Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Lucasfilm shows off the future of filmmaking

Author
Message
Nickydude
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Look outside...
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 14:58
Link
Quote: "Scenes get rendered out in real time, removing the need for post-production."


http://www.thatvideosite.com/v/11118/lucasfilm-shows-off-the-future-of-filmmaking-scenes-get-rendered-out-in-real-time-removing-the-need-for-post-production

I reject your reality and substitute my own...
Back to top
Profile PM
Mobiius
Valued Member
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 15:19
Link
If it's true, then that's quite good, and also quite bad. Because Disney will be able to churn these suckers out like an EA franchise!


Now Visit My Website
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nickydude
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Look outside...
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 15:25
Link
I'm guessing this is how they're going to churn out a Star Wars every year.

I reject your reality and substitute my own...
Back to top
Profile PM
baxslash
Valued Member
Bronze Codemaster
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2006
Location: Duffield
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 15:41
Link
Just Wow

This IS my signature
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 16:03
Link
Well that's all sorts of horrible.

That might be the future of Lucasfilm movies, but other movie companies still like to use actors and show faces and eyes and not hide behind CGI. Ep.7,8 and 9 will be more forgettable than Ep.1,2 and 3... this is not the evolution of cinema, this is the devolution of cinema.

You know, if someone made an old school sci-fi film, using models, suits etc with the old techniques, I'd be about 500% more inclined to pay money to watch it. CGI is a fricken cancer, and Lucasfilm are like cigarettes slowly eating away at the industries lungs.

I might have to watch Bladerunner or Dune or something, anything to remind me what sci-fi movies are supposed to look like.

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 17:16
Link
However great you can get it to look in real-rime, you will always be able to get it to look better rendering offline, this is a surly a fact so film and animations will always render offline.

This tech is useful for the film-maker to see a better representation of the final shot as they are filming, I think Avatar had a similar system.

Star Wars I, II, and III went a long way to put people off CGI, this is because it was not used well. There are many films which have used it much better and some films are all the better for CGI.

JJ Abrams always tries to have a real set, but also uses CGI extensively, his films look good imo.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 17:44
Link
Quote: "You know, if someone made an old school sci-fi film, using models, suits etc with the old techniques, I'd be about 500% more inclined to pay money to watch it. CGI is a fricken cancer, and Lucasfilm are like cigarettes slowly eating away at the industries lungs."


And I wouldnt be able to watcha minute of it ; )



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Wolf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2007
Location: Luxemburg
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 17:51 Edited at: 25th Sep 2013 17:52
Link
@VanB: Yes, and no. The downfall of episode 1,2 and 3 wasn't the use of CGI itself, it was the direction, the writing and the design. CGI has its place in cinema...but it should not simply remove real sets, real actors and real feature effects, it should enhance them.



-Wolf

Quote: "And I wouldnt be able to watcha minute of it ; )
"


You wouldn't be able to watch dune or bladerunner? Go sit in the corner of shame!

http://www.serygalacaffeine.com
"absurdity has become necessity"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 18:03
Link
Bladerunner I ALMOST managed to watch ^^ But - i would agree with the extent that GOOD WRITING must come back, we need to stop this "experimental phase" and go back into the comfy boots. We know we can make cool stuff with CGI - now put it to good use, instead of mindless graphics show offs.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 18:10
Link
In what, 25-30 years since Bladerunner was made, there hasn't been a better visual experience. CGI is a tool that should enhance movies, not destroy any hint of escapism.

People say, yes but Avatar, yes but Transformers... and I know I have a fixed and stubborn opinion on this stuff, but I can only go by my own gut, and my gut hates CGI.

It just doesn't do it for me - it destroys all the art and atmosphere. Some people look at Bladerunner, and see a gritty and old looking sci-fi detective movie... I don't, I see an immaculate attention to detail from the director - who was prepared to spend weeks and months on just 1 shot over and over, layering effects and atmosphere. 30 years of special effects development can't hope to ever come close to that quality. If you don't see it, then we have nothing to discuss - The original Bladerunner will look better than it's sequel, I guarantee it.

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Wolf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2007
Location: Luxemburg
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 18:32 Edited at: 25th Sep 2013 18:33
Link
Quote: "People say, yes but Avatar, yes but Transformers..."



...no, nobody says that! NO!

Quote: "If you don't see it, then we have nothing to discuss "

I see it, but I must admit its more on an intuitive level than an objective one. The effects might look dated but they feel a lot better. The dedication and prowess aswell as the intense atmosphere these shots have can't be reproduced in any average modern scifi flick. In fact, it can not be reproduced at all even tough there will be great science fiction movies in the future aswell. They will just be different. I write science fiction and therefore watch a lot of science fiction movies from hollywood epics down to independent garage flicks. I came to the conclusion that many movies just stand on its own and should not be compared to other contemporary pieces. Bladerunner is such a movie. If I'd compare it to Elysium, Elysium would lose because Bladerunner is a work of art and Elysium is more a commercial product that had artists involved. And...no, wait, I ramble!


Quote: "The original Bladerunner will look better than it's sequel, I guarantee it.
"


They make a sequel?... please no

Quote: "Bladerunner I ALMOST managed to watch ^^ "


I can let it slide that you didn't watch Dune. Its not an easy movie and probably even harder to watch if you didn't read the book.



-Wolf

http://www.serygalacaffeine.com
"absurdity has become necessity"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 18:46
Link
By Avatar and Transformers, I mean without CGI they would probably be worse, there's no effective way to do that stuff without CGI.

They are making a sequel thing to Bladerunner, but Ford is starring, and Ridley Scott is directing - so I have a little hope that it'll be ok and I don't think those two will be daft enough to ruin it too much.

Dune is a weird one, I know a lot of people just hate that movie, and no matter how many times I see it, I still feel like I'm missing half the plot. I kinda like the weird and creepy atmosphere, the style of the whole thing just fits with the headache-enducing plot somehow and makes it worthwhile.

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
baxslash
Valued Member
Bronze Codemaster
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2006
Location: Duffield
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 18:47
Link
I think that this is no different to any other advancement in film technology. It will vastly improve a whole array of lower end stuff for a while (IE. TV animation) and maybe be good enough to be used in films eventually to some extent.

There are always bad films and good films, stuff like this improves ALL ends of the industry in the end.

It's hardly the beginning of the end but if anyone (Van B) wants one I'll start making "The end of the world is nigh!" plackards

(nobody tell him the world is round)

This IS my signature
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 19:08
Link
The world is round?

Infidel! - they just show the world as round in movies, it's all just CGI.

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
baxslash
Valued Member
Bronze Codemaster
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2006
Location: Duffield
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 19:12
Link
Just kidding, it's flat really.

But I do think that cgi is used to do some cool effects in films you probably don't even notice it in. Innovation like this is what makes those effects possible just as much as it makes the general rubbish also inevitable (as it is anyway).

Sharknado for example, you'd never know it but those sharks aren't real!

This IS my signature
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 19:24
Link
Yup, bad CGI kinda taints all CGI, even the best stuff. The best example I think, has to be that disaster movie with Nick Cage... Knowing. There's this scene with him on a bridge and a plane crash, and it's just stunning cinematography IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPdwCnwuZ8w

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 19:39
Link
Bad sets can ruin films too, this has been happening long before CGI and its kind of the same problem.

If I feel an outdoor location is actually an indoor set then the whole scene/film is almost ruined for me, or it takes away the immersion somewhat.

If a film looks like a computer game(phantom menace) then this has exactly the same effect on me.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 21:37
Link
Quote: "If a film looks like a computer game(phantom menace) then this has exactly the same effect on me."


Unless it's intentional.

But yes - too much CGI can absolutly ruin a movie - but i don't at all feel that in sci fi



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Nickydude
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Look outside...
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 22:43
Link
A friend an I said, over 10 years ago, that real actors will be phased out and digital actors will take over.

There will come a time when digital actors are 'hired' out so, for example, a digital copy of say Arnold Schwarzenegger that can do everything the real Arnie can / could do as well as stuff a human actor can't and movie studios will 'hire' these actors from firms who created them.

You heard it hear first folks..

I reject your reality and substitute my own...
Back to top
Profile PM
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 23:09
Link
Quote: "A friend an I said, over 10 years ago, that real actors will be phased out and digital actors will take over.

There will come a time when digital actors are 'hired' out so, for example, a digital copy of say Arnold Schwarzenegger that can do everything the real Arnie can / could do as well as stuff a human actor can't and movie studios will 'hire' these actors from firms who created them.

You heard it hear first folks.. "


This reminds me of a story I heard.

Apparently, when Thunderbirds was first created there was a bit of a panic among the actors around Hollywood, they thought that this could be the future of film/tv and they would be out of a job forever

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 23:24
Link
CGI will never replace acting anytime soon; the expressive human body is far too complex and spontaneous to have depicted with enough emotion and purpose.

I do think that realtime generated CG is an interesting idea; but once one person finds out that it is not real, everyone else will, so that lowers the value of the product; like a digital orchestra or fake leather, you can always distinguish the authentic from the imitation.

It all sounds like a Call Of Duty cookie cutter business; take the same concept and re-release it every year with a new name and logo.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 25th Sep 2013 23:58
Link
Quote: "CGI will never replace acting anytime soon; the expressive human body is far too complex and spontaneous to have depicted with enough emotion and purpose.
"


I'd say 10-15 years does sound sensible - considering the MASSIVE jumps in animation tech we've had the last few.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 00:15
Link
Quote: "I'd say 10-15 years does sound sensible - considering the MASSIVE jumps in animation tech we've had the last few."


It will, but I don't think after realizing they are not real; that such films would interest me.

But I could be wrong; maybe it acting would be seen as old fashion, and CG might be seen as efficient; but then again, many people watch films to watch people; the celebrities, people like Robert De Niro and Tom Hardy, these are individual people want to admire;

And to the contrary! Maybe we will have CG celebrities; people who invent CG actors, rented out to be posed into features. Who knows what might happen.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
xplosys
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 00:28
Link
Quote: "they thought that this could be the future of film/tv and they would be out of a job forever"


Sounds like a plan to me.

Long Live Max Headroom!

I am the underground.
Back to top
Profile PM
rolfy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 00:45
Link
Good and bad points here as with all things:
Good
Films will be faster,cheaper and easier to make. It wont take away from real actors, when you require motion/facial capture etc, bad acting is bad, good acting will always stand out CGI or not.
I can imagine some good actors where age will not affect their opportunity to perform in younger roles.
De Mille used to make epic movies with epic sets, what would he have done with this technology?

When mentioned above, Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver 2 only a year older comes to mind as an example of good actors reprising roles, not to mention new films where they can play out an action role or even a romance with substance from the comfort of their zimmers.

You wont be able to tell the difference between CGI and the real thing in future, in fact, the average cinema viewer cant tell today and it is only the cynical among those "in the know" who believe they can or who object when in reality they don't have the slightest...unless it's completely obvious (bad). At this time that only applies to characters, if you believe you know the difference between many CGI and 'real' shots of scenery and sets then you got a better eye than I have, and I been into it for a long time in Film and Theatre. Even real sets and props can appear 'unreal' when theatrically lit, that's what the business is about and always has been, the illusion of reality....what real difference does it make how it's done in that context?


Bad
A lot of people now out of a job, mostly those who do the grunt work, designer's will always have work if they learn the tech..but set builders,carpenters,lighting riggers, even upcoming actors will find it harder to break into the business....the list is huge.
Back to top
Profile PM
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 00:58
Link
I thought those dinosaurs where real in Jurassic Park; "where did they find these T-Rexes from?".

CG has been around for so many years now; do you think it has reached near the plateau, or will it get more and more realistic?

I couldn't tell much difference in the CG 6-7 years ago compared to today's but perhaps because I am kind of a CG artist; like you say a non-computer arts person might not be able to tell the difference.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
rolfy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 01:25 Edited at: 26th Sep 2013 01:49
Link
Quote: "CG has been around for so many years now; do you think it has reached near the plateau, or will it get more and more realistic?"

Not even close to a plateau. I believe it will get to the point where the viewer will have there own cam and be virtually immersed right into the 3D scene, confined to the scene of course, not completely free roaming. This will lead to different people seeing the movie in different ways with their own control and optional views (therefore different experience) Each time you watch it, it will be different.

Games and movies will become integrated to an extent where the viewer has (limited according to directors ego) control over scenes since the technology will advance in tandem for both industries. Both CGI and AI will see huge leaps in the future as long as hardware tech (processing power) can keep up.
Back to top
Profile PM
Libervurto
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 02:15
Link
Off-topic, but every time I see one of those glowing apple logos I have to take my hat off to Apple. I have never seen a product self-market like the Mac Book does.


Formerly OBese87.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 14:28
Link
Quote: "
But I could be wrong; maybe it acting would be seen as old fashion, and CG might be seen as efficient; but then again, many people watch films to watch people; the celebrities, people like Robert De Niro and Tom Hardy, these are individual people want to admire; "


I can recall a handful of actors.. if even that - i am one of those just watching for the experience, whoever acts it idont care about - as long as it fits.

Quote: "Bad
A lot of people now out of a job, mostly those who do the grunt work, designer's will always have work if they learn the tech..but set builders,carpenters,lighting riggers, even upcoming actors will find it harder to break into the business....the list is huge."


This is indeed a thing and sadly, that's the thing with technology as a whole.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
baxslash
Valued Member
Bronze Codemaster
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2006
Location: Duffield
Posted: 26th Sep 2013 15:39
Link
This kind of tech will only fit a small niche and will not have a noticeable impact on the jobs in the industry. I have to say that having been involved in some small way in the film industry (pyrotechnics) an awful lot of money is spent on very little. Those contractors make a shedload more money in the film industry than they would in any other for the exact same work. They milk the system a lot more than they would like to admit. If anything it might make film companies more efficient which is no bad thing in my opinion.

Different does not mean not equal: a = b
Back to top
Profile PM Email
ShellfishGames
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Feb 2013
Location:
Posted: 28th Sep 2013 00:01
Link
Quote: "Bad sets can ruin films too, this has been happening long before CGI and its kind of the same problem.

If I feel an outdoor location is actually an indoor set then the whole scene/film is almost ruined for me, or it takes away the immersion somewhat."


Ha, yes... reminds me of those old Hitchcock films, especially North by Northwest. It's really irritating when you can tell that the horizon is just 10 meters away during a scene.


Generally I personally like CG effects as long as they're helping the overall experience instead of being a central part of the film (as might be the case with Transformers or Avatar).

But then again... movies like Children of Men demonstrate that you can achieve pretty incredible cinematography, even in action scenes, with very little to no use of CGI. Each and every Tarantino movie is an example that you can create highly entertaining flicks without any CGI whatsoever.
Life of Pi on the other hand is an example of a movie with stunning cinematography that for the most part wouldn't have been possible without CGI. Same for films such as 300 or Sin City. Different styles obviously, but very nice too look at and it suits the narration. And imagine Lord of the Rings with an actor dressed up as gollum (well, that might actually work.. kind of hard to say).

So to come to the point.. I'm glad that we've got CGI these days, because otherwise we would have missed out on a lot of really great films. Still it's good to know that there are certain directors, even today, who make good, old-fashioned CGI-less 2D movies with actual film cameras.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Wolf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2007
Location: Luxemburg
Posted: 28th Sep 2013 00:43 Edited at: 28th Sep 2013 00:45
Link
Quote: "Ha, yes... reminds me of those old Hitchcock films"


I love hitchcock but I always crack a smile whenever they have a scene in a car with some projection of a road in the background


Quote: "And imagine Lord of the Rings with an actor dressed up as gollum (well, that might actually work.. kind of hard to say)."


Lord of the Rings is a good example for new (cgi) and classic (models) special effect techniques work with each other and complete each other. Thats how, in my opinion, it should be.



-Wolf

http://www.serygalacaffeine.com
"absurdity has become necessity"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 29th Sep 2013 01:21 Edited at: 29th Sep 2013 01:30
Link
Very true, the compliment works well.

My favourite CG character is Davy Jones. It was quite a fantastic result at the time; still looks real to me. An actor was still used as a reference, and it worked well.



100% CG. Remarkable when you really think about it!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 29th Sep 2013 11:10
Link
Quote: "and I know I have a fixed and stubborn opinion on this stuff, but I can only go by my own gut, and my gut hates CGI."


Have you seen Pandorum mate? Fairly modern sci-fi movie. While the script/story/characters may not be any better than 'good' the fact it's all real sets and actors in suits makes it brilliant. I'm completely with you on this. I could sense it from the very first scene and that pulled me right in. Had it been a CGI fest it wouldn't have been half as good.

Back to top
Profile PM
easter bunny
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2012
Playing: Dota 2
Posted: 30th Sep 2013 03:21 Edited at: 30th Sep 2013 03:24
Link
Clu in Tron: Legacy has got to be one of the most realistic CGI characters. That they actually have a fully CGI, photorealistic person, is incredible

Gollum in The Hobbit is also amazing









formerly MissJoJo - Audacia Games
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nickydude
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Look outside...
Posted: 1st Oct 2013 00:05
Link
My point exactly...

I reject your reality and substitute my own...
Back to top
Profile PM
Libervurto
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 1st Oct 2013 02:46 Edited at: 1st Oct 2013 02:48
Link
I think the title of this thread is why people are hostile towards CGI, because, like 3D or whatever new advancement in technology there is, the press always tout it as "THE FUTURE" as if this is going to replace everything and no one will ever make a film in the traditional way again. That is utter bovine excrement, CGI will not replace traditional film-making, and there's no reason to fear that it might. Each new advance in technology stirs up hype and encourages experimentation, but gradually people find out what the pros and cons are of the technology and work out how best to use it, and a lot completely abandon it or never adopt it in the first place. Sure, the public might have a thirst for a particular trend like 3D movies, but those phases rarely last more than a year or two.

It bugs me that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, has to be so polarised by the media. Why must this be "The Future of Film Making"? Why can't it just be called an advancement in CGI techniques? It's the dishonest press that sensationalise and polarise everything causing conflict where it never really existed.

CGI is simply getting better; people are still making traditional films; you can go about your business; move along. (I had to google that as I'm not a proper Star Wars nerd )


Formerly OBese87.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
ShellfishGames
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Feb 2013
Location:
Posted: 1st Oct 2013 13:20
Link
Quote: "(I had to google that as I'm not a proper Star Wars nerd )"


Yeah, sure. Nice try.

But seriously, you're making quite a point actually. There are still (a few) black-and-white films today, after all.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 1st Oct 2013 14:38
Link
Will have to look into that Fallout, I'm kinda tired of modern horror films, all being the same paranormal rubbish with the obligatory crab crawl girl and ohh-so-scary stuff happening in mirrors. Looks like the sort of thing I might enjoy.

Clu from Tron, well okay the tech is pretty good, but they only have to emulate Jeff Bridges acting, which is no real challenge . I'd say Gollum is a lot better... not necessarily better looking, I think people see Gollum as a proper character now, not just a CGI puppet. That might have been helped by him not trying to look too human, I think people are more accepting when the film makers don't try and fool us too much. When CGI is indistinguishable from a real actor, then they can use it all they want and I won't complain about it

I am the one who knocks...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 4th Oct 2013 01:31 Edited at: 4th Oct 2013 01:37
Link
I forgot about Gollum; they did a brilliant job with him. The way he moves around and his facial expressions; very creative indeed.

I think the worst CGI character I have seen is JaJa Binks. Everything about the character sucks; OK alot of what sucks has to do with the logic behind the so called semi-protagonist character himself; just makes you want to shoot him.





And I think the worst CGI production in human history was this scene in King Kong. I have never winced so much in my life. After seeing this scene on DVD, I ejected the DVD without hitting the stop button and sent it back to the shop. It is not so much the texture, but the choreography and the sense that should be common. I find it to be an insult sent towards intelligent human beings watching the movie

Perhaps the children appreciated it; or some people might actually find it tense. I find the scenery and special effects to be quite cool; but the choreography spoils it for me.



Quote: "Why must this be "The Future of Film Making"? Why can't it just be called an advancement in CGI techniques? It's the dishonest press that sensationalise and polarise everything causing conflict where it never really existed."




Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 4th Oct 2013 08:03
Link
Quote: "I think the worst CGI character I have seen is JaJa Binks. Everything about the character sucks; OK alot of what sucks has to do with the logic behind the so called semi-protagonist character himself; just makes you want to shoot him."

Pf, Binks is actually one of my personal favorites from the star wars movies



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 4th Oct 2013 11:45 Edited at: 4th Oct 2013 11:56
Link
An interesting contrast in opinion. One person's rubbish is another person's gem.

Does he make you laugh, or is he one of your favorite characters in the Star Wars universe for his dialogue, or do you find the creature CG effects interesting, or a combination?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 4th Oct 2013 16:43
Link
Mostly my favorite because he's so incredibly charming - he makes me laugh, and he makes me hit my head in frustration. He might not be a "character with much depth" but he is a WONDERFUL comical relief character ^^ Not to mention that I absolutly ADOORE his design



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Back to top
Profile PM
Seditious
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2013
Location: France
Posted: 4th Oct 2013 21:06
Link
Quote: "Pf, Binks is actually one of my personal favorites from the star wars movies"


Good joke.

Your erased has been moderated by signature.
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-08-08 15:14:59
Your offset time is: 2025-08-08 15:14:59