Quote
Originally posted by: Laserforce
Hi Spider,
Great post.
I agree with you 100%.
CGI has a hard time when creating 3 dimenshional items.They look paper thin and have no mass.
Like the post said 2001 was such a good movie,I believed i was in space when watching it.
Look at Empire when the At At are attacking hoth,They have both weight,structure,movement and tone.
If done in CGI Empire would be a tottaly different film.
Jedi was good beacuse CGi was used aswell as model kits.
Terminator 2 was a good film i think beacuse CGI was used with live actors and sparingly.
The phantom menace had me in disbelief when i saw it at the movies,Also clone wars.
I think that if a film has a concrete story line and good acting then CGI is not so important.
Its intresting how technology in film making has changed since the first Star wars movie,Sets and props dont seem to be the order of the day.
I always like models and sets beacuse they have a very true to life and "hands on" approach,look at Battlestar Galactica,
The ships in this series looked awsome,Done in CGI they would move too fast and look flat.
If you look at CGi in the clone wars there are not many sceens when the action is slow and CGI is applied.This is beacuse CGI is no good at slow motion beacuse the human brain can detect it from reality.
I am not entirely looking forward to seeing the next Star wars film,CGI will play a big part no doubt and gone will be the true approach.
First of all Terminator 2 is an Ok film. I see it as a dumb action movie. I enjoy it the same why I enjoy Van Helsing great effects but all the substance of the first Terminator movie is gone. What about the Matrix. You say CGI can never look good in slow motion but The Matrix is filled with slow motion CGI that looks excellent. Not to mention slow motion in movies normally is bad even in live action form.