Fuck Blue Screen & CGI...give me MATTE PAINTINGS!!!

[rushmore beauty]

In my opinion, there are only three directors currently working in Hollywood that can convincingly pull-off CGI; Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson. Minority Report was a visually stunning sci-fier while The Abyss was groundbreaking, The LOTR trilogy have carved their way into movie history with their amazing fantasy visuals. Every other director is hit-and-miss. But don't you schmoes miss the wonderful, wonderful, WONDERFUL days of latex effects, make-up and matte paintings? Dear lord, I was just watched Aliens again last night and I was reminded of just how amazing the effects are in that flick and how the effects don't stick out like sore thumbs, depsite the films age. Re-watching Pitch Black a few days ago, I was surprised at how bad the CGI was and it just made me cry out for thr good old days of 1980s science fiction storytelling. John Carpenter, James Cameron, Ridley Scott...these guys knew how to use effects and how to get what they want in front of the camera when they are filming, not on a computer afterwards. I personally love the look and feel of flicks like Aliens, Blade Runner, John Carpenter's The Thing and Terminator 2 and I just really hate how filmmakers these days think they can just do whatever the hell they want with computers...it's wrong, and they need to learn that. James Cameron has successfully made the transfer from old-school effects to CGI, but he still knows when to use CGI and when to build a big-ass set. Please, if anyone from Hollywood is reading this, save us from the satanity that is the overusage of computer effects...

[Saruman]

So George Lucas can't pull off good CGI? Have you seen the prequels?

[rushmore beauty]

Originally posted by Saruman
So George Lucas can't pull off good CGI? Have you seen the prequels?

I have, and they proved to me that he can't...

[Tweek]

what puts me off about the prequels is that all the CGI feels like overkill.

[KcMsterpce]

Yeah, I agree about the overuse of CGI. Enemy #1 for me is George Lucas, too. I fuckin' hate his virtual worlds with real-life actors. He should have made computer animated movies. At least the bad acting wouldn't be as obvious. It would be better than Final Fantasy, perhaps.

But before this turns into a bash George Lucas thread, I'll just say that I agree with the fact that a lot of movies these days rely too heavily on CGI, and I just wish they'd go back to more of some old-school methods.

Matte paintings are wonderful. Digital mattes aren't that bad, either. I also believe that greenscreens and blue screens are wonderful, if used properly. So is CGI - if used properly. The problem is, most big-budget movies don't use them properly.
Computer use should be considered a tool, not a TOY like a lot of directors seem to think it is. It shouldn't be a quick eraser for big mistakes, nor should it be the focal point of the story.

A lot of directors need to get their heads out of their asses and start making movies again. (and I don't just mean George Lucas, either)

[adamjohnson]

Hell yes!

Watching POLTERGEIST the other day, those are mattes and stop motion. And that shit looks damn scary, and damn cool. A CGI ghost wouldnt look as creepy, because it wouldnt FEEL as real, because it isnt.


IF i ever make it, bet your damn ass on mattes!

[Scarface98.9]

Matte paintings and such are very useful, but movies like Lord of the Rings and Minority Report wouldn't be possible without CGI. The complaint is mainly about the ill-use of it by other directors, which is valid. Give a person who can't drive a driver's license, and they're bound to abuse it. Give it to a skilled driver and they'll be ok. Don't hate CGI just because of the mistreatment. I wasn't a Spy Kids fan, but Robert Rodriguez used CGI very well in Once Upon a Time in Mexico to fix some errors and such (watch the 10 Minute Film School).

[Kidsilk]

Originally posted by Tweek
what puts me off about the prequels is that all the CGI feels like overkill.

I agree. CGI is everywhere in those movies. Non-Stop CGI. Kinda ruined the movies for me.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by adamjohnson


Watching POLTERGEIST the other day, those are mattes and stop motion. And that shit looks damn scary, and damn cool. A CGI ghost wouldnt look as creepy, because it wouldnt FEEL as real, because it isnt.




Stop motion and matte paintings are no more real than CGI. I can point out most matte paintings and I can point out most CGI matte paintings. Neither look more real than the other.

I always find it funny when people call CGI fake, when a typical matte painting looks fake and a stop motion puppet or creatures "animated" in look just as fake.

If I were to choose between CGI and a matte painting/stop motion puppet, I'd go with the CGI. You can do more with it than you can a puppet and things can look better than they can on a matte painting.

And I just may mention, there are some things in the prequel trilogy that you may mistake for CGI that are actually models.

[jaw2929]

I don't know, I thought Lucas did a pretty decent job with his special CGI effects...

[Raoul Duke]

I was watching Jurassic Park the other day and effects were still damn impressive. Better looking than Matrix Reloaded, Attack of the Clones and all that hoo hah. And I also agree Adam Johnson, the older effects with make up and all the stop motion. Like when the steak becomes infested with maggots, or when the dude looks in the mirror and 'things' begin to happen, in Poltergeist

What really bothers me most is when there's just an overkill of CGI used. Like at points where you can simply put in a stunt actor or something.

[echo_bravo]

yeah rushmore beauty I agree with everything you said.


Did anyone else laugh their ass off at the CGI wolves in The Day After Tomorrow? Give me a fuckin break Hollywood!:rolleyes:

[The Postmaster General]

I think the CGI in the SW prequels is great -- they are waaayyyy overused -- but the thing is, most people don't realize that nearly EVERYTHING they are seeing is CGI in the Star Wars. They point out certain stuff, but totally overlook that everything else in the scene is also CGI, and they don't notice.

And I'm not sure what you mean, RushmoreBeauty, by matte paintings, because matte paintings can be used with blue screen and CGi -- Do you mean like back drops, or the sets that are 2 dimensional, but look 3d? Clear that up for me, please.

I think that with ALL effects, there bad examples, but I don't think any one effects is clearly cut as the way to do it.

[rushmore beauty]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think the CGI in the SW prequels is great -- they are waaayyyy overused -- but the thing is, most people don't realize that nearly EVERYTHING they are seeing is CGI in the Star Wars. They point out certain stuff, but totally overlook that everything else in the scene is also CGI, and they don't notice.

And I'm not sure what you mean, RushmoreBeauty, by matte paintings, because matte paintings can be used with blue screen and CGi -- Do you mean like back drops, or the sets that are 2 dimensional, but look 3d? Clear that up for me, please.

I think that with ALL effects, there bad examples, but I don't think any one effects is clearly cut as the way to do it.

Basically whwat I mean is that I hate the overuse of CGI nowadays...I mean the...damn, i can't explain. Watch the scene in The Thing where Kurt Russel and the guys come across the alien ship half under the snow and you will now what I mean. haha, Lame response, I know, sorry, but I am just about the most inarticulate person I know...

[KcMsterpce]

Yes, every kind of effect can be used badly. The unfortunate thing is that so many directors these days think they're the King of the Crop, and constantly boast about the number of effects shots are in their movie... and you can SEE those effects!

What I think works best is when you have a real-life object filmed, and then some CGI used to enhance certain features. Just like with the plastic bag in the eye bit in Once Upon a Time in Mexico. That was awesome.

[rushmore beauty]

Originally posted by KcMsterpce
Yes, every kind of effect can be used badly. The unfortunate thing is that so many directors these days think they're the King of the Crop, and constantly boast about the number of effects shots are in their movie... and you can SEE those effects!

What I think works best is when you have a real-life object filmed, and then some CGI used to enhance certain features. Just like with the plastic bag in the eye bit in Once Upon a Time in Mexico. That was awesome.

Yes, that was damn sweet...perfect example of CGI donw right man...

[Lynn Minmei]

I loved how films like The Last Samurai actually had a huge, epic battle scene without any CGI.

Too bad it was underappreciated while the film that wins Best Picture was a CG-heavy LotR.

[adamjohnson]

Well CG is great. I would prefer CG to be used in the background of shots rather than Mattes. but I LOOOVE that Matte-y look. Both are great in their own ways, and offer different things for certain movies. I would probably typically pick a very good matte.

I love the mattes in like Batman '89 and Highlander etc. But the CG ones in the Maatrix movies look good too.

CGI is good, but cannot be overused.

Puppeteering and Stop motion have improved so much since the 80s its ridiculous, you just dont know because no one uses them anymore. Compare T1 to T3. The stop motion Terminator didnt look too great. But neither did the CG in T3.

Or look at Evil Dead. That last shot with the deadites dying was some crazy stop motion, and it was badass. Done with CG it wouldnt have been 'gross' because it wouldnt have really been there.,

I really like CG for accessory stuff, like lighting and buildings etc. Because they're not real, not interactive. I just love the look of Mattes, and would choose any Stop motion, miniature, puppet over crappy CG. (which they most always are, unless you employ WETA)

[Shockwave]

I think the main problem is that so many studios concern themselves with howe it looks and movies BUT not with how it blends with the enviornment. Lighting doesnt look right on it, no footprints, ect, ect. If it sticks out and doesnt look like it belongs in that scene, its going to look fake.

[Squirrel_X]

Originally posted by Saruman
So George Lucas can't pull off good CGI? Have you seen the prequels?

Sorry...but WOW i cannot believe you brought this up in defense of yourself lol.

[Shockwave]

The Star Wars CGI is really pretty damn good.

Theres just so damn much of it! It takes over rather then blending in!

The problem lies in that they use CGI for effects that could easily be acheived otherwise and look much better for it, its just take more effort. I can name many, MANY movies with much worse cgi.

Spider-man is a good example.

[Spidey]

Starship Troopers has awesome CGI. Those bugs look mighty real.

[NuclearMisfit]

I know George Lucas overdid it with the CGI but atleast the CGI is almost near perfect than the CGI done in other movies. (Matrix, Daredevil)

[Squirrel_X]

Originally posted by NuclearMisfit
I know George Lucas overdid it with the CGI but atleast the CGI is almost near perfect than the CGI done in other movies. (Matrix, Daredevil)

A particular moment escapes me in which The Matrix failed to achieve its goal of "Matrix-ness" with its special effects. HOWEVER, the matrix Reloaded was freakin horrible at some points, especially the CGI Neo during the Burly Brawl scene and his superman flying charade. That was bad news. They shoulda just used some wires and Keanu Reeves to at least achieve some semi-believable facial features (well, that is if Keanu Reeves is capable of facial gestures besides the oft-quoted "whoa") and then just did CGI at the point where seeing Neo's face was unimportant. That's one reason I like the LOTR trilogy because the cgi fits so seemlessly that you hardly notice it, except perhaps in certain parts. I guess when the CGI and Effects people do a good job then you don't really notice their work.

Speaking of the original topic of CGI bashing, I watched Conan the Barbarian the other day (for the umpteenth time) and the scene where Conan hacks off the head of the bigass snake will forever live in my special-effects memory. I mean, you cant fake a bigass rubber-ish snake with REAL arrows being shot into it and REAL bags of blood exploding when the actual actor (Ahnuld) physically chops the rubber snake's head off. It's a freakin epic moment in the greatness of pre-cgi effects in the (snake?)flesh.(imho)

[Beeblebrox]

Has no one mentioned Underworld yet? A decent movie, but it's a real throw back to practical effects, real stunts, and rubber creatures.

[echo_bravo]

Hey Squirrel_X, I fuckin love that part in Conan. Great shit!

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by rushmore beauty
Watch the scene in The Thing where Kurt Russel and the guys come across the alien ship half under the snow and you will now what I mean.


Watch Kurt Russell flying into New York in Escape From New York, and you'll see what I mean.

:D

[HeavyK]

CGI is fine in moderation. Overuse of CGI or entire scenes made with CGI is bad.

[rushmore beauty]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Watch Kurt Russell flying into New York in Escape From New York, and you'll see what I mean.

:D

EXACTLY!!!

[ANavissi500]

I would like to point to the helicopters in Spiderman 2 as the most recent suckage of CGI.

[rushmore beauty]

Originally posted by ANavissi500
I would like to point to the helicopters in Spiderman 2 as the most recent suckage of CGI.

Yes, those helicopters were overkill, but I must admit that I dug about 99% of the CGI in that flick. A great exemple of CGI done right, and tastefully (most of the time)...

[dellamorte dellamore]

The more cgi fests that come out , the more i realize what amazing work was done without the use of computers in some older films . I agree with the how effective the visuals are in films such as The Thing , Escape from NY , Poltergeist , Aliens and the original SW films . I still can't believe that the effects still hold up today against 200 mil dollar films , and the world they created is still believable and intriguing .


I think , for the most part , the fact that they could'nt fire up a program and type in a few keys , click the mouse a couple times to create there visuals forced them to get creative , and contributed to their ingeniousnous , it stimulated their creativity . Now , some of these guys have become somewhat lazy , all they are making is big budget video games , some of the junk that's coming out now is soulless , disposable entertainment . I can still appreciate and admire what it took to make the visuals in those older films , there is something much more human about some guy / gal getting their hands dirty to create an effects shot instead of banging on the keyboard .



Both SM films are entertaining films , but once the CGI spidey swings into action , i'm really taken out of the moment , it looks so silly . Just about every fight scene is CGI , and because of that , whatever emotional investment i had in the characters is rendered moot .


Now , i can't say CGI is a bad idea because in the hands of a director who knows exactly how to use it , it's terrific . LOTR , Starship Troopers , the JP films , G 98 , Matrix Trilogy ( except the Burly Brawl ) , just that there are too many directors who are clueless about how to incorporate it . By the way , i think LOTR was effective not only because of the CGI but because they utilized Bigatures and Miniatures also , some of the best scenes were a combo of many different visual techniques .

[Mog]

I think that the main reason why everyone is using CGI is because puppets, models, REAL matte paintings, etc. are just too expensive. So instead of spending 10 million on an anamatronic Jar Jar Binks, let's use that money to up Liam Neeson's salary and we'll just CGI Jar Jar. That's my theory anyway. I for one love movies that don't rely on CGI, and resort to puppets and models. To me it's more like reading a comic book, rather than watching a cartoon. I hear King Kong's going to be all CGI. Great.

[adamjohnson]

CGI is just as expensive, if not more.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Mog
[B]I think that the main reason why everyone is using CGI is because puppets, models, REAL matte paintings, etc. are just too expensive. So instead of spending 10 million on an anamatronic Jar Jar Binks, let's use that money to up Liam Neeson's salary and we'll just CGI Jar Jar. That's my theory anyway.

Actually CGI is several times more expensive. Filmmakers generally use it when a physical effect is impractical or impossible or simply won't look as good.

But cheaper it ain't.

[Badbird]

The problem is that CGI took the "special" out of special effects. Now anyone and everyone can and does use it, even if they don't need to.

I'm all for FX in moderation. Does every movie need the monstrous FX shot(s)? The best FX are the ones you don't see, like movies that make skies cleaner, grass greener, shadows darker, etc.

There is no longer the "how'd they do that" factor. Everyone knows that there was some guys siting at a desk, looping a five second wireframe over, and over, and over, and over again until it was good enough.

Some movies, like Troy, have astounding CGI that looks as real as it can get. But it's the exception.

I agree, when I watch older movie featurettes on how they pulled off impossible FX shots, the respect and admiration I have for those guys goes far beyond anything I'll feel for a guy at a desk.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I think Gollum was ruined because of CGI , he became more distracting than memorable because he's just a bunch of ones and zeros . That is , in his final version . I always skip over the scenes that he's in anyway , so it doesn't matter too much .


I'm thinking they will use the same process to bring King Kong to life , have Serkis act out his movements then chuck it into the computer and let it rip . Is that a good thing , i'm not so sure , because the guy in the suit didn't bother me that much in the remake that was released in the seventies . I think it somehow added more depth and humanity to him , don't think it was as bad as some people may think . Only prob was the lack of dinos , one giant snake isn't going to cut it .

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

One thing I always find funny is how people complain about how fake looking CGI looks, especially in relations to the Star Wars flicks.

Do the puppets not look like puppets?

Do the men in suits not look like men in suits?

Do the matte paintings look real? I know I can spot em.

CGI is just updated puppetry and matte painting.

I should note that it will always be impossible to make characters like Jar Jar, Yoda, Jax etc. to look real. Know why? Because they've never existed. You're gonna know they aren't real no matter if they're CG, puppets, etc.

It was possible to make the dinosaurs in JP look real because we knew they at least existed.

The aliens and creatures in the SW flicks look real enough. As real as they can look.

Much like their puppet counterparts.

[rilocay]

Originally posted by NuclearMisfit
I know George Lucas overdid it with the CGI but atleast the CGI is almost near perfect than the CGI done in other movies. (Matrix, Daredevil)

If you are saying the cgi is near perfect from the star wars' (ep 1 and 2) comparing to the matrix, take a look at the pic down below. I think i can safely say Ep III wont have better cgi (i could be wrong tho since its not out yet) than matrix. But just incase your on about number 1's bullet time, the only thing cgi in that was the bullets and their circle thingies.

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg


As for cgi, i like it when its used properly, basically to enhance something, but something like golem and spiderman is cool too.