Is it just me or does it look even more fake when they try and use cutting edge special effects rather than miniatures, robots/puppets, and "matte paintings on glass and things like that".
For example, the face melting scene at the end of "Raiders" still looks good to this day. The original Star Wars Trilogy, again, still looks good even without the addition of new special effects in the 1990s. I think filmmakers have simply become lazy. It's ten times easier for them to do it on a computer rather than to actually be creative. This isn't to say that the visual effects people don't put in a lot of time and effort, they do. But before all of this technology became available, directors and producers were forced to be creative and when it worked, it was often brilliant.
Now, for shows like Battlestar Galactica, I understand the need for CGI, and I actually enjoy it. Indeed, BSG (IMHO) has some of the best special effects I have ever seen on television. But there is no excuse for people who make movies. If you have the budget (and it's feasible), for Christsakes put down the mouse and keyboard and get creative!
Then again, maybe I've just become jaded with special effects. To me, they just aren't very "special" anymore.
[QUOTE=Space Ghost;173348]Is it just me or does it look even more fake when they try and use cutting edge special effects rather than miniatures, robots/puppets, and "matte paintings on glass and things like that".
[/QUOTE]
I do agree 100%. The best CGI is still completely incapable of matching the old ways of special effects in many aspects. 2001 is a great example. Still to this day the model work looks spectacular and its 40 years old! When I saw Star Wars Ep 1 the first thing that really annoyed me to no end was how absolutely terrible and unrealistic the CGI looked compared the the old models, animatronics and puppets. CGI is great when properly executed but it's got to the point were it's relied on exclusively because it's just so much easier.
Models/Miniatures have one truly amazing feature: Built-in realistic physics and a [B]need[/B] for the attention to detail associated with an accurate recreation of real-world objects. High-speed photography is a proven field with proven results and used to be packed with experts who knew exactly how to work well with it. It had limited flexibility compared to CGI and held directors (and writers) to more reasonable limits.
One of my favorite bits of model work: The saucer crash (Both I guess, but mostly the closing one) in Men in Black, or [B]all[/B] of Independence Day, all of the Confederation spacecraft in Starship Troopers, or so many other things having come CGI was mainstream. Take The Last Crusade, for example, with beautiful matte paintings as scenic backdrops for compositing work with miniatures (adding some minor CGI flair to it). Lots of purdy stuffs there. :)
Sanfam and I discussed this once, practicals VS CGI. Perfect example: Forbidden Planet. Made in the 1950s, it STILL looks really, really good. Why? Mostly practicals, models, physical effects. They stand the test of time remarkably well.
Another terrific example of practicals, Bladerunner. Los Angeles of the future was a giant model set painted and lit to look like a futuristic city and it's amazing.
Hell, take a look at Iron Man. The director, Jon Favreau is not a huge fan of CGI so he used practicals wherever possible. All three suits had a physical version that ILM was able to copy into CGI so seamlessly it's fantastic. Explosions were mostly practicals as well. The special effects rocked in that movie because of the balanced combination.
[QUOTE=sataicallista;173352]Hell, take a look at Iron Man. The director, Jon Favreau is not a huge fan of CGI so he used practicals wherever possible. All three suits had a physical version that ILM was able to copy into CGI so seamlessly it's fantastic. Explosions were mostly practicals as well. The special effects rocked in that movie because of the balanced combination.[/QUOTE]
I heard they avoided CGI whenever possible with Batman Begins as well. (And, judging by the trailer, it seems The Dark Knight, too.) Kudos to filmmakers who don't jump on the bandwagon and take the easy way out.
[QUOTE=Mundane;173358]Almost fell asleep during the chase through the jungle...[/QUOTE]
So did I and then again at the end inside the center of the temple with the Spoiler: crystal alien skeletons. I barely remember how the movie ended actually.
RubberEagleWhat's a rubber eagle used for, anyway?
The really shocking thing about the jungle-chase is, that (according to the article Vorlons linked) it was filmed in a real jungle and then "enhanced" by ILM...
Sure, at first I felt really funny about having aliens in an Indiana Jones movie, but the more I thought about it, all the other movies dealt with artifacts/people with crazy supernatural powers ("Indy! Cover your heart!" :rolleyes:), so I think it really does fit. Aliens taking off in a giant flying saucer is about as believable as finding the Ark of the Covenant and seing it blast laser beams through Nazis, and so on. Basically, if you go into an Indiana Jones movie expecting them to debunk stories of the supernatural, you're in for a disappointment :p
If I could change one thing about the movie, I'd get rid of the scene with all those stupid monkies and Henry III swinging through the trees. It's just embarassing and laughable. I'd also get rid of the cute little prarie dogs. Catering to the Jar-Jar audience, but in a PG-13 movie. *sigh*
Other than those two exceptions, I didn't really notice anything presented as bad CG or even good CG. Seriously. Let's face it - even if the CGI *was* bad, it's still a much better movie than most coming out of Hollywood these days. Certainly not worthy of the harsh treatment from that YTMND, unless you're stubbornly against Aliens getting anywhere near your Indy franchise.
Also, I'd invite any of you to explain to me how Indiana Jones could possibly *not* survive a nuclear blast :D
While I suspect the grail drink should grant him "Immortality," I don't suspect it'll allow you to live through either disease or physical incapacitation. If you live a careful life and keep healthy, you'll probably live as long as the remaining guard.
I think you have to keep drinking from the grail and since it cant leave the temple, you have to stay there. Remember the two knights who left eventually died as well.
Chaosed: you are hearing correctly. I'd rather go see Iron Man another dozen times than Indy. And no, not ONLY because Robert Downey Jr rocks....though he completely and totally does. :P
Comments
For example, the face melting scene at the end of "Raiders" still looks good to this day. The original Star Wars Trilogy, again, still looks good even without the addition of new special effects in the 1990s. I think filmmakers have simply become lazy. It's ten times easier for them to do it on a computer rather than to actually be creative. This isn't to say that the visual effects people don't put in a lot of time and effort, they do. But before all of this technology became available, directors and producers were forced to be creative and when it worked, it was often brilliant.
Now, for shows like Battlestar Galactica, I understand the need for CGI, and I actually enjoy it. Indeed, BSG (IMHO) has some of the best special effects I have ever seen on television. But there is no excuse for people who make movies. If you have the budget (and it's feasible), for Christsakes put down the mouse and keyboard and get creative!
Then again, maybe I've just become jaded with special effects. To me, they just aren't very "special" anymore.
[/QUOTE]
I do agree 100%. The best CGI is still completely incapable of matching the old ways of special effects in many aspects. 2001 is a great example. Still to this day the model work looks spectacular and its 40 years old! When I saw Star Wars Ep 1 the first thing that really annoyed me to no end was how absolutely terrible and unrealistic the CGI looked compared the the old models, animatronics and puppets. CGI is great when properly executed but it's got to the point were it's relied on exclusively because it's just so much easier.
One of my favorite bits of model work: The saucer crash (Both I guess, but mostly the closing one) in Men in Black, or [B]all[/B] of Independence Day, all of the Confederation spacecraft in Starship Troopers, or so many other things having come CGI was mainstream. Take The Last Crusade, for example, with beautiful matte paintings as scenic backdrops for compositing work with miniatures (adding some minor CGI flair to it). Lots of purdy stuffs there. :)
Another terrific example of practicals, Bladerunner. Los Angeles of the future was a giant model set painted and lit to look like a futuristic city and it's amazing.
Hell, take a look at Iron Man. The director, Jon Favreau is not a huge fan of CGI so he used practicals wherever possible. All three suits had a physical version that ILM was able to copy into CGI so seamlessly it's fantastic. Explosions were mostly practicals as well. The special effects rocked in that movie because of the balanced combination.
I heard they avoided CGI whenever possible with Batman Begins as well. (And, judging by the trailer, it seems The Dark Knight, too.) Kudos to filmmakers who don't jump on the bandwagon and take the easy way out.
So did I and then again at the end inside the center of the temple with the Spoiler: crystal alien skeletons. I barely remember how the movie ended actually.
Worf
I think they failed: [url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9951772-7.html[/url]
It was good.
Sure, at first I felt really funny about having aliens in an Indiana Jones movie, but the more I thought about it, all the other movies dealt with artifacts/people with crazy supernatural powers ("Indy! Cover your heart!" :rolleyes:), so I think it really does fit. Aliens taking off in a giant flying saucer is about as believable as finding the Ark of the Covenant and seing it blast laser beams through Nazis, and so on. Basically, if you go into an Indiana Jones movie expecting them to debunk stories of the supernatural, you're in for a disappointment :p
If I could change one thing about the movie, I'd get rid of the scene with all those stupid monkies and Henry III swinging through the trees. It's just embarassing and laughable. I'd also get rid of the cute little prarie dogs. Catering to the Jar-Jar audience, but in a PG-13 movie. *sigh*
Other than those two exceptions, I didn't really notice anything presented as bad CG or even good CG. Seriously. Let's face it - even if the CGI *was* bad, it's still a much better movie than most coming out of Hollywood these days. Certainly not worthy of the harsh treatment from that YTMND, unless you're stubbornly against Aliens getting anywhere near your Indy franchise.
Also, I'd invite any of you to explain to me how Indiana Jones could possibly *not* survive a nuclear blast :D
Worf