CGI creatures...

[Human Replica Droid]

(Inspired by **********'s Starship Troopers/Matrix thread...)

Does anyone else desperately miss the days of puppets and costumes? It seems like almost all creatures in films, nowadays, are totally CGI. Maybe it's just me, but I think they look less convincing.

If you compare, say, Chewbacca- a big furry suit with a 7 foot something dude inside... to Gollum. Which do you think, really, is more believeable-looking as a living creature?

They both have distinct personalities, and are cool characters - that's not the debate. But... visually? Which looks more real to you? Not that I don't think Gollum was really well done, it's just... I think it could've looked better with an actor inside a costume.

Discuss.

[Nimrod's Son]

CGI is good if it's done right. I think Gollum was better as CGI than as a puppet. On the flipside, I think the puppet Yoda looked more realistic than the CGI one.

[Human Replica Droid]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

I think the puppet Yoda looked more realistic than the CGI one.

Ah yes, good example.

[Debaser]

i miss scaled model special effects used by movies like 2001 and the original star wars trilogy. the spaceships in those movies look way more realistic than the obvious slicker looking computer generated spaceships of the new star wars movies and such.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Debaser
i miss scaled model special effects used by movies like 2001 and the original star wars trilogy. the spaceships in those movies look way more realistic than the obvious slicker looking computer generated spaceships of the new star wars movies and such.

Agreed, but I don't blame the technology, I blame the way it's used. For example, the ships in the newer Star Trek films look much better than the first couple, and those were models.

[Ugly]

ok, seriously I just want to say HRD just read my mind. I'm at work (fucking the dog of course) and I wrote up this response to the Matrix/Starship thread but I'll post in in here cuz it works better. Anyway,

The fact is CGI gives any films visuals that we would never see without the technology. I totally believe that CGI works better than models and matte paintings to give films a sense of scope, instead of static shots you can have much more movement within the frame. Think of that crazy shot in “Fellowship of the Ring” where the camera swung down the side of Sauraman’s castle and into the bowels of the Orc compound. You couldn’t have done that

CGI characters are really starting to pull through. I’m convinced 2002 was the year with both Yoda and Gollum that you *could* pull off a CGI effect that worked as a real character and not just a visual effect. In both of those characters you could see them thinking, breathing, living. The way both of them integrated into the scene of the film was almost 100% (both CGI Yoda and Gollum had moments where they just popped off the screen in a distracting way with the human characters, but these were few and far between). CGI aliens is almost there. Photorealistic humans is still a little more lagging behind.

While I just loved the Agent Smith / Neo fight for its insane visual style (there were a freakin hundred of them for crissakes and he used one as a baseball bat!) I think the Animatrix short “Final Flight of the Osiris” did a better job at photorealistic humans. (that’s also mostly because they were able to use lighting tricks and shadows to give it a sense of depth. The “Burly Brawl” was in complete daylight, a scene that has to be replicated digitally with digital characters who are supposed to be real humans. Its can be jarring.) Still to say it “looked like crap” is a disservice to all the work that was put into it. I think it looks amazing, just not photorealistic. The problem is you’re passing a CGI character off as a human but there’s just something there that can’t be captured. Still CGI humans really give a sense of funky otherworldliness to them. That works in the Final Fantasy or Osiris short, but disconnects the viewer in “The Matrix” because you can see they aren’t humans, you’re seeing FX. The reason the effects in the first Matrix and some of the shots in this film don’t have that disconnect is because they used digital technology to actually capture a real actor and then manipulate the image in the computer. When you’re going 100% CGI it going to throw you off.

Personally I think it’s a damn shame Square Studios closed up shop after the Final Fantasy movie and “Final Flight of the Osirs”. I would have love to have seen how far they could have taken the dreamworld realism that CGI humans were getting.

[Nimrod's Son]

Yes, but when you put millions and millions of dollars into a CGI movie that doesn't make a lick of sense, you have to close up shop.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Ugly
The fact is CGI gives any films visuals that we would never see without the technology. I totally believe that CGI works better than models and matte paintings to give films a sense of scope, instead of static shots you can have much more movement within the frame. Think of that crazy shot in “Fellowship of the Ring” where the camera swung down the side of Sauraman’s castle and into the bowels of the Orc compound. You couldn’t have done that

I agree in principle, however I think effects people are forgetting the old way things were done and just being lazy and making everything CGI. A blend of the two would be nice.. especially for a character such as Yoda. CGI when needed, puppet when just sitting and talking.

[Human Replica Droid]

Originally posted by Debaser
i miss scaled model special effects used by movies like 2001 and the original star wars trilogy. the spaceships in those movies look way more realistic than the obvious slicker looking computer generated spaceships of the new star wars movies and such.

See, now... I love the CG starships, with their goregeous reflections and sleek look - BUT, I don't think it rings true to the feeling of the original trilogy... so, in the context of SW, I don't like it.

[Ugly]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I agree in principle, however I think effects people are forgetting the old way things were done and just being lazy and making everything CGI. A blend of the two would be nice.. especially for a character such as Yoda. CGI when needed, puppet when just sitting and talking.

Yeah, its sad to see the old school tricks go by the wayside. Stop motion was killed right after Jurassic Park. Models, puppetry, make-up and animatronics is still used extensively in flicks like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings but they’re used in a much more subtle way, while its predominantly CGI. There has been some great stuff done with models and matte paintings too, and I think there is still can be stuff done in that medium. A lot of cityscapes and ships in Star Wars and LOTR are actually digitally scanned models so you can get extensive detail out of them.

I think the moral to all this is if you’re going to pick an effect – be consistent with it. Like, there’s use of digital doubles in Star Wars, the Matrix and LOTR and it disconnects the audience from it cuz you can tell its CGI. Yoda and Gollum were CG characters and since they were consistently done as that, you bought it. They managed to get a CG performance out of Yoda that was on par, if not better than what Frank Oz did in Empire. I think the key to that was hard work, paying attention to what Frank Oz had done before and keeping him CG’ed the whole time. Like, if he was a puppet the entire movie and then suddenly he turned CG’ed you’d get the same complaints that The Matrix has “oh its CG’ed, I could tell right away”.

If you just come out with a CG character, the audience buys it at first and then rolls with it and can go along with that character. The flip-flopping in between from human to CGI to model to puppet to makeup to man-in-suit is the problem, I think. Its not necessarily that one looks better than the other, but I think its more of trying to get them all to blend together seamlessly.

That’s why I have a soft-spot for the Final Fantasy movie. It wasn’t quite realism but it looked great and did some amazing visuals which hadn’t been done before. It like a hot blonde chick who walks in with great tits and doesn’t have a brain in her head, she’s just amazing to look at.

[DeviousJ]

The main problem is that they can be too taken up with how realistic they can make something look, without considering the setting it's going to be in. Usually when it looks wrong, it's because it doesn't sit well in the frame, and doesn't match the actual photography. Plus lighting is very complex to do, but getting it slightly wrong can be very noticeable, even if you can't point to exactly what the problem is. The Star Wars stuff is incredible (the first three that is), everything just looks real, even the shots with huge walking machines. The Matrix CG is a little different, given the world it's set in - artificial-looking effects are desirable, seeing as though it's actually supposed to be computer generated. Cheating maybe, but it works and it uses limitations to its advantage

[Human Replica Droid]

Originally posted by Ugly


They managed to get a CG performance out of Yoda that was on par, if not better than what Frank Oz did in Empire.

Are you NUTS? "On par" is its absolute best, and that's a stretch.

[Ugly]

Originally posted by Human Replica Droid


Are you NUTS? "On par" is its absolute best, and that's a stretch.

I totally think they captured Frank Oz’s essence with the CG performance. I’m not talking the lightsaber fight, that was pretty cool but in the end it was just eye candy and kind of masturbatory. But my favourite stuff about Yoda in ATOC is that they just got it his actions right. One of Phantom Menace’s (many) blunders was redesigning the Yoda puppet. He looked stoned, he sat there, he didn’t emote. He didn’t look, or feel, like Yoda. Yoda in ATOC did the same things that Frank Oz did with him in Empire. The articulation around Yoda’s mouth was better but not so disconnecting that he-was-pronouncing-every-syllable. Yoda’s face in ATOC wasn’t suddenly Jar-Jar Binks or Dexter Jester displaying perfectly at every word and muscles pulling each individual specific tendon. It was subtle and it matched perfectly with what Frank had done in Empire. And they were even able to expand it a bit. Watch Yoda’s eyes after Anakin slaughters all the Tuskens, you couldn’t do that with a puppet. They really studied the mechanics of how the puppet worked in Empire to capture it in Clones. One of the key’s to Yoda is his lip, the way it sets in a fine determined line. That’s kind of due to the puppetry aspect of how he was created, but they recaptured it perfectly. And, by not flip-flopping between puppet and digital at the end with the lightsaber fight, it didn’t throw the audience off. That’s why I like it so much, the CG wasn’t used to jack off and show how cool it is. Ie. “Hey, look, its Jar-Jar-Yoda!” but it captured what had been done before with Yoda. I mean, what Frank Oz and did with a muppet in Empire is nothing short of amazing and they kept that.

[Mooney]

Originally posted by Ugly


The problem is you’re passing a CGI character off as a human but there’s just something there that can’t be captured.

The reason the effects in the first Matrix and some of the shots in this film don’t have that disconnect is because they used digital technology to actually capture a real actor and then manipulate the image in the computer. When you’re going 100% CGI it going to throw you off.

amen. i concur, whole-heartedly.

[Human Replica Droid]

Originally posted by Ugly
I totally think they captured Frank Oz’s essence with the CG performance. I’m not talking the lightsaber fight, that was pretty cool but in the end it was just eye candy and kind of masturbatory. But my favourite stuff about Yoda in ATOC is that they just got it his actions right. One of Phantom Menace’s (many) blunders was redesigning the Yoda puppet. He looked stoned, he sat there, he didn’t emote. He didn’t look, or feel, like Yoda. Yoda in ATOC did the same things that Frank Oz did with him in Empire. The articulation around Yoda’s mouth was better but not so disconnecting that he-was-pronouncing-every-syllable. Yoda’s face in ATOC wasn’t suddenly Jar-Jar Binks or Dexter Jester displaying perfectly at every word and muscles pulling each individual specific tendon. It was subtle and it matched perfectly with what Frank had done in Empire. And they were even able to expand it a bit. Watch Yoda’s eyes after Anakin slaughters all the Tuskens, you couldn’t do that with a puppet. They really studied the mechanics of how the puppet worked in Empire to capture it in Clones. One of the key’s to Yoda is his lip, the way it sets in a fine determined line. That’s kind of due to the puppetry aspect of how he was created, but they recaptured it perfectly. And, by not flip-flopping between puppet and digital at the end with the lightsaber fight, it didn’t throw the audience off. That’s why I like it so much, the CG wasn’t used to jack off and show how cool it is. Ie. “Hey, look, its Jar-Jar-Yoda!” but it captured what had been done before with Yoda. I mean, what Frank Oz and did with a muppet in Empire is nothing short of amazing and they kept that.

I don't think they butchered him, or anything, but I can't see how it can give you the same Yoda "vibe". Yoda's certainly the best CG character I can think of, but... it's just not the same.

And why mess with what was already so good?

P.S.
The saber duel was cool, but I could've lived without it.

[Helena Handbasket]

GEEK THREAD!

[wounded]

i miss like jim hensons studio. they could do some cool things.


i think lord of the rings looks better than both star wars (new) and matrix. Lord of the rings still uses make up and scale model effects as well as cgi. as someone already mention gollum needed to be cgi. oh yes and real locations

Originally posted by Helena Handbasket
GEEK THREAD!

This is Nerd territory. Geeks have no interest in this.

[Human Replica Droid]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


This is Nerd territory. Geeks have no interest in this.

Clarify.

[Ugly]

A geek is cooler than a nerd. This is a geek thread, not a nerd thread. We haven't brought up quantum mechanics yet.

[Human Replica Droid]

Originally posted by Ugly
A geek is cooler than a nerd. This is a geek thread, not a nerd thread. We haven't brought up quantum mechanics yet.

Wait, so... there are clear definitions for 'nerd' and 'geek', now? I'm taking this up with Mr. Webster.

[sickbadthing]

Originally posted by Human Replica Droid


Wait, so... there are clear definitions for 'nerd' and 'geek', now? I'm taking this up with Mr. Webster.

you should just settle on DORKS. This is a DORK THREAD.

[Ugly]

Originally posted by sickbadthing


you should just settle on DORKS. This is a DORK THREAD.

Negative. The phrase “Dungeons and Dragons” has not, nor ever has been, uttered in this thread.

[ammy]

Dork - magic, D&G, online gaming

Geek - star trek, star wars, computers

Nerd - Physics, mathematics, chemistry

yeah?

if so, i'm a geeky nerd of a dork.

[sickbadthing]

magic, D&G, online gaming -VIRGIN

star trek, star wars, computers -DORK

Physics, mathematics, chemistry -DORK THAT MAKES MORE MONEY THAN ME

Originally posted by Ammy

Dork - magic, D&G, online gaming

Geek - star trek, star wars, computers

Nerd - Physics, mathematics, chemistry

yeah?

if so, i'm a geeky nerd of a dork.

No no. A geek is someone who knows a hell of a lot about movies, music, and/or sports (Bob Costas is a baseball geek, for example). You know, knowledge about things that help you converse with other people. Geeks are far more social than other types of homo nerdius, but still would rather be sitting at home watching a movie or getting high and listening to Radiohead.

[bonsor]

dorks are people who laugh at jokes for too long.

[Ugly]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


No no. A geek is someone who knows a hell of a lot about movies, music, and/or sports (Bob Costas is a baseball geek, for example). You know, knowledge about things that help you converse with other people. Geeks are far more social than other types of homo nerdius, but still would rather be sitting at home watching a movie or getting high and listening to Radiohead.

I concur with this statement.

[Ugly]

Here’s an article that’s probably pertinent to our posturing and pondering.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/ent...nt/5954511.htm

-------------

Neo, 007 and others know: Special effects are ruining movies
BY DEBORAH HORNBLOW
Hartford Courant

Let loose the special effects of summer. The Cineplex oracle has spoken, and with the recent opening of "The Matrix Reloaded," the prophecy is clear: American blockbusters are being overwhelmed by digital technology.
One has only to see trailers for the upcoming summer releases, including "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," to see that Hollywood filmmakers are seduced by the power of machinery and digital technology.
One has only to recall that British Agent 007 was almost undone by FX in his latest, "Die Another Day," that the "Star Wars" sequels have become outer galactic exercises in blowing up stuff, and that even so-called original nonsequel projects like "The Core" look conspicuously like the disaster films that have gone before, from "Armageddon" to "Deep Impact."
Andy and Larry Wachowski, sibling creators of the "Matrix" franchise, obviously reloaded the technical department for their first sequel, contriving a nonstop series of fight scenes that defy physics, gravity and audience patience.
In focusing their attention on an attack by clones of Agent Smith or the freeway misadventures of Morpheus and Trinity, they neglect to lavish similar effort and imagination on the most basic elements of movie storytelling: character, plot and dialogue.
The result is yet another action picture full of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.
In scene after scene over the course of more than two hours, we watch the technical department one-up itself -- and all of the action pictures that have gone before -- in indulgent, overextended fight scenes. But the ringing question is: Who cares?
The original "Matrix" film explored the idea that reality as we know it is a simulation. But "The Matrix Reloaded" is a movie that essentially dramatizes the idea that a sequel can be a simulation of a real movie.
There are no new ideas in "The Matrix Reloaded." There are no ideas at all but the pasted-on kind. Where the first film dramatized questions of what reality is and how a system that controls humankind can be defied, the sequel dramatizes nothing so much as the supreme capabilities of the film's technical department. The script, such as it is, inserts Philosophy 101 riddle-speak about fate, men and machines, cause and effect, and the burden of choice. But none of these ideas adds up to anything. They don't play into the action because the action is too involved with itself.
"The Matrix Reloaded" might as well be a video game with one-liners and the occasional pause for exposition in the form of a high-flown theatrical speech from Morpheus, who can't, despite ******ce Fishburne's valiant efforts, appear anything but ridiculous.
From the opening scenes, in which Carrie-Anne Moss' vinyl-suited Trinity plunges into a building in a hail of bullets and shattering glass, "The Matrix Reloaded" sets up the dismally familiar rhythm that has become one with the action genre. Patented by such films as the original "Terminator," it is practiced now in "Star Wars" sequels, James Bond movies and every Bruce Willis action film ever made.
The script outline for each could be interchangeable:
Scene 1:
Death-defying stunt sequence.
Full stop.
Funny one-liner.
Scene 2:
Stunt sequence.
Full stop.
Funny one-liner.
It is the Terminator's "hasta la vista, baby" in a perpetual loop.
Film critic Neil Gabler may have been the one to point out that the audience knows the rhythm, expects the payoff and expresses satisfaction, whether or not the material works.
It is simulated entertainment.
After Trinity makes her harrowing descent in the first scene, she executes a perfect landing, recovers herself, coolly snaps open a cell phone and says, "I'm in."
After an interminable fight sequence involving tractor-trailers, motorcycles, cars and more Agent Smith clones, one of two menacing albino twins mutters, "We are getting aggravated."
After Keanu Reeves' self-serious Neo practices his bullet-stopping trick, a villainous adversary who spouts profanity in French concedes, "OK, you have some skill."
The one-liners are all meant to be murderously funny understatements of fact, but most fall flat from the effort required to be funny.
The emphasis on formulaic action scenes and its requisite machinery results in a deadening of ideas and human emotions, two elements vital to an audience's engagement in cinema.
As "Die Another Day" demonstrated, 007's ultimate enemy is not a rogue scientist or a dastardly doctor or an octopussy. It is the studio special-effects department, which distances audiences from the character. Not even the larger-than-life personality of the womanizing, martini-swilling British agent can overcome the interference of a team of digital computer aces whose contrivances undo the essential idea that Bond is capable -- with Q's ingenious inventions -- of getting himself out of serious trouble.
The same is true of the "Matrix" characters and the umpteen heroes and heroines of the coming blitz of summer action pictures.
Adam Gopnick, writing in the May 19 issue of The New Yorker, observes that "the action sequences, which must have been quite hard to make, remind one of those in the later Bond films.... (T)hey are so unbound by any rules except the rule of Now He'll Jump Off That Fast-Moving Thing Onto the Next Fast-Moving Thing... "
It is a plot summary that is dismally interchangeable. In one exchange in "Reloaded," Neo speaks to the commander of Zion about the way machines appear to be running the lives of the city's inhabitants. "But we control the machines; they don't control us," Neo argues.
"If we wanted, we could smash them to bits," agrees the commander.
They should start with the special-effects equipment.