Jump to content

CoolioD1

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

Recommended Posts

This is true because, like JP, the original trilogy used so many practical effects and those will always stand the test of time over whatever cgi and computer effects were used 10+ years prior.  I only mean the cgi and computer effects of the original trilogy look dated, not the overall effects and look of the movie, which still has a great feel and atmosphere, etc.

 

I'm talking about Jurassic parks cgi though, that shot in the rain where the T-Rex walks through the fence and roars still looks as good as any cgi we see today.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Why though?, because they couldn't be bothered to do make up?, cgi is super expensive and no wonder The hobbit films have 3 times bigger budgets than the LOTR films while looking worse for it.

If it was cheaper to do the Orcs in real life, they would have done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'm talking about Jurassic parks cgi though, that shot in the rain where the T-Rex walks through the fence and roars still looks as good as any cgi we see today.

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



For the first time, I agree with you on this.  I watched Clones the other day and a lot of the CGI is really bad or just dated.  Maybe it was decent for the time, but it just looks icky now.

 

AOTC is the worst looking prequel by far, the green screen work is terrible. I don't quite understand why that is but AOTC really does stand out compared to the other 2 prequels, the fight in the droid factory just looks appalling.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Don't believe if you don't want to. What do you think would be cheaper, getting a bunch of guys to sit around for a few hours getting make up put on or just creating those orcs on a computer?

 

Dunno.  Considering they DID create that main orc practically, then rushed to replace him with CG...

 

Well, what can I say...I do know doing both costs more than doing either individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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.

You make that sound like it's a bad thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Smaug was flawless though, probably the most impressive looking and sounding CGI character since Gollum.  I thought a talking dragon was gonna look inherently goofy, but he was completely believable.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





You know, JP is a special effects triumph.

 

But I do think people get carried away when saying practical is amazing.  Practical has issues too...I mean, I can tell a lot of that stuff is practical because of how stiff and stilted the animation is.  Works great for some stuff, but let's get real...it has its drawbacks.  Granted, perhaps the practical doesn't look dated because nobody is really trying to improve that aspect of special effects, so there' not much better than that out there. Even though...it's certainly not perfect.

 

Not that I care...some moviegoers guys bitch about special effects way too much...I have no idea how some people enjoy movies with the perfection they expect.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

 

It's not a bad thing.  But people laud JP like every other movie needs to learn a lesson from it.  But, a major reason it holds so well are reasons that simply aren't applicable to most other sequences.

 

That's not to diminish the accomplishment of that film, but I suppose...sometimes I get the impression people's reaction to CG and special effects is...if it's not perfect, don't even try.  It's not a perspective I like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





If it was cheaper to do the Orcs in real life, they would have done.

 

It is cheaper. There is always this miss information of cgi being pretty cheap and thats why they use it when in reality its expensive as hell and they use it because its easier than setting up big set pieces in camera or tons of make up etc, thats why budgets have spiralled out of control since cgi came on the scene.

Edited by stuart360
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.