[zotjen]

Quote:

Even though the creatures looked nothing like the real thing for some reason they looked better than real.

That's because they were real in the sense that they were tangible objects. No matter how real CGI looks, it always comes across as fake to me since I know that what I'm looking at doesn't actually exist.

 

[pabbi1]

Van Helsing was a great test on my new LCD, but it was ripped from my all time fave, 'Fearless Vampire Killers'.

I'm really torn... when I see good CGI on a big screen DLP (there is one in Dallas), there is nothing like it... I'm more forgiving I guess. Then again, my avatar was done in POV, so I am a total CGI fanboy.

 

[redshifter]

in "starship troopers" the alien bugs were mostly cgi. so that the actors would have something to react to the insane director would rush at them holding an eye-line prop on a stick screaming at the top of his lungs. speilberg snarled into a megaphone for the velociraptor feeding scene. it's all about good directing.

if you are a fan of harryhousen don't miss "clash of the titans".

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

"clash of the titans".

The pinnacle of his art and I beleive his last movie.The medusa scenes were some of his best work ever

 

[D-EJ915]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter in "starship troopers" the alien bugs were mostly cgi. so that the actors would have something to react to the insane director would rush at them holding an eye-line prop on a stick screaming at the top of his lungs. speilberg snarled into a megaphone for the velociraptor feeding scene. it's all about good directing. if you are a fan of harryhousen don't miss "clash of the titans".

Haha, that movie was on the other day. I hadn't seen it before, I haven't laughed so hard in quite a while. That movie is so bad.

 

[pabbi1]

Was Harry Hamlin animitronic in 'Clash of the Titans'? Now there was a solid case for CGI Joe.

I'm looking for a remake of 'Godzilla', but we'll see what Peter Jackson does with 'King Kong'. It's all in the Director's / Editor's hands.

 

[wakeride74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pabbi1 Was Harry Hamlin animitronic in 'Clash of the Titans'? Now there was a solid case for CGI Joe. I'm looking for a remake of 'Godzilla', but we'll see what Peter Jackson does with 'King Kong'. It's all in the Director's / Editor's hands.

That remake was already ruined in 1998 by Roland Emmerich with Matthew Broderick failing at another big screen comeback

 

[pabbi1]

So bad I had forgotten.... and, never saw it.

My bad.

 

[markl]

Clash was in fact the last Harryhausen movie. He shared duties with Jim Danforth, who animated the flying horse. Harryhausen did the rest. It's the last movie of its kind, the end of an era.

 

[perplex]

it seems like hollywood' output is now 50% CGI. whenever i goto a cinema all i see before the movie is some stupid group of kangaroos or elephants talking with it's other non-human buddies in some jungle. then after the trailer i see something like...... "SHREK 5! COMING SOON!!!!!". ok sure there are some good ones like Lion King, but this other crap is just stupid now. every single movie i've seen in the cinema has been a disappointment really. i was too young when there were good movies in the cinemas.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-EJ915 He's talking about human movies with CGI, not CGI animated shows.

Oh.

Yeah, I remember when listening to the audio commentary on From Dusk Til Dawn, they were really proud of this one animatronics effect they had..."old school"...

I guess my opinion can be synopsized thusly: it depends.

Some do it well (LOTR trilogy anyone?), some suck (haven't seen it, but Stealth looks cheesy).

 

[D-EJ915]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk Oh. Yeah, I remember when listening to the audio commentary on From Dusk Til Dawn, they were really proud of this one animatronics effect they had..."old school"... I guess my opinion can be synopsized thusly: it depends. Some do it well (LOTR trilogy anyone?), some suck (haven't seen it, but Stealth looks cheesy).

Yeah and the Fantastic Four, while interesting, was waaay bad as far as CGI goes, it was just blah.

 

[jaked]

"cgi is a cinematic tool, and is only as good as the artist using it." so true. look at james camerans judgement day and avatar, or martin scorseses hugo, or ang lees life of pi, or almost any spielberg flick with cgi, (especially jurastic park, saving private ryan and A.I.)
 
i even liked zack sniders man of steel, but i was half impresed and half unimpressed by world war z.
CGI is a tool but directors are using it as the whole now(and sometimes it becomes disasterous, lie transformers 2

 

[Argax]

I wouldn't mind the cgi as much if there was a good story behind it. I find a lot of movies just rely on the cgi which makes the movie boring. At first seeing the technology was cool, but after awhile it just got really tedious to see all the things they could be doing but arent because they value cgi more than story..
 

 

[oqvist]

Nice resurrection. CGI from 2005 is obviously not the same as CGI 2013 CGI today is so good you are missing quite a bit of it unless you know it can´t be real. I watched Life on Pi KNOWING the tiger was CGI but I still couldn´t tell. then you know it´s good .