-
Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
-
Please read our Rules & Guidelines
Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
Bad CGI - truly bad or just think it is?
- Thread starter Ziz
- Start date
theslime
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 41
Bump.
Bad CGI to me is mostly about unconvincing movement. An obvious example is Jar Jar versus Gollum. Jar Jar moves like a drunken prima ballerina practising pas-de-deux while Gollum behaves almost like an actual creature. Too-smooth surfaces are also a problem (and I don't think Gollum was perfect in this regard), but movement really is the decisive one. Dr Manhattan from Watchmen wasn't bad either, but then again he was modified digitally from actual movements by the actual actor, so he's only semi-CG.
I actually do a decent impression of a badly made CG creature (like Jar Jar). The trick is walking with no sudden movements whatsoever, and move your arms very slowly (the elbows at approx. a 60 degree angle) from side to side. It's fun. I actually got great laughs trying it a party recently.
However, even though I frequently bash George Lucas and generally consider the 2004 DVD of Star Wars unwatchable, I'll admit that the surprisingly good CG shot of the speeder approaching Mos Eisley actually made the film slightly better (though I didn't mind the original). Scroll down for the comparison.
Creating antennae and subtle domes to make the city more credible as an actual space port is a better way of using CG than creating ridiculous monsters, and it seems that even the motion blur on the speeder - a big problem with digital effects - is done right. Sadly, Lucas dropped the ball minutes later with the Jabba abomination. For Jabba CG just didn't measure up. Strangely, the 2004 looks even less believable - and less like the 1983 version - than the 1997 version did. Comparison here.
Bad CGI to me is mostly about unconvincing movement. An obvious example is Jar Jar versus Gollum. Jar Jar moves like a drunken prima ballerina practising pas-de-deux while Gollum behaves almost like an actual creature. Too-smooth surfaces are also a problem (and I don't think Gollum was perfect in this regard), but movement really is the decisive one. Dr Manhattan from Watchmen wasn't bad either, but then again he was modified digitally from actual movements by the actual actor, so he's only semi-CG.
I actually do a decent impression of a badly made CG creature (like Jar Jar). The trick is walking with no sudden movements whatsoever, and move your arms very slowly (the elbows at approx. a 60 degree angle) from side to side. It's fun. I actually got great laughs trying it a party recently.
However, even though I frequently bash George Lucas and generally consider the 2004 DVD of Star Wars unwatchable, I'll admit that the surprisingly good CG shot of the speeder approaching Mos Eisley actually made the film slightly better (though I didn't mind the original). Scroll down for the comparison.
Creating antennae and subtle domes to make the city more credible as an actual space port is a better way of using CG than creating ridiculous monsters, and it seems that even the motion blur on the speeder - a big problem with digital effects - is done right. Sadly, Lucas dropped the ball minutes later with the Jabba abomination. For Jabba CG just didn't measure up. Strangely, the 2004 looks even less believable - and less like the 1983 version - than the 1997 version did. Comparison here.
- Messages
- 1,174
- Reaction score
- 157
- Trophy Points
- 73
There's no such thing as good or bad CGI. Only good or bad visual effects.
If you're watching a film and you get to a scene and go: "Hey that's a good CGI shot" then it's still bad because you've noticed it.
CGI is just another tool for visual storytelling - just as miniature models, blue screen and stop motion are.
If you're watching a film and you get to a scene and go: "Hey that's a good CGI shot" then it's still bad because you've noticed it.
CGI is just another tool for visual storytelling - just as miniature models, blue screen and stop motion are.
- Messages
- 3,629
- Reaction score
- 1
- Trophy Points
- 53
Bad cgi ruining a movie = I am Legend
Bad cgi not ruining a movie = Pitch Black
When your story hinges on the believability of a CG character/monster make sure its up to snuff or FFS keep it hidden in darkness.
I still prefer practical effects since its just very hard to do a living creature justice w/ FULL cgi.
However, money talks because even after 17 years, they managed to make the predator look worse. well, money and no Stan Winston.
Bad cgi not ruining a movie = Pitch Black
When your story hinges on the believability of a CG character/monster make sure its up to snuff or FFS keep it hidden in darkness.
I still prefer practical effects since its just very hard to do a living creature justice w/ FULL cgi.
However, money talks because even after 17 years, they managed to make the predator look worse. well, money and no Stan Winston.
robbievaliant
Well-known member
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 0
- Trophy Points
- 16
Really? I personally didn't think the CG monsters in I am Legend ruined the movie. I didn't think they were exceptional, but not too distracting to me.
- Messages
- 5,907
- Reaction score
- 17
- Trophy Points
- 83
I don't have any problem with CGI when it's done well. I'm not even bashing Lucas at all. While it's obvious that he used to much of his CGI toys in those movies, most of them look quite good (though they will not age well), it's just too much and not in the spirit of the original trilogy.
But the thing is that it's now getting cheaper to make CGI special effects. Well, cheaper to make quickly done and bad CGI special effect I mean. So now, even in poor direct to DVD movies we have bad CGI all the time. It's everywhere, and we are all getting tired of this I think. While the poor physical effects of the 80's B-movie were bad, they had and still have their charm. CGI don't IMO. At least for now.
CGI and special effect in general needs time and talented people. Hell, even Jar Jar needed a designer artist, an actor on the set, a physical statue (scanned in 3D later), several animators etc... It's not just pushing on a button. It's not an easy way to make special effects... if you want them to looks good, of course.
As for the 2004 Jabba... Well I think it looks better than the 1997 one. It's seems to be the same model than Episode 1 but they fucked up the lightning and his skin texture, while in EP1 it was... let's say... okay.
But the thing is that it's now getting cheaper to make CGI special effects. Well, cheaper to make quickly done and bad CGI special effect I mean. So now, even in poor direct to DVD movies we have bad CGI all the time. It's everywhere, and we are all getting tired of this I think. While the poor physical effects of the 80's B-movie were bad, they had and still have their charm. CGI don't IMO. At least for now.
CGI and special effect in general needs time and talented people. Hell, even Jar Jar needed a designer artist, an actor on the set, a physical statue (scanned in 3D later), several animators etc... It's not just pushing on a button. It's not an easy way to make special effects... if you want them to looks good, of course.
As for the 2004 Jabba... Well I think it looks better than the 1997 one. It's seems to be the same model than Episode 1 but they fucked up the lightning and his skin texture, while in EP1 it was... let's say... okay.
theslime
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 2
- Trophy Points
- 41
Years ago I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven. He was talking about CGI, and then the interviewer asked if Verhoeven thought CGI would ever replace actors in a film. He answered (quoted from memory):
- Yes, because it's harder to do, it will happen. And it's more expensive.
Then he smiled, meaning expensive means it's actually MORE likely to happen. And then the clincher:
- And with computer graphics the actor could do like this!
Grimaces stupidly, pulls the skin of his cheeks, etc.
I think he summed up the appeal for people like George Lucas brilliantly in three sentences there. But Verhoeven's a smart guy.
(PS: In a few years people will wonder what the hell they were thinking calling Showgirls and Starship Troopers bad movies. Some people got Starship Troopers on release, but the worst movie ever label on Showgirls is put there by people who don't know shit from Shinola. Gina Gershon rules.)
- Yes, because it's harder to do, it will happen. And it's more expensive.
Then he smiled, meaning expensive means it's actually MORE likely to happen. And then the clincher:
- And with computer graphics the actor could do like this!
Grimaces stupidly, pulls the skin of his cheeks, etc.
I think he summed up the appeal for people like George Lucas brilliantly in three sentences there. But Verhoeven's a smart guy.
(PS: In a few years people will wonder what the hell they were thinking calling Showgirls and Starship Troopers bad movies. Some people got Starship Troopers on release, but the worst movie ever label on Showgirls is put there by people who don't know shit from Shinola. Gina Gershon rules.)