I've noticed that there are still a handful of people on various boards who make a point of being down on the extensive use of CGI in movies and TV these days. I tend to be pro-CGI because of comparisons that can be made with earlier SF, and the limitations on HOW ships and scenes were shot. Compare a murky, traditional FX shot from Battlestar Galactica that could very well also be a stock shot, to the static FX of early STNG, to the plastic toy look of B5..and the nearly seamless CGI and expansive shot list of Enteprise..easily the best FX ever seen on a regular TV show in history. Minority Report didn't really emphasize its FX, but they were probably the best I've ever seen in a SF movie AND they were also wonderfully integrated. CGI still has its flaws, there is no doubt of it. One day Geroge Lucas will look back on the early stages of CGI and re-release a director's cut of Episode II. Sometimes the human motion is still off(as in Spiderman), and entire scenes or backgrounds can almost appear to lack life..or that's the best way I can describe it. Still as an advancing technology, I would hope the critics would give it more of a chance.
RAMA
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote: and the nearly seamless CGI and expansive shot list of Enteprise..easily the best FX ever seen on a regular TV show in history.
Hmmm, they are pretty good... I might put Stargate-SG1 up there though.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Absolutely. I do however think that in this particular arena, now more than ever, modesty is a virtue. Less is more.
I think Peter Jackson's LOTR-crew may have found a new balance in adventure filmmaking. As I said in the AOTC-thread, the focus on sets, miniatures, advanced manipulation of light and color, and basic, forgotten camera tricks, impressed me, and I'm not that easy to impress.
Just like they said, the goal wasn't to show off a new effect and splatter it on the screen, but to introduce these subtle changes so that no one even realizes it's been done.
I can't wait to see what "Nemesis" will be like, the community has changed a lot since "Insurrection".
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Personally, I think the best way to make the CGI ship look real, is make it big. Because if you look at CGI vs. models, you can tell up close and sometimes from far away, what's CGi and what's not. That's why they make the models really big, to get more detail in.
By the way, the reason why Spiderman CGI doesn't have the correct human motion is because Spiderman himself doesn't have correct human motion. He's a spider-man.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
For me it depends on how skilled the CGI artists are. There can be tons of CGI effects in a movie, but the movie will still look real if the artists are top-notch. Inversely the movie might look like a piece of rotting garbage if the artists are poorly trained and have no experience.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: By the way, the reason why Spiderman CGI doesn't have the correct human motion is because Spiderman himself doesn't have correct human motion. He's a spider-man.
I dunno. I always got the impression that he just had really, really, really good flexibility, reflexes and so forth. Some of the stuff he does in the movie doesn't look wrong because it's impossible for a human to do. It looks wrong because it doesn't look natural. Sort of.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Of course it doesn't look natural, he's Spiderman. But I know what you're talking about, I saw it too.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Spider-Man. Hyphen. Important. Stan Lee smash.
The first Harry Potter film had the same problems when they did human CGI. It just looked...a bit wrong. Somehow.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, there really is a hyphen? When I saw that on the cover of the recent movie, I wondered how it got there. I didn't realize it was actually correct. Crazy, I tell you...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The hyphen is there because the original title looked a bit too much like Superman. And isn't his full name The Amazing Spider-Man? Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Of course, Spiderhyphenman wasn't helped by being the worst film ever. . .
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Well, in one of the earliest comics (number 3, I think) Doc Ock actually called Spidey "Super-Man", so I guess they thought they needed the hyphen badly. Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
It wasn't the CGI of Spider-Man which caused me to hate the movie; it was other things. Things like the newspaper editor. He is the very model of a movie newspaper editor of the 30's and 40's. He is an anachronism in a film set in the late 20th and early 21st century. Oh, another thing I didn't like was the motivating force of the Green Goblin. I don't think he had one, unless you call destruction and mayhem a motivating force which I don't. His character was clearly and severly underwritten. I know he was mentally unstable, so what? My grandmother was mentally unstable, but she didn't go out and kill tens of people. Being mentally unstable is not a motivating force in my tiny book of forces. Control of his company? I don't remember any scene in the movie after his dismissal where he attempted to regain control of his company as himself or as the Green Goblin. This plot point, established with the introduction of the character, was dropped rather quickly. What does that leave us with? Not much and little of a character for the Green Goblin.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the fault lies in the comics, not in the films. Spider-Man is a student from the 1960s, J Jonah Jameson is a newspaper editor from the 1960s and the Green Goblin is a comic book supervillain from the 1960s. Granted they take steps to try and modernize the characters, settings and concepts some, but if you change too much you betray the source material you are trying to adapt.
Comic books supervillains kill and destroy for no reason (granted, i think later editions of the comic got psychoanalytical as to GG's goals and the nature of his psychosis, around the 80s or later). And unless you know newspaper editors, you dont have a lot of info as to what they are today. I used to think there were a lot of dead stereotypes is the world, that there was something fundamentally different about the new millennium that caused old personality types to die off.. it just aint true. I know several police detectives, all of whom could be straight from the 1940s.. they are good guys but they are just comically stereotyped to a fault, they wear trenchcoats, and questio people with the same kind of bizarre seriousness that i only thought existed on TV.
ew though, CGI sucks.. theyd be better off spending a couple extra bucks filming real people for some of these movies lately
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
And Spiderhyphenman is a case in point: every trailer and report on the film featured the scene where he swings into the room and removes his hood, and it looks awful.
But then, it was an awful, awful film. The script sucked, the acting sucked, the sets were terrible and the effects atrocious. This, a Spiderman film, was apparently the holy grail of anyone who'd ever read a comic book. My condolences.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Best film ever, I think you mean, Mr. Grinch!
Maybe. I don't know. I liked it a lot more than most of the films I saw this year.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: And Spiderhyphenman is a case in point: every trailer and report on the film featured the scene where he swings into the room and removes his hood, and it looks awful.
But then, it was an awful, awful film. The script sucked, the acting sucked, the sets were terrible and the effects atrocious. This, a Spiderman film, was apparently the holy grail of anyone who'd ever read a comic book. My condolences.
You are a minority.
As for CGI. I think its getting really, really good. Look at models, they looked like complete and total ass when they were begining to be used.
I think CG has taken off more then models and will soon (within 10 years) replace them entirely.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
newark: Are you really that far beyond all imaginable hope? It was a fucking Spiderman movie! The man got bitten by a spider and suddenly could climb walls! How is that A-okay, while the movie is ruined because the villain did things you don't think a real lunatic would do?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK, I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets last night... and after this thread (and my noticing last year) I kept a close eye on the Quidditch match. IT COULD NOT BE FAULTED! It was amazing! The people looked VERY real in EVERY shot... it was really quite marvellous! Loved it - and it was quite thrilling! The Basilisk looked fantastic too... and even Dobby! I was worried about Dobby - but he was really err realistic!
I think this has to do with the time factor - I read and interview or two where Chris Columbus said that the filmed the Quidditch scenes Straight-up so they had heaps of time for the CGI artists to do their thing.
GREAT STUFF!
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I've been following computer graphics and special visual effects my entire adult life, and I've watched with particular interest the development of CGI. I think what suprises me most is that it's been over 9 years since Jurassic Park, and the improvements in rendering have been only incremental. Why this is I'm not entirely sure, but I honestly expected CGI to be a lot less obvious by the year 2000 than it's ended up being.
The key problems with CGI being fake-o looking can be attributed to the following:
1. Light reflection and color reflection. Unless you ray-trace (which is very time consuming and not done that often) the lighting never looks right, because other simulations of reflected light (bouncing off other objects in a scene) don't accurately mimic how light looks. Even ray-tracing isn't a fully accurate representation of how light reflects, but it beats the alternatives. That's giveaway #1.
2. Lighting. Most 3D modelers and animators need a class in basic cinematography. Nuff said.
3. Mapping. You can bump map and texture map and reflection map and road map all you want, but if your 3D model doesn't actually have enough surfaces (faces) on it, the illusion gets destroyed when the object turns just so and what should be a bump is just a flat painted to look like a bump, and your animal brain goes "ugh!" at the sight.
4. Motion Capture. The problem with most motion capture on humans is that it's done by tracking points placed on their bodies. So what you end up doing is tracking points on their skin...but skin moves and slides, so the points don't track all that accurately. It would be better if you could accurately track the rotation of the joints deep down...but that's more difficult to do. Also, we spend our lives watching other human beings, and we instantly know when the slightest thing doesn't look right.
Those are the biggies.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
TSN,
Frell you!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
About Motion Capturing... I went to a Stargate convention here in Brisbane on Sunday (it was FREAKIN' AWESOME!) With Don S. Davis (General George Hammond) and Teryl Rothery (Dr. Janet Fraiser). Teryl had the FUNNIEST story about doing Heimdall the Asgaard.
Basically it involved the 'points' over her body and the fact that the head and eyes of Heimdall corresponded to her... chest!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Aw, Wesley, izza howwid man cwiticising your wittle movie? 8)
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The more you try to make Spider-man more 21st century, the more you betray the source. It would be like the equivilant of having Superman wear baggy clothes as a costume.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: I've been following computer graphics and special visual effects my entire adult life, and I've watched with particular interest the development of CGI.... blah blah
Jurrasic Park didnt have Radiocity, and it showed.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Jurrasic Park didnt have Radiocity, and it showed. [/QB]
Radio City Music Hall? I wasn't aware there were any T-Rexes amongst the Rockettes! Posted by RAMA (Member # 380) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: Absolutely. I do however think that in this particular arena, now more than ever, modesty is a virtue. Less is more.
I think Peter Jackson's LOTR-crew may have found a new balance in adventure filmmaking. As I said in the AOTC-thread, the focus on sets, miniatures, advanced manipulation of light and color, and basic, forgotten camera tricks, impressed me, and I'm not that easy to impress.
Just like they said, the goal wasn't to show off a new effect and splatter it on the screen, but to introduce these subtle changes so that no one even realizes it's been done.
I can't wait to see what "Nemesis" will be like, the community has changed a lot since "Insurrection".
You voiced something I totally agree with! The biggest key in the latest CGI intense movies is that the meld the FX with the suroundings better than ever! Movies like LOTR and SW:EP II work most of the backgrounds and interactive elements better than the the last generation of CGI movies and definitely better than Star Wars/motion control/standard FX era movies ever could.
RAMA
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
RAMA/Nimpin: I agree with you guys about this. I think the reason computer graphics look like computer graphics is that the filmmakers call attention to them to show off how good their effects are. It's been said many times that the best special effect is one that you never notice. Unfortunately, many films in our beloved SF genre are "effects-driven," meaning they exist to show off effects! What I've always wanted to see was an SF film that looked like it was filmed by a news or documentary film crew without sweeping camera moves or dolly shots. I want to feel if they were on the spot and just happened to film the action. As it happens, Ronald Moore is proposing to shoot the new Battlestar Galactica like this: http://www.filmjerk.com/archives/0212/021208galactica.html Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Galactica, but I would like to see a more naturalistic filming style for SF and take the special out of special effects.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I do give a rat's ass about Battlestar Galactica, and that's going to suck... It might look wonderful, and have wonderful stories, but playing that fast and loose with the characters and setting/look is going to kill any chance of my thinking of it as Battlestar Galactica. They're going to end up with a very pretty corpse -- wonderful make-up, but the heart's not beating.
--Jonah
Posted by Nimrod Pimding (Member # 205) on :
RAMA: Cheers. Masao: Cheers.
*clink*
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Sounds like "Band of Brothers - In Space" to me.
For the record, I also do not give a monkey's bum about Battlestar Galactica. Don't get me wrong it was a nice concept when it started but like most TV shows and sci-fi especially it all went pear shaped as soon as the authors ran out of ideas and started eating clich� soup for dinner. (about three episodes in)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yeah, and the guy writing it has never written anything worth watching ever. EVER.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I do give a rat's ass about Battlestar Galactica, and that's going to suck... It might look wonderful, and have wonderful stories, but playing that fast and loose with the characters and setting/look is going to kill any chance of my thinking of it as Battlestar Galactica. They're going to end up with a very pretty corpse -- wonderful make-up, but the heart's not beating.