Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 06-11-2008, 12:16 PM

How do you use a black hole wrong? For that matter, how do you use it at all?

I think part of the issue with CGI is that as a technology it still isn't completely mature and probably won't be for at least another decade. The quality of the animation depends a lot on the studio. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's seamless enough that you can't even tell. An example of this would be the new Indiana Jones -- I noticed several people complaining about the 'CGI jungles' even though the jungle scenes were shot on location. Which really just goes to show that some people like to complain, I guess.

The Hulk was a terrible film for a lot of reasons, but the CGI wasn't one of them (unless you're talking about the godawful cuts). I mean, sure the hulkster didn't look photorealistic exactly, but how photorealistic is a 16 foor tall green body builder gonna look? The CG hulk was an order of magnitude better than a bunch of green body paint.

EDIT for cross-posting with Lasereth -

Indiana Jones is a tricky one, though. Parts of it were meant to look fake-ish. The warehouse in the beginning wasn't meant to be photorealistic, and was designed to look like a matte painting in order to keep the film stylistically similar to it's predecessors.

Using CGI to do things that can easily be done without it is lame, but some things are very hard to do convincingly and that's where it should properly be used. How do you have a swarm of ants carry a guy away without using CGI?

06-11-2008, 12:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	How do you use a black hole wrong? For that matter, how do you use it at all? I think part of the issue with CGI is that as a technology it still isn't completely mature and probably won't be for at least another decade. The quality of the animation depends a lot on the studio. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's seamless enough that you can't even tell. An example of this would be the new Indiana Jones -- I noticed several people complaining about the 'CGI jungles' even though the jungle scenes were shot on location. Which really just goes to show that some people like to complain, I guess. The Hulk was a terrible film for a lot of reasons, but the CGI wasn't one of them (unless you're talking about the godawful cuts). I mean, sure the hulkster didn't look photorealistic exactly, but how photorealistic is a 16 foor tall green body builder gonna look? The CG hulk was an order of magnitude better than a bunch of green body paint. EDIT for cross-posting with Lasereth - Indiana Jones is a tricky one, though. Parts of it were meant to look fake-ish. The warehouse in the beginning wasn't meant to be photorealistic, and was designed to look like a matte painting in order to keep the film stylistically similar to it's predecessors. Using CGI to do things that can easily be done without it is lame, but some things are very hard to do convincingly and that's where it should properly be used. How do you have a swarm of ants carry a guy away without using CGI? __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame Last edited by Martian; 06-11-2008 at 12:19 PM..