Why CGI sucks... except it doesnt

That is interesting. I like not noticing CGI then I suppose. Mixing the practical with CGI works well too when done right. I guess everything has its limitations.
I do still like the realistic old school gore of practical effects eg Alien, Scanners, The Thing.
 
When I saw what the clip was about I thought they'd show parts of the film Willow. A couple of scenes couldn't be made as they were too dangerous to the actors so they tried a new and untried idea the producer had, to create the scenes by computer. The film Willow was directed by Ron Howard and produced by George Lucas. Some CGI is done by utilising Digitally Enhanced procedures, the main thing that stops a lot of CGI work is cost, on the other hand why go to another country if its cheaper to show the scene from a computer.
A good CGI artist can do wonders much like SFX people it all depends how much money is available. The prime example for that is the vampire film Suck.
 
Whenever I think of CGI, I think about the chariot race in "Ben Hur," where they built the whole structure and filled it with literally thousands of live extras, as opposed to "Gladiator," where almost the entire Roman Stadium was CGI, or "Avatar," where most of the entire movie came out of a computer.

Compare the original "King Kong," where Kong's fur rippled constantly because of the animators' fingerprints in it and the biplanes who were so obviously models, and bad ones, at that, as opposed to Woola or Tars Tarkas in "John Carter."

We've come a long way, baby.
 
GwenRaiden
GwenRaiden
I love Ben Hur. It's still massively impressive, and looks so dangerous!
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom