|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 17, 2006 20:39:52 GMT -5
Just thought I'd start a topic about this.
Personally I think CGI is okay, if done well. For example, The Hulk was a good presentation of how bad CGI can be.
I also don't mind CGI being used to enhance something that's already there.
However, I hate it when it's overdone and flashy and the plot is lost in the process.
I miss claymation actually, because fundamentally it works the same way as CGI. You have to create a 3D model that will move around the set in places where there wasn't anything originally.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 18, 2006 1:38:14 GMT -5
That's why Wallace & Gromit rules Yeah I agree with you. I mean... it's quite amazing what people can do - and it takes ages as well... The Incredibles is an example of how impressive it can be, not in characters but in scenery... But Polar Express - that creeps me out. They made a character look exactly like Tom Hanks - do we need live action actors anymore? CGI characters don't have the same emotion that a real person can have (except of course if it's the case of the Thunderbirds movie, aka Spy Kids 4 - the actors were more wooden than the original puppets ) It's getting a bit out of hand - ie. Disney movies, the Pixar style animation - while quite impressive, doesn't have the same "magic" that the original hand-drawn style has - I use Lilo & Stitch (original movie) as an example - the watercolour backgrounds were just lovely, and the characters looked fantastic as well... I'd see that over the "much acclaimed" Finding Nemo anyway (and in actual fact, I preferred it - I thought "Nemo" was over rated).
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 19, 2006 0:38:38 GMT -5
LOL Spy Kids 4.... I agree. I think traditional anime is much more impressive if done well. Hayao Miyazaki's 'Howl's Moving Castle' is one of those few movies that incorporates hand drawn animation and CGI beautifully. A lot of actors in Hollywood don't even do their own stunts anymore. I hate when you can tell that a person is CGI. Like Catwoman for example, it was painfully obvious. CGI humans tend to look, how do I put this? "Rubbery" I know that sounds weird, but they don't have the akward and sometimes shakey movements of real humans.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 19, 2006 1:00:05 GMT -5
No I know what you mean... that's how Harry looked in Philosopher's Stone when he was on the troll, LOL! Almost like a computer game...
Final Fantasy - there's a perfect example. Something that was met with great expectations, and I heard a lot of bad things about it afterwards...
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 19, 2006 13:06:34 GMT -5
Exactly. It was painfully obvious that it was fake. Well, it's not that Final Fantasy was an totally horrible movie, because it had absolutely beautiful CGI. (At some glances the characters look real.) The reason it bombed was because it had nothing to do with the video games. Even though there are 11 Final Fantasy video games they all have nothing to do with each other, but they all have the same feel and theme. The movie didn't have that and it was like they just named it Final Fantasy to make it sell. If it wasn't called that it wouldn't have been judged so harshly. With that said, the storyline for the movie was quite confusing too and in all respects, yes, it was basically a two hour display of artist talent. (The whole point of the movie was to show off how CGI has progressed over the years.)
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 19, 2006 21:14:32 GMT -5
Aaah I see... I'm not all that interested in the games so I guess that's mainly why I wouldn't bother with the film...
It's a shame that they couldn't have put more effort into a decent storyline to compliment the effects...
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 19, 2006 21:18:52 GMT -5
Lol well I'm not big on Final Fantasy either, but I have two brothers who play it. Yeah, I mean, it was a beautiful movie and it was an awesome example of how amazing CGI could be, but that's all it was, a pretty picture.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 19, 2006 22:07:16 GMT -5
Hehe... no depth... yeah...
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 20, 2006 0:45:10 GMT -5
Very little.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 20, 2006 17:27:28 GMT -5
And yes... we've hit a slow point... so what OT-ness can we swamp this thead with?
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 20, 2006 22:49:25 GMT -5
I don't know, but I've got a bit of On Topic-ness to share: I was reading movie reviews and I came across one for Curious George and it was described as "old-fashioned 2-D animation". It wasn't a bad review for the movie, but I can't believe they're now calling 2D animation "old fashioned". I just find that kind of ridiculus.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 21, 2006 3:12:11 GMT -5
Heh yeah... it's not "old fashioned" - it's "classic"... Which is better
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Slytherin on Feb 21, 2006 19:12:31 GMT -5
lol hell yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Sailor Earth on Feb 22, 2006 4:04:56 GMT -5
;D
|
|