
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:35:32 PM   
DazDaMan


Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Going back to the Jaws vs. Deep Blue Sea example, in my opinion Bruce looks VERY good indeed in certain sequences (especially towards the end where it's Brody V Bruce), whereas I can't recall one CGI shark that looked real (to me, anyway) in Deep Blue Sea. But Deep Blue Sea is an interesting one, because it also used practical effects, and the practical shots look so much better than the CGI.



One shot I can think of is towards the end, where the characters have escaped the research station and are swimming to the surface. There's a great shot of the shark swimming up towards them, taken from about the 7 o'clock position. It's only there for a second or two, but it looks pretty real.

The big animatronic Mako gives Bruce a run for his money, though. That is one bad motherfucking shark!

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 47
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:43:46 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4262
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Going back to the Jaws vs. Deep Blue Sea example, in my opinion Bruce looks VERY good indeed in certain sequences (especially towards the end where it's Brody V Bruce), whereas I can't recall one CGI shark that looked real (to me, anyway) in Deep Blue Sea. But Deep Blue Sea is an interesting one, because it also used practical effects, and the practical shots look so much better than the CGI.



One shot I can think of is towards the end, where the characters have escaped the research station and are swimming to the surface. There's a great shot of the shark swimming up towards them, taken from about the 7 o'clock position. It's only there for a second or two, but it looks pretty real.

The big animatronic Mako gives Bruce a run for his money, though. That is one bad motherfucking shark!


I really like that scene. I think the CG sharks look okay, like I said before they're aided by being mainly underwater where it's murky and dark. The scene where the CG shark jumps out in bright light to eat Jackson does look ropey but it doesn't seem to matter because it's so darkly funny and unexpected.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 48
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:51:08 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
As mentioned upthread the 'Bigature' work in the LOTR is still the finest practical miniature work committed to film so far. Some of the effects are jaw dropping as you can see below.









EDIT: Had to change the top image as on closer inspection it was actually a digital shot from one of the games.

< Message edited by Spaldron -- 5/4/2012 2:03:29 PM >


_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 49
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 1:59:41 PM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 78047
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

As mentioned upthread the 'Bigature' work in the LOTR is still the finest practical miniature work committed to film so far. Some of the effects are jaw dropping as you can see below.






Indeed! I think that scene when Gandalf rides into Minas Tirith is one of the most astonishing effects sequences in the trilogy.


_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 50
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 2:04:04 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

Just a heads up that image isn't from the film, my mistake.

< Message edited by Spaldron -- 5/4/2012 2:16:02 PM >


_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 51
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 2:08:10 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The shark is perfectly fine. Suggesting that it could "look better" might be true but that is purely cosmetic. Could it make the film any better? I severely doubt it.


I disagree. Film is an image driven medium: improving the images can enhance the film (if done correctly). I find Jaws so difficult to talk about because I love it so much. So perhaps it should just be left alone, you're nevre going to please everyone anyway.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 52
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 2:10:04 PM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 78047
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

Just a heads up that image isn't from the film, my mistake.



I really should have known that


_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 53
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 2:15:44 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8305
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The shark is perfectly fine. Suggesting that it could "look better" might be true but that is purely cosmetic. Could it make the film any better? I severely doubt it.


I disagree. Film is an image driven medium: improving the images can enhance the film (if done correctly). I find Jaws so difficult to talk about because I love it so much. So perhaps it should just be left alone, you're nevre going to please everyone anyway.


There's the rub though. How can it possibly be done in a way that doesn't detract from the rest of the film? Could you replace the original King Kong with a CGI one? I can see the value of CGI work in removing things like matte lines and so on, but replacing entire special effects is too invasive I think.

< Message edited by superdan -- 5/4/2012 2:16:24 PM >

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 54
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 2:34:49 PM   
darthbane


Posts: 5750
Joined: 27/10/2005
From: Twelve parsecs outside the Rishi maze

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The shark is perfectly fine. Suggesting that it could "look better" might be true but that is purely cosmetic. Could it make the film any better? I severely doubt it.


I disagree. Film is an image driven medium: improving the images can enhance the film (if done correctly). I find Jaws so difficult to talk about because I love it so much. So perhaps it should just be left alone, you're nevre going to please everyone anyway.


There's the rub though. How can it possibly be done in a way that doesn't detract from the rest of the film? Could you replace the original King Kong with a CGI one? I can see the value of CGI work in removing things like matte lines and so on, but replacing entire special effects is too invasive I think.


King Kong is an interesting point. Which is the better Kong, surely the Peter Jackson/Andy Serkis creation? But having said that, which is the better movie?


_____________________________

"You're not safe here. No one is" Batman - Arkham City

http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/darthbane

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 55
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 3:19:07 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1164
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

I am a long-time critic of CGI. Going back to some of Dpp's (as ever) eloquent and well thought out posts, I have to disagree on the basis that, to me, even GOOD CGI still looks like CGI and dates very badly very quickly, compared to GOOD practical effects which still look good today (I'm thinking The Thing as a good example).


Good CGI is indistinguishable from a practical effect, or even dare I say it, real life.

There are, I can almost guarantee you, shots in films where you have not realised you are looking at a CG effect.

The set extensions in Zodiac are an oft cited example of the near seamless blending of real life and digital wizardry.

See here.

Some of the stuff ILM created for Rango could easily be mistaken for real footage (shots without CG critters obviously).

quote:

Going back to the Jaws vs. Deep Blue Sea example, in my opinion Bruce looks VERY good indeed in certain sequences (especially towards the end where it's Brody V Bruce), whereas I can't recall one CGI shark that looked real (to me, anyway) in Deep Blue Sea. But Deep Blue Sea is an interesting one, because it also used practical effects, and the practical shots look so much better than the CGI.

Generally with CGI there's no weight or substance to anything - it just looks like a computer game - and CG gore is particularly poor, even when it is done "well".


I'll agree with you on CG gore. It almost always looks poor. Even the example in the video I just linked to is less than convincing, and it is worlds better than what they had in the likes of Rambo 4 and The Expendables.

Compare it to the Robocop example I posted earlier in the thread and there is no comparison.

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 56
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 3:22:59 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4262
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The shark is perfectly fine. Suggesting that it could "look better" might be true but that is purely cosmetic. Could it make the film any better? I severely doubt it.


I disagree. Film is an image driven medium: improving the images can enhance the film (if done correctly). I find Jaws so difficult to talk about because I love it so much. So perhaps it should just be left alone, you're nevre going to please everyone anyway.


Hang on, improving image doesn't necessarily improve the film - looking at you, Lucas - although I'll concede that some of that is subjective. People are talking about Jaws here. Improving the 'realism' of the shark would simply be a cosmetic touch, nothing more. The film's power works on many different levels; it ain't all about Bruce.

Can anyone think of an instance where an old effect has been replaced in a film by a modern CG one where not only is the image superior but it has "made the film better"? And I'm not just talking about the insertion of extra shots, as in Mos Eisley or Bespin.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 57
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 4:01:57 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7931
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

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).

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 58
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 4:14:00 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10890
Joined: 30/9/2005






_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 59
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 5/4/2012 4:24:04 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

The shark is perfectly fine. Suggesting that it could "look better" might be true but that is purely cosmetic. Could it make the film any better? I severely doubt it.


I disagree. Film is an image driven medium: improving the images can enhance the film (if done correctly). I find Jaws so difficult to talk about because I love it so much. So perhaps it should just be left alone, you're nevre going to please everyone anyway.


Hang on, improving image doesn't necessarily improve the film - looking at you, Lucas - although I'll concede that some of that is subjective. People are talking about Jaws here. Improving the 'realism' of the shark would simply be a cosmetic touch, nothing more. The film's power works on many different levels; it ain't all about Bruce.

Can anyone think of an instance where an old effect has been replaced in a film by a modern CG one where not only is the image superior but it has "made the film better"? And I'm not just talking about the insertion of extra shots, as in Mos Eisley or Bespin.


I completely agree with you, and knew Lucas would come up. I did however say improving the images which clearly Lucas did NOT do, he just added terrible cgi.  Had he added incredible and photorealistic characters we wouldn't be having this conversation.



_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Excellence in Practical Effects Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344