Weekend Estimates: The Hobbit - 73.6M | Frozen - 22.2M | Madea - 16M

[John Marston]

Haven't seen DOS but I thought the CGI in AUJ was very good and things like Gollum and the Wargs looked superior to how they looked before

[Jack Nevada]

You can always get some Asian company to do your CG for real cheap.

[stuart360]

It looks fantastic.

 

But unless you're suggesting all special effects take place at night shrouded in rain...

 

There's a reason that holds much better than other scenes.  And it's not because the CG is as technically accomplished as today. 

 

All the cgi scenes look great. The raptor chase with the kids looks real, the bit where all those orange dino's are running alongside the humans looks real, it all looks great still today.

[lab276]

I don't see how building sets from scratch and getting many extras in costume and make up could possibly be cheaper than doing it on computer. Maybe I've got it wrong, but it can't possibly be less labour intensive.

[kowhite]

It doesn't matter because its still 'real' and your brain knows it.

 

 

It doesn't matter because its still 'real' and your brain knows it. No matter how good cgi gets, a lot of it will always look fake because of the way certain things move, the animation always looks fake and lightweight. You also get the ridiculous camera angles and swooping shots that would be impossible to film in reality and your brain also knows that. I think the reason why the likes of Jurassic park gets away with that is because most of the dinosaur scenes are shot from eye level with realistic moving camera shots.

 

Well, I disagree on the first point.  Who cares if it's real if it looks fake.  What's the difference...hey, he's really standing next to that fake thing!  Quite obviously most audiences don't share this view.  People, myself included, can suspect disbelief in either situation.  Pick the approach that works the best...this notion that real on camera no matter what is always better is hogwash.

 

Now, to your second point...yes, CG opens the door to do almost anything and filmmakers have taken that to go wild with their design and camera work.  Sometimes, that can be jarring (though sometimes it can have its place).  I won't argue, it's a tool, and it can be abused.

[stuart360]

I still think the '05 King Kong had the most impressive CGI character I've seen. Looked like a real gorilla. Never once thought it looked like CGI.

 

Probably Davey Jones for me, he still looks real to me no matter how much i watch him and look for imperfections lol.

[kowhite]

I don't see how building sets from scratch and getting many extras in costume and make up could possibly be cheaper than doing it on computer. Maybe I've got it wrong, but it can't possibly be less labour intensive.

 

I think with today's modern CG...generally, it is cheaper to do it on the computer.  You would be correct.

[stuart360]

Why does Toy STory 3 cost more than LOTR?

 

I don't know, it can't have anything to do with being fully cgi though as we all know cgi is very cheap to do....

[4815162342]

All the cgi scenes look great. The raptor chase with the kids looks real, the bit where all those orange dino's are running alongside the humans looks real, it all looks great still today.

 

Nah the Gallimimus scene looks dated/fake today.

[Leyla]

[kowhite]

All the cgi scenes look great. The raptor chase with the kids looks real, the bit where all those orange dino's are running alongside the humans looks real, it all looks great still today.

 

Dunno, the Gallamimus scene is obviously CG to my eye.  The Brontosaurus scene is painfully obvious.

 

But...well, I dunno, I can see it pretty easily.  Even that part where the T-Rex is chewing on the jeep...yeah, I can see the jeep is CG.  I've got to pay more attention on that one.

 

That being said...yes, it still looks great, even if I can easily sit there and tell you which effect is what.

[The Stingray]

CGI ain't quite there yet. So if you can do it practical, do it practical. The effects in The Thing from the early 80's look better than most $150m blockbusters that are released today.

Edited December 15, 2013 by The Stingray

[dashrendar44]

It doesn't matter because its still 'real' and your brain knows it. No matter how good cgi gets, a lot of it will always look fake because of the way certain things move, the animation always looks fake and lightweight. You also get the ridiculous camera angles and swooping shots that would be impossible to film in reality and your brain also knows that. I think the reason why the likes of Jurassic park gets away with that is because most of the dinosaur scenes are shot from eye level with realistic moving camera shots.

 

That's like 10% of CGI shots your eye can spot because the set piece and camera movements are over-the-top. 90% of the time CGI are invisible to the untrained eye.

 

Batman Begins

Zodiac

 

Establishing shots like those are 100% CGI and yet no one bitch. Nowadays, most establishing shots no matter the genre feature CGI trickery.

 

Another 100% digital shots 99% of the audience didn't know was CGI:

 

 

CGI have already reach photorealism eons ago and you just only see the tip of the iceberg thinking you know it all when you see it.

Edited December 15, 2013 by dashrendar44

[kowhite]

Why does Toy STory 3 cost more than LOTR?

 

Well, Tim and Tom got paid bucketloads of money.

 

Second, the crew at Pixar are handsomely paid.

 

Hobbit is not quite weighed down by those issues.

 

That and, the reported cost of the LOTR trilogy?  Sorry, I do not believe it for one second.  Meaning...yeah, LOTR cost more than Toy Story 3 (well, combined).

[a2k]

Last weekend 8 of the top 10 movies jumped more than 50% on Saturday.

This weekend 2 of the top 10 jumped more than 50%. (Frozen and Thor 2 - 51% vs 75% last Saturday)

Defn a muted Saturday for all.

[eXtacy]

I find the comments saying the CGI looked bad hard to believe since the first movie had fantastic visuals with absolute clarity in 48 fps. 

[Ozymandias]

I find the comments saying the CGI looked bad hard to believe since the first movie had fantastic visuals with absolute clarity in 48 fps. 

 

[eXtacy]

 

I liked HFR, but I knew what to expect before going into the cinema since I had seem some HFR footage before.

[stuart360]

CGI ain't quite there yet, so if you can do it practical, do it practical. The effects in The Thing from the early 80's look better than most $150m blockbusters that are released today.

 

Yep compare The Thing to the remake/sequel from 2 years ago, one films looks disgusting and terrifying while the other one looks like a cartoon.

[CJohn]

I saw the movie in IMAX HFR 3D. It was a visual feast. The movie was beautiful and that is why I just can't believe people are saying the CGI looks bad.