If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hollywood.com)   Star Wars and Jurassic Park FX Guy Admits Defeat: 'Special Effects Aren't Special Anymore'   (hollywood.com) divider line 202
    More: Sad, special effects, Dennis Muren, Jurassic, parks, wars, pon farr  
•       •       •

7653 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Apr 2013 at 10:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 10:29:45 AM
GO BACK TO MODELS

Moon in 2009 was low-budget, yet somehow looked infinitely better than any recent film.
I found out after, they used effective models to do it.

CGI was to enhance things, not be the star of the show. And unless you're at Jurassic Park leves, you've failed.
 
2013-04-09 10:32:16 AM
Yeah, use practical effects where possible.  CG is like makeup.  A little bit can look really nice, but too much and you come off as a cheap whore.
 
2013-04-09 10:33:05 AM
When all effects are special, none of them are.
 
2013-04-09 10:35:55 AM

Erix: Yeah, use practical effects where possible.  CG is like makeup.  A little bit can look really nice, but too much and you come off as a cheap whore.


I would wager that most people don't even notice the majority of CGI anymore because of how seamless it is.  People really only notice it when a) it's bad, and b) when what you're seeing is so clearly impossible that it has to be CGI.
 
2013-04-09 10:36:13 AM
"If you're going to make a motion picture, don't just throw computer graphics in to make everything bigger or more."

It's mind-boggling that so many movie people don't get this. What's worse, is that George Lucas himself - the guy who founded ILM - seems to missed the point.
 
2013-04-09 10:36:15 AM
Even Jurassic Park only used CGI here and there. Much of it was animatronic.

CGI is a tool that became the tool box. I hold out hope for a "practical effects renaissance" though. One that will put CGI back into its rightful place. I guarantee that the "movie magic" will return if Hollywood returns to that 90s sweet spot of practical and computer effects. Good stories and scripts are a separate matter altogether.
 
2013-04-09 10:37:07 AM
Best use of CGI in the last year?

...editing out the microphones for Les Mis
 
2013-04-09 10:40:12 AM

sure haven't: GO BACK TO MODELS

Moon in 2009 was low-budget, yet somehow looked infinitely better than any recent film.
I found out after, they used effective models to do it.

CGI was to enhance things, not be the star of the show. And unless you're at Jurassic Park leves, you've failed.


I think a lot of filmmakers are learning this lesson actually. There seems to be an understanding now that CG is used sparingly if real models/makeup/costumes can be used instead.
 
2013-04-09 10:42:31 AM

Mentat: Erix: Yeah, use practical effects where possible.  CG is like makeup.  A little bit can look really nice, but too much and you come off as a cheap whore.

I would wager that most people don't even notice the majority of CGI anymore because of how seamless it is.  People really only notice it when a) it's bad, and b) when what you're seeing is so clearly impossible that it has to be CGI.


You might not explicitly notice that it's CGI, but I feel like you can often tell something's off.  Practical effects seem to elicit better responses from actors than when they're interacting with their imaginations, and also have a sense of physicality that is missing from CGI.

Not saying I hate CGI, I just would rather see it used a bit more judiciously, and not as a complete replacement for real practical effects like models.
 
2013-04-09 10:45:27 AM

Lord Binky: Even Jurassic Park only used CGI here and there. Much of it was animatronic.

CGI is a tool that became the tool box. I hold out hope for a "practical effects renaissance" though. One that will put CGI back into its rightful place. I guarantee that the "movie magic" will return if Hollywood returns to that 90s sweet spot of practical and computer effects. Good stories and scripts are a separate matter altogether.


Too expensive.

It cost 20 million to make The Avengers thanks to CGI. The rest they spent on advertising and making people believe it was a good  movie.
 
2013-04-09 10:47:41 AM
I realized CGI had gone full retard when I started seeing CGI fires on matches, and CGI smoke on cigarettes in movies and shows.
 
2013-04-09 10:52:12 AM

sure haven't: GO BACK TO MODELS


This.
I had a discussion with an artist the other day who does a lot of photoshopping and he was saying how much digital artists work and while I agreed with him, the work those guys put into models was astounding!
Watching the Enterprise come out of spacedock and seeing the first Star Wars before it was screwed with are just funner to watch.
 
2013-04-09 10:56:20 AM
Good, maybe they'll stop relying on them so much
 
2013-04-09 10:57:53 AM

JerseyTim: When all effects are special, none of them are.


citizenkaneclap.jpg

/no, seriously, very well said
 
2013-04-09 10:58:16 AM

Joe_diGriz: It's mind-boggling that so many movie people don't get this. What's worse, is that George Lucas himself - the guy who founded ILM - seems to missed the point.


Lucas's problem is not the overuse of CGI - its that he is a lousy director surrounded by yes men.
 
2013-04-09 10:58:50 AM

Mentat: I would wager that most people don't even notice the majority of CGI anymore because of how seamless it is.


You'd be wrong.

Most people don't care about CGI because everything had is. I was looking at the Walking Dead minus the CGI and every single scene was a "Yeah, obviously." moment.
 
2013-04-09 11:00:13 AM
Erix:  Not saying I hate CGI, I just would rather see it used a bit more judiciously, and not as a complete replacement for real practical effects like models.

How about even just sets and set design? One of the things that has annoyed me whenever I've caught one of the new Star Wars movies on tv, is that there seems to be no weight or physical space around the actors. Because there isn't. They're acting in front of a green screen, then just plopped into their universe. It just doesn't seem solid.  I know it's vastly cheaper, but yeesh, I think it's doing terrible things to the quality of movies.

I recently rewatched one of my favorite movies: Darby O'Gill and the Little People. The special effects, even if not glamorous, still wow me like they did when I was a kid. Great use of forced perspective and set design, including the beautiful matte paintings.
 
2013-04-09 11:03:01 AM

Mentat: I would wager that most people don't even notice the majority of CGI anymore because of how seamless it is


Most people who go on about the Star Wars Prequels being too CGI would be surprised if they knew how much of it was practical FX and models.
 
2013-04-09 11:03:03 AM
i2.listal.com

Still the best effects ever IMO.
 
2013-04-09 11:03:22 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Best use of CGI in the last year?

...editing out the microphones earpieces for Les Mis


I would add to that the whale in Life of Pi, for me the most haunting image of the year.
 
2013-04-09 11:07:26 AM
Lotta ignorant people in this thread.

CG is a tool, nothing more. A means to an end. If models were better they would use them (and they do from time to time).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN1STep_zk"]http://www.youtube.com/w at ch?v=WhN1STep_zk
Not every shot is a home run but there's quite a bit there that passes by unnoticed.

You can't watch this and tell me you're aware of all the CG work that's out there these days, in particular television. Films do this stuff all the time now too. It is an advancement.

But fact is most CGI now is invisible to the eye. Modelwork cannot claim that.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/immersed-in-movies-re vi siting-the-avengers-and-handicapping-the-vfx-oscar-race?page=3#blogPos tHeaderPanel

I would like to see the luddites explain how it would have been better having physical models for Manhattan in The Avengers

/betcha didn't know that it was CG
 
2013-04-09 11:11:09 AM

Mugato


Most people who go on about the Star Wars Prequels being too CGI would be surprised if they knew how much of it was practical FX and models.


Wasn't The Phantom Menace the first movie to be composed of more than 50% CGI? I seem to recall reading something like that but who knows if it's even close to accurate.
 
2013-04-09 11:11:15 AM

UDel_Kitty: I recently rewatched one of my favorite movies: Darby O'Gill and the Little People. The special effects, even if not glamorous, still wow me like they did when I was a kid. Great use of forced perspective and set design, including the beautiful matte paintings.


This talk of practical effects makes me want to rewatch The Dark Crystal.
 
2013-04-09 11:17:01 AM

peterthx: Lotta ignorant people in this thread.

CG is a tool, nothing more. A means to an end. If models were better they would use them (and they do from time to time).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN1STep_zk"]http://www.youtube.com/w at ch?v=WhN1STep_zk
Not every shot is a home run but there's quite a bit there that passes by unnoticed.

You can't watch this and tell me you're aware of all the CG work that's out there these days, in particular television. Films do this stuff all the time now too. It is an advancement.

But fact is most CGI now is invisible to the eye. Modelwork cannot claim that.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/immersed-in-movies-re vi siting-the-avengers-and-handicapping-the-vfx-oscar-race?page=3#blogPos tHeaderPanel

I would like to see the luddites explain how it would have been better having physical models for Manhattan in The Avengers

/betcha didn't know that it was CG


You sure got defensive about CGI.  No one said it's the devil, just that a lot of film makers seem to apply it far too liberally.

With TV, I understand that budget/time constraints can make it more attractive.  But in movies, being a little more judicious with its application can result in a better product.
 
2013-04-09 11:19:31 AM
Mentat:
I would wager that most people don't even notice the majority of CGI anymore because of how seamless it is.  People really only notice it when a) it's bad, and b) when what you're seeing is so clearly impossible that it has to be CGI.


Looks too clean.  It's always the tell-tale for me and CGI, nobody ever downtacks their textures and the few that have tried usually fail to get it looking perfectly organic.   You'll never get CGI to have the same screen presence as say the Star Destroyer from the opening of Star Wars.
 
2013-04-09 11:20:02 AM

sure haven't: GO BACK TO MODELS

Moon in 2009 was low-budget, yet somehow looked infinitely better than any recent film.
I found out after, they used effective models to do it.

CGI was to enhance things, not be the star of the show. And unless you're at Jurassic Park leves, you've failed.


Also from 2009: District 9. Total budget: $30 million. Just enough CGI to make the story work.
 
2013-04-09 11:21:27 AM

peterthx: /betcha didn't know that it was CG


Are you seriously trying to imply that the movie that looks like a cartoon from the opening frame to the final frame cleverly fooled the audience into not realizing that it was full of CGI? Are you insane? Like, clinically ill?

And considering the climax of  The Avengers was mind-numbing and kind of boring, I think a simpler conclusion with more interesting stakes for the characters would have been better. I kind of zoned out during the massive battle with the space snakes. You could have cut that entirely, and kept just the Iron Man in Space and the "Puny God" moment and been just as good.

//Of course, even that was nothing compared to the waste of celluloid that was the the mid-film action sequence, the battle on the Helicarrier. Way to grind a movie to a halt with a useless action sequence.
 
2013-04-09 11:21:38 AM

gingerjet: Lucas's problem is not the overuse of CGI - its that he is a lousy director surrounded by yes men.


Back to the basement and stay off the internet!
 
2013-04-09 11:24:15 AM
people that hate CGI simply do not know what the fark they are talking about.  What they think of when they thing "cgi" is crap cgi used in cheap asylum or syfy films or early cgi that looked like PS1 cut scenes without realizing that the industry moved on from 90's cg a really long time ago.

Today with cgi you can pretty much do anything and it looks real (if you put the money and time into doing right, that is).

practical effects are great when warrented (the new Evil Dead is a testament to that) but I seriously don't want to see model spaceships in my sci-fi any more.  The shiat looks fake.

For all its faults, Prometheus looked REAL.
 
2013-04-09 11:27:02 AM
I will say this: the problem isn't CGI, it's the fact that CGI removes constraints from directors, which means they get to throw whatever they like on the screen. The result is visual messes like the Transformers films, or the overlong and tedious battle sequences in the new Trilogy, or pointless setpieces like 35% of the Avengers.

Also, given the popularity of the Nolan Batman films, I think that competently directed action sequences, whether practical effects or CGI, are a thing of the past. Nowadays, it seems like every action sequence is a collection of unrelated storyboard panels, strung together without any sense of how to convey the progress of the action.
 
2013-04-09 11:27:19 AM
I guess Hollywood will have to concentrate more on writing and direction, then.
 
2013-04-09 11:27:47 AM

frepnog: What they think of when they thing "cgi" is crap cgi used in cheap asylum or syfy films or early cgi that looked like PS1 cut scenes without realizing that the industry moved on from 90's cg a really long time ago.


I was into corner tinfoil paper trashcan book building of when I is water to take turn in train style.
 
2013-04-09 11:28:00 AM

frepnog: For all its faults, Prometheus looked REAL.


I haven't seen the film, but did it look completely different from all of the trailers? Because I think we have completely different definitions of "real".
 
2013-04-09 11:29:52 AM

t3knomanser: Are you seriously trying to imply that the movie that looks like a cartoon from the opening frame to the final frame cleverly fooled the audience into not realizing that it was full of CGI? Are you insane? Like, clinically ill?


I'm talking about the Manhattan backgrounds used throughout the movie. They weren't background plates shot by a crew on location.

And the fact you personally don't like the film doesn't diminish the accomplishment in any way.

But by all means, continue to spew your ignorance and embarrass yourself in the process.
 
2013-04-09 11:31:52 AM
Traditional filmmakers will need to learn from cartoonists, who have always had full control of impossible camera angles, lightings, physics in general.

I recommend genndy tartakovsky, the man directs action scenes like no other. See the cartoon clone wars.
 
2013-04-09 11:33:57 AM

peterthx: Lotta ignorant people in this thread.


Maybe.

But the real problem here is that everyone thinks the only movies in existence are The Avengers and Star Wars.
 
2013-04-09 11:34:27 AM

t3knomanser: peterthx:

And considering the climax of  The Avengers was mind-numbing and kind of boring, I think a simpler conclusion with more interesting stakes for the characters would have been better. I kind of zoned out during the massive battle with the space snakes. You could have cut that entirely, and kept just the Iron Man in Space and the "Puny God" moment and been just as good.


"Hey, why is Iron Man throwing that nuke into space?"
"To end the invasion."
"What invasion?"
"The one we didn't show you."
"Ok, well why did Hulk smashing Loki feel kind of meh?"
"It wasn't contrasted with the thing we didn't show you."
"Who wrote this movie?"
"Cynical keyboard warriors."
 
2013-04-09 11:34:42 AM
when did it become cool to hate on "The Avengers"?

/that farking movie is awesome front to back.
 
2013-04-09 11:34:57 AM

peterthx: I'm talking about the Manhattan backgrounds used throughout the movie. They weren't background plates shot by a crew on location.


And... you don't think it was pretty obvious that those were CG? They had the same cartoon-y look of everything else in the film. I'm not saying that a cartoon-y look is bad- it's a comic book film, and we would expect a cartoonish feel to the whole thing. But don't try and hold them up as some testament of subtle special effects hiding, or something.  Everything looked like a cartoon in the final act.

peterthx: And the fact you personally don't like the film doesn't diminish the accomplishment in any way.


I have critiques on the film. That doesn't mean I disliked it.
 
2013-04-09 11:35:48 AM

Vaneshi: Looks too clean.  It's always the tell-tale for me and CGI, nobody ever downtacks their textures and the few that have tried usually fail to get it looking perfectly organic.   You'll never get CGI to have the same screen presence as say the Star Destroyer from the opening of Star Wars.


Yes! It's a give away to me too. Clean and shiny appearance. I don't hate CGI, I think it makes for awesome visuals when used correctly. Know why I hate when George Lucas decided to go CGI-up the original Star Wars trilogy? Because he plopped these clean, shiny computer images into a gritty background.

Also movement of living things. I haven't seen a CGI human/animal, that is meant to look realistic, move realistically in a movie. There's always something off about the way they move to me.
 
2013-04-09 11:36:24 AM

Decillion: "The one we didn't show you."


It's more "did you need to show it to me for so  long?" It got tedious.

frepnog: when did it become cool to hate on "The Avengers"?


It would have been better if it were about 30 minutes shorter. It was way too padded.
 
2013-04-09 11:37:34 AM

t3knomanser: frepnog: For all its faults, Prometheus looked REAL.

I haven't seen the film, but did it look completely different from all of the trailers? Because I think we have completely different definitions of "real".


if you can with a straight face tell me that Prometheus is not one of the best looking movies ever made, then I am going to have to call you a liar.  Completely believable film as far as visually.

Zombie DJ: frepnog: What they think of when they thing "cgi" is crap cgi used in cheap asylum or syfy films or early cgi that looked like PS1 cut scenes without realizing that the industry moved on from 90's cg a really long time ago.

I was into corner tinfoil paper trashcan book building of when I is water to take turn in train style.


Not sure what you are on about here.  If you have trouble parsing plain english, take a farking class.
 
2013-04-09 11:38:19 AM
CGI in movies peaked with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
 
2013-04-09 11:38:52 AM
Simply mix and match between traditional and CGI. It worked with Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Lord knows how much I miss Stan Winston.
 
2013-04-09 11:39:32 AM

peterthx: t3knomanser: Are you seriously trying to imply that the movie that looks like a cartoon from the opening frame to the final frame cleverly fooled the audience into not realizing that it was full of CGI? Are you insane? Like, clinically ill?

I'm talking about the Manhattan backgrounds used throughout the movie. They weren't background plates shot by a crew on location.

And the fact you personally don't like the film doesn't diminish the accomplishment in any way.

But by all means, continue to spew your ignorance and embarrass yourself in the process.


Yeah The Avengers would have been great except for all that action!
 
2013-04-09 11:40:31 AM

t3knomanser: Decillion: "The one we didn't show you."

It's more "did you need to show it to me for so  long?" It got tedious.

frepnog: when did it become cool to hate on "The Avengers"?

It would have been better if it were about 30 minutes shorter. It was way too padded.


i dunno.  I have watched it quite a few times at this point and at no time does the movie feel like it is dragging, unlike say Attack of the Clones or The Two Towers (or anything Judd Apatow makes these days).
 
2013-04-09 11:40:46 AM
 The CG isn't the problem - there's no need to go back to models/miniatures. The important lessons are to raise and maintain the level of craft and artistry involved and, as is noted in the article, to not confuse spectacle with story. As with (representative) artwork, an artist should have a good grasp of anatomy and mechanics/physics.

   The whole "special effects aren't special anymore" line is unfortunate to read, because it's coming across as sheer sentimentality. It's reminding me of people I knew who lamented that computers were somehow not as good because people didn't solder all the connections themselves and have to program them in binary the way they did in their garages back in the '70s. It's a very human tendency to esteem highly any hard-won skills - I understand that - but sometimes skills become eclipsed by better tools and tech, and even completely replaced.
 
2013-04-09 11:41:23 AM

frepnog: if you can with a straight face tell me that Prometheus is not one of the best looking movies ever made, then I am going to have to call you a liar.


I'm only going by the bit in the trailer where the spaceship falls over. That looked terrible.

Wellon Dowd: CGI in movies peaked with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.


Man, I so wanted that movie to be good. It had such a great visual style. Pity it didn't have anything else going for it. If you liked its visual style and cheesy storytelling,  this low-budget indie thing captures the cheesy serial vibe pretty well. Made by the same people behind the Pittsburgh Dad youtube series.
 
2013-04-09 11:41:43 AM

UDel_Kitty: Also movement of living things. I haven't seen a CGI human/animal, that is meant to look realistic, move realistically in a movie. There's always something off about the way they move to me.


No font big enough for me to THIS this.

I think it's that CG characters have no bones, so they don't move like "real" people. Their limbs don't move the way peoples' do, they don't flail/react like people do, and shoehorning that type of realism in would either detract from the scene (basically by calling out that it's CGI) or require an actual model to do "second unit" work on the CG model/footage.

// uncanny valley FTW
 
2013-04-09 11:43:15 AM

UDel_Kitty: Vaneshi: Looks too clean.  It's always the tell-tale for me and CGI, nobody ever downtacks their textures and the few that have tried usually fail to get it looking perfectly organic.   You'll never get CGI to have the same screen presence as say the Star Destroyer from the opening of Star Wars.

Yes! It's a give away to me too. Clean and shiny appearance. I don't hate CGI, I think it makes for awesome visuals when used correctly. Know why I hate when George Lucas decided to go CGI-up the original Star Wars trilogy? Because he plopped these clean, shiny computer images into a gritty background.

Also movement of living things. I haven't seen a CGI human/animal, that is meant to look realistic, move realistically in a movie. There's always something off about the way they move to me.


Gollum was damned good as was Kong in King Kong's remake (but that is due to Andy Serkis being a great actor), but I have to agree here.  The blue cat people in Avatar completely take me out of the film because they move so artificially.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report