Hellboy

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:23 pm

But why Sauron? Why are you making this point?

I never said NEWER was better.

I never said more CG was the way to go.

All I said was that, in response to those that said CG is "t3h sUx0rz", I said that it is the most sophisticated form of special effects we have and at its best is better than any other form of special effects...keeping everything in context. The CG dinos in JP looked leagues better than the animatronic ones. I'm not comparing a GOOD movie with no CG to a BAD movie with CG, just simply commenting on CG in of itself.

As for your issues with Fallout...I don't get your point? You won't accept CG in movies like you won't accept 3D in Fallout?? Oooo kaaaaay. *shrugs*

Cheers

Cheers

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:46 pm

Interesting discussion, but I don't really care because I couldn't give half a shit about most movies that liberally use CGI beyond bad Kung Fu movies. I care way more about cinematography, which I know a lot more about, than special effects, and incidentally, most of the movies you guys mentioned are pretty shitty in the cinematography department.

Anyhow, are any of you people into animation? Conventional animation, I mean, the Bugs Bunny kind. (No flash or computer-aided animation neither.) Just curious.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:58 pm

First off I'm an animator, so um, I'm into animation. I probably don't need to say this, but yea, bugs bunny and tom and jerry just rock, and are representative of the finer moments in animation, where you can tell they were very talented and loved what they did.

Secondly, no one disputed the merits of a film. I don't think you're unique in your 'committed' stance that you care more about cinematography and story...I think thats most of us here and goes without saying no?

Secondly, I disagree...most of the movies we've mentioned have excellent cinematography, up their with the best. Consider that cinematography is almost all that an action/adventure movie has going for it, as stories are usually secondary to the action.

Then again, we're talking about the merits of CG, and not the 'movies' themselves. Odds are that you simply don't like the kinds of movies that tend to have more CG. *shrugs*

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:12 pm

Excellent cinematography? I'll say that the Sigourney flicks do, but stuff like the Terminators and LOTRs have generally flat and methodic cinematography which is designed around the special effects. You could say it is pretty innovative, using cinematography in tandem with neat special effects, but the end result of this is that the cinematography lends nothing to the film and the special effects really take over.

EvoG wrote:Odds are that you simply don't like the kinds of movies that tend to have more CG.

Well, yeah. And I hate sci-fi movies in general (with a few exceptions, obviously).

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:26 pm

Yea excellent. Visual narrative. Loved it.

Oh well, I'm a huge sci fi, fantasy, military, action/adventure movie fan, and you're not, so its not a fruitful discussion.

Cheers

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:29 pm

EvoG wrote: As for your issues with Fallout...I don't get your point? You won't accept CG in movies like you won't accept 3D in Fallout?? Oooo kaaaaay. *

I said that referring to my point on about how too much CG sometimes kill the feelings/emotions/atmosphere in a particular scene/movie. FO's atmosphere is in part due to the graphic?

Some particular movies with animatronics or any other "old" effects are great, and they wouldn't be great if made with CG. Monty Python's Holy Grail for example, I don't think that scene with the Black Knight would give people the same laught with CG instead?

Or, to go back on the Alien subject :

EvoG wrote: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

Good, but if we saw her full frame, it wouldn't be the same terrifying monster.

I don't think we can compare CG and animatronics, both have their uses and both need to work together to have the best results. JP's CG dinos were based off plastic/rubber ones.

Role-Player · Post by **Role-Player** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:30 pm

EvoG wrote: I probably don't need to say this, but yea, bugs bunny and tom and jerry just rock, and are representative of the finer moments in animation, where you can tell they were very talented and loved what they did.

Chuck Jones > you.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:30 pm

EvoG wrote:Yea excellent. Visual narrative. Loved it.

Oh well, I'm a huge sci fi, fantasy, military, action/adventure movie fan, and you're not, so its not a fruitful discussion.

Cheers

CG serves military/fantasy movies very well since there are a lot of large scale battles and such, CG is great for far views, but when you get too close... Eww

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:49 pm

I actually liked the cinematography in T1 better then the other two, although T2 has its moments such as when the Governator gets the shotgun out of the roses and it slows down abit.

I actually remember one critic who hated horror movies but praised the cinematography in Halloween 2. The director apperantly used to do really glitzy french commercials or something like that so tried to do all sorts of odd crap with the camera that you normally didn't see in a horror film.

Not that has anything to do with anything, but I'm sleep deprived and its semi-related.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:53 pm

tremors has some good special effects. I gess.

Under Siege 2 tonight, wee!

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:09 pm

s4ur0n27 wrote:Good, but if we saw her full frame, it wouldn't be the same terrifying monster.

I don't think we can compare CG and animatronics, both have their uses and both need to work together to have the best results. JP's CG dinos were based off plastic/rubber ones.

OH DEAR FUCKING LORD!!!

Can I ask how old all of you guys are? I'm serious, because I can't FATHOM why you guys FAIL to understand context, so I'm wondering if its age...

Yes Sauron, if she was FULLY LIT and in FULL FRAME, she would not be scary from a CINEMATIC POINT OF VIEW. But AGAIN, we're talking TECHNOLOGY, not any ONE PARTICULAR SCENE IN ONE PARTICULAR MOVIE. Thats why it WORKS in Aliens...they made due with the limitations of technology and exploited the atmosphere and environment to make it look awesome. *sigh*

And YES, we DO compare CG and animatronics since they're are MOVIE SPESCHUAL EFEXORZ. Before there was CG, there was animatronics and stop motion. They are all in the same category. This has been the whole discussion all along! OMG!! *pops neck vein*

Role-Player wrote:Chuck Jones > you.

Wow, we don't really know eachother well yet, so that kinda hurt my feelings.

Though I don't dispute his godliness.

s4ur0n27 wrote:CG serves military/fantasy movies very well since there are a lot of large scale battles and such, CG is great for far views, but when you get too close... Eww

Most of the shots in JP and T2 and Hellboy and shots of Gollum in LotR are all close and look awesome.

Cheers

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:14 pm

if there so awesome...why does it look so fake

DEVO G U PENIS! CGI ALWAYS LOOKS SLIMY!

fix it in patch plz

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:20 pm

Role-Player · Post by **Role-Player** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:20 pm

EvoG wrote:
Role-Player wrote:Chuck Jones > you.
Wow, we don't really know eachother well yet, so that kinda hurt my feelings. Though I don't dispute his godliness.

I wasn't really saying he was better than you, more like pointing out his, as you said, godliness, compared to us mortals.

As for the whole debacle i actually agree that Aliens was top notch, and the end result of combining available technology and effective use of atmosphere is the kind of thing that really gets me. While not necessarily in the same league in terms of special effects, John Carpenter's The Thing still remains as one of my favourite movies, possibly because of the same reason. The FX budget was only of 1.5 million dollars (!) if i remember correctly, and its effectiveness today is still greater than multimillion extravaganzas being done today, in my opinion.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:23 pm

Role-Player wrote:

I wasn't really saying he was better than you, more like pointing out his, as you said, godliness, compared to us mortals.

As for the whole debacle i actually agree that Aliens was top notch, and the end result of combining available technology and effective use of atmosphere is the kind of thing that really gets me. While not necessarily in the same league in terms of special effects, John Carpenter's The Thing still remains as one of my favourite movies, possibly because of the same reason. The FX budget was only of 1.5 million dollars (!) if i remember correctly, and its effectiveness today is still greater than multimillion extravaganzas being done today, in my opinion.

I hear ya....and your body pressed up against mine is so warm...mmmm

I'm not going to dispute the merits of great films, CG or not...they're great for reasons WELL beyond the effects. Of course.

Cheers

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:40 pm

I think if the matrix sequels had no cg, that might have made them better? LOL!

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:42 am

Megatron wrote:I think if the matrix sequels had no cg, that might have made them better? LOL!

Matrix sequels - CG = No movie at all

So, yes, they would have been much better.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:33 pm

EvoG wrote:Yes Sauron, if she was FULLY LIT and in FULL FRAME, she would not be scary from a CINEMATIC POINT OF VIEW. But AGAIN, we're talking TECHNOLOGY, not any ONE PARTICULAR SCENE IN ONE PARTICULAR MOVIE. Thats why it WORKS in Aliens...they made due with the limitations of technology and exploited the atmosphere and environment to make it look awesome. *sigh*

Well you asked for an example didn't you? And we do have to take into account cinematography because CGI IS USED IN MOVIES.

Anyway I don't see why the discussion's still going, I think we ALL agree CGI is a good technology, that it has MANY GOOD USES but also BAD ONES and it often FUCKS UP MOVIES.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:43 pm

s4ur0n27 wrote:CGI... SUCKS and it often FUCKS UP MOVIES.

Wrong. The movies are fucked up because the filmmakers suck at what they do, not because it used CG.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:21 pm

I meant the uses fuck up movies.