Holding back on 3D.

[IG-64]

this is partly just me getting in the groove of the "prequel/original battle" but this is also just my honest opinion.

 

I've heard most bring it up at least once, newscasters, reviewers, some swampies.

 

What do you all have against 3D? Some say it looks fake, even in epsII, IMHO, it looks awsome. You must all remember too that 3D is a growing process and will look better and better over time. I think people have a bad taste in their mouths from the late 80s, early 90s movies that had primitive 3D. Now when people see it they just go out and say it looks fake. I heard an academy award broadcaster say that return of the king "just had all that bad 3D"

....

Gollum people...

 

Neo in reloaded, people said that looked fake, whilst I was amazed.

 

Of, course, this is just my opinion, im into 3d and all.

 

Your opinions on 3D?

 

 

G

[txa1265]

So you're talking CGI?

 

Personally I have no problem with it. I think some have a knee-jerk anti-CGI reaction as they may see it as non-humans replacing actual actors.

 

Personally, I feel cartoon characters can show emotions well, why not CGI?

 

I also have no problem viewing something based on the era it was created. So while Tron or Last Starfighter look dated by today's standard, they were something in their own time.

 

For me it is a question of story - if the character, whether it is human, machine, little green puppet or CGI, flows within the story, great. It is technology for its' own sake that I can't stand ... like the last two Matrix movies

 

Mike

[StormHammer]

There's nothing wrong with CGI, per se...but like any other visual effect, you can get good CGI and bad CGI. There will always be occasions when CGI does indeed look fake, particularly in live action films. That is largely down to the effects people not managing to capture the proper lighting for the scene (or texturing for the character), so the CGI character does not look 'fixed' in the environment. I do find that somewhat distracting sometimes.

 

The only other time when CGI looks 'fake' to me is when the animation is slightly off, and a character makes a move that looks stilted or unrealistic. For example, when Legolas jumps onto the horse in The Two Towers - it just did not look 'natural' to me. There have been other incidents in other films that 'jar' when you look at them.

 

As far as CGI-only films go, then I don't see any problem at all. I view them along the same lines as a 'cartoon' where anything is basically feasible. The best CGI movie I've seen to date was Final Fantasy: Spirits Within. Regardless of what you thought of the story, and whether it tied into the games at all (I wouldn't know, because I've never played any of them), the CGI work on that film was ground-breaking and a visual feast.

 

Gollum is, of course, just as ground-breaking in terms of bringing a virtual character to life, and I think they were absolutely right to alter the CGI character to it's current form, from the one that they initially had in FOTR. Using Andy Serkis as a foundation for Gollum's features (and the actor's expressions to portray emotion) was critical to bringing Gollum to life, along with the outstanding animation work, texturing techniques and script-writing for the character.

 

Hopefully future CGI characters can continue to build on these techniques. And as they say, the best visual effects are those that you cannot tell apart from reality.

[IG-64]

Originally posted by StormHammer

That is largely down to the effects people not managing to capture the proper lighting for the scene (or texturing for the character), so the CGI character does not look 'fixed' in the environment.

 

Thats exactly what I was going to say

 

 

G

[BCanr2d2]

Not exactly the easiest thing to do CGI for a movie. Making sure to match the exat same lighting conditions that the take used for the live footage had.

I think this is where it is usually let down, the lighting changing from one set of takes on day to the next.

 

Other than that, CGI has it's place, but where they try to "skip" pieces due to people not being able to see every frame, it jumps around a little, and can look fake.

 

I couldn't imagine modern movies without CGI, what would LOTR look like???!

[IG-64]

Originally posted by BCanr2d2

Not exactly the easiest thing to do CGI for a movie. Making sure to match the exat same lighting conditions that the take used for the live footage had.

I think this is where it is usually let down, the lighting changing from one set of takes on day to the next.

 

Other than that, CGI has it's place, but where they try to "skip" pieces due to people not being able to see every frame, it jumps around a little, and can look fake.

 

I couldn't imagine modern movies without CGI, what would LOTR look like???!

 

thats why you use lighting refrence.

 

You know, the little ball with reflections on one side and blank on the other? Thats what star wars and matrix used.

 

 

G