CGI or Live Action Stunts?

[Kane52630]

what do you guys think, is a movie better in CGI or Live Action Stunts?
the Both option is using a combination of both CGI and Live Action

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Live action.

 

[ross2287]

I think it really depends on the movie and the situation within the movie.

 

[Spidey 2007]

A smart combination of both techniques. The greatest artists and diretors use all the tools and technology at their disposal. There are just some thing needed to be cgi while others can be combined and some done just fine practically. miniatures are great to see used as well. Leaves you saying "wow that was a miniature!?" after youve watched the BtS on the DVD... ha

 

[CelticPredator]

Live Action, with CGI enhancements.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Keep it old school. In camera effects, real explosions, matte paintings, miniatures, you know like in the 80's. CGI as little as possible or non at all.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It makes me laugh when people say "No CGI atall!". You do realize cinema wouldn't be where it is today without the advancements of technology?

It's like the cell phone was invented and someone saying "Naa I like those old school dial up phones". Sort it out.

But I voted for both.

 

[dude stannis]

Live Action, with CGI enhancements.

Quoted for truth.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Both although it depends on the sequence.
Anyone remember the scene in Casino Royale where James Bond goes after the bad guy parcour style. There is alot of CGI used in that sequence but it plays out so well that you do'n't notice it.
In this case having more live-action shots definately was better.

HOwever take a look at TRansformers. Yes there is a fair share of live-action ( explosions , stunts) but the the shift definately goes more towards CGI because frankly you can't do it otherwise.

 

[dark_b]

it depends on the action and on the character.

what if i would ask ? SFX or not SFX? why not just blow up a car 100 meters away so that we can use the real actor in the shot?

or lets make it better. stund doubles or not stunt doubles?

 

[Eggyman]

Both.

CGI stunts with a practical director.

 

[Eric Brooks]

A smart combination of both techniques.

this

 

[Spider-Who?]

Both although it depends on the sequence.
Anyone remember the scene in Casino Royale where James Bond goes after the bad guy parcour style. There is alot of CGI used in that sequence but it plays out so well that you do'n't notice it.

All the stunts in that scene were live action (even jumping onto the cranes). "CGI" was used to key out the wires and platforms for them to land on and such. (I put CGI in qoutes, since that isn't technically CGI - its a keying technique where they quite simply paint over what they dont want seen, frame by frame.)

But your point is still absolutely valid - go with live action/practical effects when ever possible.

 

[Bim]

I would say a balance of both could do the trick nicely.

 

[nathaniel]

I should have said both i hate the over reliance of CGI nowadays Die Hard 4 is a good movie but its action scenes pale compared to the first 2 whcich are live largely action, the Phantom Menace was a pretty poor film but the fight scene at the end is one of the best i have ever seen it was just hard work and great choreography with minimal CGI for th light sabers and surrounding enviroment this is a perfect example of the use of both Action and CGI.

 

[Steyin]

I'm more for live action. I'm so involved/familiar with 3D work that I can spot CGI easily, and I nitpick more than praise it. If a film doesn't call for it, then don't use it. Also, unless its ILM or WETA, it sucks for the most part.

 

[dark_b]

I'm more for live action. I'm so involved/familiar with 3D work that I can spot CGI easily, and I nitpick more than praise it. If a film doesn't call for it, then don't use it. Also, unless its ILM or WETA, it sucks for the most part.

then the question should be '' do we want better effects? ''

lets face it. studios know that they can get away with bad effects. so they dont invest a lot of money. not enough money.

so should we complain IF there should be cgi or IF they should use better cgi? i think they should give them more money and more time.

 

[dark_b]

for example this. iron man. a lot of people one year ago said that they want a real suit. they even said that they liked the real suit in the movie. well here is what they saw. ILM spends a lot of time. and if you give them money and time they will give you fantastic results.

www.animationmagazine.net/images/iron_man.mov

 

[p4poetic]

Live Action, with CGI enhancements.

I agree.

 

[terry78]

A lot of CG stunt doubles have the habit of looking like rubber people, which is the turn off. There are ways around it, but you need good programmers. When I saw Hancock, the shot at the beginning of him just juggling the stolen car around with the guys in it and then slamming it onto the Capitol Record building, that was well done. You knew it was CG, but you honestly don't have anything in real life to base it on since we don't know how a guy would look doing that.

 

[Octoberist]

it's really based on physics.

If the CGI body double doesn't have any gravity or mass, then it'll look fake.

 

[dark_b]

it's really based on physics.

If the CGI body double doesn't have any gravity or mass, then it'll look fake.

sometimes the problem is the director.

animator uses inhouse software to make a shot like its showed in the previz,storyboards. he uses he knowledge,commonsense,physics calculation in the software

1 week later they have a meeting. and the director says that the shot doesnt look interesting enough.
''i dont like it, can you make him more faster when he jumps? ''
'' here when he jumps can you make him jumper higher and for 25 % faster''

sometimes changes are made because the director doesnt like it. sometimes its not dramatic enough. we need to understand that the animators do what they are told to do. they show their examples but then the changes happen. not saying that its all directors fault. but sometimes directors just think the wrong way. they dont have enough knowledget what is physical real and what moves real.

 

[Octoberist]

so directors like David Fincher and Gur del toro are probably more understand of the CGI field, since they have extensive knowledge.

 

[dark_b]

so directors like David Fincher and Gur del toro are probably more understand of the CGI field, since they have extensive knowledge.

i think they are.
or for example James Cameron.

of course sometimes its the otehr way around. sometimes physics are not good enough. sometimes those CGI nerds think to much about math. Cameron talked about this. he said they the shot should worked but didnt . i think because computers dont think. they just calculate. sometimes something looks better even if its not ''real''.

 

[BlackLantern]

It really depends on the film....if you look at the Bourne Trilogy, a lot of it is done practically with CGI touches...The Italian Job also blends both elements very well