CGI, the good, the bad, what do you think.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Quint You are extremely biased. the LOTR effects are 'dated'. (As are the Prequels' just in case you were going to attack me....)

Well King Kong (only) is still great.

Treebeard looked fine...but it looked much like a model (isnt it a model enhaced with CGI?) ie leaves are plastic leaves and its noticeable. And his eyes are crap.

And Gollum has been outmached by Davy Jones, by several miles.

Davy joes is still without match.

Reading this thread, many were very wrong about Harry potter. ILM was blamed for the awful effects, but the main reason is Sony Pictures imageworks. ILM is the 10th SFX company mentioned in the credits and Sony is the one that has a larger credit. And definately, that Quidditch match looked like spiderman.

[indy4 155]

King Kong wasn't very good IMO, especially the dinosaurs. Give me the dinos from JP anyday.

One oft overlooked problem with CGI is not the animation itself, but the use of computerized cameras. Those artificial swoops and pans are so jarring and remind me more than any animation that what I'm watching is nothing but a bunch of ones and zeros. Look no further than the

(oh, God, please don't let this tampering make it to the Blu-ray release of the film).

Perhaps I'm missing something incredibly obvious, but how does the one on the bottom look less realistic?

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

King Kong wasn't very good IMO, especially the dinosaurs. Give me the dinos from JP anyday.

I meant King Kong, the creature, the CGI ape.

The rest is bassically good to mediocre to bullsh+t CGI.

The Brontosaur stampede is a pain to watch.

[paleo 63]

I really do like CGI; so many things that would not be possible without it (I need some good escapism once in awhile...). I loved some classical matte paintings, too (e.g. the landing platform on Endor or Jabba's Palace in ROTJ), but the possibility to have actual camera movement through these non-existing environments is something I wouldn't want to miss. That's said, there are indeed a lot of not very convincing CGI effects in many movies of the last 15 years, and in some cases I wish the filmmakers would have concentrated on fewer effect shots and would have made them look better instead of delivering hundreds of fake-looking shots. I particularly don't like inconsistency, like, one effect shot is great, the next one mediocre, then one that looks unfinished... I have no problem when all effects are at the same level of mediocre quality in cases such as "Children of Dune", when I know they did what they could with their small budget to still deliver exotic worlds and vehicles, but when I know a studio invested $ 150 Mio. in their movie and half the stuff looks unfinished, that's disappointing. Even really great effect movies like LOTR have at least some bad effects (such as the horrible wargs in TTT), but as long as it's the exception, no complaints there (I guess they more than compensated that... I do think Gollum looks terrific, e.g.). Too bad that in particular the first two SW Prequels had unconvincing CGI in many cases (they will not age well), like the environment of the Jedi Temple, the gungans, the whole Naboo Plains battle (looks like a computer game to me, very hard to feel with the characters) in TPM, and most of Kamino and "Anakin riding beasts" in AOTC (the most convincing effects in AOTC are the instances when actors were shot in front of bluescreen and then inserted into separately filmed sets). ROTS has much superior effects IMO.

I don't know why, but the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park are still among the most convincing CGI shots for me (even in comparison to some of the effects in the JP sequels). The same is true for most of the stuff in Abyss, T2, Young Sherlock Holmes. Maybe the people involved payed more attention to details?

[indy4 155]

King Kong wasn't very good IMO, especially the dinosaurs. Give me the dinos from JP anyday.

I meant King Kong, the creature, the CGI ape.

The rest is bassically good to mediocre to bullsh+t CGI.

The Brontosaur stampede is a pain to watch.

I didn't even think that Kong was that great. Not bad, but that's about it.

[paleo 63]

King Kong wasn't very good IMO, especially the dinosaurs. Give me the dinos from JP anyday.

I meant King Kong, the creature, the CGI ape.

The rest is bassically good to mediocre to bullsh+t CGI.

The Brontosaur stampede is a pain to watch.

I second that. The ape is quite good, but much of the rest isn't really. I remember for example that the background and the foreground are completely misaligned in a couple of shots, most obviously when the small boat first approaches Skull Island.

[Wycket 36]

I always felt the King Kong's CGI wasn't that great (including the ape). I'm not saying its bad, but I still believe its not perfect. In particular, the scene of him on the ice just looks incredibly fake (as well as being completely useless).

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

I really do like CGI; so many things that would not be possible without it (I need some good escapism once in awhile...). I loved some classical matte paintings, too (e.g. the landing platform on Endor or Jabba's Palace in ROTJ), but the possibility to have actual camera movement through these non-existing environments is something I wouldn't want to miss. That's said, there are indeed a lot of not very convincing CGI effects in many movies of the last 15 years, and in some cases I wish the filmmakers would have concentrated on fewer effect shots and would have made them look better instead of delivering hundreds of fake-looking shots. I particularly don't like inconsistency, like, one effect shot is great, the next one mediocre, then one that looks unfinished... I have no problem when all effects are at the same level of mediocre quality in cases such as "Children of Dune", when I know they did what they could with their small budget to still deliver exotic worlds and vehicles, but when I know a studio invested $ 150 Mio. in their movie and half the stuff looks unfinished, that's disappointing. Even really great effect movies like LOTR have at least some bad effects (such as the horrible wargs in TTT), but as long as it's the exception, no complaints there (I guess they more than compensated that... I do think Gollum looks terrific, e.g.). Too bad that in particular the first two SW Prequels had unconvincing CGI in many cases (they will not age well), like the environment of the Jedi Temple, the gungans, the whole Naboo Plains battle (looks like a computer game to me, very hard to feel with the characters) in TPM, and most of Kamino and "Anakin riding beasts" in AOTC (the most convincing effects in AOTC are the instances when actors were shot in front of bluescreen and then inserted into separately filmed sets). ROTS has much superior effects IMO.

I don't know why, but the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park are still among the most convincing CGI shots for me (even in comparison to some of the effects in the JP sequels). The same is true for most of the stuff in Abyss, T2, Young Sherlock Holmes. Maybe the people involved payed more attention to details?

I sometimes hoped AOTC and ROTS had the same kind of practical and CGI effects as TPM...

Anyway, the approach of the ATTs and MTTs to the gungan army is great, that CGI grass is perfect.

And kamino looks great. I love ILMs CGI water. And the landing pad is a real set, as is jango's house... and the Cloning wats rooms and meeting room are models.

[ChrisAfonso 186]

I always felt the King Kong's CGI wasn't that great (including the ape). I'm not saying its bad, but I still believe its not perfect. In particular, the scene of him on the ice just looks incredibly fake (as well as being completely useless).

Useless? That's one of the most beautiful scenes of the film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I always felt the King Kong's CGI wasn't that great (including the ape). I'm not saying its bad, but I still believe its not perfect. In particular, the scene of him on the ice just looks incredibly fake (as well as being completely useless).

Useless? That's one of the most beautiful scenes of the film.

indeed, its pure film magic.

[Romão 2,274]

I agree it's a pretty awful scene (but I have a very strong dislike for that movie).

In recent movies, Master and Commander and Davy Jones have impressed me the most, VFX wise

[Wycket 36]

I always felt the King Kong's CGI wasn't that great (including the ape). I'm not saying its bad, but I still believe its not perfect. In particular, the scene of him on the ice just looks incredibly fake (as well as being completely useless).

Useless? That's one of the most beautiful scenes of the film.

indeed, its pure film magic.

Unnecessary magic. There is no need for that scene and it easily should have been excised. After LOTR (which are already far too long) Jackson made Kong incredibly long for no reason whatsoever. The original is about half of the run time of this film, and less than half when looking at the director's cut. Why? There is no reason to add in stupid subplots and characters except for the reason that he could and he wanted to. There's a good film in there, but you have to go through the clutter to find it. I just hope that in Jackson's next effort (The Lovely Bones) he shows a little restraint and judgment.

[paleo 63]

I sometimes hoped AOTC and ROTS had the same kind of practical and CGI effects as TPM...

Anyway, the approach of the ATTs and MTTs to the gungan army is great, that CGI grass is perfect.

And kamino looks great. I love ILMs CGI water. And the landing pad is a real set, as is jango's house... and the Cloning wats rooms and meeting room are models.

In case of AOTC I agree that more model work would have helped... And even though I normally like ILM's water simulation, it really looked very fake to me (particularly in the opening shot). I did not refer to the Kamino interiors, which indeed were quite good. ROTS is really much better in many ways (I prefer its effects over those of both earlier prequels by far).

As for the CGI grass in TPM, to my knowledge it's been shot in England (no CGI). And it's not the landscape that bothers me, it's the gungans (it would have helped if they'd been portrayed like an actual army, not a bunch of kids having fun with glowing marbles).

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I always felt the King Kong's CGI wasn't that great (including the ape). I'm not saying its bad, but I still believe its not perfect. In particular, the scene of him on the ice just looks incredibly fake (as well as being completely useless).

Useless? That's one of the most beautiful scenes of the film.

indeed, its pure film magic.

Unnecessary magic. There is no need for that scene and it easily should have been excised. After LOTR (which are already far too long) Jackson made Kong incredibly long for no reason whatsoever. The original is about half of the run time of this film, and less than half when looking at the director's cut. Why? There is no reason to add in stupid subplots and characters except for the reason that he could and he wanted to. There's a good film in there, but you have to go through the clutter to find it. I just hope that in Jackson's next effort (The Lovely Bones) he shows a little restraint and judgment.

sorry but I disagree, there is every need for the scene, it helps cement the emotional bond between the two. It also makes his death even more tragic after such a bit of happiness.

[Wojo 2,453]

Wish they'd have cued up "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for me and my Monkey."

[QMM 4]

Best recent CGI for me has been in The Dark Knight, Master and Commander, and Zodiac, where you can hardly tell if there's CGI or not.

Best character that's been done in CGI is probably Davey Jones. He's the only character I can think of where so many people I knew were convinced it was makeup.

[John Crichton 4]

I think Doctor Who also has some horrendously bad CG sometimes, particularly in the last Xmas special.

Yeah, not that good. But The Mill has done some really good work too. I think Voyage of the Damned and The Fires of Pompeii in particular were very impressive.

If you want to see CG reach the standard of traditional modelwork, at least in the spaceship department, watch Battlestar Galactica. Zoic is amazing.

As far as CG characters, the gold standard is definately Davy Jones.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Davy Jones didn't impress me at all, I knew it was supposed to because of all the fan boys, but he looked fake.

[ChrisAfonso 186]

I always felt the King Kong's CGI wasn't that great (including the ape). I'm not saying its bad, but I still believe its not perfect. In particular, the scene of him on the ice just looks incredibly fake (as well as being completely useless).

Useless? That's one of the most beautiful scenes of the film.

indeed, its pure film magic.

Unnecessary magic. There is no need for that scene and it easily should have been excised. After LOTR (which are already far too long) Jackson made Kong incredibly long for no reason whatsoever. The original is about half of the run time of this film, and less than half when looking at the director's cut. Why? There is no reason to add in stupid subplots and characters except for the reason that he could and he wanted to. There's a good film in there, but you have to go through the clutter to find it. I just hope that in Jackson's next effort (The Lovely Bones) he shows a little restraint and judgment.

sorry but I disagree, there is every need for the scene, it helps cement the emotional bond between the two. It also makes his death even more tragic after such a bit of happiness.

Exactly. It helps to show that he really is just a frightened animal in a foreign surrounding, just wanting to be left alone... and the real "monster" is man, with his need to hunt him down.

But I have to disagree on Davy Jones, Joe, I think he is incredibly convincing... I too thought it was makeup with CGI tentacles.

Chris

Final Fantasy (Goldenthal)

[Quintus 5,399]

Quint You are extremely biased.

Sigh, how am I biased? Be honest, it is because I said the cgi in AotC looked vulgar, isn't it? And that hurt your delicate little feelings. You generalised greatly in your response to me; you said "LOTR effects ARE dated" and guess what, I agree - to a certain extent. Some of the Moria work looked dated even when the film FIRST CAME OUT. I haven't got my tongue inserted inside the rectum of LotR as you so obviously have for Lucas and SW, indeed I could easily roll off PLENTY of criticism concerning LotR if I felt so inclined. When I mentioned LotR and its cgi, I referred specifically to Gollum and Treebreard, yet you chose to take my comments as a generalism toward all things CG in LotR and my 'high fiving' of it. What a pathetic ignoramus you are.

Pfft...

And just to finish, I'd forgotten about Davy Jones, who is indeed a fantastic technical feat and of the highest quality cgi out there. But he didn't engage me on an emotional level at all unlike say, Gollum, who did. Not because I'm a fanboy, but because he was a masterful step forward in cgi as a character performance. Do you have any grasp of that way of looking at it? Can your prejudiced 2D brain comprehend that fact?

[Ollie 1,059]

As mentioned, the T-rex from JP is still the most convincing, although I do think ILM improved the look of the dinosaurs as each film progressed.

I went back and looked at some scenes from AOTC and I didn't realize at the time how poor some of the CGI was.

[John Crichton 4]

I think all the effects in Cloverfield are very well done.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'll have to reexamine Davy Jones, since you all are impressed, maybe im mistaking the kraken, I don't know. I really was disappointed by Dead Man Chest.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

CGI is best in small amounts. As mentioned before: Benjamin Button, Zodiac, Cloverfield, and The Dark Knight all have excellent CGI. It isn't thrown in your face like Spider-Man 3, it's used subtly.

I do think King Kong has some of the best CGI of recent years. Don't just think of Kong or the dinosaurs, but the bugs. The scene when they are all attacked in the crevice was great. The dinosaurs weren't bad, but I don't think they were breathtaking. Kong was, with all the fine details with the hair and facial expressions.

I agree that older methods for special effects are better than most of what is used today. Films like Blade Runner and 2001 look amazing. The Fifth Element is one that never gets talked about. Excellent use of CGI that doesn't look dated.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I went back and looked at some scenes from AOTC and I didn't realize at the time how poor some of the CGI was.

It wasn't poor for its time. It seems to me that AOTC had the poor fortune of being made right before some new wizardry was introduced. I mean, just look at the digital characters barely 6 months later (Dobby and Gollum). Its like there's some kind of new shader which made skin look a lot more natural. Of course, I'm just speculating.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'll have to reexamine Davy Jones, since you all are impressed, maybe im mistaking the kraken, I don't know. I really was disappointed by Dead Man Chest.

That's because it was a pretty bad mess of a sequel. Davy Jones is probably the best thing about it, wonderfully voiced by Brit Bill Nighy.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Dead Man's Chest is my favorite one of the trilogy.

[John Crichton 4]

Mine too, I think it works great. It's a bit overlong, the whole cannibal island sequence could have been dropped, but other than that it's wonderful. It's At World's End that's the mess.

BTW, Davy Jones wasn't voiced by Bill Nighty, he was played by Bill Nighty. On set with his fellow actors. Which is the main reason Davy Jones works so well.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Bill Nighy to Davy Jones is Andy Serkis to Gollum. He wore a suit and voiced the character. I don't get why they didn't use him for when you actually see the real Davy Jones in At World's End.

[Datameister 2,044]

The problem with CGI is that it tends to induce the kid-in-the-candy-store effect. It offers so many possibilities, sometimes at a much lower price than any of the alternatives. And the thing is, when you're creating the CGI, it's very easy to get blown away by how good it looks for CGI and stop noticing the little things that make it unrealistic. (I speak from experience here.) So the trick is to never use CGI just for the sake of CGI, and to be aware of what it tends to drop the ball on.

Some examples I thought were good:

* Davy Jones - most convincing CGI character thus far

* the destruction of Akator in KOTCS, as well as some of the minor effects shots that you never even realize use CGI

* a lot of the CGI in ROTS and, to a lesser degree, the other prequels

* King Kong

* Jurassic Park - the integration of puppetry and CGI in the first film (and second, I suppose) still blows me away

* Sometimes Gollum

I think it's also worth noting that while Jar Jar can be quite annoying, he can be fairly visually convincing.

I also agree about the camera moves. Some people love how CGI frees you up to do camera moves that'd otherwise be impossible, but I usually find it distracting and unrealistic. Obviously, there are exceptions, but going through windows...floating around through the air in ways that'd never happen with live-action shots...stuff like that is usually the kid-in-the-candy-store effect, I think.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Transformers ihas the best CGI I've seen. Those robots looked real!

[Datameister 2,044]

You know, a lot of the CGI in that film was pretty dang convincing. Gratuitous and over-the-top, certainly, but pretty realistic.

[Quintus 5,399]

BTW, Davy Jones wasn't voiced by Bill Nighty, he was played by Bill Nighty. On set with his fellow actors.

Of course, but I think the reason I said he merely "voiced" the character is because it isn't really the most physical of roles. For the most part Nighy merely stands around looking cruel and cool, unlike Serkis who's role was about as physical as it gets. Another thing, Nighy had to compete with a set of brilliantly distracting tentacles hanging from his character's face, indeed we only really have his eyes to work with, from a physical performance perspective, which tends to variate between 'evil' and 'angry' and not much else, which could be seen as a shame. Fundamentally speaking though, I think this demonstrates perfectly my belief that Davy Jones is no match for the physicality and emotional feeling which Serkis was able to convey as Gollum. He was lucky in the respect that his whole face was the model for the animators, whereas only Nighy's eyes were worked into the finished product.

Of course, technically they're both superb examples of cgi, but I'm more interested in what a character has to say to me and not just how real it all looks.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Dead Man's Chest is my favorite one of the trilogy.

that didn't surprise me at all.

Quint, Bill Nighy has a great voice, the cliched kind that you'd enjoy reading the phone book(not really but..). I really like him very much.

datameister, I question that its cheaper as cgi heavy movies are all super high budget films, each summer we seem to have a new champion for most expensive film and its always some CGI schlock fest.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

datameister, I question that its cheaper as cgi heavy movies are all super high budget films, each summer we seem to have a new champion for most expensive film and its always some CGI schlock fest.

But the real question is, what would the cost be had the same thing been done with equal quality using traditional effects if even possible?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't know, I do know that Rick Baker questioned the reasoning behind Universals decision to film the Wolf Man transformations in CGI, saying it would be more realistic and cheaper with traditional makeup effects but who knows how much matte paintings and model effects would be in others. Lets face it in Transformers and JP there were no other realistic options.

[Ollie 1,059]

I will say that Phil Tippet's stop motion tests for JP were some of the smoothest animated models I've seen.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Nighy had to compete with a set of brilliantly distracting tentacles hanging from his character's face, indeed we only really have his eyes to work with, from a physical performance perspective....only Nighy's eyes were worked into the finished product.

You dont know that Davy jones eyes are CGI?

Now that demonstrates perfectly that Davy jones has not a rival in CGI character realism.

I will say that Phil Tippet's stop motion tests for JP were some of the smoothest animated models I've seen.

yeah they were possibly the best ones in history, but i wouldnt had liked JP end like that. Now if kong 1933 had had those tippet models peope would have really believed dinosaurs existed

[Quintus 5,399]

You dont know that Davy jones eyes are CGI?

Sorry to prematurely deflate your joy, but yes, I did know his eyes were CG. Of course I did. Zzzzzzzzz.

Quite the literal thinker aren't you...

Sorry, what was it you were demonstrating again? Actually, don't answer, since it will probably be something really nerdy, which doesn't appeal to me. Sorry.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

are you done?

I just understood erroriously your meaning, sorry for not having been born on Her majesty's country.

[Henry B 50]

One oft overlooked problem with CGI is not the animation itself, but the use of computerized cameras. Those artificial swoops and pans are so jarring and remind me more than any animation that what I'm watching is nothing but a bunch of ones and zeros. Look no further than the

(oh, God, please don't let this tampering make it to the Blu-ray release of the film).

Perhaps I'm missing something incredibly obvious, but how does the one on the bottom look less realistic?

Well, besides the fact that there was nothing wrong with the original shot and it's been needlessly redone on a computer... pay attention to the camera. In the original shot it pans downward, but in the digital shot it actually moves downward as if it were on an elevator. I don't have anything against this technique, per se, but because such a shot would be so hard to do with a real camera we're not accustomed to seeing such movement. It feels digital. Also, a pan is really more effective than a downward movement because it accentuates the soldiers falling. This sort of tension is negated when the camera travels downward with the soldiers. (I know that wasn't a very clear explanation, but it's an intuitive reaction for me.)

Transformers ihas the best CGI I've seen. Those robots looked real!

I hate to admit it, but... yes.

[Quintus 5,399]

When it comes to real looking METAL, Transformers sees off all comers. But why do you "hate to admit it"? Really, who gives a sh*t either way...

are you done?

I just understood erroriously your meaning, sorry for not having been born on Her majesty's country.

Sorry Manuel (may I call you that?), but you rubbed me up the wrong way when you presumed very much. Your English is clearly superb, but it isn't quite at the level of Steef's who (admirably) detects and understands the nuances of the language... to a point.

My advice? Don't jump the gun!*

*Look it up

[Richard Penna 3,696]

I've learnt that most CGI isn't noticed by anyone because the subject isn't something you expect to be CG'd - sky replacements, backgrounds, inconspicuous objects.

My problem is that if I see something which clearly can't be a practical effect, like the monster in Cloverfield, then it takes a really stunning driving performance to make me forget that what I'm watching isn't real. And when I'm watching something like Gollum interacting with the actors, I'm always looking at all the intricate details; whether 'forces' being applied appear to be realistic. In that respect, there are tons of flaws in LotR for me, particularly during the early parts of the Gondor siege.

I'm just someone that searches for flaws in cinema it seems.

[Quintus 5,399]

No you're not, you're someone who looks for the amazing advances in special effects, but ultimately struggles to accept them as legitimate avenues of film production. I'm the same, but I can shut down my over-active cynical mind and just enjoy the entertainment up on the screen; if the film is a good one.

I completely relate to your Gondor siege comments, but I still marvel at the bigger picture. The fantastic was never gonna look real in the first place.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Sorry Manuel (may I call you that?)

NO... j/k

Your English is clearly superb

Thanks

but it isn't quite at the level of Steef's which (admirably) detects and understands the nuances of the language... to a point.

Well his country have a more spread ussage of English language than mine <_<

My advice? Don't jump the gun!*

OK

'Put Down the Gun!' from Last Crusade boot

[Quintus 5,399]

Man, I wanna hug you so much right now <_<

[Ollie 1,059]

I will say that Phil Tippet's stop motion tests for JP were some of the smoothest animated models I've seen.

yeah they were possibly the best ones in history, but i wouldnt had liked JP end like that. Now if kong 1933 had had those tippet models peope would have really believed dinosaurs existed <_<

Stop motion has more heart and more magic than anything CGI. It's a real object made with real things, whether it be feathers, hair etc etc.

In 1933 people were convinced.

[Quintus 5,399]

And in 1993, Spielberg wasn't convinced.

Thank Christ <_<

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Stop motion has more heart and more magic than anything CGI. It's a real object made with real things, whether it be feathers, hair etc etc.

Mmmm, about hair and feathers, i still have to see those in a creature made with stop motion that does not look like a stuffed animal.

Man, I wanna hug you so much right now

uummmm.....NO

No kidding.

Seriously <_<

[Quintus 5,399]

C'mon, Man Hugs are great!