Lucas v. Spielberg, Round 3 - Who Makes Better Use Of CGI?

Spielberg. From what I understand, he likes to use it sparingly - and when he does it's usually to good effect. Jurassic Park still looks great in motion.

Spielberg, as I believe he still uses sets in his movies.

Although I do think the comparison is a bit unfair.  I mean, Spielberg has made a lot of movies that don't have visual effects at all or a minimal amount, while all we can compare them to on Lucas' side are the SEs and Prequels.

I suppose the question is whether you prefer selective, judicious use of CGI or liberal use of it. I always prefer "less is more". Point, Spielberg.

Well lets look at movies that use little to no CGI

Speilberg - Schindlers list  - a Must see movie if ever there was one

Lucas - Howard the Duck - Nuf Said!

Case closed LOL

Shouldn't that be for Spielberg seeing as though he can make movies that don't rely so heavily on them 

lucas has an in your face CGI mentality (leapfrog Yoda anyone?)

Spielberg uses it subtly to enhance a scene (ET special edition is a good example of this  Most of the enhancements at least  were not in your face CGI (technically it was just E.T's face LOL)

BarBar Jinkx said:

Well lets look at movies that use little to no CGI

 

Speilberg - Schindlers list  - a Must see movie if ever there was one

Lucas - Howard the Duck - Nuf Said!

 

Case closed LOL

Even though I'm siding with Spielberg, that's still a bit of an unfair comparison, as you could easily go the other way with it:

"Spielberg - 1941

Lucas- American Graffitti

Cased closed LOL"

Just sayin'. :P

I went to one of Lucas's websites and the Common Gateway Interface code (CGI hereafter) was very well implemented.  I was able to search and sort and never did the code residing in cgibin give me any trouble.

I have yet to come across a Spielberg website containing any code inside of a cgibin subdirectory.

RESULT: Lucas x 2. (with both hands)

This thread is retarded its like who makes better use of cgi Lucas or Lucas, because ILM is a Lucas company who did the effects on Spielberg's films.

Who makes better use of cgi ILM or ILM.

A better question would be Weta versus ILM.  My vote would go to Weta.

As to the question this thread goes Lucas gets a goose egg and so does Spielberg.  Both used bad cgi.

Lucas on the prequels and Indiana Jones IV.

Spielberg on Indiana Jones IV and War of the Worlds.

The cgi was less bad and in your face in Minority Report and Jurassic Park still i guess thats like half a point for Spielberg.

Neither should be allowed to direct ever again.  Spielberg had two duds with war of the worlds and Indy 4 money and time i will never get back, and Lucas the prequels and helped Spielberg ruin indiana jones or was that the other way around?

I was pretty much stating how modern Lucas and Modern Spielberg are virtually the same, except Lucas is a bit more over the top.  Whereas In the past they would have used sets and traditional effects almost the same as well.  Spielberg moves the camera differently and directs his actors differently but their kind of like two halves of the same coin.  That is why Raiders was such a smash hit.  The 2 biggest names in cinema at the time.

Now you could not pay me to see one of their movies.  Although to Spielberg's credit he has had more good films than bad ones because he has made more films.  Lucas made so few that 3 of the bad ones are episodes 1-3 which without he would look better.  He still would be regarded as the man who directed 2 great films and one experimental and original.

In the Modern Era Spielberg has:

Good films:

Jurassic Park

Shindlers List

Saving Private Ryan

Minority Report

A.I.

Bad films:

Jurassic Park 2

Munich

Catch me if you can

The terminal

Amistad

Hook

Crystal Skull

War of the Worlds

Lucas Good films:

THX 1138

American Graffiti

Star Wars

Bad films:

Episodes 1-3 of the star wars prequels.  Therefore 50% of his output as a director is shit.

Despite his altering of other directors movies he did not Direct Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi.

He did direct the special editions though,lol.

Since Kersh said do whatever you want and Marquand can't complain from the grave. I'm Sure he would have been thrilled to have Shaw replaced with an actor who was only 2 years old during the films release.

skyjedi2005 said:

 

A better question would be Weta versus ILM.  My vote would go to Weta.

Read ALL THE WORDS in the thread title - "Who Makes Better USE of CGI?", not "Who Makes Better CGI?"

You're arguing technical issues - who's better at performing the task.  The real question is an issue of creative decisions - WHY they were using CG when a model or set might have sufficed.

I'll go with Spielberg.  He uses CG when he NEEDS to, not because he WANTS to.

Ziz said:

skyjedi2005 said:

 

A better question would be Weta versus ILM.  My vote would go to Weta.

Read ALL THE WORDS in the thread title - "Who Makes Better USE of CGI?", not "Who Makes Better CGI?"

 Hmm... I prefer to answer the other question:

Who has made the best CG?  You could use several different measuring sticks to judge this question, however I think I will go with Size and Viciousness.

Is the T-Rex or the Jurassic Park 3 dinosaur the largest/viciousnessest beast in Spielberg's arsenal?  If so, then I suggest it fights the giant sea monster from Phantom Menace.

CRUNCH!

Lucas wins.

What's the tally now, Frink?

Well then... I vote for Lucas.

What's the score now?

Dang it.

I, with respect to quality, vote for Palpatine.  er... I mean Lucas.

How about now?