CGI Still Looks Pretty Bad

[redhawk23]

I find the rest of I Am Legend to be pretty well sub par as well outside of Will Smith's acting. But the monsters are a pretty big element to f*** up. You'll notice the parts of the film that present an interesting survivor narrative typically don't have the monsters in them. When they do show up the film more or less deflates.

And also I don't demand things be faithful to their source per se, but it was the third time the book had been adapted and none of them even really attempt to capture even the spirit or intent of the book. Its to the point where one has to wonder why bother?

 

[redhawk23]

And another example is the Mummy. A lot of the CGI has dated in the that movie, but the overall totally fun and adventurous vibe of the movie makes the spots of dated CGI easier to swallow.

In the first film it really helps that while the effects have aged, they are well used and still represent great work for the time. I'd argue that film has aged much the way many practical effects films have. It has certainly aged, but its still easy to respect and enjoy.

 

[Figs]

And also I don't demand things be faithful to their source per se, but it was the third time the book had been adapted and none of them even really attempt to capture even the spirit or intent of the book. Its to the point where one has to wonder why bother?

I agree for the most part but I still really like The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price. Omega Man was entertaining as well but that movie really went off the rails in terms of being an adaptation.

 

[slumcat]

It has effects yes but still plenty of cinematography, unlike things like Avatar and Gravity were the majority of the films were animated.

While the glass shattering was an effect, there actually were mirrors on set.
The snow compound exploading and collapsing was a model.

They used over 200 separate charges to blow the model up.

Double Negative of course added things like the slow motion cracking plates and such but much of the debris in the cafe scene was real.

Boxes, paper and plastic were shot all the way across the street while filming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGdF9TQLM7s

And then there of course the the rolling and tilting sets the film is best known for.

JGL floating later in the film was accomplished more or less the same way as the zero gravity scenes in 2001: Space Odyssey.

How do you make it look like Leonardo Di Caprio is running through a collapsing set? You film Leonardo Di Caprio running through a collapsing set. How do you make it look like a train is driving down a street? You build a train that can drive on the street.

But hey I just realized I'm talking to slumcat about a Christopher Nolan film so I'll just stop now.

And I am talking to the upteenth Nolan fanatic (and I unfortunately can't claim the same name recognition for you that you have of me). Of my entire post which talked about the nature of cinematography, you latched on to the stray mention of Inception as a trend of movies which both won the VFX and Cinematography Oscar beginning from Avatar onwards. Your impulse straight went to "Noooooooooo Nolan movie can't be bunched with other movies, it is spotless in every way" and directed the conversation along that line.

You actually made some very interesting observations in your last post which I would have responded to but don't see the point now.

This might the trillionth internet discussion about a Nolan movie that devolved into unprovoked name calling. I guess we all just accept this as an internet reality now. Moving on...

 

[redhawk23]

I was pointing out that something like Inception, which manages to incorporate both effects and cinematography is pretty much the opposite from the trend I personally was complaining about. It was a big budget effects film where the filmmakers went out of their way to capture what they could in-camera rather than an animated film with a few green screened actor shots.

When I pointed out that Inception was likely more deserving than those other films, you complained that Inception was similarly a CGI fest and specifically mentioned several scenes that were actually accomplished with practical effects (the snow fortress, explosions etc.) You were mistaken in your assumption that they were CGI. Discussing specific shots has been relevant to this thread so I linked to behind the scenes materials to clarify.

My only point was that Inception has far more practical effects and on-the-set filmed cinematography than "just one scene" in the hallway.

The only name I called you was your screen name.

 

[Kane52630]

A must watch for anyone reading this thread.

 

[terry78]

Fury Road this, Fury Road that.

 

[Greens]

A must watch for anyone reading this thread.

Great video.

 

[DDS]

A must watch for anyone reading this thread.

Excellent rebuttal about a lot of misconceptions about CGI, some of which I've subscribed to at one point or another.

 

[Gabe99]

The WETA Effect, or, Why Special Effects Peaked in the 90's. - StoryBrain

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

A must watch for anyone reading this thread.

Excellent argument on the part of the video's creator. Look, it's not that I don't think the ideal isn't the integration of good practical and good CGI, it's that so many genre fans think that somehow practical always equals better in making a good product and will always be more "believable" when as that video shows, it's already being used in many, many ways that trick us into thinking something is of the mundane, (like a regular street, with nothing fantastical going on) for reasons that have to do with questions of cost and practicality of logistics in shooting something. Also, unlike that "Weta" video, there is no presumption of superiority on the part of it's creator. In the Weta vid the narrator makes the point that of course the Ang Lee Hulk VFX is a better use of VFX but, you know, people like him notice it which I guess implies that all the rest of us just are deficient in some way if we don't. We live in a world where there has been a sea change as much as it pains me to say it, CGI is a more versatile and useful tool for film makers than practical effects. Not only that, if the argument is that puppetry ect. is always superior, which I think IS the argument often made.... Well for myself, I don't see it. During the Star Wars panel Abrams brought out a practical creature. Yes it was well designed, yes it has the weight of a real object registering in my mind... And yes it looks like a puppet or man in a suit. There is still a bit of awkwardness and limitation in the movement.

I also think that the suspension of disbelief thing is a bit more complicated and has been that way for a while. We all have watched Behind The Scenes material for DECADES now. Fans of Star Wars have gobbled up all kinds of BTS material giving away the secrets of the visual effects. I remember that often when Superman: The Movie was shown on TV in NYC as a kid that before the film they would show a "Making Of" peice which again talked about the VFX process. We have for a long time now have known how the sausage has been made. That has primed us in the genre fan community to look for the "seams"" in the integration of the special effects with rest of the film.

I also agree that the overall quality of the individual's experience with whatever film in question was has a lot to do with this. We see it all the time here on the Hype. If you didn't end up liking the film you probably will rag on most elements in it including the SFX. If you like it you will probably say you enjoyed the SFX and don't see the issue that detractors do.

 

[Marvolo]

A must watch for anyone reading this thread.

Thanks for posting.