There’s a commercial for Sprint mobile phones that shows various simple animations in a city park. I never paid much attention to it until someone here linked to a video showing how it had been done; by people who stood and waved flashlights around. Somehow the commercial appeals more to me, knowing it was done the old-fashioned way rather than using computer effects. There’s something “easy” about using computer effects that makes the old-fashioned kind of effect more appealing, even though there’s nothing easy about the art and science involved in computer effects.
Similarly, here are links to three amazing and beautiful ads for Sony Bravia televisions. Again, part of the appeal is that they were created in the real world, using real bouncy balls, real paint and real Play-Doh (although it may to be generic plasticine over wire and foam). FYI, there are making-of videos for each of these commercial available, along with high-resolution versions of each.
I do. CGI is too often depended on like a crutch, when the real thing would work just as well, if not better.
For instance, 2001: A Space Odyssey’s special effects still (imo) represent the pinnacle of space representation. The models looked really, unlike most of the fake cgi ships we get these days.
Cool ads btw; you may also want to check out this awesome Honda one, which was also filmed for real:
Virtually all of the stunt work and foreground effects in last year’s [url=http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/]Casino Royale[/url were done via mechanical effects rather than optical processing or CGI. While there’s some background images in the airport scene that couldn’t have been practically done by any method other than optically, the freerunning sequences, tarmac chase scene, stairwell fight, and the falling Venetian house were all physical effects. (Some of the exterior sets of the falling house were models, but it was very, very good miniatures work.) The rolling of the Aston Martin (a totally brilliant, contrarian scene) was done with a ramp and pneumatic piston, as they couldn’t get the car to flip via the ramp alone. The resulting 7-1/2 rolls were a new record.
CGI optical effects can be very good when done well–certainly the best part of Titanic–but when done poorly, unnecessarialy, or egregiously–George Lucas, I’m talking to you–the detract from the story. Mechanical effects when done well are impressive in and of themselves. There’s a reason that the chase sequence from Bullitt is still breathtaking.
I always felt like the only good special effect was one that you couldn’t tell was a special effect. Of course, I knew the spaceships in “2001” weren’t real spaceships, but if they were, they would look exactly the same. So far, even the best CGI still looks a little “computery” to me.
Part of the fun, for me, with old-style effects was figuring out how they did it. CGI robs me of that. We’ll never have the fun of learning that the tornado was made of cloth or how a particularly clever model and background set-up made it look like the giant ape was really there. Now the answer is always, “computers.”
The Honda Gears ad is another great example of what I’m thinking of. And I thought the free running sequence at the beginning of Casino Royale was the best action in the movie.
I love CGI, but it is can easily be overdone. It is often used to cheat physical laws- for example people jump higher than possible, stay in the air too long and survive falls that would actually cripple them. When you start to bend these limits, then the whole film loses its suspension of disbelief.
Practical water effects look crappy. Anything mineature in water looks like something mineature in water
CGI effects that look good on the big screen can frequently look…wrong when they get put on DVD our you see them on TV. I dunno why or how…they just look flat.
I’ve also found that, when you’re just using CGI, you suffer from ‘even bigger itis’ to the point that it’s too unbelievable.
Agreed. On the space opera end of things, I think that the battle at the end of ROTJ looks way better and more convincing than any of the space battles in any of the prequels.
Although, I just started watching the new BSG, and I think they do CGI space battle pretty well. Still, there’s some quality that lets me recognize it as CGI.
(re-posted after the hamsters had a chance to catch their breath. Hopefully this works…)
What digital effects are best at are things most people don’t even notice. In the days of optical compositing, where all the different elements in a scene were literally composited together by running each one through a projector and exposing them onto a final strip of film, there used to be bad alignment, visible matte lines, and severe limitations to what was possible.
Now, you can do anything you like: stunts can be done with thick safety wires in view, which can then be digitally removed; miniature models can be colour graded on an individual basis, giving a more realistic depth of field; no more matte lines or degradation through multiple composites on top each other; seamless sky replacement for consistency between shots filmed in different locations; slight exaggeration of live special effects to provide more impact.
People often complain about CGI effects that aren’t CGI, they’re actually still physical models, just digitally composited. And they will also admire something they don’t realise is CGI. The newest Sony Bravia ad with the rabbits has a lot of CG wire removal to eliminate the rods the bunnies have mid-jump (and the shadows the rods cast).
Any visual effect can be done well or badly. It’s not the method, it’s the application. The human element is what makes or breaks the success or failure of an effect, not wether it’s digital or not.
Even though I champion digital effects, because they’re a hobby of mine, I nevertheless always say people should use what works best.
What Guanolad said. I’d also like to emphasize that digital effects are not “cheating”, just a different approach. There’s a hell of a lot of artistry that goes into making good CGI; it can be very difficult to do well, but it also allows things that just aren’t possible otherwise. Even mundane things like the sky-replacement GL mentions.
Also please understand that CGI is not used just for effects and stunts. For example, all the footage Brother, Where Art Thou was digitally color-graded on a computer. The entire film is an effects work in some sense.
The opposite is also true, in certain cirumstances. In “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, the characted of Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde made the transformation using levels of physical makeup and thrashing around. This required quick cuts, and obvious steps of the makeup, because applying 6 hours of full body makeup for a 1-2 second shot would be silly, even by Hollywood standards. This transition is something that could have (and arguably should have) been accomplished via computer generated effects, rather than physical makeup.
I applaud the decision to rely less on CGI for human interaction scenes, but it makes no sense to not use the best tool for the job.
As a supporting argument for not using the best tools for the job, but from the other side. The fight scene in Blade 2, in Blade’s hideout, in front of the massive array of lights. It was clear that the three fighters switched into computer generated models at a couple of points, and while it allowed massive jumps, it was nothing that could not have been as easily accomplished by wire-work, and would have looked more realistic. I can understand that in Spiderman, and Daredevil, where the same sort of effects were used, it would be easier to generate the models jumping between buildings than use physical effects, but in Blade is just dragged me out of the fight because it was clearly not the same people in the fight scene.
There is one instance that annoys me more than any other of using computer animation when it’s not needed. There is an ad showing here (in Aus), for pads. In order to show how stretchy they are, and presumably to show how they conform to your (assuming you are female) body shape, they have a pair of hands that twist and turn the pad.
THE HANDS ARE COMPUTER GENERATED!
Use the right tools people… we’ll all love you more for it.
Huh! I watched those commercials once or twice and was prepared to be impressed with the artistry of doing them by hand as time lapse light drawings. But then I said, No, they wouldn’t have done it that way in this day and age, they undoubtedly faked it in post. (Which I’m sure would have been much, much easier.) So I’m surprised and pleased that they did it the hard way, and impressed that it worked so well. It must have been very difficult.
I’ve become completely blasé about CGI. It’s no longer possible to impress me with effects because it’s now possible to do absolutely anything. I have no interest in seeing any movie about which people say “The effects are great,” because it invariably means the writing, plot, and acting are crap.
What does impress me in movies these days (apart from great writing, plot, and acting, of course) are real stunts, car crashes, etc., that are done without any CGI. But they are increasingly rare.
Only if you have the imagination and artistry to pull it off. I don’t really care if it’s CGI, models or black magic; I care if it looks good. Just because people can do ( almost ) anything with CGI doesn’t mean that all the things they do are equally good; one can make garbage with CGI as easily as one could with less advanced technology.
That’s exactly what you should be thinking. Be impressed by the visuals, maybe, but don’t be impressed by the effects in themselves.
The artistry behind a movie should not be at the forefront of your mind. You are supposed to be transported and accept all that you see, as it happens, not thinking about the effort involved to create it.
I feel the same way. I think the effects are neato but when it’s everywhere it’s just another movie. I’m sure “Wild Wild West” had lots of cool CGI but I’ll be damned if I was going to see it just for that
I really commend the original Star Wars for working with all of those models and puppets. I think part of it is because I’ve always been a huge fan of the Muppets and what they were able to show me as a child and all the physical work that went in to creating those worlds. I find that just as impressive as the final product.
Don’t get me wrong - I realize a lot of work goes in to CGI. But I guess I am just a crochety old woman when it comes to my appreciation of the stuff.
Yeah, like they couldn’t find someone with, you know, hands to do that.
That reminds me of something I saw a while back – I visited a guy who was doing compositing etc on Xena or Hercules or some other show of that ilk, shot in New Zealand with post in L.A. He ended up doing some effects shots because of things the film crew would screw up, like leaving a ladder on the set, which he’d duly paint out. There was a shot he showed us where he composited a bunch of tents on a blank hillside – his comment was “what, they don’t have tents in New Zealand?”
That’s a big problem that you’ll hear from anybody who does effects for a living - the “We’ll fix it in post production” attitude that Directors have these days. They think digital effects are so much easier now, and because they give the ability to create absolutely anything out of nothing means they can hide their on-set screw-ups with 600 man-hours of tedious effects work.
There’s something oddly paradoxical about this topic. A lot of people have expressed the opinion that they find a scene more exciting and exhilarating if they know it’s not CGI. So you go to a movie and there’s a really thrilling car chase. And you can’t quite decide whether it’s real or CGI. (And, believe me, in a few years, you will NOT be able to tell. And even today I’m very skeptical of people who claim they can always tell.)
And then the next day you read on the SDMB that the car chase was all done with stuntpeople and real cars. And you’re like “damn! that was awesome!”. And then the day after that, you read that, in fact, large parts of it were 100% CGI. And the day after that, poster 1 contradicts poster 2. So you never end up finding out the truth. But it’s like your level of enjoyment is changing based on something that is, to a certain extent, totally irrelevant to what you actually saw on the screen.
People get oddly kneejerkily anti-CGI. I’ve heard people claim that the special effects in the original 1933 King Kong were more convincing than those in the Peter Jackson one. Not “better” or “more effective”, but more convincing. As in, someone seeing the 1933 version would be more fooled into thinking they were actually watching a giant monkey. Which is just off-the-charts preposterous.
I think we’ve now gotten to the point where you could film a 100% real event like a dam breaking, show it to people and say “this was CGI’d”, and they’d start pointing out how fake it looks.
Much as I love the 1933 version, I have to agree. The ape’s pixilated movement and the constantly shifting fingerprints in his coat take a bit of getting used to.
