This, to me, is amazing CGI. Not in its execution - in its context.
Using CGI to create a bigger herd of sheep? As opposed to just going out and getting a couple hundred more real sheep for the shot? That’s a sign of how far CGI has come - it’s being used for trivial convenience.
I’m in the “too old for this strip” group. Our moments of movie-induced shock come when they release special anniversary editions of movies we saw. As in “Hey, they’re re-releasing Back to the Future on DVD. Cool, I haven’t watched that in a while, I should check it…TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY EDITION!!!”
The absolute biggest fail in LOTR to me was a scene (I think it’s in Rivendell) when the Hobbits are standing on what appears to be a balcony or terrace of some kind with a waist-high railing.
Why would elves have railings on their balconies that are waist-high to Hobbits?
The depth of focus thing is something that I’ve definitely noticed, but coming from the other direction. I play a lot more video games these days than I watch movies. When I do go to the movies to watch something on the big screen, the graininess and out-of-focus background of traditional film literally makes my eyes water.
And we’ve got kids coming up now who’ve never known a world without Quake.
I think it might just be you, because the CGI in POTA was far better than in District 9 (which I loved).
I was impressed with the CGI in The Avengers - there’s a lot more weight and gravity to CGI creatures these days. However, one reason that worked was that most characters had effects-driven movement of some kind, so the “comic book physics” were universal across the board, not just with the Hulk and the armored space worm things or what have you.
Another popular video that shows just how *prevalent *CGI is, notably in TV, where it’s employed simply as a cost-saving measure. I’d never suspected that those shows would use it that much.
I think the thing to remember is that early CGI efforts lacked ambition. Toy Story has plastic toys, and the humans are either off-screen or they look like some cheap show from Nick Jr. Jurassic Park did reptilian dinosaurs, which are easier to model, and they spliced the CGI shots in with actual models. Making angular space ships is about the easiest thing you can do with computer modeling. 10 years ago you wouldn’t be complaining about the CGI quality of a movie about chimps, because that movie would never get made, because making CGI chimps was damn near impossible. And I think that’s what’s being praised – look at what they can do now, they can make halfway convincing CHIMP ARMIES!
Actually this ambition is something I find annoying, it is not a sin to use “tricks” to make effects or props more convincing. It seems though that now doing a modest shot with shadow or sets blocking the least convincing parts is considered a sin among CGI artists. No we must see the alien in broad daylight from all angles and fly through of the body by a non existent camera.
But real life isn’t like that, you rarely get a perfect unobstructed view of anything, and your vantage point is always either stationary or in a vehicle. I think this is what bugs me too, I know the shot is impossible which again gets my brain off the movie.
The way I heard it put: “In three years, it’ll be 2015. It will then be as many years from 1985, the year Back to the Future was made, as 1985 was from 1955, the year Marty went back to.”
It dawned on me the other day that it has been longer since 9/11 than it was between my college graduation and 9/11.
Not sure what you’re implying, but it’s true: the entire character of Davy Jones, from head to toe, that you see on screen is entirely CGI. The animation is based on Bill Nighy’s performance, and he was on-set during filming, but he was replaced completely in post-production.
That’s my point. Upthread, it was implied that the CGI artists created Davy Jones from scratch, but they didn’t. They used Nighy’s performance in the scene to position Davy Jones and matched the actual facial movements of his performance using a computer.
It’s still impressive though.
But that is a successful special effect because you’re not aware of it and it isn’t obvious.
But is that really CGI? Seems more like they are using real footage of the backgrounds and just composting it into the shot. This is REALLY old tech that has been around probably 40 years or more(granted it was often poorly done).
It is real footage, but it’s still CGI. Sometimes people think CGI is strictly 3d modeling, but it includes any computer-generated element.
These scenes use “stock footage,” but it’s way beyond a simple composite shot. The footage is captured with a hi definition version off the sort of 360 degree panoramic camera rig that is used for google street view.
Filmmakers don’t have to set up their shot to exactly match existing footage; they can slave the rendering of the virtual location footage to match camera tracking data taken from the cameras on set. It’s pretty awesome.
Right now CGI can pull off very convincing effects, so long as they are not portraying any biological entity in high detail.
Fire and smoke, I’d be hard pressed to say whether it’s fake or real when the best techniques are used. Mountains/fog/rocks/distant trees/explosions/debris, again, very convincing.
But when you get to animals and humans the uncanny valley quickly sets in. We can usually tell right away if a character is CGI or real based on the way light interacts with skin/hair/fur and the way the model moves. We’re still not quite there yet.
I also thing “Phantom Menace” set a baseline for CGI for younger viewers. Here we have George Frickin Lucas doing the CGI. He practically invented it for movie use and a lot of younger people heard that hype and now anything better than TPM (and most CGI is) must be great CGI.
And in another way Phantom Menace was the last of its kind, aside from the obvious CGI the movie had absolutely GORGEOUS sets and costumes and props,
what practical effects work there was is also top notch(except the weird looking yoda puppet).
This was the last SW film and probably one of the last big budget movies to feature so much practical work, Revenge Of The Sith is almost totally CGI generated sets and it is noticeable.
I’d say Lord of the Rings, which came out after Phantom Menace, also used extensive sets and incorporated the effects into the sets. As does the Hobbit, I believe.
What? The character is fully cg. The fact that it was based on a real-person and using mocap, in the same way as Golem or Caesar from Rise of the Planet of the Apes. (which I knew) is irrelevant. The character, as shown on-screen, is a wholly CG creation.