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

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

i'm feeling like princess leia in your avatar <_<

[Taikomochi 1,136]

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

Yes, but they're not alive. A lot of CG looks bad because it's living things that don't move correctly or whatever, but Transformers was just robots. It would have taken A LOT of time and effort, but a lot of Transformers could have been before even Jurassic Park.

[Richard Penna 3,696]

What he said.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

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

Yes, but they're not alive. A lot of CG looks bad because it's living things that don't move correctly or whatever, but Transformers was just robots. It would have taken A LOT of time and effort, but a lot of Transformers could have been before even Jurassic Park.

You have a point, but that film would not have been possible before Jurassic Park. It's pretty easy to spot the CGI versus animatronic in JP.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Yes, but that's because the animatronics didn't move the way CG creations do. Their fat doesn't jiggle and other such things. You can still spot animatronics and CG today anyway.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Up until Transformers CGI has never looked real to me. The whole human vs. machine is a good point, but doesn't completely justify why it looks so damn real.

All this discussion doesn't really matter. Avatar is going to change everything, apparently.

EDIT: Wait, Zodiac looked real to me

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Tron is the latest in computer imagery technology.

[Red 75]

The CG in Transformers was pretty great (one of the few good aspects of the movie), but nothing in my mind beats Davy Jones. That is the new benchmark.

[John Crichton 4]

Transformers, I will admit, did have very impressive SFX technically.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yet to prevent giving an Oscar to a Michael Bay film, they forked it over to The Golden Compass, who's CGI was sh*t.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The talking polar bear won their hearts.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Dark Knight has a scene were a helicopter flies into steel wires and crashes. I know it must be CGI because you could not do that for real, but it looks absolutely convincing.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Yet to prevent giving an Oscar to a Michael Bay film, they forked it over to The Golden Compass, who's CGI was sh*t.

I would have given it to Pirates which was above Transformers, while both were lightyears above GC.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The Dark Knight has a scene were a helicopter flies into steel wires and crashes. I know it must be CGI because you could not do that for real, but it looks absolutely convincing.

Completely. It's a cliche (and no doubt oft repeated in this thread), but the best effect is one that does not look like an effect.

I always look back to the first scene of AI, with the female robot whose face opens up. Every time I see that shot, I don't think 'that's amazing CG', I think 'woah, it's an actual robot.'

[Morlock 11]

I agree that AI has some remarkable CG work, from the gentle augmentation to the obvious big stuff. I'm not so sure about the 'good CG should be invisible'. I am in awe of the invisible CG stuff, like Master & Commander, but, in general, I find that I'm usually conciously aware that I'm watching CG. It's second-nature, it's about whether it works for me or not. Transformers CG is superb, but the use of it was so unimpressive in my eyes that I have a hard time remembering what it looked like. Davey Jones, on the other hand...I also knew it was CG, but the character created was so indelible -the best thing in the ambitious, though not spectacularly successful as entertainment second movie- that I was in awe of the combined effort in creating that, as well. The human touch was there.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I agree on TRANSFORMERS. I'll admit much of it awed me first time around in the theater, but as soon as I saw the DVD, I actually saw what a terrible film is built around those effects, and even watching it just for the robots did not interest me one bit.

[artyjeffrey 20]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that creating CGI is a breeze (I know I couldn't do it), or that I'm not often impressed with the results. I'm just saying it's not hands-on anymore, and to a certain degree I think it shows.

It's the same thing with set-building. Time was when our jaws hung agape at the sight of worlds that had been created by hand, places where actors could cavort around convincingly because they were really there. In the new SW films, actors play in front of bluescreens. Does it work? I suppose so, at least visually. But when Ewan McGregor said recently that he was having a blast "playing Star Wars," just like when he was a kid, only it was for real now, I had a hard time believing he had more fun than the actors in the original films, who actually got to run through the halls of the Death Star or strut around on the Millenium Falcon. That, I think, would have been the better of the two.

- Uni

I believe there is something to this. The special effects artists of the recent past were hands-on artists, skilled at painting, sculpture, you name it. The new wave of effects houses feature CGI talent that maybe didn't have a strong foundation in the tactile arts.

Like Joe said, and I know it's been said before, that Jurassic Park was one of the earliest heavy-duty CGI films, and yet it still looks better than recent stuff. It's interesting to note that as JP was in production, there was changing of the guard, from old-school stop (or "go)motion to CGI. I remember reading somewhere that Phil Tippett and his team were kept on even after their go-motion was scrapped, so that they could assist the animators. It was a bridge between old and new, and that's why that movie still holds up now.

...and then again, I'm sure many of us were pimp-slapped by it the first time we saw it, and that makes it hold a special place in our memories!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Independence Day has a combination of old and new techniques. It was probably one of the last major special effects films that wasn't totally reliant upon CGI, and it still retains its "WOW" factor after 13 years.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Speaking of JP, the CG fight between the T-Rex and the Spinosaurus is incredible. It's a shame the film had humans in.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Speaking of JP, the CG fight between the T-Rex and the Spinosaurus is incredible. It's a shame the film had humans in.

and that they didnt used most of the animatronic shots. They would make the scene longer and cooler, but the look of the animatronic in these two dinosarus is still slightly diffenert from the CGI model and it shows. (the raptors are perfect) and the movements would have been akward as it is a fast fight and they can't do it with big animatronics.

Just remember the shot of the Spinosaur roaring over the T-Rex corpse, its animatronic and it sticks like a sore thumb after the CGI battle.

[Richard Penna 3,696]

Not to mention a fairly jarring sound editing gaff there.

Those referring to the original JP are right - take the first scene with the stegosaurus. It's in bright daylight and is interacting with things around it, but there's nothing at all in that scene which makes me think I'm looking at a CG model, even when it eats leaves off that tree and slams back down again - it's flawless and I think it's incredible that they could make something of that quality 16 years ago, when so much modern CG is pathetic.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

CGI was new (relatively) back then, they could not afford to be lazy with it.

Also, Spielberg is a perfectionist.

[Richard Penna 3,696]

I think you've got a point there - if you're basing your film on a revolutionary new technology, you're gonna put everything you've got into it.

Plus it doesn't actually have that many FX shots compared to modern movies, and there were no 'camera flying' shots or anything like that (in the first one) so they could probably take more time on it.

JPIII has some modern visual influences, such as the birdcage sequence, and the dino crashing through the barrier just before is a little dodgy to me, but overall those films aren't wall-to-wall effects with protracted battle sequences.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Those referring to the original JP are right - take the first scene with the stegosaurus.

O M G !

[Richard Penna 3,696]

Oh who cares which dinosaur it is

[QMM 4]

The sequence that still holds up today, for me, is the T-Rex attack on the cars. The weakest in the film would probably be Grant and the kids being chased by the Gallimimuses and the subsequent T-Rex attack.

[Marian Schedenig 8,212]

Also, it's spelled "Stegasaurus".

[Nick Parker 3,040]

No, it is spelt "Stegosaurus". Which, to make you angry, Rich, is the first "big" dinosaur featured in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, when the three men find Sarah Harding.

[Marian Schedenig 8,212]

No, it is spelt "Stegosaurus".

I know, but they misspelt it in the movie.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Did they? Oh, wait, the Stegosaurus was the sick dinosaur, right? Or was it a Triceratops? No, no, I do not think there was ever a Triceratops in a Jurassic Park film.... I need to watch Jurassic Park again....

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

the sick dino in JP was a triceratops

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I really do need to watch that film again....Hm, I wonder if it is playing right now....

[John Crichton 4]

As many movie channels as there are now I think everything is playing somewhere.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

A movie scored by an RCP-related composer is always in theaters. Seriously.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

As many movie channels as there are now I think everything is playing somewhere.

No Jurassic Park, but I did find Airplane!....

[John Crichton 4]

You're better off, then.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

the sick dino in JP was a triceratops

And in the lost world there is one on a cage that when released rams a car.

And in the dinosaur fly by from III there are some too.

[222max 1]

I think the best effect, CGI or otherwise, is one which blends seamlessly with the film's look and setting. In that regard I have to say one of the single best CGI effects I've seen to date is Harvey Dent's burned half face in The Dark Knight. The texturing and depth in that effect is just incredible. And it looks every bit a part of the shot as everything else.

[Richard Penna 3,696]

Indeed. I respect Nolan for what he did visually in TDK, because I read that they only went with CG for Dent's face because make-up involves adding something - you just can't remove half a face by adding anything. I think they deserve the oscar just for that.

[MissPadmé 17]

the sick dino in JP was a triceratops

Yes and the music cue that plays during that scene is called "My friend, the Brachiosaurus"

makes sense now doesn't it

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Indeed. I respect Nolan for what he did visually in TDK, because I read that they only went with CG for Dent's face because make-up involves adding something - you just can't remove half a face by adding anything. I think they deserve the oscar just for that.

I think taking Brad Pitt's face and putting it on an another person is more Oscar worthy.

the sick dino in JP was a triceratops

Yes and the music cue that plays during that scene is called "My friend, the Brachiosaurus"

makes sense now doesn't it

They're talking about the sick one in the beginning, near the big pile of poo, which was a triceratops.

[MissPadmé 17]

the sick dino in JP was a triceratops

Yes and the music cue that plays during that scene is called "My friend, the Brachiosaurus"

makes sense now doesn't it

They're talking about the sick one in the beginning, near the big pile of poo, which was a triceratops.

...uhhngh... really?!?! wow I did not know that! *endofsarcasm*

since everyone kept mistaking the dinosaur names I wanted to point out that even the soundtrack cuename is not correct - The music you here during the sick triceratops is called my friend the "BRACHIOSAURUS"! which does not make sense.. you get it now, I hope

an obvious misnamed cue.. or tracked in the film I don't know

[Ollie 1,059]

since everyone kept mistaking the dinosaur names I wanted to point out that even the soundtrack cuename is not correct - The music you here during the sick triceratops is called my friend the "BRACHIOSAURUS"! which does not make sense.. you get it now, I hope

an obvious misnamed cue.. or tracked in the film I don't know

No it's Williams combining two cues together. The first part scores the sick Triceratops and the second part is for the Brachiosaurus scene.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Indeed. I respect Nolan for what he did visually in TDK, because I read that they only went with CG for Dent's face because make-up involves adding something - you just can't remove half a face by adding anything. I think they deserve the oscar just for that.

In the same way a puppet was used for the third stage makeup of Griffin Dunne in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

I haven't seen BB, but the effects in TDK are pretty seamless to the point where it doesn't feel like an effects movie at all, even with Dent's face.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

They went a little overboard with Two-Face. Fire wouldn't do that to your face.

[222max 1]

They went a little overboard with Two-Face. Fire wouldn't do that to your face.

That wasn't the point. He wasn't just some guy who got half his face burnt off. He had to become one of the most recognized characters in the Batman canon while also having the appropriate gritty realistic look of the rest of the film. Not like the retarded looking rubber mask they put on Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever which looked absolutely fake whenever they showed it full frontal.

Sure, his eyeball would not have survived while all the surrounding tissue was burned away and so forth. But it sure was a thing of beauty to see all those muscle tendons working as he talked and his big exposed CGI eyeball matching perfectly with his other eye as it rolled around in its socket. That must have been hard as heck to do and they pulled it off spectacularly.

[Richard Penna 3,696]

Indeed. I respect Nolan for what he did visually in TDK, because I read that they only went with CG for Dent's face because make-up involves adding something - you just can't remove half a face by adding anything. I think they deserve the oscar just for that.

I think taking Brad Pitt's face and putting it on an another person is more Oscar worthy.

Well I'm talking within the context of just TDK of course - Button's effects do indeed look amazing, I haven't seen it.

And I agree with Charlie, TDK doesn't feel like a sfx movie because everything is so seamless, and because so much stuff is CG that you don't expect to be, hence you're not looking for it.

[Wojo 2,453]

I could forgive the fact that his face looked like that. The rest of the movie had a gritty, realistic feel to it, but it's still a comic book world. Not everything in the Batman universe could work or look 100% like it does in true life. Batman Begins set the bar with taking liberties like this, more than TDK, and nobody even noticed.

What gets me is how quick Dent's recovery time was. In the span of a few in-movie hours, he was back on his feet, hellbent on revenge, and acting fully emotional with his face, without any signs of pain or nerve damage. You never want to see a blank screen come up and say "six months later" in a comic book movie like that, but that would have seen more realistic for Dent to re-emerge as Two-Face.

But it's a comic book movie franchise about a grown man jumping off buildings with a bat suit, driving an eight-wheeled tank through major downtown areas, and a blue flower that makes people believe their deepest fears manifest themselves. Two-Face fits in rather nicely.

[Ollie 1,059]

And I agree with Charlie, TDK doesn't feel like a sfx movie because everything is so seamless, and because so much stuff is CG that you don't expect to be, hence you're not looking for it.

That's why I would vote for it for best SFX.

[Delorean90 42]

I could forgive the fact that his face looked like that. The rest of the movie had a gritty, realistic feel to it, but it's still a comic book world. Not everything in the Batman universe could work or look 100% like it does in true life. Batman Begins set the bar with taking liberties like this, more than TDK, and nobody even noticed.

What gets me is how quick Dent's recovery time was. In the span of a few in-movie hours, he was back on his feet, hellbent on revenge, and acting fully emotional with his face, without any signs of pain or nerve damage. You never want to see a blank screen come up and say "six months later" in a comic book movie like that, but that would have seen more realistic for Dent to re-emerge as Two-Face.

But it's a comic book movie franchise about a grown man jumping off buildings with a bat suit, driving an eight-wheeled tank through major downtown areas, and a blue flower that makes people believe their deepest fears manifest themselves. Two-Face fits in rather nicely.

Thank you. And 222max hit as well.

When I finally saw his face in the theater, I thought, "Holy crap! That's freakin' TWO-FACE! He looks just like in The Long Halloween!"

The points above are why I get irritated when I see people rejecting 99.5% of Batman's rogues gallery for inclusion in the Nolan films because it's "not realistic enough." If we can have a microwave emitter that evaporates water in the city but not people, we can have a complete Victor Fries with a real freezing gun and everything--pass it off as advanced technology, and don't make it flamboyant. It's that simple. I can understand not doing Clayface (not in his TAS form, anyway), but a lot of stuff seems to end up with people scoffing and calling it too outlandish when WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT BATMAN. Not Taxi Driver, not The Brave One, not American Psycho, not Heat...Batman.