Jurassic Park or Avatar?

[Hatebox]

Off topic, but I was fucking shocked at how badly some of the CGI on LOTR had dated when I recently watched it on blu-ray.

[John Marston]

Try to look at it on blu-ray at least. CG looked pretty bad (in fact, pretty out of place I could say) in daylight scenes on blu-ray. Just like Titanic. It used to be look really good on DVD, on blu-ray some of the 90's-ish CGI are easy to spot.

 

I think blu-ray really put those old heavy-CG films into a new test for geeks like us, and under that test, it's easy to spot dated scenes (or effects).

 

 

I have and I think it still looks good It's not like most movies today have CGI that is hugely better. 

[Ozymandias]

Off topic, but I was fucking shocked at how badly some of the CGI on LOTR had dated when I recently watched it on blu-ray.

 

Yea, but the visuals and CGI are far from the best parts of the Lord of the Rings movies.  They're always gonna be timeless because of the stuff that made them so great in the first place like the characters, acting, depth, and story.  It was a given when these movies were made that the CGI stuff was eventually gonna age.  Peter Jackson even went into this a lot in the behind the scenes of the Lord of the Rings movies that he wasn't concerned with making a big VFX powerhouse because he said "its very easy for the special effects to overwhelm a story" so they used the CGI as little as possible.  Sadly, I think Peter Jackson has kinda lost this approach with The Hobbit, not just with the abuse of CGI, but with the utterly ATROCIOUS 48 FPS(god I could write an essay on how fucking stupid and terrible that was).  And James Cameron with Avaharhar is on a whole different level, and he plans to shoot the Avaharhar sequels in not just 48 FPS, but 60 FPS!  Get ready for migraines.  Its like Peter Jackson and James Cameron have become way more concerned with spectacle and technology(even if its utter shit and doesn't do anything like the higher frame rates and to a lesser extent 3D) without really caring how their films are gonna look or be perceived in 10-20 years rather than the stuff that matters the most in a film and doesn't age like acting, story, characters, and depth. Either reverse course or fuck off you sellout fakes.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Shpongle

[Phil in the Blank]

I found that Jurassic Parks CGI has held up very well, even on the blu-ray. I have certainly seen worse CGI at the cinema in 2013 than Jurassic Park 3D. And I think one of the big reasons for that is the reliance on physical effects (such as models or the men in raptor suits etc) to compliment the cgi. It helps ground you in the spectacle and fools your brain into thinking that its all real. 

 

In fact to paraphrase a quote from the movie. when it comes to cgi in modern films 'Your visual effects supervisors were so preoccupied with they could, they never stopped to think if they should." I honestly wish directors would first try to go the practical route, and if there really is no way to do that scene without cgi, then you add the cgi, but only when you have exhausted all other possibilities.

 

 

For example, one of the reasons I love Christopher Nolan's work is because of the way he doesn't resort to using CGI for every little thing. While Visually Avatar clearly blows anything out of the water he has ever done, I would suspect that when people 30 years from now looked back on Avatar and The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight would be the movie whose effects hold up better - simply because CGI is always surpassed but practical effects have reached their plateau of effectiveness. 

[vc2002]

I found that Jurassic Parks CGI has held up very well, even on the blu-ray. I have certainly seen worse CGI at the cinema in 2013 than Jurassic Park 3D. And I think one of the big reasons for that is the reliance on physical effects (such as models or the men in raptor suits etc) to compliment the cgi. It helps ground you in the spectacle and fools your brain into thinking that its all real. 

 

In fact to paraphrase a quote from the movie. when it comes to cgi in modern films 'Your visual effects supervisors were so preoccupied with they could, they never stopped to think if they should." I honestly wish directors would first try to go the practical route, and if there really is no way to do that scene without cgi, then you add the cgi, but only when you have exhausted all other possibilities.

 

 

For example, one of the reasons I love Christopher Nolan's work is because of the way he doesn't resort to using CGI for every little thing. While Visually Avatar clearly blows anything out of the water he has ever done, I would suspect that when people 30 years from now looked back on Avatar and The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight would be the movie whose effects hold up better - simply because CGI is always surpassed but practical effects have reached their plateau of effectiveness. 

In terms of visual effects TDK will definitely age better than Avatar simply because of the much less use of CGI. Also it benefitted from the fact that CGI was used most in night scenes which is always the best way to hide any weakness of CG.

 

But the problem is, how do you make a film like Avatar? You can't use actors in makeups to play the Navi's because that would like ridiculous and cheap, you can't show Pandora by shooting on live action because there's no place on earth to shoot sth like that and miniature will look lame as hell. For what it's worth, how Cameron made Avatar is practically the only way to pull off this project.

[redfirebird2008]

One aspect of JP that is way ahead of Avatar is the music. The JP theme might be my favorite Williams theme, and that is no small thing to say considering how many iconic pieces of music he has created.

[Hatebox]

Exhibit A in why practical effects are the best route and will hold up better -

 

 

Still can't believe that's 45 years old.

 

Titianic will look better than Avatar in a few years, if it doesn't already.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Hatebox

[vc2002]

Titianic will look better than Avatar in a few years, if it doesn't already.

 

Only the non-CG part. But again, who else would build a full-size (well, almost) Titanic to shoot Titanic? You can't beat something like that.

Edited May 6, 2013 by vc2002

[Darth Homer]

JP crossed $400m! Only $360m to go before it beats Avatar. I think it can do it. 

[dashrendar44]

Only the non-CG part. But again, who else would build a full-size (well, almost) Titanic to shoot Titanic? You can't beat something like that.

 

Cameron is king of practical effects and pushed the envelope much farther than any CGI-averse directors. Must we remind people how he almost killed members of his crew on sets several times because of practical effects?

Edited May 6, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Phil in the Blank]

In terms of visual effects TDK will definitely age better than Avatar simply because of the much less use of CGI. Also it benefitted from the fact that CGI was used most in night scenes which is always the best way to hide any weakness of CG.

 

But the problem is, how do you make a film like Avatar? You can't use actors in makeups to play the Navi's because that would like ridiculous and cheap, you can't show Pandora by shooting on live action because there's no place on earth to shoot sth like that and miniature will look lame as hell. For what it's worth, how Cameron made Avatar is practically the only way to pull off this project.

 

Let me clarify sorry as I see how it came across in my post. Avatar used CG very well IMO and you are absolutely correct that that was the path the film HAD to go down. Yes TDK will age visually better than Avatar, but thats not a knock against the film. It was more of an example of how CG ages quicker than practical effects.

 

What I was referring to when I was talking about directors using CG over practical effects was say.....the blood splatters in a movie like The Expendables 2. Why throw in CG blood when blood packs look so much better?

[dashrendar44]

Let me clarify sorry as I see how it came across in my post. Avatar used CG very well IMO and you are absolutely correct that that was the path the film HAD to go down. Yes TDK will age visually better than Avatar, but thats not a knock against the film. It was more of an example of how CG ages quicker than practical effects.

 

What I was referring to when I was talking about directors using CG over practical effects was say.....the blood splatters in a movie like The Expendables 2. Why throw in CG blood when blood packs look so much better?

 

Maybe because that cost too much (money and time) of doing a slaughter scene on repeated takes for all the angles required (especially for epilectic-cut movies) because they got to wash away the fake blood from the sets (ground and wall) and rewire all fake blood capsules on actors/extras for every takes necessary? Whereas adding blood via CG when all the editing is blocked is money saving?(Expendables producers, Millenium Films, are notoriously stingy and try to cut it at the lowest costs possible)

Edited May 6, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Phil in the Blank]

Exactly. It's money and energy saving.

 

But it looks shit. CGI abuse in the nutshell.

 

If low budget 80's action films can do it 30 years ago and look better than a 2013 film in that regard......something has gone wrong wouldn't you agree?

[Ozymandias]

For example, one of the reasons I love Christopher Nolan's work is because of the way he doesn't resort to using CGI for every little thing. While Visually Avatar clearly blows anything out of the water he has ever done, I would suspect that when people 30 years from now looked back on Avatar and The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight would be the movie whose effects hold up better - simply because CGI is always surpassed but practical effects have reached their plateau of effectiveness. 

 

I don't think The Dark Knight comparison works really well because its not really a visually driven movie at all.  I think a better comparison for Avatar visually in 30 years would be something like Prometheus. Prometheus hardly has any green screen or heavy CGI in it at all.  The big set pieces, the caves and tunnels, the vehicles, most of the landscapes, all the monsters/creatures in it were all completely real and done with practical effects, and you can definitely tell because it feels much more real, gritty, atmospheric.  There was even an alternate mutated CGI version of Fifeild that Ridley Scott ended up cutting out because it didn't look very real and felt out of place with the way the rest of the movie looked.  Jurassic Park is also a good example for reasons you've talked about like being shot in the jungle and using a mixture of CGI/practical dinosaurs.  Whenever they're not inside the base,  Avatar looks like a pixar film.

 

Exactly. It's money and energy saving.

 

But it looks shit. CGI abuse in the nutshell.

 

If low budget 80's action films can do it 30 years ago and look better than a 2013 film in that regard......something has gone wrong wouldn't you agree?

 

Definitely.  Money and energy is the lamest excuse ever in taking the lazy approach of CGI.  This is my biggest problem with The Hobbit, it just looks animated in quite a few parts, especially when you compare it to Lord of the Rings.

[dashrendar44]

  Whenever they're not inside the base,  Avatar looks like a pixar film.

 

Tell me which Pixar movie had this level of photorealism?

 

Maybe Avatar will look like a Pixar movie in 2043 (Because Pixar is crap now?! LMAO like you'd say) but Prometheus will still be a crappy movie with a daft script and idiotic characters in 30 years from now like it already is in 2013. Troll harder.

Edited May 6, 2013 by dashrendar44

[dashrendar44]

Prometheus practical effects :

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdJYlKfyjg8

[Ozymandias]

Oh snap!  I thought you put me on ignore.  Lol fuck! So disappointing. 

 

And we're all aware you think cinema began and ended with Avatar and can't be criticized in any way, shape, or form.  You're a trooper. 

Edited May 7, 2013 by Shpongle

[dashrendar44]

You spout such clueless and daft statements, it's not hardly difficult to ignore how wrong they are.

Edited May 7, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Ozymandias]

District 9 is a racist, xenophobic film.

[Phil in the Blank]

 

Maybe Avatar will look like a Pixar movie in 2043 (Because Pixar is crap now?! LMAO like you'd say) but Prometheus will still be a crappy movie with a daft script and idiotic characters in 30 years from now like it already is in 2013. Troll harder.

 

Lol and Avatar will also have a daft script and idiotic characters in 30 years from now like it did in 2013