|
|
Post by Tranq on Dec 15, 2003 14:41:24 GMT -5
.........but, does EVERYTHING Hollywood (or a movie with megabucks behind them) have to depend on CGI's to carry 96 1/2% of the movie?
I just watched the trailer for Spiderman 2 and almost ruined a brand new pair of shoes due to explosive vomiting. Hollywood makes me sick! I prefer the old days when you had to "deny that the background moved" or "Mr. Boom Mic" makes an appearence.
Thank The Universe that there are thousands of DVD's and videos out there to keep an eccentric like me happy. Now that I'm over my Spiderman 2 related illness, I believe I will pop in "The Terror of Tiny-town" and bask in the glow of hundreds of midgets (tiny people, or whatever the politically corect word is) playing out a classic good guy/bad guy cowboy/shoot'em up while theme riding Shetland ponies and shooting cap guns at each other.
[glow=red,7,000]KILL THEM![/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Dec 15, 2003 18:18:45 GMT -5
This is why I am not happy to learn of a new remake of King Kong. I fear it will be all CGI and no heart. I live the 1933 original. The thing all too often about CGI is it looks good, but not real.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monstrcaldgamera on Dec 15, 2003 21:40:44 GMT -5
CGI was first used to achieve an image that would be otherwise impossible to achieve. Lately it's been used more and more for things that can be achieved, if a little work is put in. It's cheaper to make a digital Curly Howard jumping off Shea Stadium than to get a double to preform a leaping stunt.
What's nifty is, I caught Jurassic Park 3 the other day on TV, watched a few of the dinosaur scenes, and then obviously swtiched it off as fast as humanly possible. I popped in the orginal a few days later. The dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park (1993) looked completely superior to the ones in Jurassic Park 3 (2001).
'Magine that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Dec 16, 2003 3:52:02 GMT -5
The creative mind is always looking for ways to use their medium to the maximum. Hitchcock worked very hard to create seemless FXs in his movies. Yeah, I know they can look a little creaky by today's standards, but the point is. CGI is just another tool to be used to make the impossible possible.
But I agree, I think some directors go overboard with this toy they have. Daredevil is an example of a flick that used too much of it, in scenes that didn't need it (A static DD is clutcing a cross at the beginning. Why not use a real guy there?)
I just watched the New Tomb Raider movie, and in a scene near the start, you see a real human, doing real stunts, to retreave that glowing ball. I looked good. A lazy director would have used CGI in those scenes and it would have looked silly.
So I guess I'm in the middle ground in this discussion. I don't mind them using it, but I do mind them over using it.
|
|
TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus 
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 16, 2003 7:48:25 GMT -5
Although I most definitely prefer older films that relied on story rather than effects or camera tricks, I must admit that some of the things being done with CGI are quite amazing. Granted, CGI in a serious film is stupid, but, in the context which it is being used today, in movies such as Spiderman or Lord of the Rings, in adds to the fantasy feel of something that is not supposed to be created in a realistic fashion. You make mention of the new Spiderman having too much CGI. Would you prefer they go back to the guy in the cloth costume flying around on wires? I'm sure there are those that prefer that and I respect everyone's opinion, but, there are just certain instances where the fantasy effect is needed. In the case of Jurassic Park 3 (which I haven't seen) I'm sure they overdid it and made the dinosaurs, which were at one time real, unrealistic. As far as things like LOTR, that is fantasy, the only limit on what something can look like is the imagination as we don't really have a "real" Balrog or Gollum to go by. As I said, CGI can be good at stretching the fantasy of something to that fantastic, only obtained by computer point. But on things that should be realisitic and have a real life idea or model to go by, use the real thing. Nothing beats the real thing.
Just a thought,
Servo
|
|
|
|
Post by Tranq on Dec 16, 2003 15:27:16 GMT -5
I guess I just like using more of my imagination to fill in the gaps. A movie isn't supposed to look "real" anyway. But, that's just my opinion.  |
|
trueschatzi
Nanite
"Puma Man, he flies like a moron..."
Posts: 41
|
Post by trueschatzi on Dec 16, 2003 22:47:51 GMT -5
This is why I am not happy to learn of a new remake of King Kong. I fear it will be all CGI and no heart. I live the 1933 original. The thing all too often about CGI is it looks good, but not real. thats so true. its really disappointing now a days that most film makers focus more on visuals than on story line. without a great story, the movie goes no where. and why would they what to remake a classic to begin with? i once heard that they were considering doing a Wizard of Oz remake. but that was quickly thrown into the trash (thank God). they are cureently working on a remake of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and next year a live action version of the classic cartoon "Garfield" will be coming out. ::sighs:: is there no end in sight for this big budget hollywood trash? mostly likely not.  |
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Dec 17, 2003 2:44:17 GMT -5
I just saw the Spidy trailer OMG, I thought it was freaking great!
You know it all depends.
For example, Hollywood Godzilla stinks, despite all the FX wizardry, I prefer the guy lumbering about in a cheesy rubber costume, stomping on cheap models.
But then I remember back to the time when I first saw the liquid metal Terminator and was just knocked out. Slacked jawed awe. It served the movie and the story well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddhist Kitten on Dec 17, 2003 15:55:58 GMT -5
.........but, does EVERYTHING Hollywood (or a movie with megabucks behind them) have to depend on CGI's to carry 96 1/2% of the movie? I just watched the trailer for Spiderman 2 and almost ruined a brand new pair of shoes due to explosive vomiting. Hollywood makes me sick! I prefer the old days when you had to "deny that the background moved" or "Mr. Boom Mic" makes an appearence. Thank The Universe that there are thousands of DVD's and videos out there to keep an eccentric like me happy. Now that I'm over my Spiderman 2 related illness, I believe I will pop in "The Terror of Tiny-town" and bask in the glow of hundreds of midgets (tiny people, or whatever the politically corect word is) playing out a classic good guy/bad guy cowboy/shoot'em up while theme riding Shetland ponies and shooting cap guns at each other. [glow=red,7,000]KILL THEM![/glow] YES INDEED! I hate most movies these days. I am probably one of the few alive who doesn't like Jurassic Park. (Don't hurt me) And when I become a director, (if I ever will) I plan to use as little of CGI as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by GoldBootGirl on Dec 17, 2003 18:16:32 GMT -5
Although I most definitely prefer older films that relied on story rather than effects or camera tricks, I must admit that some of the things being done with CGI are quite amazing. Servo I'm probably in the minority, but I usually enjoy movies with CGI. Maybe it's because I use to play around with doing my own 3D animation on my PC at home. I wonder if more movies are going to go in the direction of "Final Fantasy". And maybe there will be better plots to go along with realistic charactors, as it becomes more commonplace. Some "old fashioned" folks won't like this, but they talk about taking actors that are now dead and putting their faces into CGI bodies. |
|
