Hellboy

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:57 pm

What's wrong with animatronics? Older stuff was stiff and lifeless, but new stuff can look much better than CGI in certain situations. They're different tools for different applications. Pretty much CGI is overused, used to be, directors would have to oh, go out and film something they wanted in the movie, instead of being like "oh well, let's just CGI it!"

The new Alien Vs Predator movie is using animatronics instead of CGI, and just the production models they've got in their little teaser look pretty "lifefull" to me. Sure, CGI Aliens are good if they're running and jumping, but watching a human try to act to an imaginary Alien looking them in the face and lit differently because it was added in later would look so much shittier than if you have a fully functional animatronic Alien head that the actor can actually, like, see.

Here's the animatronics movie

Case in point of the shittiness in human / CGI interaction, one of the movies we get playing at work is the second Harry Potter movie, watching that, some scenes are so laughable, every part where they have humans touching or dodging or doing anything with CGI characters just looks plain retarded.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:59 pm

Nobody said anything about all cgi being bad. Besides the OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone. Stop with the blanket statements about us having blanket statements.

I also think even models and stop-motion animation is always good, it has a bit of character.

Imagine those, but cgi. It would be pretty boring eh? I wouldn't say either one was better than the other, though you can do bad cgi easily, which a lot of directors do.

get with the program, dawg

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:58 pm

*sigh*

Megatron, LOTS of people at the onset of the CG conversation said its "awful", and "horrible" and "sucks". Go back and read. If anything I'm targeting my responses to them, but you seemed to have interest in siding with them even on a small level to argue this with me, which is fine, but then that includes you in the fray.

Find me an example of FULL CHARACTER animatronics that looks better than CG, preferably rolling around wrestling like Golum and the hobbits in LotR, or the Hulk fighting the tanks or the T Rex chasing the Jeep in JP.

And those skeletons, done CG, would be boring because of the technology? Is this what I'm understanding you claiming? You think, because they are CG, that IMMEDIATELY they would be boring?? That is one of the stupidest things I EVER heard anyone say! HAHAHAHA. OMG. Yes thats right, if we simply CHANGED the medium in which we display that scene, it can change it from exciting to boring. No wait! Lets elaborate! Stiff, jerky stop motion (which I loved back in the day mind you and Harryhausen is brilliant in his day), is MORE EXCITING, than smooth, lifelike skeletons with leagues more detail and range of motion! WOW! And here I thought it was the scriptwriting and cinematography that made scenes exciting or boring! NO YOU'VE OPENED MY EYES! ITS THE TECHNOLOGY THAT MAKES SCENES EXCITING OR BORING OMG.

And YES SUPER H. WHEN CG IS BAD ITS LAUGHABLE AND BAD. I GET IT FUCKING HELL!

Cheers

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:19 am

Aliens, specifically the entire thing with the Queen and the aliens in her chamber. To my knowledge that was an entirely done with Costumes, set pieces, and animatronics. The scenes in that movie are better and more convincing then almost any CGI I can remember. A majority of people aren't saying CGI is bad, what they ARE saying is that directors shouldn't use it as a cover for shitty work, IE the rain on the coat example. They are also saying they would rather see real stunt work and such to CGI work. Hell, I myself would rather see real stunt work as compared to CGI. I'm pretty sure we know thats not always possible, but thats the point of special affects, to make the impossible, possible. Or atleast trick to the viewer into thinking of such.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:34 am

Um, Aliens is one of my all time favorite movies eVar, but in NO way can it compare to todays best CG creatures in film. 'Aliens' in of itself rocked and worked because of the tight ass shots and entirely dark environments. Atmosphere adds a lot and helps immensly to cheat shots. All the examples I've given about great CG, the characters are full in frame, perfectly film-matched and are in a variety of lighting situations from night to artificial to full glaring daylight.

Cheers

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:36 am

Doesn't matter, you asked for an example inwhich it matches (And it still holds up well as a medium budget movie today in my opinion) and you got one, just because the camera crew and director were smart enough to use lighting and such to their advantage shouldn't discredit them, but only stand as a testament to their genius.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:46 am

Wolfman Walt wrote:Doesn't matter, you asked for an example inwhich it matches

God Walter, you were doing okay up until now, and you do this.

PEOPLE READ AND COMPREHEND BEFORE POSTING:

I asked for, Walter :

EvoG wrote:Find me an example of FULL CHARACTER animatronics that looks better than CG, preferably rolling around wrestling like Golum and the hobbits in LotR, or the Hulk fighting the tanks or the T Rex chasing the Jeep in JP.

You're example does NOT show me this, on any level. ALL THE SHOTS ARE TIGHT AND DARK. GOLUM IS FULL FRAME AND LIT. HULK IS FULL FRAME AND LIT BRIGHTLY. T-REX IS GARGANTUAN AND FULL FRAME AND HAS RAIN DRIPPING OFF OF IT AND STOMPS TREES AND RUNS 35MPH.

*takes deep breath*

I like you buddy, but I had to yell, sorry.

Cheers

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:49 am

No, you gave abunch of examples of what it had to be like, Sigourney Fighting the queen in the loading suit is an example inwhich I personally think it looks as good as most CG. Just because its not like mega fluid or whatever doesn't mean it doesn't look as good. On the level of interaction and such, its even better then most highquality CG since the animatronics and such are actually TOUCHING and interacting without it looking like bullshit that most CG does. I gave you an example, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it.

Edit: While they are fighting in the hangar, the queen is seem full frame a few times, and the Hangar is pretty well lit.

Also your T-Rex example, technically he isn't running at any speed because he's NOT THERE.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:03 am

EvoG wrote: NO YOU'VE OPENED MY EYES! ITS THE TECHNOLOGY THAT MAKES SCENES EXCITING OR BORING OMG.

Ok. But back when I was a kid, these kind of model shots were pretty sweet. I think if it would have been done with cgi then you could tell and it wouldnt have been as good. Even good cgi looks a little too smooth and out of place. So do model shots (looking realistic), though I just like them more than cgi. I prefer bad animation over good cgi sometimes? lololol

I guess the bugs in starship troopers have scarred me for life.

as for good full character animatronics - dark crystal?

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:39 am

EvoG wrote:And YES SUPER H. WHEN CG IS BAD ITS LAUGHABLE AND BAD. I GET IT FUCKING HELL!

Calm down? You're just making yourself seem like an asshole? :-!

We get your point ya, CG is good and all that, anything can be good done well and anything can suck done badly. Viola. We're back where we started, nice argument and running in circles was fun, or something.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:39 am

I really have to quit this...you people are ridiculous to talk to. Its exhausting because of your complete lack of grasping context. FUCK.

Wolfman Walt wrote:No, you gave abunch of examples of what it had to be like, Sigourney Fighting the queen in the loading suit is an example inwhich I personally think it looks as good as most CG. Just because its not like mega fluid or whatever doesn't mean it doesn't look as good. On the level of interaction and such, its even better then most highquality CG since the animatronics and such are actually TOUCHING and interacting without it looking like bullshit that most CG does. I gave you an example, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it.

I'm not talking about what WORKS. I'm talking abot TECHNOLOGY. When she's full frame, she's a shitty wavering UBER animatronic. She doesn't leap, she doesn't tumble, she doesn't behave like a real creature. LOOKS COOL, but it CERTAINLY not on level with the TRex, or even that creature from Relic, which was a poo movie. You look at all the latest movie creatures of the past few years such as from MiB, and you just can't compare the TECHNOLOGICALLY. ALIENS IS A KICK ASS MOVIE, BUT IS TRAILING NOW DUE TO ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY. DOESN"T MEAN IT ISN'T COOL. MEANS IT CAN'T LOOK AS COOL AS TODAYS CREATURES AND DOESN'T HAVE THE RANGE OF MOTION THAT THEY DO TODAY, BECAUSE BACK THEN IT WAS A LIMITATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY. The loader scene is one of my favorites. And I love Robocop and the ED209 and Robocop-2. But they LOOK like stop motion, and they absolutely DO NOT have the film integration sophistication that CG has. Golum from LotR is by far the most interactive, most amazing CG character out today.

Wolfman Walt wrote:Edit: While they are fighting in the hangar, the queen is seem full frame a few times, and the Hangar is pretty well lit.

No, she wasn't that well lit. You could see her sure, and the closeups of course, but not brightly lit. Wouldn't hold up in daylight.

Wolfman Walt wrote:Also your T-Rex example, technically he isn't running at any speed because he's NOT THERE.

Yea no shit genius.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:42 am

Megatron wrote:I guess the bugs in starship troopers have scarred me for life.

as for good full character animatronics - dark crystal?

I forgot Starship Troopers. That movie was total popcorn but I fucking loved it. Good call.

Dark Crytsal, um, waist up puppetry.

Cheers

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:49 am

SuperH wrote:Calm down? You're just making yourself seem like an asshole? :-!

You know why its hard to calm down!? Because I heard the SAME fucking lame comment over and over again, that bad CG sucks, and then the poster goes on to point out ONE example of where it was terrible...as if I said that ALL CG was excellent and that none of it was bad. I repeated myself, what four times that CG can be awful, and I'm the first person to point it out. Apparently people didnt' read the whole thread before posting, or they just don't fucking understand what they read.

SuperH wrote:We get your point ya, CG is good and all that, anything can be good done well and anything can suck done badly. Viola. We're back where we started, nice argument and running in circles was fun, or something.

Do you!? Maybe you do. But then the next guy will go "CG SUCKS OMG DID YOU SEE THE SCENE IN...." and it start all over. You did sum up what I've been trying to say but NO ONE GOT IT.

Yes bad sometimes and great at others. When its at its BEST, its better than any other special effects technology available, therefore, HOW can CG just simply SUCK in a blanket statement then?

Cheers

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 1:55 am

You gotta edit your consecutive postings together.

It makes it all nicer happy-plant. (WTF MAEN? hell if i know, I just work here)

Regardless, Starship Troopers CG made me laugh so hard, but it was such a wonderful gore fest of green blood and chunky limbs flying, I had nothing but love. As for plot, no, definate. But the sheer glory of the action makes it passable to me

Edit (by coincidence, this is how we do it, EvoG

)

Animatroincs are the freaking winner. I'm sorry. Does anyone remember that short lived, but wonderful (at least in my view) sitcom called "Dinosaurs"?

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:01 am

jetbaby wrote:You gotta edit your consecutive postings together.

It makes it all nicer happy-plant. (WTF MAEN? hell if i know, I just work here)

Regardless, Starship Troopers CG made me laugh so hard, but it was such a wonderful gore fest of green blood and chunky limbs flying, I had nothing but love. As for plot, no, definate. But the sheer glory of the action makes it passable to me

Hehe, I know, but I like to 'read myself talk'. Seriously I just wanted my post count to go way the fuck up. Honestly, I was just too lazy.

StarshipTroopers...no plot(well nothing deep), but yea, fun as hell.

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:59 am

EvoG wrote:
jetbaby wrote:You gotta edit your consecutive postings together.

It makes it all nicer happy-plant. (WTF MAEN? hell if i know, I just work here)

Regardless, Starship Troopers CG made me laugh so hard, but it was such a wonderful gore fest of green blood and chunky limbs flying, I had nothing but love. As for plot, no, definate. But the sheer glory of the action makes it passable to me
Hehe, I know, but I like to 'read myself talk'. Seriously I just wanted my post count to go way the fuck up. Honestly, I was just too lazy.

StarshipTroopers...no plot(well nothing deep), but yea, fun as hell.

speaking of high tech, wheres my project: phoenix screenshot?

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:09 am

Coming Soon!

but don't tell anyone...our little serk4t

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:54 pm

T1-T2 > T3 CGI.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:50 pm

I loved the CG in T2, no doubt.

T2 is by far one of my favorite movies ever on earth.

You can't include the effects of T1 in comparison to T2 or 3...they were not great on any level, but neat, for the time.

Um, what was your point?

Cheers

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:11 pm

None

Just to say newer isn't always better.

Sometimes, and I say SOMETIMES, too much CGI kind of kill the feeling/emotions of a scene. When it's too slick, polished.... You know?

Just as I think FO is a 2D isometric game. Don't try and make me accept a 3D one.