Ps76
Topic Author
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:52 pm

Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:36 am

Hi!

I was watching a few movies (old and new) over the past few days and came to the conclusion that CGI sucks. One of the films I saw was 2010 a space movie from the 1980. When you watch it you really feel like you're in space, it just looks really real. Then I saw a later film Mission to Mars which has some terrible CGI. Instead of believing it's real you just look at it a say "that's someone drawing on their computer". And even in the more recent 2012 they did some incredible things but for the most part they looked really really fake.

There are a few movies I've seen where things were lees obviously "CGI" like the King Kong remake and Avatar and Tintin but these are generally exceptions. I mean in the early days the use of models and things in Hollywood looked terrible but things improved until they generally looked really real. Now we have to look at this cartoon reality whenever there's a big action sequence and pretend to ourselves that it wasn't drawn on a computer.

Anyone agree/disagree. Any thoughts welcome.

Many thanks.

Pierre
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2531
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

CGI is awful. Model shots are awesome. There's no argument to be had here.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 4756
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:26 am

Movies like "Cars", "Up", and "Shrek" look great in CGI but for standard children's cartoons CGI looks cheep and a prime example of why todays cartoons do not add up to the cartoons of the '80s, '90s and earlier.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:14 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 1):
CGI is awful. Model shots are awesome. There's no argument to be had here.

See Star Wars Episodes IV, V, VI versus Episodes I, II, III for a perfect illustration of that.

With that said, CGI does work well in some things, usually when the movie is completely CGI, like Toy Story.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:51 am

Quoting Ps76 (Thread starter):

I agree. The effects in older movies such as The Towering Inferno, Airport 1975, Airport 1977 are far more impressive than the CGI effects today. The models made in older movies and real explosions were far more impressive than the stuff made on computers today. Modern sci-fi movies today do nothing for me.
Bring back the Concorde
 
kiwiandrew

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:06 am

Cheap CGI is really irritating... but nowhere near as bad as 3D.

Although to be fair, Avatar would still have been a crap film even without the CGI and 3D.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:32 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 5):
Although to be fair, Avatar would still have been a crap film even without the CGI and 3D.

The CGI was pretty good in that. It was the story which was too simplistic for its own good.

In general, "CGI sucks" exactly when it sucks.

Well done CGI doesn't suck – and is often not even noticed as such, which is the whole point.

As to old-time special effects: Even back in the days (1970s and 80s) I always cringed when it was clearly visible that scale models or other tricks were being used, as in practically every scene with fire or water. Stop motion was a particularly horrible example as well.

On the other hand, movies like 2001 were very close to perfect even back in the 1960s, but that is the very rare exception rather than the norm.

Even with much larger numbers of special effects movies nowadays (because CGI now makes them feasible without having to compromise the story too severely), the quality level has gone way up across the board. Most of the special effects movies of previous eras are practically unwatchable today and simply aren't shown any more (with rare exceptions).

The primary remaining CGI problem today is motion, particularly with animals or even humans. That is why at this time motion capture is still a necessary crutch, but with that it works quite well (effects-wise Avatar is a good example for that).
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:05 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):
Well done CGI doesn't suck – and is often not even noticed as such, which is the whole point.

I scrolled down to add just that point, so I totally agree - i'm willing to bet that you've watched entire modern films before and thought there wasn't any CGI in them... Thats when CGI is good.

Great quote from failbook which goes with this thread:

Quote:

I can almost always tell if a movie doesn't use real dinosaurs...
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4589
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:36 am

Examples of very bad CGI:

- Poseidon (2006). The capsizing scenes are great, but the CGI flames inside of the burning ship... yuck.
- Die Another Day (2002). Compare the hovercraft race stunts with the cheesy CGI of the melting airborne An-124.

It's quite a feat to create convincing CGI. Movies with "intentionally" bad CGI ("The Core" for example) can be funny, though...
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:09 am

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
I can almost always tell if a movie doesn't use real dinosaurs...

  
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:23 am

2010 was AMAZING for its time, that is for sure.

On the other hand I recently watched the original Superman from 1978, and then Ironman.

The effects in Superman were completely laughable (and the acting/storyline much worse than I remembered LOL), while Ironman's effects were very convincing. The CGI in Red Tails was pretty awesome too.

I think it's more about the studio these days than whether it is CGI or not.

[Edited 2012-07-17 04:25:46]
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:42 am

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 10):
The effects in Superman were completely laughable (and the acting/storyline much worse than I remembered LOL), while Ironman's effects were very convincing. The CGI in Red Tails was pretty awesome too.

Oh god, I watched (suffered?) a film called "Fortress" the other day, about a WW2 USAAF B-17 crew stationed in North Africa - Ive seen better CGI on Air Crash Investigation or Dogfights! Truly truly terrible.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:54 am

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 10):
2010 was AMAZING for its time, that is for sure.

You mean 2001, I presume?

2010 was just so-so for its time...
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4589
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:04 pm

I remember a catastrophic catastrophe film about the world all icing over. There's a scientist involved that lives in frozen Berlin, and rescuers have to look for him. They do so with tracked arctic vehicles, and all the CGI remembered me of pre-"Goldeneye" video games...
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:23 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Quote:

I can almost always tell if a movie doesn't use real dinosaurs...

LOL!   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):
As to old-time special effects: Even back in the days (1970s and 80s) I always cringed when it was clearly visible that scale models or other tricks were being used, as in practically every scene with fire or water. Stop motion was a particularly horrible example as well.

What do you think of this crash scene?
starts at about 3:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QviITuOUiY
Bring back the Concorde
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4589
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:38 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 14):

Oh my... god... 

Remembered me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHLpBNQ9a3g (crash begins at 1:00).
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5851
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:46 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):
On the other hand, movies like 2001 were very close to perfect even back in the 1960s, but that is the very rare exception rather than the norm.

I don't believe I've ever seen another film that captures the vast expanse and loneliness of deep space as good -- and realistically -- as 2001 does. It's out there on its own.

I usually only catch the trailers of most blockbusters and they don't do anything for me. There's usually too much thrown at you too quickly to make them convincing.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:46 pm

The most important thing to remember with CGI is that a good story can cover for poor CGI, but good CGI can't cover for a poor story. If the story is good, it will pull you in and cheap CGI does not matter much. For instance District 9 or Moon.

If the story is poor no amount of CGI will help: for instance the "let's save on sets and only use blue screen" Star Wars movies or "we are desperate to revive board games" Battle Ship.

And then you've got the rare movies where both the story and the CGI are great. For instance Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings or the Avengers.
Attamottamotta!
 
Ps76
Topic Author
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:51 pm

Hi!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
You mean 2001, I presume?

2010 was just so-so for its time...

I know I'll be very unpopular but I actually much prefer 2010 the movie. It has a fuller storyline to me and moves at a much faster pace which I prefer.

I agree though 2001 probably looks better with effects but even that I'm not sure. The interiors of the spacecraft in 2001 (besides Discovery) all look very 60's/70s wheras watching 2010 not much has dated except for the computers. Whoever came up with the design of the Discovery spacecraft in 2001 (both inside and out) deserves an award. 2010 doesn't try and do anything fancy with special effects so nothing looks dated but that whole psychadelic flying into the Monolith thing in 2001 looks kinda old now.

Only my opinion though! Maybe I just need to watch 2001 again.

Many thanks.

Pierre
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:01 pm

One of the things about 2001 and 2010 that got me was the magical anti-gravity tech that no one talks about - in both films, Discovery seems to have anti-gravity, in that it doesnt rotate or anything (apart from one scene, which doesnt explain anything - it just creates more questions), and yet the later Soviet craft does not...

Strange.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:22 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 15):
Oh my... god... 

Remembered me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHLpBNQ9a3g (crash begins at 1:00).

Holy crap! I'll be damned!  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!
I remember seeing this scene on TV late at night decades ago when I was a little kid!
Never knew the name of the movie until now! Thanks for the link!   
That was an awesome crash scene!
The music and end credits sound great as well.
I need to get that movie now.   
I have a feeling that if that movie were made today, that scene would have looked worse and the women in leading roles would have way more attitude and the male roles would be emasculated wimps.
The Cassandra Crossing looks like a great movie and is at the top of my 'must buy' list along with the movies; 'Demon Seed' and 'Dolemite'.
BTW, there was another 1970s disaster movie about a massive freeway crash pileup. Does anyone know the name of that movie?
Bring back the Concorde
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:39 pm

I don't think the issue is really GCI

Cheaply done movies look bad - no matter what the source for special effects - GCI, models, etc. Remember lizards with glued upon dinosaur fins, spikes?

Well done movies which are VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE - look better and can look amazing - Transformers, Avatar

Advances in CGI have made it possible to do very bad movies very quickly with low cost.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:39 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
BTW, there was another 1970s disaster movie about a massive freeway crash pileup. Does anyone know the name of that movie?

Can any other car pileups really compete with Blues Brothers…?  
 

Quoting Ps76 (Reply 18):
I know I'll be very unpopular but I actually much prefer 2010 the movie. It has a fuller storyline to me and moves at a much faster pace which I prefer.

Your preference is as valid as anyone else's.

That said, I prefer 2001 by a wide margin for several reasons, its more philosophical story and much more immersive world-building among them. 2010 was a pretty pedestrian experience to me by comparison – okay, but not great in any way.

Quoting Ps76 (Reply 18):
Whoever came up with the design of the Discovery spacecraft in 2001 (both inside and out) deserves an award.

They got quite a few.

Quoting Ps76 (Reply 18):
but that whole psychadelic flying into the Monolith thing in 2001 looks kinda old now.

Not for me. One can debate their choices, but the execution was top notch (I don't care for the soundrack of that section, though).

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
One of the things about 2001 and 2010 that got me was the magical anti-gravity tech that no one talks about - in both films, Discovery seems to have anti-gravity, in that it doesnt rotate or anything (apart from one scene, which doesnt explain anything - it just creates more questions), and yet the later Soviet craft does not...

No anti-gravity anywhere. Discovery has a rotating barrel within its hull in the round "head" section which simulates gravity via centrifugal force (as on the space station earlier in the movie). It is shown quite explicitly and at considerable length.

Everywhere else is zero gravity.

[Edited 2012-07-17 06:54:19]
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:54 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):
Can any other car pileups really compete with Blues Brothers…?  

Absolutely.
The Blues Brothers is a great movie and all but not the best car pileup.
Plus I rather see car pileups in more serious disaster, suspense movies. Not a comedy.
Bring back the Concorde
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:55 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
BTW, there was another 1970s disaster movie about a massive freeway crash pileup. Does anyone know the name of that movie?

Might have been Smash-up on interstate 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkL_uWakXpM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075236/
Attamottamotta!
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4589
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:56 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 20):
Never knew the name of the movie until now! Thanks for the link!
That was an awesome crash scene!
The music and end credits sound great as well.
I need to get that movie now.

Very much appreciated!  Smile

Many railroad scenes were filmed in my region. I recognized many locations, like the one here. The white hut in the top right is now used to keep dogs, and as a child, I've bathed and played many times there in the river.


David

[Edited 2012-07-17 06:58:03]
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:56 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 23):
Plus I rather see car pileups in more serious disaster, suspense movies. Not a comedy.

I generally don't like disaster movies very much. Too many real disasters in the world for me to enjoy that kind of thing on screen.

With nobody getting seriously injured, the surreal pileups in Blues Brothers were a lot of fun, however. 
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:57 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):
No anti-gravity anywhere. Discovery has a rotating barrel within its hull in the round "head" section. It is shown quite explicitly and at considerable length.

The problem with that explanation is that the command deck is shown above the pod bay at the front of the "head" section (theres the main window). It definitely does not move, and it definitely has gravity. Same goes for the pod bay underneath it.

 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:08 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 14):
What do you think of this crash scene?
starts at about 3:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QviI...uOUiY

Their best choice was to have it happen in low light at night. It would have been unwatchably bad in a daylight setting.

Even so, the total shots were pretty bad, with the wobbling bluescreen / rear projection background, inconsistent focus, very obvious small-scale flames and water on impact, implausible motion and aerial dynamics and so on.

The closeup shots of the burning engines were not very plausible, but not too bad by themselves. And the cockpit instruments looked generally plausible as far as I can tell.

And then there is the sinking, and all the rest...  

The movie would not be any less cheesy today, but it is likely(!) that it would have better special effects.

Quoting moo (Reply 27):
The problem with that explanation is that the command deck is shown above the pod bay at the front of the "head" section (theres the main window). It definitely does not move, and it definitely has gravity. Same goes for the pod bay underneath it.

I don't remember any non-dream sequences showing gravity in either of those. Pseudo-gravity is only shown in the habitat barrel as far I recall.

[Edited 2012-07-17 07:09:53]
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:21 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
I don't remember any non-dream sequences showing gravity in either of those. Pseudo-gravity is only shown in the habitat barrel as far I recall.

Just gone through the requisite scenes - there are several in the command deck and in the pod bay which show gravity.

There are a lot of impressive scenes which show the rotating section, but these arent in them.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7648
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Blade Runner was done using models. (fly-through cityscapes). Even today, CGI probably can't match it.

CGI is often built using wrong assumptions. Toy Story actually looked good for its time. But space movies done with cgi end up looking so cheap.

Jaws was also done with model sharks.

The best result may be from models with computer assist.
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:33 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
You mean 2001, I presume?

2010 was just so-so for its time...

Haha, sorry - yes 2001.

Basically anything after 1999 and I'm all confused.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:34 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 29):
Just gone through the requisite scenes - there are several in the command deck and in the pod bay which show gravity.

By people actually walking around or objects falling?

I don't have a copy at hand right now. A Youtube link would of course be optimal.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:35 pm

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 31):
Basically anything after 1999 and I'm all confused.

Come on – 12 years were not long enough to get acclimated yet?   
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:37 pm

You can't really compare 2001 and 2010 from a movie stand point. You are talking about one of my favorite Sci-Fi series here folks...

Just remember that 2010 follows the book much more closely than 2001 did. Arthur C Clarke wrote 2010 as a sequel to 2001 the movie, not the original 2001 the book.

The book 2001:
Discovery is going to Saturn, not Jupiter
HAL doesn't kill Poole, that happens by accident, though he does kill the survey crew.
The Monolith isn't in orbit, it's on Titan and is the same size as the one seen on the moon and on prehistoric earth.

The special effects on the movie 2001 were world changing. But then again it IS a Stanley Kubrick masterpiece.
Even the computers are sensational, remembering than in 1968 solid core processors were brand new incredible inventions and something as complex as HAL or even the navigational computers on the Pan Am moon shuttle were beyond the realm of wildest computer engineers dreams.

But even so Kubrick had make changes, like switching the Jupiter because they couldn't make realistic rings for Saturn, and coming up with the rotating assmeblies for Discovery was one of the most revolutionary movie shots even (The scene where Poole is running seemingly around a loop? yea people hadn't seen that yet, or the microgravity flight attendant on the moon shuttle doing a vertical 180 with Velcro shoes... all unheard of).



In 2010 the major changes:
War between USSR and USA is not brewing and in fact relations are cordial
Max doesn't die.
Max and Curnow are in a bi-sexual relationship for much of the mission
Floyd gets divorced and estranged from his son on the trip
It's the Chinese who land on Europa and force a Soviet/US joint mission, then the Chinese crew gets wiped out by "lifeforms under the ice"
The "message" doesn't include the last 2 lines in the book.
Chandra dies on the trip back to earth.

Peter Hyams did do a good job on 2010. I loved the Leonov model as a kid. And the "Soviet" vs "American" flavor of the interiors of the 2 ships was great. The spacewalk sequences were also just incredible. Though I felt that the "fixing HAL" scene more fitting for a comedy, it was still pretty good.

It really is a pity that the other 2 book will probably never see the big screen. Through granted 2061 would probably make for a dull movie, 3001 could be good  

......

On the original topic...

There were some really really bad model shots out there over the years, like the city in Logan's Run was so obviously models it wasn't worth trying to believe it was a real city. And there are so many WW2 ship shots where you can see "drops" of water the size of 4 bedroom houses on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier for example.

The biggest problem with CGI, unlike models, is shooting in digital needs to keep up with the upgrades in technology, something true "film" didn't have to worry about. That's why 2001 still looks incredible today, where as CGI from 5 years ago now looks clunky and poor.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:59 pm

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 24):
Might have been Smash-up on interstate 5.

That just may be it!
Looks like a great movie but it is painful to watch because I like every car in that video, even the imports and I hate to see them getting smashed up like that. I wouldn't mind seeing a pile up movie today with a bunch of Prius, Scions and all the forgettable CUVs on the roads today.
That was actually filmed on I-210 along the northeast edges of Los Angeles between near La Tuna Canyon Rd.
I used to drive that freeway driving between Pasadena and Northridge.
That stretch of freeway is popular for filming movies. I even saw the stretched AMC Pacer used in the movie Wayne's World 2 on that stretch of freeway.
That freeway is also infamously known for the Rodney King chase that lead to the videotaped beating in 1991.
It is sort of the autobahn of Los Angeles. It's a great place to speed without worrying too much about the cops.


Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 25):
Many railroad scenes were filmed in my region. I recognized many locations, like the one here. The white hut in the top right is now used to keep dogs, and as a child, I've bathed and played many times there in the river.

Looks like a beautiful location - as most of Switzerland is beautiful.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):
I generally don't like disaster movies very much. Too many real disasters in the world for me to enjoy that kind of thing on screen.

Are you one of those sensitive Apple users?  
Quoting Klaus (Reply 26):
With nobody getting seriously injured, the surreal pileups in Blues Brothers were a lot of fun, however.

I remember the filming of that scene. That was at an old shopping mall in the south suburbs of Chicago near Gary, Indiana.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
Even so, the total shots were pretty bad, with the wobbling bluescreen / rear projection background, inconsistent focus, very obvious small-scale flames and water on impact, implausible motion and aerial dynamics and so on.

That is very clever what they have done with the technology they had at the time.

The fires throughout these clips in Towering Inferno look very realistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXO7P-r1vSE


The helicopter explosion scene looks realistic in the attempted rescue attempt.
Skip to 7:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmgttXsKkk4&feature=related
Bring back the Concorde
 
Asturias
Posts: 1953
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:13 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 1):
CGI is awful. Model shots are awesome. There's no argument to be had here.

Agreed, though the mixture of the two (and matte paintings even!) can be amazing, I was most impressed with the mixture of miniature models and CGI in Lord of the Rings, for example - where the two complemented each other.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
See Star Wars Episodes IV, V, VI versus Episodes I, II, III for a perfect illustration of that.

Episodes I, II and III were a disaster.. CGI-wise and otherwise. It was like an extended cutscene from a computer game, nearly every scene was 100% GCI (just filmed in front of a greenscreen)

In general, models always look better than GGI, but they are more work to make and are more limited.. but given that both are done in the best way possible, models, minatures and practical visual effects (how I loath thee CGI blood!) always win, hands down.

No contest. (IMnotsoHO)
Tonight we fly
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:40 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35):
I remember the filming of that scene. That was at an old shopping mall in the south suburbs of Chicago near Gary, Indiana.

The mall chase was hilarious too, but I was thinking more of this one
Quoting Superfly (Reply 35):
That is very clever what they have done with the technology they had at the time.

From a historical point of view? Yes. But as a viewer the obvious limitations of the special effects always yanked me out of the experience, even back then. It was too blatant how they faked it.

2001, Ben Hur and very few others were on a completely different scale compared to that, largely by going for massively expensive sets and practical effects instead of simulated optical special effects. Even Star Wars with its sometimes shoddy effects still amped them up to such an extreme relative to previous productions that it was still mostly acceptable (and in some respects Lucas' subsequent fiddling with the old movies did in fact clean up some of the inherited problems).

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35):
The fires throughout these clips in Towering Inferno look very realistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXO7P...r1vSE

It seems they used a halfway decently-sized miniature for the external shots, so the discrepancy isn't too bad.

Fire is still difficult to do very well in CGI to this day, as is water. Although they're getting better from movie to movie.

The Balrog from the year 2001 is a good example on both limitations and improvements at that point:
The Fellowship of the Ring

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35):
The helicopter explosion scene looks realistic in the attempted rescue attempt.
Skip to 7:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmgtt...lated

That looks as if it might have been done at full scale.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:25 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37):
I was thinking more of this one!

Ah yes, I forgot about that one.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37):
It seems they used a halfway decently-sized miniature for the external shots, so the discrepancy isn't too bad.

I used to work in the real life building at 555 California street when I lived in San Francisco.
The real building is only 52 floors. Not 135 floors.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37):
That looks as if it might have been done at full scale.

That is amazing how they pulled that one off.
It's a great movie and a good one to have in your collection if you're a movie buff.
The Towering Inferno audio was mixed in quadraphonic sound and shown in a few movie theaters in quadraphonic sound when it was released in 1974. Since the soundtrack was on MCA, the LP and 8track was never released in quad because MCA was too cheap to do it. We would have to wait until 2005 for the DVD re-issue to see and hear the movie in quadraphonic sound. The SQ decoder on my old Marantz 4400 receiver picks up the 4-channels perfectly.  



Now check out this gem!
The movie was called Crash!.
It appears that a lady in a hospital has possessed a 1969 Chevrolet Camero RS convertible and the car can drive by it's self. Sounds like this is a German film.
The sound effects sounds to be a Mini-Moog analog synthesizer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQHnpVpfv8s&feature=related
Bring back the Concorde
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:19 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):
Can any other car pileups really compete with Blues Brothers…?  
 

Lol ! Just before I read this reply by Klaus, I noticed someone making a reference to car pile-ups in movies.............I immediately thought about "The Blues Brothers"; then, only 2 seconds later, here's Klaus mentioning "The Blues Brothers" again !

Remarkable ! Even though I almost never go to movies anymore, I will never forget going to see that film; not only was it the most outrageously funny, "over-the-top" movie ever, the "circumstances" involved in my seeing it were very "unusual", (to say the least)

At the time "the Blues Brothers" first came out, I was working for a big car-carrier company in Cincinnati; we loaded new Camaros & Firebirds every Monday morning and delivered them to dealers in NYC and NJ on Tuesday, then reloaded El Dorados at GM's Linden, NJ plant, and headed back west. When you make the same "run" week in, week out, you tend to "make friends" along the way. I had made such a "friend" in Allentown, Pa. and had been staying at her house quite regularly, over the course of several months. Her husband, (who incidentally, happened to be 6' 5", 245 lbs) was working on a project out of town at the time, and was only home on the week-ends, (although he was fully aware of my presence, in his bed, on Mon. and Tues. nights, and was perfectly "fine" with my "help")

As always happens, my "comings and goings" were "noted" by the neighbors, and as we all know, neighbors tend to be very "nosey"; (it was a VERY "swanky" neighborhood, with all homes being in the very high-end category; )
Needless to say, word quickly got back to my "friend", where upon she mentioned it to her husband, who said, "we can fix that "problem" very easily.....................his "plan" was this..............at that point, we had never met each other......
the next week, I was to park my load of firebirds in the shopping center as usual, hike across the interstate to the house as usual, only THIS time, he had stayed home that week, and we were all three seen by all of the nosey neighbors, leaving the house together, chatting and having an obvious grand time, and going to the movies to see......The Blues Brothers ! That one night he slept in the family room, while we slept in the master bedroom, (while all of the nosey neighbors stayed up all night, pulling their hair out, trying to figure out what was going on ) !

It was later "discovered" that I was an "uncle" from Cincinnati.........which was actually quite true ! (although I had no nephews in Pa. at the time ).

So every time I hear about "The Blues Brothers", I can't help remembering that extraordinary night !

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:38 pm

Quoting geezer (Reply 39):
Lol ! Just before I read this reply by Klaus, I noticed someone making a reference to car pile-ups in movies.............I immediately thought about "The Blues Brothers"; then, only 2 seconds later, here's Klaus mentioning "The Blues Brothers" again !

Well, it's pretty much the quintessential movie that has elevated car pileups to a form of art!   

Quoting geezer (Reply 39):
Remarkable ! Even though I almost never go to movies anymore, I will never forget going to see that film; not only was it the most outrageously funny, "over-the-top" movie ever, the "circumstances" involved in my seeing it were very "unusual", (to say the least)

That is kind of hard to beat. 
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:55 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 16):
I don't believe I've ever seen another film that captures the vast expanse and loneliness of deep space as good -- and realistically -- as 2001 does. It's out there on its own.

The thing that really struck me, and contributed greatly to the experience, is that when they're doing EVAs, there is no soundtrack. All you hear is breathing. That is just brilliant.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 22):
Can any other car pileups really compete with Blues Brothers%u2026?

Ha, I remember the first time I saw that movie, I thought "this movie has to hold some record for the largest number of wrecked cars in a film".

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 34):
The Monolith isn't in orbit, it's on Titan

Japetus.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 34):
and is the same size as the one seen on the moon and on prehistoric earth.

You sure about that? I remember it being much larger, and Wikipedia also says that.

Same with Poole's death - I remember his death in the novel being pretty similar to the movie (that is, he gets hit by the pod thing after exiting it).
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:38 am

While CGI has improved by huge margins with the exponential growth in power of computers, you still need a story, a plot, a reason to have a film. While CGI works well with Cartoon films like Wall-E, too many films use CGI to get young male film goers attention, to make then make it seem like a video game to make money that first week in the theater.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5851
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:13 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 41):
The thing that really struck me, and contributed greatly to the experience, is that when they're doing EVAs, there is no soundtrack. All you hear is breathing. That is just brilliant.

You know I'd forgotten all about that, and you've hit the nail on the head! I doubt if the director of a blockbuster would do such a sequence today. Wasn't there a sudden burst of noise again after the vehicle returned to the mothership and entered the decompression chamber?

Another thing that made 2001 so realistic was that everything in it was easily imagined, even in 1968. We really felt it was a peek into the (exciting) not-too-distant future.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:42 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 42):
you still need a story, a plot, a reason to have a film.

Did the movie Titanic use CGI?
It was made in 1997. The sinking ship, the images of the ocean waves all looked very realistic. I have that movie on LaserDisc and it looks spectacular.
The only problem with that movie is the story and the plot. Get rid of that wimpy DiCraprio guy, the sappy love story and allow Rose (Kate Winslet) to show all of her natural beauty in the nude painting scene.
Bring back the Concorde
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 44):
Titanic
Quoting Superfly (Reply 44):
I have that movie on LaserDisc

Man Card. Hand it over.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:23 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 45):
Man Card. Hand it over.

Damn, you got me on that one.
I must now go bury my head in the sand.

              
Bring back the Concorde
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4589
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:08 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 42):

My opinion too. CGI on the cheap is an excuse for weak plots - hey, we can tell EXTRAORDINARY stories given these CGI backgrounds and action sequences!

One example: "Journey to the Center of the Earth", the 2008 movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey...enter_of_the_Earth_%282008_film%29
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:01 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 44):
Did the movie Titanic use CGI?
It was made in 1997. The sinking ship, the images of the ocean waves all looked very realistic. I have that movie on LaserDisc and it looks spectacular.

Yes. The departure, most of the total shots, the collision and the actual sinking were all CGI, plus various inserts and all deep-diving shots where more than one of the subs were in the picture at the same time. Not perfect by today's standards, but very good back then, and used rather well.

But they also built a full-scale replica of the actual ship in Mexico which could be partially submerged in a huge water tank for the boarding, many onboard scenes and for the first part of the sinking. And most of the diving shots were real from the actual wreck on the ocean floor (plus some scale models).

The gigantic cost for all of it led industry commentators to believe it would be the most spectacular failure in movie history, ruining the studios involved.

That didn't work out exactly as anticipated, to put it mildly.

I'm not a great fan of diCaprio, but I don't get the hate either; He worked well in the context of the story, as did Winslet's character.

And both the practical effects (using the replica ship plus studio sets) and the CGI made their contributions to a blockbuster success in the end.

What I loved about the movie was that it spent considerable time and effort to celebrate the actual ship, what it meant back in its day and how people lived and worked on it. Framing it with the rediscovered wreckage was also done quite well.

As I said I don't particularly love disaster movies, but Titanic is just a very good one, and depicting an actual, historic event relatively faithfully. Without CGI it would not have been possible in the same way, or without the actual replica of the ship. Without an emotional and well-acted and -directed story it would not have worked as well either.

It is one of the examples how CGI can be used to enrich and support a story rather than suffocating it. The Star Wars prequels would be an example of that, but mostly for their lack of proper story or direction.

While we're in the fantasy realm, I quite like the Hellboy movies with their bizarrely imagined world. But while they use CGI extensively, they mostly know what they're doing and don't entirely lose track of their actual story, as wild as it is.

And that is the whole point in the end: Telling a compelling story and using special effects as a tool for that where necessary.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks?

Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:31 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 48):
The gigantic cost for all of it led industry commentators to believe it would be the most spectacular failure in movie history, ruining the studios involved.

Hence why the love story was attached. Film makers involved in this movie knew that millions of women worldwide would drag their husbands, boyfriends and dates to the theater to see this movie because of the love story.


Quoting Klaus (Reply 48):
I'm not a great fan of diCaprio, but I don't get the hate either;

What "hate"? I don't hate the guy either. I just think he's kind of wimpy and I don't like chicks digging wimpy guys.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 48):
He worked well in the context of the story, as did Winslet's character.

Would have been better if they found a more manly man that actually banged her in the movie.
They could have done it in a very classy, tasteful way. Happens in almost all of the James Bond movies.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 48):
While we're in the fantasy realm,

Unless it's a documentary, ALL movies is in the fantasy realm.
Entertainment is fantasy.  


Check out this crash scene in the movie Alive.
This is from 1992 and looks very realistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmAMZodaGpE
Bring back the Concorde

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kngkyle, N867DA, WarRI1 and 40 guests