Hellboy

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:32 am

the cg in spiderman was supposed to look comic book-y. that's how sam raimi wanted it, that's why it looks comic bookish in the new trailers too. if you don't like it, sam raimi doesn't like you.

fuck cg, we should go back to harryhausen.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:51 am

EvoG wrote:how else are they gonna show a 15 foot tall green hulk

<img src="http://www.universohq.com/cinema/images/hulk_tv04.jpg">
The green paint guy is still alive.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:01 am

You know, I DID forget that Lou was 15 feet tall and not 6'5"! *slaps forehead*

Phew, thanks Walt!

Oh but wait...what about DINOS! OR TERMINATORS! OMG OR EVIL UNDEAD GODS! THE MIND REELS!!!!

Cheers

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:04 am

They considered the Gubernator for Ferrigno's job on that show.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:03 am

I can always tell when there is cgi in the movie, it sometimes pisses me off because it looses the realism and makes the director look lazy(excluding scifi/fantasy movies that usually need it). I went to see Hidalgo when it came out and I was very dissapointed because they used cgi for some of the simplist fucking scenes, like 2 horses racing and they have to use cgi to make one of them jump over a log. The main character with his horse in the beginning had cgi in practicly every scene, out in the country land to give the horse more jumps and speed. With CGI directors can just shoot halfassed then fix it up with their tech wizards, its going to ruin actors in the future cause when the level of cgi gets high enough and is tweaked to real film quality they wont need the actors they'll just make them on their computers. Also big stunts done with cgi dont get as much "wow" as the real ones.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:21 am

EvoG wrote:You know, I DID forget that Lou was 15 feet tall and not 6'5"! *slaps forehead*

Give him stilts.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:00 pm

EvoG wrote:You know, I DID forget that Lou was 15 feet tall and not 6'5"! *slaps forehead*

don't be a dunce. there are all kinds of camera angles you can use to give the illusion of him being 15' tall. maybe the 40 million you save on the industrial light and magic will give you a competent cinematographer? na.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:32 pm

Jackie Chan's stunts Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â> any CGI ones.

Also, Excalibur's knights, armies, special effects > LotR ones.

CloudNineGT · Post by **CloudNineGT** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:53 pm

Fifteen feet is nothing, if anyone saw league of extraordinary gentleman then think back to Mr. Hyde. He wasn’t 15 feet, more like ten, but still he was primarily just costume and oversized limbs supported on a framework with a few cg touch ups and it looked great. Far more believable than the soulless eyes and robotic features of any CG you have out there.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:36 pm

CloudNineGT wrote:Fifteen feet is nothing, if anyone saw league of extraordinary gentleman then think back to Mr. Hyde. He wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t 15 feet, more like ten, but still he was primarily just costume and oversized limbs supported on a framework with a few cg touch ups and it looked great. Far more believable than the soulless eyes and robotic features of any CG you have out there.

This movie was shit. Worst movie I've seen in a LOOOONG time.

He wasn't the main character though, and he was on the screen for maybe 15 minutes in all the movie.

CloudNineGT · Post by **CloudNineGT** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:22 pm

The movie being shit isnt the point. When the guy was on the screen I wasnt thinking "ooh, the light is kind of messed up"

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:39 pm

Like I said, he wasn't a big part of the movie. If they had to make him do all the things Hulk did in his movie, I'm sure they would have used CGI. Just watch that part when Hyde fights the bad guy after he's turned into another Hyde, it's 100% pure CGI.

Costumes are nice if they don't have to move too much. If they do, it looks as artificial as bad CGI.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:33 pm

There's nothing to argue here...you all seem to be on a rager that CG is just the most awful thing ever, when at its best its leagues better than any other special effect. All your suggestions about camera angles and stilts is just ridiculous and can't account for every possible type of shot or action you want to create. I mean what? What about dragons? Whats your answer there? Animatronics? Those are the worst offenders of terrible, 'soulless' special effects.

You're all being too dramatic for something that is clearly a proven and significant part of movie artistry today, so what can I say. You somehow see crap and I and most of the real world don't. *shrugs*

Cheers

CloudNineGT · Post by **CloudNineGT** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:39 pm

Not so, CG is awesome. I feel that a combination of the two fields will ultimately yield the best and most realistic results. CG should simply not become a crutch for lazy producers to cut corners.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:42 pm

See thats what I mean. How is it a crutch? How do you add that negativity to something that is superior in all ways (WHEN DONE RIGHT) to any other medium. EVERY OTHER type of special effect that could possibly be used to create fantastical creatures will NEVER be as convincing or flexible and dynamic as with CG(WHEN DONE RIGHT).

When allowed, filmmakers definitely DO use conventional techiniques. Its silly to say they don't and call them lazy.

Name a scene you felt could be done without CG, and explain how you'd do it. Seriously.

Cheers

CloudNineGT · Post by **CloudNineGT** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:54 pm

Maybe its just because I enjoy old movies a lot, theres just some magic to plastic monsters and rubber suits. CG is the future of movies, and like you said when done well it looks good and acts correctly its great. Admittedly there is still a way to go with the technolegy, but I have no doubt that it will one day become the best way of achiveing hard to creat effects. When I say cut corners I'm refering to things like hidalgos horse over fence stunt, stuff like that.

Sorry to divert, but this is a movie related thread, so has anyone seen The Alamo yet? I'm half expecting that the Texans will win in the movie.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:55 pm

CG for creatures and stuff is nice, but when they use it to make a horse jump over some shit, or make a coat looks wet, it's bad.

When some director's too lazy to move next to the sea to film and they plug some CG as a background it sucks.

But yea, CG can be awesome. Well done CG IS great. But don't you hate it when you go to a movie, everything's nice, then the bad guy is in CG and he seems to defy gravity? It's not that frequent in high budget movies, but CG is more and more used in low-budget productions, and a it makes it easier for people to make movies. Crappy ones.

I don't know if you get my point, I'm tired.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:34 pm

Well, again we need to separate GOOD and BAD CG before you can make an honest classification. I'm hearing is this :

"CG IS SO BAD OMG WORST!" ...then descriptions of low budgest movies...

"CG is pretty good when done on creatures and the high budget ones look great"

Therefore, to qualify your statements, "OMG CG SUCKS", you should more accurately state "OMG BAD CG SUCKS", which makes the big picture much clearer. Then again, if those people doing the the bad CG are just not talened enough, what makes you think they'd do a better job with another form of special effect?

Bottom line, its about the ARTIST, not the PENCIL. Carpenter, not the hammer. Race Driver, not the race car. And so on.

Cheers

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:45 pm

you keep raving about bad and good cgi, I think most of us think cgi can be done badly easily. Stop saying OMG CG ROX

I think uniting models and costumes with cgi will work best. I wouldn't like too watch movies where cgi replaces the actors for instance. It worked in Finding Nemo, though I doubt it would have worked in Jaws LOL!

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:51 pm

Megatron wrote:you keep raving about bad and good cgi, I think most of us think cgi can be done badly easily.

Who's raving about bad cg? I'm only raving about the good stuff. More accurately...you guys think ALL CG is done badly.

Why should I stop? I never said ALL CG rocks as you guys have said ALL CG SUX. I said that CG, in of itself, as a TOOL, ROX. And it does in capable hands of talented artists.

So YOU all stop with the blanket statement that it SUX0Rz.

And you can't POSSIBLY compare an ALL CG film(nemo) to film matched CG in live action. Sheesh come on Mega.

Lastly, films today STILL use both puppetry and CG together, and that looks bad as well because the division of quality is even greater, when you have a smoothly animated velociraptor going after its prey, leaping and jumping and sliding, only to then have a stiff animatronic head of said raptor jerking and snarling stiffly through a slight ajar door.

Cheers