I blame his non HD-TV w/ antenna, he needs to go 21st century and get a converter box before he gets no picture at all come mid-june.
- W -
* Heh heh heh heh *
The snow monsters look like crap!
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
I blame his non HD-TV w/ antenna, he needs to go 21st century and get a converter box before he gets no picture at all come mid-june.
- W -
* Heh heh heh heh *
That might be the case for now! Mark my words though people will soon see the light and they will beg me to forgive them for their oviously incorrect opinons.
I agree the coloring is a problem with them and I think that might be the thing that makes them seem unrealisitc to me. I have noticed CGI animals and creatures tend to work best when yuo have subdued colors or animals that seem more natural looking such as the Dinasaurs in "Jurassik Park" or the Alien from "Aliens" sequels. The more colorful your creature is the more cartoonish it looks.
Jason
Then JJ will be raping my wallet and childhood.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
That might be the case for now! Mark my words though people will soon see the light and they will beg me to forgive them for their oviously incorrect opinons.
I agree the coloring is a problem with them and I think that might be the thing that makes them seem unrealisitc to me. I have noticed CGI animals and creatures tend to work best when yuo have subdued colors or animals that seem more natural looking such as the Dinasaurs in "Jurassik Park" or the Alien from "Aliens" sequels. The more colorful your creature is the more cartoonish it looks.
Jason
I personally think it looks great... for what it is.
The fact is that over-reliance on CG has killed both TV and film effects.
I'll give you three prime examples: Star Wars prequels, VOY and ENT.
As much as I appreciate the value of CG, it's completely replaced miniature models, creative set building and even puppetry and this change hasn't been for the better.
DS9 showed me that there has to be balance. If you CG only when you have to instead of as the default it is far more realistic. The battle scenes in DS9 are phenomenal because the combined both elements seamlessly. VOY was almost entirely CG, ENT was entirely CG and we know what an abortion the three SW prequels were. Yoda looks more realistic as a foam rubber puppet than he does as a CG character, sorry.
And this is the problem with CG... it all looks fake. There are just differing degrees of fakeness. They haven't developed the technology well enough to use it exclusively in live-acton yet they've convinced themselves that they have. The color is never right, the organic motion is always screwed up and they can't get the texture or shadows right. Most Cg (as we saw in SW) winds up looking like a cartoon.
All of this being considered, I think the monster looks pretty damned good. There were just a couple of little things that gave it away that it was CG.
I think the beastie's look great
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
Gollum's CG?
He's pretty shitty but not as bad as some. Characters are the worst, IMHO and they shouldn't be used in film or TV.
Maybe I wasn't plain enough.
Let me try again.
How can you say the creatures looked "unconvincing"? The fact they look unlike anything in real life? Um... Isn't that the point?
What IS it about the monsters' appearance you didn't like? How was it 'not real enough'? This is especially important when you consider the fact everything happened so fast we barely got a look at either of them. What did you do, freezeframe the playback so you could get a good look?
I made a valid reference you seem to have missed, so let me bring it up again.
Are you saying the monsters looked less real than the Mugato did back in the 60's? A guy in a white gorilla suit with a horn glued to his head? *
What exactly IS it you're unhappy with about the alien spider and polar bear?
EDIT:
*As Mister "Change NOTHING!" stops to realize he may have just poked fun at something from TOS, he curls up into a ball in a corner, and begins babbling softly and humming the original series themesong, while occasionally crying out as visions of Shatner Kirk suddenly morp into Pine Kirk and laugh while ripping up cast photos taken back in the 60s.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
About which one of my idiotic opinions? There are several to choose from in this thread alone.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I'm one of those that thinks CG is overused and all that and I still thought that scene from the new movie looked just fine!
I don't know exactly how to put in words other than they look cartoonish. They lack a certain kind of texture you might get from someone like Rick Baker. In their own way they look just as bad as the Mugato but it's a different kind of bad. One looks like a guy in a monkey suit and the other looks like a cartoon. I like my alien monsters to look gory and slimey such as the Alien in the "Alien" movies or the aliens in "The Thing" were as these aliens look smooth and colorful. I know the trade-off is that a CGI monster can do more than those old school monsters as far as movement but i'm not sure if that is always a good thing.
Jason
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Yes. CG is used too much. We should get back to the good old days.
That'll get people in the seats!
Buddy...I hope that wasn't aimed at me.
Just because somebody says something like "There's too much CG in movies nowadays." doesn't mean I think we go back to papier mache.
Yes. CG is used too much. We should get back to the good old days.
That'll get people in the seats!
Buddy...I hope that wasn't aimed at me.
Just because somebody says something like "There's too much CG in movies nowadays." doesn't mean I think we go back to papier mache.
There is too much CGI today. CGI 'reality' has been forced down our throats. What would have been laughed out of a theater as fake looking 20 years ago is now accepted as 'great CGI.' Even 'real' model work is ruined by CGI. Look at 'Titanic.' Model work of the ship was 'enhanced' by CGI effects that rendered everything fake looking. Some of the best SPFX has been in older movies. 2001, Alien, Outland. CGI usually has a glossy, artificial look, yet most movie goers accept it as the standard. There's nothing wrong with the old 'match sticks and rubberbands' method of FX. Many times it's much better.
Conversely, practical effects heralded as great work 20 years ago would be laughed out of the theater now. I can't seriously believe that anyone would look at the stew of optical composting artifacts that littered films of that era and think that effects technology hasn't advanced since then.
More Gerald Scarfe than Wayne Barlowe, I'm thinking.
That they don't overtake and eat James Kirk in about .3 seconds, for one thing.
They look great and move completely believably, but the behavior of the anus-mouth in particular doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would it throw away the big furry indigenous critter to chase after an itty-bitty oddity like a human being, for starts? Unless it's had bad experience with Scotty coming around and pissing in its cornflakes or something and it's just personal now.
Wow "anus mouth"? What does yours look like???? Looked more like a Wayne Barlowe creation to me.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453446/
http://www.waynebarlowe.com/expedition_pages/index_expedition.htm
Word of God from the designer is that he based the creature on a prolapsed rectum.
Similar threads
