blurb

Latest Movie News Headlines

C'MON HOLLYWOOD: More Makeup Effects, Less CGI!

Jun. 16, 2010by: J.A. Hamilton

...more makeup effects, less CGI!
by J.A. Hamilton

My girlfriend and I caught SPLICE last weekend which was...well, interesting to say the least (it reminded me a lot of the MASTERS OF HORROR episode JENIFER) but one thing that definitely stood out was the makeup effects applied to Delphine Chaneac, making Dren a real creature as opposed to a CGI monster. Theres a reason people love eighties flicks, especially monster movies and its because they used real props back then (not that they had much of a choice) instead of the technological CGI mess we often see splashed across the big screen these days. Sometimes CGI fits (and is needed), but most times it doesnt come close to the real thing.


"It's my tail isn't it? I swear it has a mind of its own."

Other than SPLICE, another really great example of recent makeup effects trumping CGI is THE WOLFMAN. Its truly remarkable what gurus like Rick Baker can do with real actors (and whether you liked the movie or not, Baker made the apes in the PLANET OF THE APES remake look five kinds of awesome). Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins looked phenomenal in wolf form (of course they should after sitting in a chair for four hours) and the leg extensions used in both THE WOLFMAN and SPLICE to give their legs that raised canine look really adds some much needed (and welcomed) depth to the creatures. Sure, the time process involved for these types of suits, makeup and effects is no doubt taxing but they bring these creatures to life in such a believable fashion that the audience is breathless with both fear and delight.


Edward, Jacob, I'm pretty sure Benicio here could destroy them both.

I remember being intrigued and even excited when the first trailer for BOOGEYMAN came out back in 2005. The premise sounded cool, a dude getting stalked by the dreaded Boogeyman, a supernatural creature that came from his closet. I mean, come on, what kid from our generation didnt lose a bit of sleep over the damn Boogeyman? Admittedly I dug the story (despite the fact it was PG-13) which doesnt surprise me as it came from the mind of SUPERNATURALs Eric Kripke, but all hope was lost when I came face to face with the monster itself hovering over a bathtub in all its CGI glory. I actually turned to my girlfriend and said, Are you fucking kidding me!? Nope, I was not impressed.


I'm not sure if it's the lighting or angle but Jabba's looking pretty sexy here.

I hate to drag STAR WARS into this but of all the reasons why the original trilogy is and will always be superior to the latest one, the lack of GCI is probably top three. Jabba the Hut looked like a real...umm...worm thing as opposed to his CGI younger counterpart who came later. The Ewoks (love them or hate them) looked infinitely cooler than Jar Jar and his ridiculous fish people. I wont just dump on the new STAR WARS flicks though as a couple of my favorites BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF and the recent OUTLANDER were fantastic action flicks whose monsters also suffered from overuse of CGI. Did this kill the movies for me, not really but that doesnt mean they couldnt have been done better.


Come on Rodriguez, don't let me down.

One of my favorite special effects monsters of all time returns to theatres in a big way this summer, thats right ladies and gents Im talking about PREDATORS. Using dudes in suits with insanely cool makeup and body armour is THE way to go as far as Im concerned. The face huggers and chest bursters from the ALIEN films are also up there on my list of favorites but again, Im all for what looks more real. Hollywood has been slowly coming back around as directors and producers continue to fight for less CGI based effects which makes me happy and Im hoping they continue to win this war. CGI effects have their place in films for making the impossible look probable but when it comes down to creature/monster effects theres no substitution for the real thing.
Extra Tidbit: I watched THE A-TEAM a couple nights ago and loved it. Dont buy into any negative reviews as its a solid good time. That said, the CGI heavy scene near the end (youll know it when you see it) made me cringe. No amount of makeup could fix that particular situation but I have to wonder if it could have been done better with less CGI.
Source: JoBlo.com

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

7:38AM on 06/16/2010
I agree with this 110%. When it comes to monsters, creatures and the like, special effects will trump CGI everytime. Another great example is Godzilla. I ABSOLUTELY refuse to watch the new one, because they made Godzilla look like nothing more than a giant CGI Lizard as appose to the awesome Monster/Creature that I grew up watching.
I agree with this 110%. When it comes to monsters, creatures and the like, special effects will trump CGI everytime. Another great example is Godzilla. I ABSOLUTELY refuse to watch the new one, because they made Godzilla look like nothing more than a giant CGI Lizard as appose to the awesome Monster/Creature that I grew up watching.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:04AM on 06/16/2010
Agreed and like Darqjade said, Godzilla was crap and the new one prolly will be too due to CGI, but I am kinda intrigued by that Cloverfield-like one coming out.
Agreed and like Darqjade said, Godzilla was crap and the new one prolly will be too due to CGI, but I am kinda intrigued by that Cloverfield-like one coming out.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+6
8:31AM on 06/16/2010

I;ve been saying this for years!

Hollywood needs to go back to real effects whenever possible. When CG was first being introduced, people loved it because it looked 'real and unbelievable.' (I still think the best CGI to date is Jurassic Park I) But the audience is smart now, and can spot CG a mile away, and many times kills the whole movie.

I have to disagree with J.A. Hamilton about the new WOLFMAN though. I am a huge fan of AMERICAN WAREWOLF IN LONDON. That movie was nothing but real, old school effects done really
Hollywood needs to go back to real effects whenever possible. When CG was first being introduced, people loved it because it looked 'real and unbelievable.' (I still think the best CGI to date is Jurassic Park I) But the audience is smart now, and can spot CG a mile away, and many times kills the whole movie.

I have to disagree with J.A. Hamilton about the new WOLFMAN though. I am a huge fan of AMERICAN WAREWOLF IN LONDON. That movie was nothing but real, old school effects done really well. Namely the transformation. So when I heard Universal was remaking their old school classic starting with WOLFMAN, !AND! bringing in Rick Baker, I was stoked and really put a lot of faith in him to bring back awesome real effects. WOLFMAN turned out to be CG with a little bit of real. I couldn't of been more disappointed.

Hollywood, (and Universal), if you want to do this right, and see the box office return as well as good word of mouth, you need to let these amazing artists do what they do best and create stunning, new techniques for real effects. CG has it's place, and it good for many things, but real effects are good for just as many, and worth the extra effort to make it happen.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:39AM on 06/16/2010
Agreed. Jurassic Park = best CGI of all time. To this day I don't know what is CGI and what is practical. It must be the lighting..
Agreed. Jurassic Park = best CGI of all time. To this day I don't know what is CGI and what is practical. It must be the lighting..
8:33AM on 06/16/2010

I agree

I love Wolfman, CG is too obvious now. CG should be reserved for background, FX and spaceships. It worked well for Avatar, but we do need less.
I love Wolfman, CG is too obvious now. CG should be reserved for background, FX and spaceships. It worked well for Avatar, but we do need less.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:37AM on 06/16/2010

Couldn't agree more

Greg Nicotero, Tom Savini, Rick Baker, all legends in my book. A major recent complaint I had with CGI was Clash of the titans(that and it was terrible), Medusa should not have been completely CGI, it looked like Sam Worthington had been dropped into a videogame. The Kraken I can understand being CGI, but Medusa why?

Makeup effects should always be first choice over CGI if viable!
Greg Nicotero, Tom Savini, Rick Baker, all legends in my book. A major recent complaint I had with CGI was Clash of the titans(that and it was terrible), Medusa should not have been completely CGI, it looked like Sam Worthington had been dropped into a videogame. The Kraken I can understand being CGI, but Medusa why?

Makeup effects should always be first choice over CGI if viable!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:39AM on 06/16/2010
I agree, although sometimes a combination of the two (makeup AND cgi) is the way to go.

I am not a CGI hater concerning characters because I understand that, if done right, they look amazing and can look ALMOST real (they can never seem totally real because my common sense tells me supernatural characters don't exist). CGI characters like Gollum, King Kong or Davy Jones are amazingly well-done.
I agree, although sometimes a combination of the two (makeup AND cgi) is the way to go.

I am not a CGI hater concerning characters because I understand that, if done right, they look amazing and can look ALMOST real (they can never seem totally real because my common sense tells me supernatural characters don't exist). CGI characters like Gollum, King Kong or Davy Jones are amazingly well-done.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+5
8:44AM on 06/16/2010

What Hollywood needs to realise

CGI has evolved to the point where it looks real. That is, if it's full potential is being utilized. But still, CGI should only be used where necessary.

That's not the way it is now. CGI is being abused.
CGI has evolved to the point where it looks real. That is, if it's full potential is being utilized. But still, CGI should only be used where necessary.

That's not the way it is now. CGI is being abused.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+5
8:47AM on 06/16/2010
Agree, the problem is mostly the interaction between CGI and real footage. There are number of ways solving this issue, one way is via a shaky camera and fast short cuts, as in the Transformers movies or the new Star Wars movies. All of which suck. With a slight feeling of a approaching epileptic attack in Star Wars 2. ;)
Agree, the problem is mostly the interaction between CGI and real footage. There are number of ways solving this issue, one way is via a shaky camera and fast short cuts, as in the Transformers movies or the new Star Wars movies. All of which suck. With a slight feeling of a approaching epileptic attack in Star Wars 2. ;)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+7
9:37AM on 06/16/2010

Totally agree!

Rob Bottin, Tom Savini, Dick Smith, Bueschler, KNB...for the love of Rick Baker's ghost long live make-up FX!!!!
Rob Bottin, Tom Savini, Dick Smith, Bueschler, KNB...for the love of Rick Baker's ghost long live make-up FX!!!!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+8
10:01AM on 06/16/2010
An American Werewolf in London....enough said
An American Werewolf in London....enough said
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:37AM on 06/16/2010
totally agree with the extra tidbit - that scene just looked really over-CGI'd - but that aside the movie was aces.
totally agree with the extra tidbit - that scene just looked really over-CGI'd - but that aside the movie was aces.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:27AM on 06/16/2010
I completely agree with this article. CGI is overdone. I just remember shuddering at the end of Superman Returns, when I saw the CGI Brandon Routh flying into space. Terrible.
I completely agree with this article. CGI is overdone. I just remember shuddering at the end of Superman Returns, when I saw the CGI Brandon Routh flying into space. Terrible.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:40AM on 06/16/2010

Excellent article

I agree 110%!
I agree 110%!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:23PM on 06/16/2010

To all u rubber suit luvin bastards

Let me start off by saying this: I have nothing agaist old fashioned make-up effects because I believe the complete opposite of what Mr. Hamilton and all you other fake motherfuckers are talking. I say talking and not believe, because I don't believe u people believe the shit, and it is shit, that u r saying. Make-up FX can be good sometimes in small doses and sometimes (very rarely) for the majority of a film. Off the top of my head, I would say only the HELLBOY films and PANS LABRYNTH were
Let me start off by saying this: I have nothing agaist old fashioned make-up effects because I believe the complete opposite of what Mr. Hamilton and all you other fake motherfuckers are talking. I say talking and not believe, because I don't believe u people believe the shit, and it is shit, that u r saying. Make-up FX can be good sometimes in small doses and sometimes (very rarely) for the majority of a film. Off the top of my head, I would say only the HELLBOY films and PANS LABRYNTH were able to pull it off in recent years without it looking hokey, and all of those films were done by the same man(Guillermo del Toro). The point is, If done right, either tool can be used to produce quality films but CGI has a definate advantage over make-up. Marvel Studios could not exist without CGI, plain and simple. Most movies these days could not be made, plain and simple. You can knock there writers but u can not knock the SFX people except when they do a half ass hack job. I remember a few years back when people were saying the HULK should be a man painted green with a wig like the TV show.. RIDICULOUS.. When I was 8 that shit looked cool, go watch it now, it looks retarded. Which brings me to my other rebuttal for Mr. Hamilton and his brown nosing suckers who think saying things like "for the love of Rick Baker's ghost long live make-up FX!!!! sounds cool and hip and rebellious.. It doesn't. You sould like a band wagon groupie dick sucker. Because we all know, that as much as we don't want to admit it, the original TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES trilogy looks like shit along with ALMOST every other 80's and 90's [link] If those films were made today with CGI they would look 100x's better. look at the FANTASTIC FOUR'S THING.. He looked terrible and plasticy. True, the fist HULK looked cartoony, but THE INCREDIBLE HULK lookked fantastic. Sometimes make-up FX are necessarry and in certain situations are better when combined with CGI. Case in point: I AM LEGEND. That film would have been so much better if they would have used real humans with make-up for the close up shots, I'll give u that, otherwise, when not done properly, Old fashioned make-up FX look way more cheesier and phony than bad CGI because we all know there's some doofball in that costume, probably jerking off in between scenes. Last but not least. Your STAR WARS comment..... Are u fucking serious??? The original TRILOGY looked better??? What the fuck are you smoking, I want some of that. I won't even entertain u with a defense statment because it would be like challenging a patient in bellvue, cause u just sound crazy. I truly believe U Mr. Hamilton, along with all these lemmings, talk just to be talking.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:11AM on 06/17/2010
As well as being rubber suit-loving bastards, some of us are paragraph-loving bastards.

Judging by your piss-poor grasp of English, I doubt you were eight years old when 'The Incredible Hulk' was first broadcast, so I'll assume you caught it on a recent rerun when you were eight.
As well as being rubber suit-loving bastards, some of us are paragraph-loving bastards.

Judging by your piss-poor grasp of English, I doubt you were eight years old when 'The Incredible Hulk' was first broadcast, so I'll assume you caught it on a recent rerun when you were eight.
12:22AM on 06/17/2010
I know we're not supposed to personally bash on this site, but you are a FUCKING idiot. The new Star Wars movies look like ass, and the whole movie was done in front of a green screen, where the originals had sets, props, and make up effects. God people like you are so fucking stupid. The Incredible Hulk looked fantastic, omg...seriously you are stupid, he looked like shit, so you need to stfu.
I know we're not supposed to personally bash on this site, but you are a FUCKING idiot. The new Star Wars movies look like ass, and the whole movie was done in front of a green screen, where the originals had sets, props, and make up effects. God people like you are so fucking stupid. The Incredible Hulk looked fantastic, omg...seriously you are stupid, he looked like shit, so you need to stfu.
6:03PM on 06/16/2010
IwishIwasBond, very well put, relax dude
IwishIwasBond, very well put, relax dude
5:50PM on 06/16/2010
CG should be used to enhance an effect not be the effect, Don't get me wrong it can be a great tool but its not the only one in the box. I AM LEGEND is awful because of the terrible looking CG creatures which were completly unnessacery as BLADE 2 proved years earlier. I know your gonna say something like "BLADE 2" used CG but the differance is it used it well to inhance an effect like the openning of the jaw but the CG BLADE in the fights looks terrible and even Del Toro hated those shots.
CG should be used to enhance an effect not be the effect, Don't get me wrong it can be a great tool but its not the only one in the box. I AM LEGEND is awful because of the terrible looking CG creatures which were completly unnessacery as BLADE 2 proved years earlier. I know your gonna say something like "BLADE 2" used CG but the differance is it used it well to inhance an effect like the openning of the jaw but the CG BLADE in the fights looks terrible and even Del Toro hated those shots. Obviously if their making something like TRANSFORMERS CG is really the only option but I hate unnecessacery usage like in The Wolfman and I AM LEGEND, Both those movies would have been better served with traditional efx.
3:52PM on 06/16/2010
Well if you'd actually made an eloquent argument rather than being offensive to everyone on the site then maybe people would listen however you are utterly wrong. Star Wars Prequels looked like cartoons as with a lot of cgi. I agree that Marvel would be lost without cgi especially Iron Man. Perhaps before lambasting everyone elses opinion you could also learn to use English and find some manners.
Well if you'd actually made an eloquent argument rather than being offensive to everyone on the site then maybe people would listen however you are utterly wrong. Star Wars Prequels looked like cartoons as with a lot of cgi. I agree that Marvel would be lost without cgi especially Iron Man. Perhaps before lambasting everyone elses opinion you could also learn to use English and find some manners.
3:31PM on 06/16/2010
It has everything to do with (for example) a creature, existing in 3d space. Yes film is a 2d medium but in relation to what you're watch a man in a rubber suit is in most cases infinitely better than all the polygons, vectors, textures and lighting in the world. Yes there is a wow factor for CGI like (love it or hate it) the Transformers or the new Force Unleashed 2 preview, but that's all it is. It's more cool than anything. Even the slightest inconsistency in movement, lighting etc makes
It has everything to do with (for example) a creature, existing in 3d space. Yes film is a 2d medium but in relation to what you're watch a man in a rubber suit is in most cases infinitely better than all the polygons, vectors, textures and lighting in the world. Yes there is a wow factor for CGI like (love it or hate it) the Transformers or the new Force Unleashed 2 preview, but that's all it is. It's more cool than anything. Even the slightest inconsistency in movement, lighting etc makes GGI look like shit and it takes away from the experience. Rubber suits may sometimes look bad but you can still get a better reaction.
2:30PM on 06/16/2010
The original SW trilogy does look better, and a huge part of that is because of the depth of field the actual people in costumes offered. The prequels looked flat, with no depth, and your precious CGI looked more plastic and fake than any single thing out of the originals.

CGI has it's time and place, but you are a deluded person if you really believe that CGI will trump practical more often than not, and even moreso for trying to claim that the prequels look good.
The original SW trilogy does look better, and a huge part of that is because of the depth of field the actual people in costumes offered. The prequels looked flat, with no depth, and your precious CGI looked more plastic and fake than any single thing out of the originals.

CGI has it's time and place, but you are a deluded person if you really believe that CGI will trump practical more often than not, and even moreso for trying to claim that the prequels look good.
2:10PM on 06/16/2010
Well, fist I thought you´re kiddin, than I thought you´ve just got no taste at all but judging by the way you´re insulting everyone with a different opinion, you just seem to be a loudmouth moron!
Well, fist I thought you´re kiddin, than I thought you´ve just got no taste at all but judging by the way you´re insulting everyone with a different opinion, you just seem to be a loudmouth moron!
1:50PM on 06/16/2010
You know what they say... don't feed the troll.
You know what they say... don't feed the troll.
12:32PM on 06/16/2010
Get your eyes checked.
Get your eyes checked.
1:15PM on 06/16/2010
By far my favorite "C'MON HOLLYWOOD" article. J.A. Hamilton is right on every level.
By far my favorite "C'MON HOLLYWOOD" article. J.A. Hamilton is right on every level.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:46PM on 06/16/2010
Couldn't have said it better, and as long as hollywood keeps this in mind we should be in for some great movies to come.
Couldn't have said it better, and as long as hollywood keeps this in mind we should be in for some great movies to come.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:36PM on 06/16/2010

Here, Here!

I'm a little sad you didn't go into the lackluster phoniness of some newer films, that could have easily been done in practical terms, but I do agree with you 100%.
I'm a little sad you didn't go into the lackluster phoniness of some newer films, that could have easily been done in practical terms, but I do agree with you 100%.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:33PM on 06/16/2010
CGI just makes financial sense. And it's sleeker. GREAT topic, but it'll all be a rant in vein.
CGI just makes financial sense. And it's sleeker. GREAT topic, but it'll all be a rant in vein.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:43PM on 06/16/2010
CGI is barely cheaper than practical effects. Digital agencies are growing and growing and that kind of growth doesn't come cheap especially paying for all those animators and overhead.
CGI is barely cheaper than practical effects. Digital agencies are growing and growing and that kind of growth doesn't come cheap especially paying for all those animators and overhead.
3:43PM on 06/16/2010
Some of these newer movies are a sad sight despite how far we've come with effects (your A-Team bit was dead on). Your right about production teams putting up more of a fight laterly but Terminal's also right in that it'll never truly go away.
Some of these newer movies are a sad sight despite how far we've come with effects (your A-Team bit was dead on). Your right about production teams putting up more of a fight laterly but Terminal's also right in that it'll never truly go away.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:44PM on 06/16/2010
I could not agree more. I'll take practical makeup and effects over CGI garbage any day.
I could not agree more. I'll take practical makeup and effects over CGI garbage any day.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
4:31PM on 06/16/2010
Don't forget the werewolves in the first Underworld. Mostly practical effects.
Don't forget the werewolves in the first Underworld. Mostly practical effects.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
4:51PM on 06/16/2010
Don't forget the werewolves in the first Underworld. Mostly practical effects.
Don't forget the werewolves in the first Underworld. Mostly practical effects.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:53PM on 06/16/2010
OUTLANDER, the premise has so much potential. I'd love to see a movie on just his kind and the home planet, technology, etc.
OUTLANDER, the premise has so much potential. I'd love to see a movie on just his kind and the home planet, technology, etc.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
5:08PM on 06/16/2010

GREAT ARTICLE

That being said, don't hold your breath on Rodriguez's SFX. The man is a digital film guru who computorally paints all kinds of stuff into his filmed sequences. Watch the behind-the-scenes featurettes on Once Upon A Time In Mexico. That's a movie that's not thought of as heavy on CGI but there's all kinds of added effects in there you probably never even realized.
That being said, don't hold your breath on Rodriguez's SFX. The man is a digital film guru who computorally paints all kinds of stuff into his filmed sequences. Watch the behind-the-scenes featurettes on Once Upon A Time In Mexico. That's a movie that's not thought of as heavy on CGI but there's all kinds of added effects in there you probably never even realized.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:19PM on 06/16/2010
Robert Kurtzman, Rob Bottin, Kevin Yagher, and Greg Nicotero are legends in my book when it comes to make up FX.

RIP Stan Winston.
Robert Kurtzman, Rob Bottin, Kevin Yagher, and Greg Nicotero are legends in my book when it comes to make up FX.

RIP Stan Winston.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:37PM on 06/16/2010
I am in complete and utter agreement with this article, and it is something that has lain heavy on my brow for some time. We have seen some movies which had amazing potential become nothing more than CGI orgies which remove so much heart and credibility. There are some things that are completely necessary to achieve with CGI but everything else can be much more real with practical effects. Yes, it's only a movie, it's all fake we know but I find it hard to enjoy something that has been
I am in complete and utter agreement with this article, and it is something that has lain heavy on my brow for some time. We have seen some movies which had amazing potential become nothing more than CGI orgies which remove so much heart and credibility. There are some things that are completely necessary to achieve with CGI but everything else can be much more real with practical effects. Yes, it's only a movie, it's all fake we know but I find it hard to enjoy something that has been digitally created as "that's how things are done now" I miss classic creature features by members of the veritable rogues gallery of exceptionally gifted people razgriz just mentioned. It was an artform to these guys, a craft, a skill done with passion, respect and love. CGI is not an artform, it requires a skill yes but in my opinion it does not require passion. It is a tool, to be used sparingly and to achieve an effect not possible by practical effects alone. Some movies demand it e.g, Transformers, Avatar, etc which you can forgive because that is the only way it can be realised, you expect it and still enjoy it....and only if the CGI is good. I'll take cheap puppets over cheap CGI anyday. I'm terrible with words, I can never get my point across but...well...I hope you get the gist.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:24PM on 06/22/2010
You're not terrible with words in the least. I thought it was very well put.
You're not terrible with words in the least. I thought it was very well put.
8:22PM on 06/16/2010

planet of the apes...

did have damn fine makeup effects. just remember though, practical has gotten better with time....so should CGI. Should.
did have damn fine makeup effects. just remember though, practical has gotten better with time....so should CGI. Should.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-2
8:56PM on 06/16/2010
Most people like 70's and 80's movies with practical effects because they were kids when they saw it. Without question your childhood experiences form the foudation of your beliefs and likes. In the 70s/80s you had no choice, it was practical or nothing. You liked the films because you liked the films. I was 8yo when I saw return of the Jedi, and even then I knew Jabba was a puppet and his palace was filled with muppets. It didn't convince my 8yo brain. But it was about suspension of disbelief.
Most people like 70's and 80's movies with practical effects because they were kids when they saw it. Without question your childhood experiences form the foudation of your beliefs and likes. In the 70s/80s you had no choice, it was practical or nothing. You liked the films because you liked the films. I was 8yo when I saw return of the Jedi, and even then I knew Jabba was a puppet and his palace was filled with muppets. It didn't convince my 8yo brain. But it was about suspension of disbelief.
I agree in part, CG has been overused in some films when it could have been done practically, but seriously, haven't we seen enough man-in-suit monsters yet? I have no problem in practical effects when they are needed, but CG offers a universe of expression to artists with vision. It's just most of hollywoods producers/directors either don't have vision, or have it diluted by the hollywood system.
You also need to blend cg and practical together well or else it looks like balls on a chick, another reason to stay with one ro the other.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:15AM on 06/17/2010
are you retarded? He didn't say CG was bad, and that it is necessary, and when used right is fine. Your stupid remark is pretty much exactly what he said, so whats your point?

Obviously when you are a kid you know Jabba is fake, DUH! But it looks a hell of a lot better than a CG fish walking around real actors looking out of place.
are you retarded? He didn't say CG was bad, and that it is necessary, and when used right is fine. Your stupid remark is pretty much exactly what he said, so whats your point?

Obviously when you are a kid you know Jabba is fake, DUH! But it looks a hell of a lot better than a CG fish walking around real actors looking out of place.
10:12PM on 06/16/2010

Thank you Hamiltion!

Couldn't agree more. Movies use too much and it almost always at best looks fake and at worst looks like ass. Chris Nolan knows how to use CG properly: he added cracks to a broken two way mirror in tdk but blew up a fucking building!! And it paid off obviously. When did cheap cg blood become more popular than fuckin cornsyrup? It's a travesty that movies are relying so much on CG nowadays when it is completely unnecessary. Good post!
Couldn't agree more. Movies use too much and it almost always at best looks fake and at worst looks like ass. Chris Nolan knows how to use CG properly: he added cracks to a broken two way mirror in tdk but blew up a fucking building!! And it paid off obviously. When did cheap cg blood become more popular than fuckin cornsyrup? It's a travesty that movies are relying so much on CG nowadays when it is completely unnecessary. Good post!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:56PM on 06/16/2010
The CGI what killed "I am Legend" for me. I couldn't agree more with this article.
The CGI what killed "I am Legend" for me. I couldn't agree more with this article.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:06AM on 06/17/2010
I gotta agree to an extent, sometimes you need CG, but other times you don't. Or it gets over used, like in Ninja Assassin, was it really that necessary?? No it wasn't!
I gotta agree to an extent, sometimes you need CG, but other times you don't. Or it gets over used, like in Ninja Assassin, was it really that necessary?? No it wasn't!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:13AM on 06/17/2010
I'm surprised it took you this long to bring this up, but, yes, agreed.
I'm surprised it took you this long to bring this up, but, yes, agreed.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:25AM on 06/17/2010

the creature...

make up and animatronics from aliens chould be there, but then those are suits.
make up and animatronics from aliens chould be there, but then those are suits.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:36PM on 06/17/2010

Yeah

I think youre right , having strong makeup effects and not so much cgi but still make it look good really changes the quality of the film
I think youre right , having strong makeup effects and not so much cgi but still make it look good really changes the quality of the film
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:15AM on 06/18/2010
Definitely agree with the article! But however A hybrid(Make up + CGI) method of doing VFX will always bring out th best effects!
- however much we(VFX/SFX artists) get deep with our subjects(Maya or super sculpy) it all comes down to believability. And I think the most important thing is to understand and see what the director sees and know how we can make it believable

Cool article.. some really nice points/examples:)
Definitely agree with the article! But however A hybrid(Make up + CGI) method of doing VFX will always bring out th best effects!
- however much we(VFX/SFX artists) get deep with our subjects(Maya or super sculpy) it all comes down to believability. And I think the most important thing is to understand and see what the director sees and know how we can make it believable

Cool article.. some really nice points/examples:)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:19PM on 06/18/2010

About Time!!!

Thank you mr hailton for starting this up, this is a very important issue in films at the moment from romeros zombie films to the wolfman remake. The really crap cgi tranformation of the wolfman ruined the remake and i feel that the studio werent listening one rick baker who in my ees isa visionary on the american in werewolf in london dvd hetalks about how to create a perfect transformation with the mixture of cgi and prostethic make up but yet again these wan***s who run these studios want to
Thank you mr hailton for starting this up, this is a very important issue in films at the moment from romeros zombie films to the wolfman remake. The really crap cgi tranformation of the wolfman ruined the remake and i feel that the studio werent listening one rick baker who in my ees isa visionary on the american in werewolf in london dvd hetalks about how to create a perfect transformation with the mixture of cgi and prostethic make up but yet again these wan***s who run these studios want to make commrcial produ cts but we are the ones who have to sit there and watch the shite cg cos they didnt have enough time to do it in or just couldnt be bothered. I hope that hollywood pays attention to this cos we will not take this sh** no more
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
4:34PM on 06/23/2010

Truth

Audiences are too sophisticated and not easily tricked these days. A nice balance using CGI to composite and blend real elements is the right way to use the technology IMO. If you want it to look real. Make it outa real shit. I hate hate hate CGI for the sake of CGI.
Audiences are too sophisticated and not easily tricked these days. A nice balance using CGI to composite and blend real elements is the right way to use the technology IMO. If you want it to look real. Make it outa real shit. I hate hate hate CGI for the sake of CGI.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:48PM on 08/25/2010
You nailed it Ham. Now if only you could convince hollywood, we'd be in business. This is the one of the main reasons why I refused to see 2012......well that and the story looked dumb as shit too. Did that movie even have a seen without CGI? I see that you failed to mention anything about Avatar. What's up with that?
You nailed it Ham. Now if only you could convince hollywood, we'd be in business. This is the one of the main reasons why I refused to see 2012......well that and the story looked dumb as shit too. Did that movie even have a seen without CGI? I see that you failed to mention anything about Avatar. What's up with that?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Movie News Headlines


Top
Loading...
JoBlo's T-Shirt Shoppe | support our site... Wear Our Gear!