Special effects these days suck

Wilhelm-Scream said:
Oh God, Hahahaha. I hadn't even thought about SUPERMAN. Please, be my guest, with a straight face tell me that effects today suck and the past was some "Golden Age" and then compare the flying scenes from Superman (old) and Superman (new), in the 70's movie...enjoy the thick matte line around Superman. Yeah, looks AWESOME!

LOL

I also think POTC2 will have awesome vissual effects, but Superman's flying shots are great.
 
DorkyFresh said:
VERY well said, Wilhelm-Scream...

...i've come to the conclusion that it's not the CGI that's the problem. it's the viewer. it all depends on the viewer's perspective. obviously a little kid or an older person isn't going to notice the effects as much as us movie nerds pay attention to them. so....like i said, it's not that CGI is bad....it's that we choose to look at the CGI instead of paying attention to the story or what's REALLY important in the film.

Well, Here's one thing I've thought about which is related to the Uncanny Valley

If effects are obviously fake, then if they're really superbly done nonetheless, then you see it, and you know, "Yeah, that is a rubber puppet with motors inside, or stop motion animation, but wow. It really KIND of looks real!" So you are more impressed.

But with some good CGI, people see it, and it looks SO real, but since it's not, it's just not going to look 100% real, so since it looks SO close, but there's still that nagging unreality, it's actually more noticable...like if a real life person walked up to you with a glass eyeball,...the eye can be glossy and even have completely real looking blood vessels and an iris, but you'll know it's fake.

Nonetheless, it would still look better than half a ping pong ball with a blue circle painted on it.

So I think there's this insane backlash against CGI BECAUSE it looks so real when it's well done. But it's ALL fake. Some less fake than some.

I'd like to make clear that I am not talking about crappy CG like in Van Helsing, etc.
I'm just saying, there is no way that the best of the best of the 60's, 70's and 80's can even comPARE to the best of the best of today...N.O. way.

I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark a while back, which blew my head off when I was a kid, well, um, now? It's a joke. Effects-wise. The vaccum inside the mask at the end, and the completely frozen, stationary wax head that melts, their mouths don't even move while they're "screaming", hahaha.
 
I had a hard time even spotting the CG in Batman Begins
 
Stringer said:
I had a hard time even spotting the CG in Batman Begins
that's because the CG used in Batman is CG done RIGHT!

not sure i agree with that theory, Wilhelm-Scream, but i can understand why some people would thing that way though.
 
Cinemaman said:
I also think POTC2 will have awesome vissual effects, but Superman's flying shots are great.
There's gonna be a Passion of the Christ TWO?!?
:D
 
Cinemaman said:
Sorry, but what you mean???
PotC can stand for either Pirates of the Carribean or Passion of the Christ...


....he as just joking by saying "OMG!!! there's gonna be a Passion of the Christ 2!!" because you put "PotC2".
 
kainedamo said:
Darthphere, why do you always make useless unhelpful comments?


My comment was really helpful, you dont like dont watch it. Its that easy.:up:
 
Please go back and watch the Rancor in Return of the Jedi...you know, the HAND PUPPET...that has to remain in one place because his legs don't really walk and because they had to hide the mans ARM coming out of his ass?

Then watch the Cave Troll in Fellowship of the Ring

Hmm... a better comparison would be the completely out of place CGI in the "updated" version of the original Star Wars trilogy.

Go back and watch the frozen face of rubber E.T. and then watch Gollum whose acting surpasses many of the humans in the film.

Again, a better comparison would be to look at what they did when they "updated" E.T. What looked better? The puppet or the horrible CGI? Gollum however is a great accomplishment of CGI, I don't think anyone would deny that.

Go back and look at the pathetic Demon Dogs in Ghostbusters that are either cheap looking, jerky animation that looks like it's literally pasted onto the film, and then, since a giant rubber puppet can't run, is trapped stationary on the floor when it's a practical effect, because a guy in a hole in the floor had to pupeteer it.

Still terrified me when I was a kid. When I was a kid, they looked totally real to me. Don't think CGI dogs would have the same effect.

Go back and watch the Spider-Man live action show from the 70's, and then watch the very end scene from Spider-Man where he's whipping around New York and lands on the flagpole.

I agree with you there. But I think they could have done better in the Spidey movie. Maybe a combination of stuntmen and CGI, because sometimes Spidey looked too rubbery, like a cartoon character bouncing about.

Go back and check out an 8 inch tall rubber puppet T.Rex from scores of dino-movies from the past and then watch freaking Jurassic Park

Combination of real world effects and CGI. I have nothing against Jurassic Park.

Look at the PATHETIC stop-motion TaunTaun in the opening scene of Empire Strikes Back that moves so hurky-jerkily that it makes C3PO look like graceful, seductive belly dancer and then check out the Gryphon from that Harry Potter movie.

I think the CGI they planted into the updated versions looks horrible and out of place.

it isn't a fight between CGI and old-school effects. It's a fight between GOOD effects and BAD effects. There's a TON of s***ty CGI, but when it's good, it's the best effects that man has ever known.

I agree with the first half of that statement. But is CGI the best man has ever known when done good?? The key is to know WHEN to use CGI. Gollum is a rare exception, because they worked so hard, using a combination of different techniques, such has having Andy Surkis do the scenes in a suit, and then placing Gollum over him.

If they filmed the Perfect Storm in the 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's, it would've been with a model boat in a swimming pool full of blue colored water filmed in slow motion.
When I watched those rolling, colossal waves, I was in awe and terror.

I think a film like that needs to rely more on drama than effects.

I suppose you all would've preferred that the evil Terminator in Terminator 2 was a guy wrapped in tin foil.

I have no problem with CGI when it's implemented well and when it is necassery. Gollum, Hulk, Jurassic Park, T2, etc.

The problem is that over the recent years, film makers have been using CGI more and more. Look at Daredevil. That film could have easily been made without a single piece of CGI. But CGI was everywhere in that movie. And you know what?? The movie suffered for it. Daredevil is supposed to be gritty and hard and more real than other heroes, instead we see a CG DD jumping around CG rooftops, and it looks totally unconvincing. They might have got away with one or two three second shots of a CG DD, shrouded in shadow, but noooooooo.

I don't know if it's because effects guys are sloppy or because studios are idiots that genuinely think movies need CG when they don't.

CG can and has been done very, very well. When the guys work hard on it, and use different techniques to implement it. Like, T2 works because they had the CG over the actor, and then it disappeared to reveal the actor. Mixing real effects with computer effects. Or even using CG so sparingly the human eye doesn't even know it's there.

The problem with having a huge troll or a big wolve or whatever as CG is that, if the budget isn't massive and you haven't got the best guys working on it, then it's not gonna look convincing. It's much easier for the audience to suspend disbelief with practical effects than it is with CG.

what are you talking about?? special effects has been getting better and better, soon they'll look so real you wont be able to tell its fake

I don't think so. Not by 2009, not by 2020. I think I've shown with the movies I listed, that only a handfull of recent movies have used effects that surpass movies of the past. And that is a real shame. I just don't understand why film makers haven't been using more old school methods than what they have.
 
batman begins set a new standard on how to use cgi without making it obvious. I didnt know cgi was used in th emovie until i read a behind the scenes magazine.
 
Special effects are getting better and better. I actually love CGIs it doesn't look cheap.
 
psylockolussus said:
Special effects are getting better and better. I actually love CGIs it doesn't look cheap.

Agreed. Without CGI we wouldn't see anything exciting.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
Having said this, remember I am in no way opposed to CGI, just it's overuse and mis-use. I believe it should be used when needed, as a tool of the filmaker and not the tool of the filmaker.


i agree with this 110%. CGI has its uses and quite a lot of effects could not be creted with out. but the problem seems to be that studios have just seen a new toy and thrown all the old techniques out the window. there needs to be a blance. jurrassic park is a prime example the combination of live special effects and cgi.


one modern example is that wb approached joe danti to do gremlins 3, but the condition was the gremlins had to be totally cgi. would this have helped certain bits like expresions and crowd shot, yes. would it have felt the same, no.

certain things should only be done cgi, but if they can be done live action then they should be to a certain extent
 
Wilhelm-Scream said:
IN-SANE!


Please go back and watch the Rancor in Return of the Jedi...you know, the HAND PUPPET...that has to remain in one place because his legs don't really walk and because they had to hide the mans ARM coming out of his ass?

Then watch the Cave Troll in Fellowship of the Ring

Go back and watch the frozen face of rubber E.T. and then watch Gollum whose acting surpasses many of the humans in the film.

Go back and look at the pathetic Demon Dogs in Ghostbusters that are either cheap looking, jerky animation that looks like it's literally pasted onto the film, and then, since a giant rubber puppet can't run, is trapped stationary on the floor when it's a practical effect, because a guy in a hole in the floor had to pupeteer it.

Go back and watch the Spider-Man live action show from the 70's, and then watch the very end scene from Spider-Man where he's whipping around New York and lands on the flagpole.

Go back and check out an 8 inch tall rubber puppet T.Rex from scores of dino-movies from the past and then watch freaking Jurassic Park

Look at the PATHETIC stop-motion TaunTaun in the opening scene of Empire Strikes Back that moves so hurky-jerkily that it makes C3PO look like graceful, seductive belly dancer and then check out the Gryphon from that Harry Potter movie.



it isn't a fight between CGI and old-school effects. It's a fight between GOOD effects and BAD effects. There's a TON of s***ty CGI, but when it's good, it's the best effects that man has ever known.

If they filmed the Perfect Storm in the 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's, it would've been with a model boat in a swimming pool full of blue colored water filmed in slow motion.
When I watched those rolling, colossal waves, I was in awe and terror.



The problem with the old school rubber effects is that everything has to remain stationary because it's all attached to a bunch of tubes and pneumatic devices, motors, etc.
It's completely unnatural how in American Werewolf, he's screaming in pain, but just sits there in the middle of the room all posed, and then you have these ridiculous close-ups on his hands where the hand is perfectly still in frame as if it's a hand model on QVC.


I suppose you all would've preferred that the evil Terminator in Terminator 2 was a guy wrapped in tin foil.
:rolleyes:

*Claps* And another thing about the dogs. When Dana opens her fridge up and the dog pops out, you can actually see the lightbulb in his mouth! And when Stay Puft is walking down the street, his foot goes transparent. Now, I'm not bashing GB (I'll declare myself SHH!'s biggest GB fanboy), but compared to the effects of today, GB kinda sucks.
 
kainedamo said:
The irony that you call yourself Cinemaman. How ignorant.
You're the ignorant one here. You think those massive battles in LOtR could be done with puppets? No way. They would never have acheived that epic scale without CGI.
 
You haven't been reading my posts. So, you're with ignorant up there.
 
kainedamo said:
You haven't been reading my posts. So, you're with ignorant up there.


LOL!

Anyone who desnt agree with kainedamo=ignorant.


Hmm irony.
 
You don't know what irony is. So you're ignorant too.
 
kainedamo said:
You don't know what irony is. So you're ignorant too.


LOL! I called him ironic thereofre I dont know what irony is. LOL!


The stupidity!
 
LOL!

Anyone who desnt agree with kainedamo=ignorant.


Hmm irony.

That is NOT irony.

Irony would be more like "kaine is very ignorant yet he is calling other people ignorant".
 
kainedamo said:
The problem is that over the recent years, film makers have been using CGI more and more. Look at Daredevil. That film could have easily been made without a single piece of CGI. But CGI was everywhere in that movie. And you know what?? The movie suffered for it. Daredevil is supposed to be gritty and hard and more real than other heroes, instead we see a CG DD jumping around CG rooftops, and it looks totally unconvincing. They might have got away with one or two three second shots of a CG DD, shrouded in shadow, but noooooooo.

I'll admit that the CG DD puppet sucked, but DD did make very good use of CG to show DD's radar sense, that was really cool.

In terms of CG effects I think Ian Malcom said it best "They're so worried about if the could, they didn't stop to think if they should"
 
kainedamo said:
That is NOT irony.

Irony would be more like "kaine is very ignorant yet he is calling other people ignorant".


Youre statement was ironic, because you yourself are being ignorant. DUH! Dan gets irony.
 
I agree that it's the matter of good effects vs bad effects.

With Star Wars, I felt that the 'star battles' in Return of the Jedi was better than the ones in any of the prequels. Or at least they're comparable, and you're talking about 22 year old technology against CGI.

I also prefer old school matte paintings against digital backgrounds. Matte paintings gives a more 'surreal' vibe than CG greenscreen.
 
The only reason why some CGI sucks is because sometimes some movies use to much of it,and use it for things when they should of used something else.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"