Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 8, 2007 Author Share Posted April 8, 2007 Without Gollum, I doubt there would really be a Davy Jones, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 HELL YEAH MAN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Without Gollum, I doubt there would really be a Davy Jones, though.That's true, plus Andy Serkis put alot more into his role than Bill Nighy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 HELL YEAH MAN!ANDY SERKIS FUCK YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 8, 2007 Author Share Posted April 8, 2007 Well, don't poopooh Bill Neighy.Also, Gollum is a much, much, much more physical character than Davy Jones (certainly the Jones we saw in DMC). I didn't see Davy Jones climbing over rocks and jumping into mountain streams. It's a different sort of role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Am I the only one who thought that Hulk looked very realistic in certain scenes? As realistic as a green giant can get anyway..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Davy Jones was still a more technically impressive CG creature, though. It looked almost like make-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 8, 2007 Author Share Posted April 8, 2007 Am I the only one who thought that Hulk looked very realistic in certain scenes? As realistic as a green giant can get anyway.....Yes, he looked pretty good. They cleverly also didn't show him in full light the first time, so you have some time to get used to the creature and accept him. Digital creatures are usually easier to sell in the dark then in the light, so it helps if you see it in the dark the first time. I always think that the first shot on any recurring effect is the one that makes or breaks the success of it.Davy Jones was still a more technically impressive CG creature, though. It looked almost like make-up.It is very impressive, but don't forget the giant leaps made on Gollum. I really don't want to take away from either creation, as both are jaw-dropping achievements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Dunno, never saw that film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Hopefully they will use a stunt double for Ford and not worry about CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Am I the only one who thought that Hulk looked very realistic in certain scenes? As realistic as a green giant can get anyway.....I agree 100%. In the desert scenes in particular, the CGI was pretty much flawless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Hopefully they will use a stunt double for Ford and not worry about CGI.I don't think they'l use a CGI stunt double.They however will use CGI to de-age Harrison Ford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMacGyver 0 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 No need to use cgi for that. You would be surprised what can be achieved through the wonders of lighting alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Hopefully they will use a stunt double for Ford and not worry about CGI.I don't think they'l use a CGI stunt double.They however will use CGI to de-age Harrison FordWill they? Since Lucas and Spielberg have both said that Harrison's age will be worked into the script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Part of which I'm sure will be Indy saying "I'm too old for this sh*t!" or something to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycket 36 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Part of which I'm sure will be Indy saying "I'm too old for this sh*t!" or something to that effect.Well, he has to say shit once. Its a tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 No, the environment is not.Argh! The whole shot was rendered inside a little computer thingy! Obviously the reference point was maquettes and minatures, but what you see on screen is all CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share Posted April 9, 2007 Then why do they literally say on the DVD that the bridge element was a miniature shot by Alex Funke and his team, even go as far as showing the actual background plate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Because the minature shot was the point of reference for the CG animators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share Posted April 9, 2007 Yes, but the digital doubles were composited into the (probably digitally enhanced) miniature shot.Like most good effects shots, they never rely on just one technique for an effect shot in that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Children, if you can't play together...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Bah, give me good ole fashioned stop motion animation and matte painting over this new fangled CGI gobbledygook.Kids and their technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 The Fly remake and Legend are proof that you don't need CG to do life-like effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 "This bickering is pointless."My whole point in bringing up that shot from Fellowship was commenting on the realism of the movement of the characters, nothing else. Even if it was done with motion capture, it's still CG characters and the move perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisAfonso 186 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 If I may throw in my comment on Davy Jones (is this off topic?), they had me completely fooled. Especially since his face geometry and mimic mannerisms looked SO like Nighy, I was convinced it was (although GC enhanced) makeup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeNewGuy 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'll second the comments concerning the quality of ILM's work on Davy Jones. Thus far it's the only CGI that's actually had me in disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I don't care enough about PotC to care about it's CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damo 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The use of CGI on Davy Jones was turned out to be very good i thought. Even though it's fake but still it looks good on how it turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I've said it before and I'll say it again: Davy Jones was the greatest accomplishment in CG to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 What about Jar Jar!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QMM 4 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 ILM has apparently said that their stuff on Transformers is the best they've done yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 What about Jar Jar!?I still think he's good as far as CGI go.even TPM Jar Jar is holding up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Every time I think of a good example of CGI, I always think about the first appearance of the full T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Yeah, it's at night, and yeah it's raining, but it's still completely convincing.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damo 0 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 They've slightly change the apperances of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park III especially the Raptors now have a bit of some hairs on top on their heads compared to the appearances of the dinosaurs to the previous Jurassic Park films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Every time I think of a good example of CGI, I always think about the first appearance of the full T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Yeah, it's at night, and yeah it's raining, but it's still completely convincing.Tim I believe that that is not CG, actually. I seem to recall the T-Rex being Stan Winston's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Yeah,I've seen pics of them filming the giant T-rex model head somewhere.When they show the whole T-Rex it's CGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 Every time I think of a good example of CGI, I always think about the first appearance of the full T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Yeah, it's at night, and yeah it's raining, but it's still completely convincing.Tim I believe that that is not CG, actually. I seem to recall the T-Rex being Stan Winston's work.No, that's ILM's alright.Basically, any time you see a full dinosaur from head to toe in Jurassic Park, it's a digital effect (with the exception of the Triceratops and the Dilophosaurus). All close-ups and most medium shots are Winston's animatronics. There's only nine or ten shots with a digital Rex in that sequence, one of them featuring both the animatronic and the digital version (there's also seperately filmed water splashes, a digital car and a digital human in that sequence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I stand very corrected. How many times have you watched the Making of doc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Jar Jar hasn't dated to well. How could he? He looked like cgi back when the TPM was released. His movements are to fluid, something Peter Jackson sought to avoid when he had Gollum in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 I stand very corrected. How many times have you watched the Making of doc? I dunno. Four times or something. It's been a while, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 And what a marvelous doc it is.-Ross, who also factors nostalgia for that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Am I the only one who thought that Hulk looked very realistic in certain scenes? As realistic as a green giant can get anyway.....I agree 100%. In the desert scenes in particular, the CGI was pretty much flawless.I second that.ANYWAY, i find Gollum and Yoda to be of similar quality, i think both companies developed their technologies at the same time.I mean, i dont believe ILM couldnt have done davy kones if gollum had not been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 i find Gollum and Yoda to be of similar quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think Gollum proved that motion capture was the way to go rather than straight animation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 If anyone, after Davy Jones, still has doubts about the future of CGI then you're either blind or just living in denial. The CGI Yoda and Gollum are sometimes just as convincing. Even Jar Jar. But Davy Jones has to be the most consistantly succesful animated character so far achieved. Too bad that Kraken looked like shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I agree whole-heartedly about Davey Jones, but I don't think that Yoda is nearly at that level. Jar Jar certainly isn't close. Gollum is almost perfect, but the illusion is broken every once in a while. Also King Kong deserves a serious mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I agree whole-heartedly about Davey Jones, but I don't think that Yoda is nearly at that level. Jar Jar certainly isn't close. Gollum is almost perfect, but the illusion is broken every once in a while. Also King Kong deserves a serious mention.Indeed. Its a shame how quickly he appears to have been forgotten. In fact some of his facial expressions are literally leagues ahead of his CG predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well, I don't feel so bad that the film was forgotten, but everything involving the character of King Kong was terrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I agree whole-heartedly about Davey Jones, but I don't think that Yoda is nearly at that level.I agree. Yoda is sometimes very realistic looking, but the animation never really fools me. Gollum is better, but most of the times - especially the facially movements - scream CGI. Davy Jones on the other hand, had me looking up how they made him! Most of the times I could swear this was an actual living, breathing creature! It's an awesome effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think Davy Jones was slightly lost on me because I knew his face was cgi. Amazing effects ruined by lack of immersion.Gollum NEVER suffered from that massive problem. Obviously because the script, actors, director and cgi worked in perfect unison to create a near-seamless whole.CGI is nothing without audience acceptance beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts