please stop using cg humans in movies

[retlaw]

They have to stop using this so much. Although i think they really do a very good job with cg actors its just not good enough you can still see the difference very good and it really ruins a movie for me. As long as this is the case please dont use it so much. For example the matrix reloaded. The fight with a group of smiths. The real human fight scenes were outstanding and they really didnt have to use the cg scenes in it, it was already good enough. The cg humans were very well made but just need that extra touch to perfect it, they shouldnt rely on it so much, the movie would have been better without it(and ofcourse the long coversations)Also the case with spiderman 3. Ive watched it 3 times now and think its an ok film and the special effects of sandman are truly phenomena but the cg actor scenes are beginning to bother me more and more. The same gos for this movie ,very well made but not good enough, you just see the difference(and ofcourse mj screaming all the time). Special effects these days are near to perfect but the cg actors are not so stopspending al lot of money in this and keep it a little bit more real.

[vesaker]

i think it was pulled off pretty well in LOTR.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Sometimes the actors are doing things that are impossible for the human body to realistically accomplish and sometimes the filmmakers can't afford so many extras if it's a really huge group of people. Otherwise, I'd just call it laziness.

[APzombie]

Funny how everyone thinks the Matrix Reloaded Smith scene looked horrible and LotR looked great. I honestly think the Reloaded CG humans were amazing, at times LotR pulled it off but many times they looked just awful (outside of Gullom and mass army shots where people are small enough where you can't notice).

I was watching Hook yesterday (don't hate bitches) and I loved how they simply put Williams in front of a blue screen and layered him over neverland with every flying shot not done with wires. I sighed because the technique is so God damned simple yet nowadays its usually done with CG characters.

[miguel_montes]

Originally posted by APzombie
Funny how everyone thinks the Matrix Reloaded Smith scene looked horrible and LotR looked great. I honestly think the Reloaded CG humans were amazing, at times LotR pulled it off but many times they looked just awful (outside of Gullom and mass army shots where people are small enough where you can't notice).

I was watching Hook yesterday (don't hate bitches) and I loved how they simply put Williams in front of a blue screen and layered him over neverland with every flying shot not done with wires. I sighed because the technique is so God damned simple yet nowadays its usually done with CG characters.

APzombie, gotta disagree on that. The Smith scene was cool, but after seeing it for a second time (or even the first time), it can become quite obvious which Smith is CG and which Smith isn't. The same goes for the Stormtroopers on Revenge Of The Smith. You can't just take advantage of computer technology THAT much. If you have a close-up, you're destined to see it's fake.
Altough if you don't see it the first time, the filmmakers (I guess) are in the clear, 'cause by then you've already seen the movie and payed for it. If you go see it again, and only then start noticing them, then that is a sign the special effects crew did a good job: you were fooled the first time.

LOTR, on the hand, didn't have CG human characters that close to the screen, most of it were massive armies on the landscape, so I guess it's harder to notice them. That's a good thing.

Concerning other CG human characters: the worst I've seen is probably The Rock's face in The Mummy Returns; I think Spider-Man has always been a bad CG human character - you can perfectly see its "rubbery" feel to it (like the CG characters in the Matrix sequels). On that note, Singer's Superman wins because it's more photoreal.

On other thought: I wish I could include Pirates's Davy Jones in that list, because this character is ultimately the best CG "human...ish" character I've seen since Gollum.

My list of favorite CG characters are (in a non-animation movie):
1991 - T-1000
1993 - T-Rex
2002 - Gollum
2006 - Davy Jones
2007 - Optimus Prime and the rest of Transformers

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by APzombie
I was watching Hook yesterday (don't hate bitches) and I loved how they simply put Williams in front of a blue screen and layered him over neverland with every flying shot not done with wires. I sighed because the technique is so God damned simple yet nowadays its usually done with CG characters.

That technique works for something like Hook but personally I don't like the overall feel of that technique because it makes the characters seem weightless and I would much rather have characters FEEL like they have weight to them when they get up in the air .

[bigred760]

I'm hating on what Zemeckis has been doing lately - this motion capture stuff he did with The Polar Express and now with Beowolf. Is there any particular reason why he didn't use live scenery and people? It doesn't make the movies look any better (judging Beowolf from the trailer).

Gollum was awesome and I think had to be done that way. The character is too skinny and gangly (that a word?) for any actor to portray correctly. Hell, after a while I forgot the character was CG.

I think Superman Returns was more obvious in using CG for Superman than any other recent movie. Spider-man basically has to be CGI when he's swinging around, but Supes can be placed in front of a green screen, like APzombie suggested (I like Hook), and go from there.

CG probably is used too much nowadays, when sometimes it doesn't have to be.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by bigred760
I'm hating on what Zemeckis has been doing lately - this motion capture stuff he did with The Polar Express and now with Beowolf. Is there any particular reason why he didn't use live scenery and people? It doesn't make the movies look any better (judging Beowolf from the trailer).
.

I think was Zemeckis is trying to accomplish with this is essentially balancing a movie so that it doesn't appear to be constantly "Oh shit, this CG doesn't mesh with this live action," so instead he made the entire movies CG so that they completely meshed and don't have that contrast. It probably also would have been more expensive to the entire movies live action.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I think was Zemeckis is trying to accomplish with this is essentially balancing a movie so that it doesn't appear to be constantly "Oh shit, this CG doesn't mesh with this live action," so instead he made the entire movies CG so that they completely meshed and don't have that contrast. It probably also would have been more expensive to the entire movies live action.

You think that's really a problem nowadays? Movies like LOTR, Star Wars, Spider-man, etc. have awesome action sequences that look pretty darn good.

I think he's just trying to see what can be accomplished using the technology. While I admire his sense of wandering and wondering, I think the movies don't look that good, particularly Beowulf (Polar Express had the benefit of being a Christmas movie).

[athf1980]

CGI for human is a hit or miss with me.

LOTR was great with the CGI

Van Helsing was not.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by bigred760
You think that's really a problem nowadays? Movies like LOTR, Star Wars, Spider-man, etc. have awesome action sequences that look pretty darn good.

I think he's just trying to see what can be accomplished using the technology. While I admire his sense of wandering and wondering, I think the movies don't look that good, particularly Beowulf (Polar Express had the benefit of being a Christmas movie).

Everyone I know is uber excited about Beowulf, including me. Looks amazing and beautiful.

[Cronos]

CG humans generally doesn't bother me that much, it's only when it looks absolutely horrible that i have a problem with it such as with Matrix Reloaded mainly during the highway chase which looked awful.

[luthorlex]

Have to agree with Gollum being one of the better cgi characters, far better than Dobbie...and on that subject All Harry Potter movies with BAD cg characters on broomsticks. Awful. Kinda glad the last two didnt have any Quidditch in it.
And the only disappointing bit in lotr was when Mr Bloom jumps onto the elephant beast...mmm.

[RandalGraves]

Best: LOTR

Worst: The end of the Mummy Returns with The Scorpion King

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by bigred760
I'm hating on what Zemeckis has been doing lately - this motion capture stuff he did with The Polar Express and now with Beowolf. Is there any particular reason why he didn't use live scenery and people? It doesn't make the movies look any better (judging Beowolf from the trailer)

What you guys aren't seeing is that Zemeckis isn't doing this to try and make his film cheaper, or to try and deplete the problematic CG-live action meshing. No, Zemeckis is - believe it nor not - just trying and experimenting with a new branch of the film medium. He is, you must admit, the first director who is actually making leaps and bounds and exploring new territory with motion capture technology instead of just using it as a tool. And for that I really do admire him. You can definitely see the giant step up from The Polar Express to Beowulf, and it will be very, very interesting to see just where he will be going with this "live action animation" genre/style of his. Although deep down inside I do wish he'd punch out at least one more live-action piece, he's just so good at those.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Monotreme
What you guys aren't seeing is that Zemeckis isn't doing this to try and make his film cheaper, or to try and deplete the problematic CG-live action meshing. No, Zemeckis is - believe it nor not - just trying and experimenting with a new branch of the film medium. He is, you must admit, the first director who is actually making leaps and bounds and exploring new territory with motion capture technology instead of just using it as a tool. And for that I really do admire him. You can definitely see the giant step up from The Polar Express to Beowulf, and it will be very, very interesting to see just where he will be going with this "live action animation" genre/style of his. Although deep down inside I do wish he'd punch out at least one more live-action piece, he's just so good at those.

I did know that actually . . . that was in my second post in the thread.

He may be experimenting with it, but I don't think it looks that good. The humans don't look realistic, so I don't see the point. It's great that he's toying with the technology, but I think it's hurting his movies.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by bigred760
I did know that actually . . . that was in my second post in the thread.

He may be experimenting with it, but I don't think it looks that good. The humans don't look realistic, so I don't see the point. It's great that he's toying with the technology, but I think it's hurting his movies.

Well, I dunno... I thought that the humans in the Beowulf trailer look super-realistic, but just one step under completely realistic so that there's still no question that it's an animated movie. He isn't trying to recreate real-life - do human Disney characters look realistic? No, they look like cartoons. You said it yourself - Zemeckis is just trying new things within the animation genre. It will be most interesting to see how it will come out and how it will be accepted.

[LordSimen]

I never understood when someone says that a CG human in a complete CG movie "doesn't look realistic." That's the point, it's an animated movie. If they wanted it to look 100% realistic, they would have made it live action.

[AntoBlueberry]

I'm so worried about how the blue Doctor will look on screen in the Watchmen movie, as they will use Billy Crudup's head on a CGI motion-capture body.
And Rodrigo Santoro, who was only increased in size, looked fake in the already fake-looking 300, go figures..

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by AntoBlueberry
I'm so worried about how the blue Doctor will look on screen in the Watchmen movie, as they will use Billy Crudup's head on a CGI motion-capture body.
And Rodrigo Santoro, who was only increased in size, looked fake in the already fake-looking 300, go figures..

He's a giant blue glowing man. No matter how you crack it, he isn't going to look 100% realistic.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by vesaker
i think it was pulled off pretty well in LOTR.

I'd agree with "Pretty well", but there are a number of scenes where it was very obvious it was CG people. Especially shots of people falling or Legolas doing "super duper elf maneuvers".

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Well, I dunno... I thought that the humans in the Beowulf trailer look super-realistic, but just one step under completely realistic so that there's still no question that it's an animated movie. He isn't trying to recreate real-life - do human Disney characters look realistic? No, they look like cartoons. You said it yourself - Zemeckis is just trying new things within the animation genre. It will be most interesting to see how it will come out and how it will be accepted.

Disney's animated characters intentionally don't look realistic. They're not trying to duplicate every detail; that's part of the charm of Disney's and other animated flicks. Mr. Incredible doesn't look like Craig T. Nelson.

My point is, I don't think Zemeckis' efforts will pay off in the end.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by bigred760
Disney's animated characters intentionally don't look realistic. They're not trying to duplicate every detail; that's part of the charm of Disney's and other animated flicks.

Exactly my point. What's the difference between Beowulf and other animated flicks? Beowulf just takes it one step further and makes the characters look frightfully similar to real humans, but not all the way. As has been mentioned, if total realism would have been Zemeckis' purpose, he would have shot this live action.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Exactly my point. What's the difference between Beowulf and other animated flicks? Beowulf just takes it one step further and makes the characters look frightfully similar to real humans, but not all the way. As has been mentioned, if total realism would have been Zemeckis' purpose, he would have shot this live action.

I think he's trying to make them look as real as possible; Disney doesn't. Plus the fact that he's attempting this is taking away from the movie; people are going to be nitpicking (like me ) how real or unreal it looks. Nobody cares that Aladdin or Princess Fiona doesn't look realistic. People will with this movie.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Monotreme
What you guys aren't seeing is that Zemeckis isn't doing this to try and make his film cheaper, or to try and deplete the problematic CG-live action meshing. No, Zemeckis is - believe it nor not - just trying and experimenting with a new branch of the film medium. He is, you must admit, the first director who is actually making leaps and bounds and exploring new territory with motion capture technology instead of just using it as a tool. And for that I really do admire him. You can definitely see the giant step up from The Polar Express to Beowulf, and it will be very, very interesting to see just where he will be going with this "live action animation" genre/style of his.

Actually what he's doing with this technology is bypassing the trial and error necessary in animating humans. See it takes years to gain the skills necessary to animate humans so that they look believable to audiences, whether its traditional or computer animated. But even with that there's still the the time it takes to animate and correct animation if its not looking right. That takes time on a production, and I think Zemekis learned this after making Roger Rabbit and may have not liked that aspect, because he's never made another film like that since.

I don't know how long it took to produce Roger Rabbit's effects compared to The Polar Express or Beowolf's, but if someone told me the latter were quicker to do by comparison, it wouldn't come as a surprise.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by electriclite
Actually what he's doing with this technology is bypassing the trial and error necessary in animating humans. See it takes years to gain the skills necessary to animate humans so that they look believable to audiences, whether its traditional or computer animated. But even with that there's still the the time it takes to animate and correct animation if its not looking right. That takes time on a production, and I think Zemekis learned this after making Roger Rabbit and may have not liked that aspect, because he's never made another film like that since.

I don't know how long it took to produce Roger Rabbit's effects compared to The Polar Express or Beowolf's, but if someone told me the latter were quicker to do by comparison, it wouldn't come as a surprise.

Roger Rabbit's effects are far better and it is a much better movie. But yeah, RR's effects were time consuming and expensive.

I think some people here should read about the uncanny valley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

I think many may find this true about themselves. The people in Beowulf (from the looks of the trailer) and in Polar Express seem... Dead inside. Their eyes are dead. It makes them creepy somehow, soulless.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Jim H
Roger Rabbit's effects are far better and it is a much better movie. But yeah, RR's effects were time consuming and expensive.

I think some people here should read about the uncanny valley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

I think many may find this true about themselves. The people in Beowulf (from the looks of the trailer) and in Polar Express seem... Dead inside. Their eyes are dead. It makes them creepy somehow, soulless.

And from that same Wikipedia articles a link to someone who discusses and "corrects" the issue.


Virtual Train Wreck

I remember once when I owned Disney's The Art of Pocahontas, there was a part where one of the artists related a story about a meeting to discuss a piece of animation of John Smith that looked off. After hours of long discussion they finally figured it out. They raised an eyebrow about 2 MILLIMETERS higher and the problem was solved. Two millimeters! That's all the difference between completely believable to unbelievable. Its these subtle nuances that Zemekis is not familair with, but artists from Disney and especially Pixar are aware of.

Pixar could easily do hyper realistic characters, but they don't because they know that complete realism of human characters or animals in CG films is a fallacy. Its not the point of animation. The most important thing that needs to be believable is the characters' emotions and journey on film.

Animation is an artform for a reason.

[a7xfan]

i think the harry potter series is worst for this, i mean their effect for humans are laughabl

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by APzombie
Funny how everyone thinks the Matrix Reloaded Smith scene looked horrible and LotR looked great. I honestly think the Reloaded CG humans were amazing, at times LotR pulled it off but many times they looked just awful (outside of Gullom and mass army shots where people are small enough where you can't notice).

I'm glad to hear someone else saying this.

I never understand how people can say some things with CG are unrealistic --- As if they know what it's supposed to look like when someone is flying through the air or stopping 18-wheelers with their thoughts.

Right.... right.... This movie has some guy flying, spinning around, fighting 100 people who are the same person, walking through lava, but yeah... it's the CG that is unrealistic!

[Jim H]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I'm glad to hear someone else saying this.

I never understand how people can say some things with CG are unrealistic --- As if they know what it's supposed to look like when someone is flying through the air or stopping 18-wheelers with their thoughts.

Right.... right.... This movie has some guy flying, spinning around, fighting 100 people who are the same person, walking through lava, but yeah... it's the CG that is unrealistic!

"Unrealistic" and "unconvincing" are different things.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Jim H
"Unrealistic" and "unconvincing" are different things.

Right, and if more people made that distinction I wouldn't be riffing on them.

I think all your points in this thread are dead-on; perhaps my only real joke is about people who are just lazy reviewers, and leave it at things looking 'fake'.

That being said, I crack up at the times when they use CG for no apparent reason. A lot of comedies are seeming to do this more and more.

[Cronos]

Watched Hulk again a few days ago and the big green guy still looks amazing, the CG Banner looks good too.