CGI or Live Action Stunts?

[xwolverine2]

Both.

CGI stunts with a practical director.

ahem blade2..hellboy 1 &2.. all disgusting imo

 

[Steyin]

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.

I think it also depends on the type of film/its setting and the scale of the task at hand. Granted CGI has improved a lot over the last decade it is true that it comes down to time and money. Dragonball, a movie that should have called for good CGI, fell completely flat due to little time/money invested in it (I blame FOX for that).

Movies like Star Trak/ Star Wars MUST have good CGI, it comes with the territory. In my mind its mostly the fantasy/comic book films that need it or rather use it the most, and they have a necessty for it. Action films need to blend both CGI and live action.

One thing that annoys me is when good films have bad CGI; it sort of ruins it/takes me out of the experience (Titanic was one of the first films I noticed this on, granted I didn't care for the plot/characters, but the CGI was terrible). Spider-Man 3 was another example; an ok film, but you can tell they focused on some things more than others. The symbiote CGI was good, yet they re-used CGI from the first two films during some swinging sequences that were outdated and looked awful, which was just lazy and with the amount of success/revenue the films generated, uncalled for.

Transformers CGI has improved for RoTF, but one thing that makes 3D look better is making more things "shiny", so mistakes are more unnoticable. I'd say the biggest mistake with CGI nowadays is poor mapping and unnatural motions that give it away. But again it really comes down to time, because you need to test render to see if everything is working/rendering properly; and if it isn't, you need to go back and tweak again and again, which ultimately leads to more $ spent.

 

[dark_b]

One thing that annoys me is when good films have bad CGI; it sort of ruins it/takes me out of the experience (Titanic was one of the first films I noticed this on, granted I didn't care for the plot/characters, but the CGI was terrible).

 

[Kane52630]

just to compare the two

Worst in Live Action

Worst in CGI
pick any from this link
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-20-worst-movie-cgi-moments?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=features

 

[Octoberist]

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/th...&attr=features
__________________

In gard to that link, I disagree with King Kong and Transformers, but overall, they're all dated.

 

[dark_b]

pick any from this link
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-20-worst-movie-cgi-moments?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=features

CGI = computer generated images.

generated. which means that it was build on the computer. so why am i watching clips from Megalodon?
this was not CGI. this was real footage from sharks and greenscreen footage of actors composited together. this is 2D manipulation.

so to totalfilm

 

[StrainedEyes]

Yeah seriously. Titanic had amazing CG.

 

[terry78]

James Cameron has never had shoddy CG, hence why Avatar is making people crazy. The **** he did with the T-1000 was the first time it had been used in that fashion sans The Abyss, but it garnered a lot of attention.

 

[dark_b]

now that cameras and projectors are super high definition they can more use it for backgrounds instead of of greenscreen.
Solo
Solo Part 2: Technical On Set Immersive Environments


First Man
One Small Step: Recreating the Historic Lunar Landing for ‘First Man’


in 5 years i expect this to replace greenscreen

 

[zephyrinthesky]

I'm generally of the camp that if it's possible to do a stunt practically without unreasonable danger, then do it live-action in-camera.

There so many little details in physical movement and lighting that even the best VFX cannot replicate perfectly.