Sign In

CGI and Digital or Real models and actors-whats your prefferance.? — Page 2

Author
Time
Jimbo you have no idea what you are talking about.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
It's not a matter of cost Jimbo. Like I said, if it was only a matter of cost, the studios would not hire big stars, they would hire nobodys. The studio that made "Terminator" could have hired a nobody for next to nothing, but they didn't; they hired Arnie because he has pulling power. It's the same with CGI. The fact that it is cheap does not mean people will use it. The way Hollywood looks at it is that cheap movies don't make money.
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Author
Time
When I said that MAYBE CGI could replace live actors, I meant that the technology would be available for one to do so, but it won't really happen, because it's kinda difficult for a director to tell the animators how to make that character perform. Besides, you'll always need voice actors - unless you use synthetized voice, and that would be insane.

Did any of you see the "behind the cameras" footage on the AOTC DVD? There's a scene in which GL is trying to have Yoda perform perfectly in that "begun the clone war has" scene, and he asks the animators to do it again and again... And he's all like "aww guys c'mon... he's not supposed to be sad". Reminded me of Kubrick trying to get 200 takes of Shelley Duvall in The Shining, but instead of being a brilliant, insanelly perfectionist director, he's just an idiot with a hard-on for CGI.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
CG is only effective when used in conjunction with actual, physical elements (miniatures, puppets, motion capture on-set). Take a look @ Hellboy or JP3 as solid example of what can be done when CG is used in conjunction with puppets and models. LOTR stands as the benchmark for on-set motion capture when it comes to effective CG. Even Bob Hoskins in Roger Rabbit had to have something to act aganst to make the Toons seem real, and that was only cel animation. Anyone who says that CG on its own is the future of cinema needs to get his head examined.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Well put Gundark. Besides, can anyone see a CGI giving as good a performance as Brando did in the Godfather? or how about Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mocking Bird? No way a CGI character could do that.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
I like both. CGI is Cool and Models/Live Action.
A Mix of the two could work well if done Right.

IMO.
§ JxF §
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k200/Jediii_2006/box/blu-sw.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k200/Jediii_2006/box/starwars_ani.gif
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/489/bluraydisc2lk9.jpg
Author
Time
I personally think that CGI should be restricted to use in situations that live actors are incapable of performing. Flying scenes, other extreme stunts, over-the-top monsters (Samhail in Hellboy, for example). Use CGI for severely cost-prohibitive effects and scenery. Stuff that would otherwise break your budget. But to replace real actors with CGI and try to pass them off as real (like what Pacino's character does in S1m0ne) is just wrong. It's called laziness.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
I firmly agree that there should be a mix of both.. whatever gets the job done most effectively! I think Lord of the Rings mixed both really well - most of the time I have trouble telling real from fake.. which is how it should be. I gave up in the end and just enjoyed being transported into another world for three+ hours. I watched AOTC again two nights ago (NEVER again BTW!!) - the CGI is waaayyyy too obvious, expecially during the first half of the film - alot of it just looks too 'clean' and seems 'flat'. It's blatently showing off! The scene were Yoda, Ben and Mace are walking along and talking in that great hall is atrocious! Look at their feet... Alot of the battle scenes at the end are great however, it's just a pity they fall flat as there's no real tension created by the lack-lustre script.

If you mix the two, and only use it when necessary, it creates the right 'feel'. It's similar to an painter trying to create a pleasing balance in his/her work. Throwing CGI at an audience ALL the way through a film just turns it into a sophisticated cartoon, alienating the audience on some inner level, which is what I feel the prequals do. CGI is NOT perfect. It IS clean, but far from perfect! I still prefer a real location wherever possible, because it is REAL! Some people here feel that CGI is the answer to all a film-makers problems. WRONG! It's just a tool, and it's stil being developed! See how much of The Special Edition CGI looks dated already now? I think the real challenge is keeping CGI out of the picture unless it's absolutely necessary. I still prefer most of the effects in the original trilogy. Whilst the PRESENTATION of these effects might look dated i.e. film dirt, boxes aroud ships, black lines around objects etc etc, I still feel that they hold their own. With computer technology all these 70's/80's era flaws can be removed, leaving the wonderful effects looking better than ever. I'm very curious to see how they clean up some of the (few) remaining effects scenes in the new DVD's. I'm still hoping Lucas might relent and give us the originals as well though... Knowing Lucas he's just winding us up anyway, knowing many are spending ALOT of time making the laserdisc copies look just right... then he'll go and release the legit versions!! Doh!!!

Author
Time
No audiences can accept animation. Look at Finding Nemo. Digital animation is the answer to all filmmaking problems. You can put anything on screen. Attack of the Clones did only use digital effects respectivly. Puppet Yoda can't fight. Model ships can't manuver. It would have been hard to find a large number of people who have the same height and walk to play the clones. Men in Alien maskes look fake, with Chewbacca as an exception but George is not doing him digital is he.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
Chewbacca as an exception but George is not doing him digital is he.


Chewbacca wasn't in Attack of the Clowns. Had he been in the movie, I'm sure Lucas would have made the mistake of doing him in CGI

Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
Attack of the Clones did only use digital effects respectivly.


no it didn't it used CGI anywhere and everywhere it could.

Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
Puppet Yoda can't fight.


no he can't but that doesn't mean he needs to be CGI thoughout the whole movie. Did he need to be CGI when he was sitting down? Nope Puppet Yoda would have been much more effective there. I think most of the scenes with the exeption of the fight, would have been better using the puppet instead of CGI

Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
Model ships can't manuver.


huh? think they did pretty well in the O OT.

Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
It would have been hard to find a large number of people who have the same height and walk to play the clones.


they were able to do it in the O OT. Of course that was before Lucas made the stupid decision to make the Storm Troopers clones. what silliness!


Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
Digital animation is the answer to all filmmaking problems.

some? yes all? no.

Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
No audiences can accept animation.


in a cartoon yes. in place of live action? no











E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
Warbler Chewbacca is in Episode 3 and he is not digital.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
It would have been hard to find a large number of people who have the same height and walk to play the clones.
On the contrary, I recall very specifically that during the creation of AOTC, Lucas put out a casting call for a large number of men of a specific height.

The walk would not be a problem. A week of any military or marching band training would get them walking just fine.
(Let me attest to the marching band thing. I've been out of high school for almost 6 years now, and I still will walk in step with people I see in front of me. Its actually kind of scary how trained I became.)
Author
Time
It made no difference for me because I honestly did not think they were digital when I first saw Attack of the Clones. Neither did any of my friends, parents, and relatives.
Author
Time
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.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Delicieuxz
I personally don't even favor golem's CGI much. he still looks incredibly, for lack of deep thinking for a better word right now, translucent and pale in comparison to any real figures. I would've opted for a heavily makeup'd actor instead. I think the same look could be achieved. from my perception nothing about the skin, eyes or hair on golem feels real. I also notice the CGI when it comes to things like catapults knocking down buildings and such. maybe pariculatly because the computer animated dust looks very fake, but overall I believe that CGI must be used as sparingly as possible for best results. It also makes the inventive mind lazy to always look to computers to draw an image rather than figuring out how it can actually be done.


HE IS SUPOSE TO LOOK TRANSLUSENT AND PALE THAT IS WHAT HE IS>
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Spyder X
Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo

Digital effects are always best.


Not always. There are a lot of times when digital effects look like crap. Digital doesn't automatically mean better. Many movies without digital effects look very good and realistic. Have you ever seen 2001: A Space Odyssey? There was no such thing as digital effects when it was made, yet it has special effects that are completely realistic and convincing and they're ten times better than any of today's CGI effects.


i can think of more time where model animation has bee crap thou.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Laserforce
Hi Spider,

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.


slow motion is not life like.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
i feel the same way... CG is nowhere near replacing actors...
not for a very long time i think...

the only convincing CG role i found as close to believable was Gollum.


couldnt argee more CG should not be used in replacment of actors.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo
Warbler Chewbacca is in Episode 3 and he is not digital.


oops! my bad. I'm sorry. glad to hear he won't be CGI, though.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
Shimraa, I realize that they are different films... I was only saying that LOTR used CGI more effectively than AOTC, and it was more believable. So maybe AOTC was less suited to CGI and it should have been used less, rather than more. I know the soldiers are clones, but as someone pointed out even twins do not look or act EXACTLY the same; they are very similar, sure, but they don't look like you have just taken footage of one, and duplicated it, which is what the clones look like (because that's exactly what they did).

As far as Jarjar goes, I don't think it would have made any difference if he was CGI or a man in a costume, as you say his character just isn't believable. Personally I just don't find that type of humor (slapstick I suppose you would call it) funny. But then I don't Jerry Lewis funny either. I guess you could call Jarjar an intergalactic Jerry Lewis.
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Author
Time
As far as Jarjar goes, I don't think it would have made any difference if he was CGI or a man in a costume, as you say his character just isn't believable. Personally I just don't find that type of humor (slapstick I suppose you would call it) funny. But then I don't Jerry Lewis funny either. I guess you could call Jarjar an intergalactic Jerry Lewis

Quote

I realize that they are different films... I was only saying that LOTR used CGI more effectively than AOTC, and it was more believable. So maybe AOTC was less suited to CGI and it should have been used less, rather than more. I know the soldiers are clones, but as someone pointed out even twins do not look or act EXACTLY the same; they are very similar, sure, but they don't look like you have just taken footage of one, and duplicated it, which is what the clones look like (because that's exactly what they did).


my point is that in lotr everything looks different, this is why it more believable to the eye, where as in AOTC the eye is not used to seeing things that uniform. so even if what we see is real or is close to real the eye will make the mind think that something is wrong. . ever find it weird when you walk into a room that has been freshly painted everything is very very tidy almost to tidy. same thing goes for a new house that has not furnature everything is too uniform and it appears weird.

Quote

As far as Jarjar goes, I don't think it would have made any difference if he was CGI or a man in a costume, as you say his character just isn't believable. Personally I just don't find that type of humor (slapstick I suppose you would call it) funny. But then I don't Jerry Lewis funny either. I guess you could call Jarjar an intergalactic Jerry Lewis


i agree completely.
Author
Time
While Jar jar was overused say what you want about him being annoying but he definutly looked realistic.
Author
Time
Partly true? Surely he either looks realistic or he doesn't...

I didn't say he didn't look realistic (although I also didn't say he did) I said his walk looked unnatural. As Shimraa said, this is probably due to the character; GL wanted him to appear comical rather than natural. But that doesn't change the fact.
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Author
Time
My stance on CGI comes mostly from my childhood beliefs and such. Basically, thanks to my school and family, I developed something of a hatred for all things digital at a young age. Its pretty hard to warm up to CDs when your parent's buy you only a cassette player than rub in how CDs are "the wave of the future" when tapes became scarce. Its also hard to like DVDs when people call you insane for not thinking they're God's gift to home video. So basically, digital just hasn't been my friend until I got over most of it, and realized my problem wasn't really with things that are digital, but rather being forced into said things. As a kid, I helped my dad build models(a hobby, I'd like to get back into). I used to watch "Movie Magic" and was fascinated with how model effects were done. I was always impressed by the time and effort that people like John Dykstra and Ray Harryhousen would put into their work. I always loved the show of Wedge's X-Wing zooming past the camera followed by the Falcon shooting out of a fireball to escape the Death Star. It just looked so real. I know that if it hadn't been done by hand, I wouldn't be so impressed. CGI just provides so many shortcuts, the making-ofs are all the same. There's no sense of wonder, no appreciation into the hard work it takes to make model's look right. Just compare "War of the Worlds" to its atrocious remake "Independence Day", WotWs was entirely by hand and look utterly convincing for its time. ID4 has your basic CG effects and, while realistic in apperence, just don't have that, "how the hell did they do that" feel. Of course, effects aren't the only thing WotWs has over the horrendously asinine ID4. Naturally, this is one of the reasons I prefer the original versions of the OT. The CGI sticks out like a sore thumb and completely replaces one of the things I loved about the old ones. Lucas' new effects was basically a slap in the face to Dykstra and the others. It says, "I'm sorry, you're out of date guys, you lose". Check out the Star Trek: The Motion Picture DVD to see how this should have been handled. Only the unfinished shots were redone, and every single retouched shot is availible, in anamorphic widescreen no less, in its original form as an extra on the DVD. They had the courtesy to realise that, while not what they needed, the old shots still had value in the work that went into them. Its not just live films either, but animation. CGI often looks worse in animation as I has to be dumbed down to try to match better, and winds up looking more cartoonish than the rest. I've noticed that CG always looks more vabrint than anything else, which always gives it away. I am far more impressed by the hand work in Macross : Do You Remember Love than the CGI in Macross Zero. My stance though really comes down to necessity. Is the use of CG justified? In Macross Zero, yes, as its put to use in providing angles and movements which would be difficult by hand. In Last Exile(or most of Studio Gonzo's works), mostly no, a lot of the CG is for looks and distract from the overall presentation, imho. So if the work can be done by hand, it should, if not, that is the purpose of CGI.


Made for IE Forum's Episode III theme month - May 2005.