It helps, so they might as well do it. I mean, they're set up, the camera is there, the models are lit, so why not. Even now they still often ask for "handles" (extra footage at both ends of a shot) when an effects shot is being done.

theprequelsrule said:

The medium is the message. If you don't think that CGI have a negative effect on how filmmakers approach the creation of a film you have your head up your ass. Does anyone here think that the great epic blockbusters of the pre-CGI era are not superior in nearly every way to the modern garbage we are fed? Yes, I am including overrated mediocrities like LOTR and Avatar as "modern garbage"

 

Except Lord of the Rings used a ton of miniatures, forced perspective and elaborate makeup and saved the CG for the things that were less feasible to do as practical effects. Hell, even Treebeard they used both animatronics and CG.

Harmy said:

 

But one thing is true, the CGI effects in LOTR are the ones that age the worst. Even Golum, although a great achievment at the time, doesn't actually look that great.

 I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think Gollum is one of the great SFX achievements of all time, still looks better than movies coming out a decade later, and accomplished what would have been impossible with any other effect technique.

Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake. This is my point when it comes to CGI - it is not real. A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.

Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.

theprequelsrule said:

Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake.

Gollum didn't look fake to me. Maybe once or twice? Maybe? He looked really real, other than the fact that I know in my head that there's no one who looks like that.

A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.

No. The Gammorean Guards do not look real. They look like real rubber, yes, but they do not look like real living creatures. Looking like a physical object is not enough - Creatures need to look like creatures, not rubber.

Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033.

Most of the time. Occasionally I think he looks a little stiff.

Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033.

At worst he'll be considered a great example of the best that could be done at the time.

THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY.

Define 100% photorealistic. How will you know when we've reached it? You can't make this kind of demand without a satisfiable goal defined.

Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.

So you want filmmakers to intentionally display the shortcomings of available technologies instead of using what they have to create the illusions they think are best suited for their stories? Why would they do that?

I guess I'm just not properly conveying my issues with CGI. I suppose I just have bias towards models and suits. I just find them more aesthetically pleasing and am sad to see that CGI is replacing all that. I mean, I don't even want to see blockbuster FX movies anymore, even if they are well acted, written, etc., because I find the look of CGI repellent. Don't even get me started on all this 3D crap. My favourite parts of Iron Man were the character moments - by far.

To continue ranting, but off-topic this time, I am just so pissed off that Titanic and Avatar are so highly regarded compared to Cameron's genuinely great films (Terminator, Aliens).

I think I'm an old curmudgeon.

theprequelsrule said:

Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.

 I agree. I prefer classic films, where the FX are subtle and don't draw attention to themselves, like King King (1933), The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad (1958), or Pete's Dragon (1977).

If you haven't seen them, go rent Hellboy 2 or Pan's Labrynth. Take a look at how far men-in-costumes and puppetry FX has advanced, and compare it to Jabba or the mutant from This Island Earth (1955) and you might reevalute how flawlessly those effects have aged just because they're physically real.

theprequelsrule said:

Gollum always looked fake to me. For the time it was great CGI, but it still looked fake. This is my point when it comes to CGI - it is not real. A plastic mask is real. It may be poorly crafted and look like crap, but it will still look real because it is real and not just data on some computer.

Jabba looked great in ROTJ in 1983, in 2003, and will still look great in 2033. Gollum will be considered a joke in 2033. THIS IS WHY CGI IS BAD FOR FILMS UNTIL THEY HAVE 100% PHOTO-REALISTIC TECHNOLOGY. Filmmakers stop using FX in the proper manner; as slight-of-hand (as another poster put it), and instead put it front and centre where we can see how fake it looks.

Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does. I do disagree about Gollum, but I think they should mainly stick to spaceships and dinosaurs (which they keep the f*** out of our Star Wars).

TheBoost said:

There's only one 'tool' I blame for not having a OOT.

^ Second this :)

doubleKO said:

Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does.

I suspect this has something to do with the puppet never crawling around. I don't think it's the only issue, as the Jabba puppet really is pretty amazing, but I think it's part of the problem.

timdiggerm said:

doubleKO said:

Nailed it! 1983 Jabba looks better than anything ever made on a computer. I totally agree that something can look crappy but knowing that it is really there makes it more immersive. Lucas has had two shots at CGI Jabba now and neither of them begin to approach the illusion of a living creature the way the puppet does.

I suspect this has something to do with the puppet never crawling around. I don't think it's the only issue, as the Jabba puppet really is pretty amazing, but I think it's part of the problem.

Yes, but that is the point. Jabba is fucking fat! We don't expect him to move. It becomes part of the character, part of the storytelling. Jabba is a decadent, self-indulgent, lecherous crimelord so it makes sense that he is huge and can't move - a result of his disgusting lifestyle (insert cheap George Lucas joke here). Jabba should never have been depicted as moving; EVER.

It achieves Suspension Of Disbelief. You know, the opposite of that iguana-thing that Kenobi rides in ROTS.

Yes, limitations in technology forced George to go with a format that would remain believable. I personally find Jabba more realistic as a creature that can't move. It seems if you take away the limitations, certain people get the idea that everything should be moving everywhere, all the time.