I think modern CGI looks fake and absurd when it's placed next to live actors. The only CGI character who has ever convinced me was Gollum. Most of the time the movements look awkward and artificial.
How do people buy the ridiculous looking characters?
- Thread starter medwatt
- Start date
I think modern CGI looks fake and absurd when it's placed next to live actors. The only CGI character who has ever convinced me was Gollum. Most of the time the movements look awkward and artificial.
Andy Sirkus was amazing.
Andy Serkis is amazing. However:
This is a curious statement considering that one could assert that "almost all" CGI sci-fi/fantasy fx looks absurd (obviously fake)." Fact is, no matter what era of film making you look at, most films require something known as "suspension of disbelief." And, typically, there are a very few films that utilize the available tech to present images that require a limited suspension of that disbelief. I daresay 2001 wasn't absurd. Nor was Jurassic Park. And plenty of films in between. But, like today, they were the exception (Gollum/Caesar) rather than the rule.
you've misquoted me...please reread
No, I think I pressed the "quote" button just fine, thanks. 
Your passive-aggressive smiley-face aside, it helps if you red the word "previous" in my quote. Most modern cgi looks fine.
If by "fine" you mean "absurd (obviously fake)" then I wholeheartedly agree.
Fact is, the vast majority of VFX, regardless of the era, looks "fine." On rare occasions (2001, Ray Harryhausen's work in Clash of the Titans, Yoda in ESB, Jurassic Park, Gollum, Caesar, to name a few), the effects transcend the tech and present an entirely plausible, believable reality. But most of the time the tech (the current remakes of Clash of the Titans, Transformers, and Spider-Man, for example) are no more or less absurd than any movie preceding them. They require a suspension of disbelief to engage with the film's "reality." Your assertion that CGI, to date, is objectively "less absurd" than prior sci-fi/fantasy VFX isn't supported by the absurdity of the vast majority of modern CGI films.
Precisely.
I don't know about that. I think there's been a lot of good practical effects in the last 40 years that I'd take over modern day cgi.
We reach.
While I was getting sick of TNG's obsessive use of funny foreheads, I found it especially wrenching when they were on an attractive actress I particularly liked, such as Ellen Brye or Marta Dubois. That always killed my suspension of disbelief. I spend the whole episode thinking "Why did they ruin that perfect face with a blob of latex!?" 
I haven't seen the movie but I will agree, from the ads, the CGI looks really good.
But on the other hand you have Ninja Turtles which, based on the ads, has the worst looking CGI I've ever seen.
And often even if the CGI itself looks good the movement looks awkward. Even in Lord of the Rings, there are scenes where some live acted character is jumping off of a large monster (The troll, the elephant) which look awkward and fake.
The hard part that technology hasn't quite caught up with is believable fine body movements and believable physics. I think cinematographers often like fake physics better than realistic physics because it frames better.
Some film producers neglect that one of the things that made 80s action films so engrossing was the visceral immersion of kinetically plausible fights. Every action item framed and tracked by the camera to create drama and subconsciously sell you on what's going on. Now they just kind of animate too look cool and you lose that kinetic plausibility that made films like Terminator and Die Hard so immersing.
But on the other hand you have Ninja Turtles which, based on the ads, has the worst looking CGI I've ever seen.
And often even if the CGI itself looks good the movement looks awkward. Even in Lord of the Rings, there are scenes where some live acted character is jumping off of a large monster (The troll, the elephant) which look awkward and fake.
The hard part that technology hasn't quite caught up with is believable fine body movements and believable physics. I think cinematographers often like fake physics better than realistic physics because it frames better.
Some film producers neglect that one of the things that made 80s action films so engrossing was the visceral immersion of kinetically plausible fights. Every action item framed and tracked by the camera to create drama and subconsciously sell you on what's going on. Now they just kind of animate too look cool and you lose that kinetic plausibility that made films like Terminator and Die Hard so immersing.
For me, the answer is super easy. I want to. It is just a basic plot device to tell who's who.
I think the Gill Man looks a lot more convincing than the Gorn, especially in the underwater stuff.
Anything? Even practical, in-camera stunt work? E.g., the parachute jump in the teaser of The Spy Who Loved Me...an actual stuntman skiing off an actual cliff and almost killing himself because his actual ski unexpectedly impacted with the actual parachute (which is in the film, as it was done in one take with one camera). The only suspension-of-disbelief fakery involved with the stunt is that the ski chase that preceded it was filmed on a different continent (IIRC) because they couldn't find one location that was suitable for both parts.
I toured Universal Studios in 1967, before it became an amusement park. They took us into a building or soundstage apparently being used as a costume warehouse, and the Creature costume was hanging on a rack, minus mask, gloves, and boots. Under normal lighting, without a body in it, it looked like green long underwear. But put Ben Chapman or Ricou Browning in it, and it works.
It's a whole new level for CGI, maybe, but I find I still have to suspend disbelief just as much. It looks just as much not real to me as actors in costume and makeup. That they look unreal in different ways is beside the point. That ape riding the horse with guns ablaze was supposed to be the most iconic shot in the film, and yet I found it silly looking
I'd be interested in knowing what might pass muster for you, then. That film is a shoe-in for an academy award for FX, if not for one of the acting categories (which would be a game-changer).
CGI Characters are hit an d miss with me- if they are covered with fur it works better since the have gotten that aspect figured out better (in 'Jumanji' the commentary track talks about how much trouble the fur was back then).
Skin textures are still very bad- no matter how much money is invested in a Sythesbian it still looks wrong. The SW Prequels tried their best to create a character for the big screen but it always looked over textured and dynamic. Motion capture has helped with some of the animation, but we are years away from having a digital actor providing a performance equal to a person in a prosthetic costume who knows what to do.
Skin textures are still very bad- no matter how much money is invested in a Sythesbian it still looks wrong. The SW Prequels tried their best to create a character for the big screen but it always looked over textured and dynamic. Motion capture has helped with some of the animation, but we are years away from having a digital actor providing a performance equal to a person in a prosthetic costume who knows what to do.
Similar threads
