logo Sign In

Post #52071

Author
Shimraa
Parent topic
CGI and Digital or Real models and actors-whats your prefferance.?
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/52071/action/topic#52071
Date created
4-Jun-2004, 4:24 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Samatar
CGI can be good when it is done properly. LOTR is the best example of this, just look at Golem; a completely digitised character, but totally believable, because the creators took the time and made the effort to develop the character properly, and the animatorsdid a great job making his movement natural (unlike Jarjar who seems to walk in an unnatural boobing motion... but that's the least of my concerns where Jarjar is concerned). Also as I said in that other post, most of the CGI in AOTC and TPM is to shiny and uniform looking to be believed. In LOTR all the CGI characters look different from one another, even in the battle scenes; in AOTC all the soldiers are perfectly identical, right down to the way they wear their uniforms and their movements; it doesn't look natural.

Personally I think CGI generally belongs in computer games, not movies; but if it is done right, it can work. I think the difference between AOTC and LOTR is that LOTR used cgi when it was necessary (to complement the story); AOTC used it whenever possible (to -be- the story).


ok i realize that this is the second post in this thread but i still feel i should comment on it. samatar what is the difference between Lotr and Star wars? lotr is mid-evil, Starwars is futuristic. Lotr has regular men and orcs as soldiers whereas SW as Clones. Clones as in identical clones. SW is story that takes place in a galactic civiliztion Lotr does not. in some ways. when you look at them that way in my opinion you cant effectively compare the CG in them because they are both doing different things with the technology. its the same as trying to compare a abstract painting with photo realistic painting. they both were made using paint and a cavas but you can compare them cus they are of different styles.

as for golum and jarjar. jar jar is supose to walk with a bob it part of his character. Now when your talking aout believablity Golum was just believable because he was serious. considering that jarjar is never serious cus he was there for comic releif and to give the movie a lighter mood. It is because of that role that you just cant find his character believable. With Golum it is another story, for the most part he is a serous charater he is a sly villian. But there are times when golum is not serious and it was in those time that he did seem cartoonie Eg his conversation with himself in TTT. and the look in his eyes when he is shocked. in both of these examples gollums face and body motion has been exagerated so that he seems funny, but this exageration cause him to be cartoonie. that is why he is funny. also the animation for sauron was horrible i am still pissed off that they showed a corperial form of him. you can very easily see the CG when he uses his septer to hit like 5 soldiers at once having them all burst into peaces.

on the hole your right Lotr did a very goodjob with CG but you just can compare its CG to SWs cus they are just not hte same style.