Special effects these days suck

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I also prefer old school matte paintings against digital backgrounds. Matte paintings gives a more 'surreal' vibe than CG greenscreen.

I much prefer Coruscant now to how it would've looked in the old days, but I agree in some cases. That's one thing I love because I have a few movies I want to make someday and I love that cheaper and/or old school effects give a really surreal atmosphere since that's what I'd want and also all I'd be able to afford.

 

[Orko Is King]

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.

Yah, but everything is frozen.

 

[The Kid]

I think lucas especially has proved that it's not the cgi that's bad, it's how it's used.

We don't need to see Christopher lee turn into an animation and flip down to the floor in revenge of the sith. Hey, what if he just used the stairs. wow! thousands of dollars and hours of labor saved!

We don't need the lava circ de sole (I know it's spelt wrong and just don't care to google it ok..) at the end that made it all too obvious that nothing happening was believable.

It just went to a new level of insane cgi-abuse in that movie to me and I thought it was bad enough in episode 1. At least they had a good reason to use cgi sometimes, like for the podrace. It made me wish that we were back around the time ESB got made and were limted by what technology could do at the time, because then he'd be forced to focus on making the story the star of the show instead of the sfx. He's even quoted as saying sfx are nothing without a good story or something like that. Why not listen to yourself?

Ok, I'll stop and save it for a star wars board.

 

[LordSimen]

Disagree. While the effects in the movies I mentioned are great, you will still say to yourself "that's a model" or "that's a prosthetic", but it still looks a million times better than CGI would in it's place.

Darthphere, why do you always make useless unhelpful comments?

I definitely disagree with you there, most of the time the CGI looks ten times more real and more lifelike in it's movement and fluidity than the situations where I say "Yup, that's a model" or "yup, that's a prosthetic."

As many people have already said here, there are good and bad CGI just as there are good and bad puppets and so on and so forth. It's not an argument about CGI but rather good vs. bad special effects.

 

[KenK]

I think lucas especially has proved that it's not the cgi that's bad, it's how it's used.

We don't need to see Christopher lee turn into an animation and flip down to the floor in revenge of the sith. Hey, what if he just used the stairs. wow! thousands of dollars and hours of labor saved!

We don't need the lava circ de sole (I know it's spelt wrong and just don't care to google it ok..) at the end that made it all too obvious that nothing happening was believable.

It just went to a new level of insane cgi-abuse in that movie to me and I thought it was bad enough in episode 1. At least they had a good reason to use cgi sometimes, like for the podrace. It made me wish that we were back around the time ESB got made and were limted by what technology could do at the time, because then he'd be forced to focus on making the story the star of the show instead of the sfx. He's even quoted as saying sfx are nothing without a good story or something like that. Why not listen to yourself?

Ok, I'll stop and save it for a star wars board.

I'd also like to add his use of CGI stormtroppers in Episode III, that did nothing but walk!! I'm watching scenes where a stormtrooper will walk up to Obi-Wan with his helmet off, and I'm like, That's the actor's head on CGI body!! They couldn't have the actual actor on set?!?!?

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

as special effect get more expensive, studios are more willing to cut the budget at some corners.


it's a bit of a shame that they are now being used in action sequences because between humans as aside from one scene ever, CGI human stand ins don't cut the mustard or never used to.


a big example of this was with all the hardwork done in the burly brawl for the reloaded film, it went all cgi and completely ruined all the hardwork put in from performing such a well done batch of scenes.

 

[KenK]

as special effect get more expensive, studios are more willing to cut the budget at some corners.


it's a bit of a shame that they are now being used in action sequences because between humans as aside from one scene ever, CGI human stand ins don't cut the mustard or never used to.


a big example of this was with all the hardwork done in the burly brawl for the reloaded film, it went all cgi and completely ruined all the hardwork put in from performing such a well done batch of scenes.

Yeah, the CGI used for that scene really took me out of the film, because enjoyed it a lot more when it was just the dozen or so stuntmen with Weaving's face super-imposed. And worse, they did slo-mo for a lot of those moments so you could tell undoubtedly that it was CGI.

On the other hand, a film like Spider-Man, I accept the use of CGI to create scenes of him webslining, because I honestly cant see it being done any other way. It's not just a guy swining on a rope like Tarzan, it's a lot more acrobatic, to the point that you'd have to have a very elaborate Harness/bluescreen system created exclusively for the film, and there'd be a lot of trial and error. It's not like the stuff they've done for the new Superman movie, as Spider-man's aerial movements are a lot more complex.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

to be fair on the first matrix film, there is little cgi so the wachoski brothers were probably out of there debt doing it on that scale for the second film, and also for parts of the flying.


luckily the company who did that scene really stepped up the pace for spidey 2 with some of the best human interacting scenes done (spidey and ock on side of building and falling off stands out above other interaction scenes).

cgi for backgrounds are welcome, for monsters, for mosters vs inanimate object, for monsters vs other monsters, for monsters vs people.

it's just when two people are fighting they should let them get on with it as much as possible, just look at how the cgi in blade 2 during the fight scenes at the beginning really looked poor (even though they looks bad, they did help the blade nomak fight though a little).

it's all about investing in the right company and putting enough money away so it looks decent rather than settling for crap.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'd also like to add his use of CGI stormtroppers in Episode III, that did nothing but walk!! I'm watching scenes where a stormtrooper will walk up to Obi-Wan with his helmet off, and I'm like, That's the actor's head on CGI body!! They couldn't have the actual actor on set?!?!?

That was insane. I could even see if they had like only 20 guys in stormtrooper suits and then digitally multiplied them, but why the f*** did he make fully CGI armor? Insane.

However, I swear if you got into a time machine and took the craprequels back and showed them to people in the 70's, they'd have no idea that they weren't really guys in suits.
We are all hypercritical now.

 

[Erzengel]

I think the internet has made everyone hypercritical now because it has given everyone with a computer a voice and an opinion of "they know what works and doesn't work" and "better understanding of how things are done".

The only thing I have to give to the internet is that it has made some directors listen closer to what fans wants.

But it does bother me when someone writes in a blog or messageboard and just tries and acts that he knows better about filmmaking because he can post on the internet.

 

[KenK]

to be fair on the first matrix film, there is little cgi so the wachoski brothers were probably out of there debt doing it on that scale for the second film, and also for parts of the flying.


luckily the company who did that scene really stepped up the pace for spidey 2 with some of the best human interacting scenes done (spidey and ock on side of building and falling off stands out above other interaction scenes).

cgi for backgrounds are welcome, for monsters, for mosters vs inanimate object, for monsters vs other monsters, for monsters vs people.

it's just when two people are fighting they should let them get on with it as much as possible, just look at how the cgi in blade 2 during the fight scenes at the beginning really looked poor (even though they looks bad, they did help the blade nomak fight though a little).

it's all about investing in the right company and putting enough money away so it looks decent rather than settling for crap.

I liked most of the CGI stuntment scenes in Blade 2 as certain scenes would have been hard to pull off otherwise; like Blade jumping out of the building and having the camera follow him out of the building as well, then to the ground, and following his gunshot to the vampire.

i loved the fight between him and Nomak as I loved the scene where he uppercuts Blade, and sends him flying into the wall, but without a cutaway, it goes from CGI to live actor, and I think that's what makes it so impressive. A lot of work was involved in cutting those scenes to look as though they're continuous shots.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

what about that first one between the two vamps and blade infront of the lights, those cgi effects weren't to par.

and the uppercut scene against nomak lacked realistic gravity for my liking but i guess everyone can be a critic.

 

[KenK]

what about that first one between the two vamps and blade infront of the lights, those bgi effects weren't to par.

and the uppercut scene against nomak lacked realistic gravity for my liking but i guess everyone can be a critic.

The first point, I'll agree, they could have just had live actors for that one, but the uppercut I loved 'cause it's a pure comic book moment, I can really visualize a panel with the character who gets punched, in the foreground, and you just see the flesh on his face shake and sweat being knocked off. It was cool to me. I think the fact that they slow-mo'ed it is what's giving it that lack of realistic gravity.

 

[reggiebar]

IMO, it is not that CGI or special effects suck today compared to the movies from our childhood. It is simply that we are no longer children and we are not able to get sucked into these movies the way we were when we were kids. It also doesn't make it any easier that many people look at so much stuff on the internet during pre-production, etc...that they don't walk into the theater with the same blank state that they did when we were kids.

Many people learn way too much before a movie comes out today and they lose that sense of awe that we had when no one knew anythign about a film before it came out (double edged sword of the internet and movies)

 

[Warhammer]

I do agree that CGI is a bit over-used way too much.
Wasted money.

But, It needs to be used when it's needed. (Ala Spider-Man 2, for example).

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

the cgi scenes in spidey 2 sucked balls. you can obviously tell you were looking at cgi.

 

[Warhammer]

I know.
I didn't mean that they were really good, I just meant that they needed to be used because, obviously, a stuntman can't websling over rooftops.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

Visual Effects: Episode III/Spiderman 2 > Ghostbusters/Superman.

 

[The Lizard]

For a good example of a reasonable compromise between CGI enhancement and "real-world" effects, check out the underrated recent film Zathura and its making-of featurettes. Not 100% perfect FX, but overall a very well-exected balance - particularly the robot and the Zorlons.

 

[zer00]

So....why don't we go back to stop motion animation

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Looks good to me

http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/superman_returns/superman_returns-tlr2_h640w.mov

 

[Savage]

This thread reminded me of this little comparison so I felt like posting it.

...Come ooonn.

As for my opinion on the matter, it depends greatly on the necessity of it. I agree that overuse is a problem but there are a lot of things that cannot be done well or AS well without. My little friend here for example. No way would half the things Hulk did in that movie be even close to believable if they went prostetic. With CGI you can see every muscle and tendon move. You can see the way his chest moves in and out when he breathes. You can see his face jiggle a little when he twitches with anger. All in all making the experience better than just...static plastic.

Spidey moves better, Daredevil moved better (they tried doing everything practical but that looked like crap so they went with CGI which is 10 times better than what I saw behind the scenes). CGI is generally thought of as a way to improve on something that can't be done as well without it. I really don't see what the big deal is against it. Are people really taken out of a scene that easily? You know what takes me out of a scene? When I can see the seems on a costume. When I can see the strings pulling a puppet. When something that is supposed to be organic looks literally like dead weight (Hyde for example looked like a guy swinging around logs and not actual arms. They didn't feel real. Rubbery. Wanted to chew on them for some reason).

Now I understand where you guys are coming from but that's how things progress. First was stop motion, then puppetry, and now computer puppetry. Each one improving over the last.


....And no I did not read past the first page of this thread....Anyway, that's just me on the subject of organic matter in CGI. Now things like the elements or buildings and objects...Again, it depends...Most of the time I'll gladly take CGI over what is obviously a toy set on fire.

 

[jaydawg]

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.

Best ****ing post here. You guys obviously don't understand why CG is such a necessity. These shots you guys want aren't because the director is lazy (well most of the time it isnt). Its because these shots dont work in real life. Frankly, you're all making these old school effects more brilliant than they really are. Its nothing but nostalgia. I love the original TMNT show. But if I watched it now, I'd say its the worst show on tv.

 

[chi-boy]

IMO, it is not that CGI or special effects suck today compared to the movies from our childhood. It is simply that we are no longer children and we are not able to get sucked into these movies the way we were when we were kids. It also doesn't make it any easier that many people look at so much stuff on the internet during pre-production, etc...that they don't walk into the theater with the same blank state that they did when we were kids.

Many people learn way too much before a movie comes out today and they lose that sense of awe that we had when no one knew anythign about a film before it came out (double edged sword of the internet and movies)

It's kinda sad when you parouse these boards and you have all these grown men trying to relive their childhoods.

 

[GoldGoblin]

A new technology looks like it has come out.On commercials they have showed movie clips of Twister where Bill Paxton all of a sudden looks into the camera and starts promoting something,and a clip of Ferris Bueller's Day Off where the boring teacher is telling the kids something,then he looks at the camera and starts promoting something as well.

It looks so real,quite amazing.Picture where new movies come out with actors in them that have been dead for years,or movies with a young version of an actor who is really old.

We could have the younger Harrison Ford that we saw from the last Indiana Jones movie make more Indiana Jones movies,we could have the young Clint Eastwood,have new movies with Chris Farley in them,etc.

Have you guys seen these commercials,and what do you think about movies using this technology to do this?