|
Party Boat posted:The notion that CGI doesn't involve "care and craftsmanship" and isn't "actual artistry" is what's really insulting here. Would it be any better if a two hour effects wank was all practical? If that's what you got out of what I wrote then I think you misinterpreted my point. I don't care if the CGI is well-implemented and useful, I just don't like being overloaded with special effects to such an extent that it completely removes me from the movie and I know I'm looking at an effects shot. CGI (and practical) should be used purposefully, meaningfully, and sparingly.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Then it sounds like your point is about excessively flashy action scenes, not CGI or even special effects in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Nipplebox posted:CG effects jump out at me, but realistic animation helps a lot. Gollum was near-flawless in The Hobbit. Most jarring to me are bad greenscreens. Why do people love Gollum but hate Azog? I've only seen the first Hobbit movie, but Azog was clearly more realistic-looking, and I didn't see anything wrong with the animation, either. Pretty sure they used mo-cap too, same as with Gollum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Why do people love Gollum but hate Azog? I've only seen the first Hobbit movie, but Azog was clearly more realistic-looking, and I didn't see anything wrong with the animation, either. Pretty sure they used mo-cap too, same as with Gollum. It's part of the cultural narrative to love Gollum because he was novel for his time but to hate Azog because he doesn't look like this busy mess:  Yes, people are literally saying "I wish Azog looked like this because practical effects are always better than CGI."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
In the new movie that costume is actually in it for a few moments. It looks horrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's part of the cultural narrative to love Gollum because he was novel for his time but to hate Azog because he doesn't look like this busy mess: What are the major problems with that costume Computer Parts? And did it necessitate switching the whole thing to CGI and throwing out the actor's work rather than just redesigning the costume? Cnut the Great posted:Why do people love Gollum but hate Azog? I've only seen the first Hobbit movie, but Azog was clearly more realistic-looking, and I didn't see anything wrong with the animation, either. Pretty sure they used mo-cap too, same as with Gollum. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What are the major problems with that costume Computer Parts? And did it neccessitate switching the whole thing to CGI and throwing out the actors work rather than just redesigning the costume? It's incredibly busy. Incredibly incredibly busy. It looks distracting, it doesn't look practical. There's no reason to speak up for it except for "lol gently caress CGI". And the "why not just redesign" is missing the point - no one talked about a redesign until very recently. It's all been "this costume is so much better than that CGI poo poo we got" for the past two years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's incredibly busy. Incredibly incredibly busy. It looks distracting, it doesn't look practical. There's no reason to speak up for it except for "lol gently caress CGI". You see, sorry if I'm going for the 'that's your opinion man' thing, but it is just an opinion, the orcs in the books and previous films have always looked chaotic and busy, I could easily argue that that's part of the appeal and works well thematically in trying to portray orcs as corrupted, dangerous and Primal. In this costume hes got an interesting contrast between the white skin and blood red beard while the armor and its ornaments emphasizes his battle experience and authority over the other orcs. I don't think we can just act like the CGI version is objectively better, though I should mention I don't have any qualms with the look they went for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:You see, sorry if I'm going for the 'that's your opinion man' thing, but it is just an opinion, the orcs in the books and previous films have always looked chaotic and busy, I could easily argue that that's part of the appeal and works well thematically in trying to portray orcs as corrupted, dangerous and Primal. There's a bit of a variation. There are orcs that look like that, but they're usually the cannon fodder type:  Orcs we see close up are much cleaner. They might be rough around the edges but overall they have a much more consistent style, e.g.:   The contrast is actually the worst part about it. All of the orcs we see have a consistent theme, even if it varies from orc to orc. So for example there might be an orc that's primarily dark colors, or an orc that's primarily white (the commander guy from ROTK is who I'm thinking of here) but they are usually fully consistent. The red and white does not work, along with the gigantic beard. The only real exception I can think of to the consistency theme is Saruman's orcs that have his White Hand on their face, and even that tells you something very important (i.e., the supposed Good Guy is siding with Satan).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Please excuse computer parts unbridled autism, he believes the Hobbit films are prime examples of CGI done right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Vaall posted:Please excuse computer parts unbridled autism, he believes the Hobbit films are prime examples of CGI done right. And you think black people should get shot by police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
And lo, cinema discusso stopped and pondered, "which of those two beliefs is more repugnant to me?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And you think black people should get shot by police. Never happened but I see what you're doing here. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:And lo, cinema discusso stopped and pondered, "which of those two beliefs is more repugnant to me?" Bullets are practical so I guess the CGI wins out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Azog literally looks like a cutscene character from a PS2 game so I'm not sure what computer parts is talking about.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:Azog literally looks like a cutscene character from a PS2 game so I'm not sure what computer parts is talking about. He actually looks like a playable character from Final Fantasy VII, don't try to make him seem better than he is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What are the major problems with that costume Computer Parts? And did it necessitate switching the whole thing to CGI and throwing out the actor's work rather than just redesigning the costume? I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing out that the differing reactions aren't really based on anything rational. rakovsky maybe posted:Azog literally looks like a cutscene character from a PS2 game so I'm not sure what computer parts is talking about. And, what? You could just about reach out and touch this?  Nostalgia is blinding you, I'm afraid. Gollum looks like a cartoon. Great mo-cap performance, great character, but CGI very much of its time. And that's okay. edit: Sorry, I just realized this is still the Jurassic World thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
The CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic World are pretty much visually identical to NES sprites.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Regardless, Azog as seen on screen could be achieved through makeup and costume. Gollum could not. That explains a great deal of the hatred, outside of Azog's character being as bland and forgettable as his design and implementation. And honestly, the screenshot Cnut the Great posted of Gollum looks far more realistic to my eyes than Also, regarding the technology vs. artistry debate for modern day effects: if modern CG artists had to go on physical movement bootcamps, research and study real-world animal movement and behavior, and got to spend spend 3 or 4x longer on their shots - then the CGI in Jurassic Park would look awful in comparison. It also didn't hurt that a lot of them came from a stop-motion background, where they were already trained to make their creatures look like they had weight. Also, the brachiosaur at the beginning and the T-Rex in the meadow eat the gallimimus both do look awful today. The gallimimus herd is pretty rough too if you don't let nostalgia get in the way. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
I don't really understand why this argument is happening here anyway. All three Jurassic Park movies had a good mix of both CG and practical effects, there's no reason to assume the fourth won't be exactly the same. Especially considering they've had "leaked" on set pics of the physical dinosaurs they are gonna use. The director of the film has straight up said the trailer is far more CG then they are doing for the actual movie as well, like the park gate not being CG in the final movie. Also Azog looked fine CG wise. His problem was just he was a very basic villain. His character and design was boring
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing out that the differing reactions aren't really based on anything rational. quote:And, what? You could just about reach out and touch this? He didn't even bring up Gollum in his post what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:And, what? You could just about reach out and touch this? Gollum looks great. Especially in that shot you've chosen. Maybe there are bad composite shots of Gollum, but that particular one looks fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:He didn't even bring up Gollum in his post what the gently caress? Gollum was a part of the discussion we were having, here, in this thread. Calm down. Macaluso posted:Also Azog looked fine CG wise. His problem was just he was a very basic villain. His character and design was boring I agree. So I guess we can all stop arguing about whatever it was we were arguing about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's part of the cultural narrative to love Gollum because he was novel for his time but to hate Azog because he doesn't look like this busy mess: haven't seen the hobbit movies because I'm not a retard, but that dude looks loving dope wanna see this guy in a cage with raptors
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Why do people love Gollum but hate Azog? I've only seen the first Hobbit movie, but Azog was clearly more realistic-looking, and I didn't see anything wrong with the animation, either. Pretty sure they used mo-cap too, same as with Gollum. Unfortunately, I can't answer this without citing subjective experiences. Azog looks artificial to my mind, especially his unnaturally sparkly eyes. Eyes are commonly a dealbreaker for me when it comes to computer-generated characters. Gollum is also artificial, but his movement and interaction is immersive enough that my mind overlooks the red flags, and I accept that Bilbo is there playing the riddle game with the character. Of course, Gollum has had years of work put into him (though I always thought he was given a more cartoon-like appearance than I would have liked). computer parts posted:It's part of the cultural narrative to love Gollum because he was novel for his time but to hate Azog because he doesn't look like this busy mess: I don't know if you intended to attribute that position to me, but to be clear, I do not believe practical effects are always better. I find any debate over absolutist positions between practical effects and CG boring and meaningless. That picture is of what was originally Azog, and then later Bolg, played by a 7-foot actor named Conan. I don't think a judgement about the prosthetic design can be made from that picture alone. I can't help but think transitioning to CG designs for the villains in the Hobbit films aided in expanding the films into a trilogy in a short period of time, as the Battle of the Five Armies contains extensive one-on-one confrontations involving Azog and Bolg. Unfortunately, many of the CG shots people complain about in modern films are the result of a lack of time. More shots of the original Azog:   Jurassic World will have a mix of CG and practical effects, like the first film. I'm not completely sure why this argument is coming up now except as a response to the trailer, which is using incomplete effects. 
Toady fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I have to wonder how much of that is a generational gap. For example, people watch (eg) Transformers, and they know that the giant robots aren't there ...but they still feel it looks amazing anyway. Transformers is a bad example because the effects are fantastic. Iirc scientific papers were written about some the breakthroughs made on the production. The cinematography and choreography? Thats a different story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Trump posted:Transformers is a bad example because the effects are fantastic. Iirc scientific papers were written about some the breakthroughs made on the production. Both also fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
There's a line from the Rifftrax of JP that has stuck with me: "marvel at the special effects that people take for granted!" Yup, that just about sums it up, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
You people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a CGI Santa and a piratical effects Santa. Because Santa is MAGICAL
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:You people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a CGI Santa and a piratical effects Santa. A CGI Santa doesn't have an eyepatch as opposed to a piratical effects Santa (which also sometimes a have a peg leg).
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:A CGI Santa doesn't have an eyepatch as opposed to a piratical effects Santa (which also sometimes a have a peg leg). CGI Santa is Russian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Raptor Pass comes through with an update: the dinosaurs page on the website has added several dinosaur fact sheets, including the Mosasaurus. Also:Triceratops Page posted:Did You Know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2-DKQeoO0o
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Yes, I am sure that the Hilton Isla Nublar Resort is going to be quite the dining experience. Ho ho ho
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Whatsa matter kid? Never had lamb chops?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
I always like the cgi vs practical argument especially when it comes up about Alien 3. People always say it looks like lovely cgi despite it being a practical effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
The cutest liddle practical effect.   (Yes, yes, I know, but it's still funny damnit.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I always like the cgi vs practical argument especially when it comes up about Alien 3. People always say it looks like lovely cgi despite it being a practical effect. The whippet is only slightly more adorable than the final rod-puppet they used in the Assembly Cut. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I always like the cgi vs practical argument especially when it comes up about Alien 3. People always say it looks like lovely cgi despite it being a practical effect. It's a good practical effect ruined by lovely computer compositing, so, it kind of is lovely CGI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:26
|
|
