The snow monsters look like crap!

[CaptainHawk1]

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.'

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.

I don't think that's the claim here. What people like myself are trying to say is that it's overly-relied on to the point where it really doesn't look any better than the old effects do but for different reasons. Classic techniques that were effective such as miniature model building have been discarded and replaced with garbage like the CG ENT-E, NX-01, and Voyager.

The fact is artifacts are irrelevant when the on-screen adversary is a fucking cartoon. I'm going to point this out again: do you really think that the CG Yoda is more convincing than the foam rubber puppet? You can make the argument that the foam rubber puppet isn't that convincing to begin with, but the CG version looks like a cartoon. I remember how nuts people went for that fight scene at the end of Clones between Yoda and Dooku and I could never figure out why. I've played Soulblade, I've already seen that shit. I mean seriously, it's like watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? when you watch this junk nowadays.

I keep asking myself "do they really think we're buying this shit?" LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

It's not a take it or leave itgame. We certainly don't have to go back to the days of rubber Gorn suits made for $12.50. All you need to do is use those budgets effectively, hire good miniature builders and puppet designers and pros like Michael Westmore or any number of talented creature creators and stop disappointing us.

This is just a general rant about the decline of the effects portion of the movies as I actually think that they did a fantastic job with those two creatures in the Lost clip.

 

[M'Sharak]

Wow "anus mouth"? What does yours look like????

Word of God from the designer is that he based the creature on a prolapsed rectum.

The creature's mouth, anyway. Link.

 

[VulcanJedi]

I just took a look at the clip in the other thread.... I do believe some people here are on MAJOR LEAGUE drugs to think that looked fake.

Far better monsters than the Star Wars prequels and certainly better than anything we have ever seen in Trek.

Trek having some prequel-esque monsters would NOT be a bad thing.

None the less, I'll take Mugato anyday over the -putty-head alien of the week---blecchhh!

 

[RobertScorpio]

Am I the only one who thinks the CGI monsters from the "Lost" clip preview, looked bad? I like the idea of the scene but we did already see this in "Phantom Menace" with the Big fish eating the smaller fish.. Speaking of which the CGI monsters look like something from the modern "Star Wars" movies and I wasn't all that impressed with most of the creatures or CGI that Lucas used.

Jason

Enough already..geeesh...I thought it looked great...my god. You're driving me nuts!

Rob

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Wow "anus mouth"? What does yours look like????

Well - based on your photos - at least as nice as yours.

 

[RollTide1017]

I love it when people talk about how fake CGI looks these days because, a guy dressed in a rubber suit looked so much more real in the '60s. Effects are always (weather CGI, models or guys in suit) have a level of "fakeness" to them because, well, they are fake. My dad is one of these people who always says that he doesn't like all these CGI effects because they look too cartoony. Although, he never response to me when I ask him if he'd rather go back to guys in cheap rubber suits.

Nothing is ever going to look 100% real because we all know that it isn't but, the effects of today are light years ahead of anything that could be dreamed of back in TOS days. If you are going to nitpick the new movie for looking fake then, one must do the same for TOS because it looks even worse in comparison.

 

[Kpnuts]

I love it when people talk about how fake CGI looks these days because, a guy dressed in a rubber suit looked so much more real in the '60s. Effects are always (weather CGI, models or guys in suit) have a level of "fakeness" to them because, well, they are fake. My dad is one of these people who always says that he doesn't like all these CGI effects because they look too cartoony. Although, he never response to me when I ask him if he'd rather go back to guys in cheap rubber suits.

Nothing is ever going to look 100% real because we all know that it isn't but, the effects of today are light years ahead of anything that could be dreamed of back in TOS days. If you are going to nitpick the new movie for looking fake then, one must do the same for TOS because it looks even worse in comparison.

OTT?

There is good present-day CGI, and bad present-day CGI. The best CGI is the kind you don't notice. The bad CGI, is the kind that looks terrible.

Comparing it to the 60's is laughable and pointless. Has nothing to do with how we got on 50 years ago.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I love it when people talk about how fake CGI looks these days because, a guy dressed in a rubber suit looked so much more real in the '60s. Effects are always (weather CGI, models or guys in suit) have a level of "fakeness" to them because, well, they are fake. My dad is one of these people who always says that he doesn't like all these CGI effects because they look too cartoony. Although, he never response to me when I ask him if he'd rather go back to guys in cheap rubber suits.

Nothing is ever going to look 100% real because we all know that it isn't but, the effects of today are light years ahead of anything that could be dreamed of back in TOS days. If you are going to nitpick the new movie for looking fake then, one must do the same for TOS because it looks even worse in comparison.

Why don't you actually read the posts in their entirety on the subject before spouting off, junior?

Oh... and welcome to the board.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

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.'

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.

I don't think that's the claim here. What people like myself are trying to say is that it's overly-relied on to the point where it really doesn't look any better than the old effects do but for different reasons. Classic techniques that were effective such as miniature model building have been discarded and replaced with garbage like the CG ENT-E, NX-01, and Voyager.

The fact is artifacts are irrelevant when the on-screen adversary is a fucking cartoon. I'm going to point this out again: do you really think that the CG Yoda is more convincing than the foam rubber puppet? You can make the argument that the foam rubber puppet isn't that convincing to begin with, but the CG version looks like a cartoon. I remember how nuts people went for that fight scene at the end of Clones between Yoda and Dooku and I could never figure out why. I've played Soulblade, I've already seen that shit. I mean seriously, it's like watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit? when you watch this junk nowadays.

I keep asking myself "do they really think we're buying this shit?" LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

It's not a take it or leave itgame. We certainly don't have to go back to the days of rubber Gorn suits made for $12.50. All you need to do is use those budgets effectively, hire good miniature builders and puppet designers and pros like Michael Westmore or any number of talented creature creators and stop disappointing us.

This is just a general rant about the decline of the effects portion of the movies as I actually think that they did a fantastic job with those two creatures in the Lost clip.

Amen brother. Well said.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

ST has never, ever, ever had any movie animals (monsters if you will) that have ever looked like this. Its Trek film making on a new level.

RAMA

And it's about time, too. Ever since I saw Jurassic Park in 1993, I have hoped a Star Trek movie would use CGI technology to show us some big, cool-looking alien critters like this. So far, I've had to settle for the palm pet in Insurrection.

 

[blaXXer]

Am I the only one who thinks the CGI monsters from the "Lost" clip preview, looked bad? I like the idea of the scene but we did already see this in "Phantom Menace" with the Big fish eating the smaller fish.. Speaking of which the CGI monsters look like something from the modern "Star Wars" movies and I wasn't all that impressed with most of the creatures or CGI that Lucas used.

Jason

Yeah they're no apes or kinky fat couples, but what gives?

/rimshot

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

To be fair, the LOTR movies used a heck of a lot of miniatures (which they often called "big-atures" since they were often quite large). True they touched it up with a lot of CGI, but never so much that it pulled me out of the movies like it sometimes did in the Star Wars prequels.

Having said that, I agree about First Contact and DS9; I really like the era in special effects in the mid-90's from around Jurassic Park in 1993 until First Contact in 1996. It seems that was when those movies, as well as Generations, ID4, Stargate, and others had just the right mix of CGI and model-work.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Amen brother. Well said.

LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

To be fair, the LOTR movies used a heck of a lot of miniatures (which they often called "big-atures" since they were often quite large). True they touched it up with a lot of CGI, but never so much that it pulled me out of the movies like it sometimes did in the Star Wars prequels.

Having said that, I agree about First Contact and DS9; I really like the era in special effects in the mid-90's from around Jurassic Park in 1993 until First Contact in 1996. It seems that was when those movies, as well as Generations, ID4, Stargate, and others had just the right mix of CGI and model-work.

Thanks guys. I'm well aware that LOTR used miniatures but I still think CG was overly relied on in that film as well.

That being said, I totally concur with your opinion about the mid-1990's CG. IMHO, the reason for this is that they couldn't get away with it like they can nowadays because the technology was so new and not only were they not that experienced with it, audiences weren't used to it. Now, I think they're just lazy.

 

[RobertScorpio]

LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

To be fair, the LOTR movies used a heck of a lot of miniatures (which they often called "big-atures" since they were often quite large). True they touched it up with a lot of CGI, but never so much that it pulled me out of the movies like it sometimes did in the Star Wars prequels.

Having said that, I agree about First Contact and DS9; I really like the era in special effects in the mid-90's from around Jurassic Park in 1993 until First Contact in 1996. It seems that was when those movies, as well as Generations, ID4, Stargate, and others had just the right mix of CGI and model-work.

I never found LOTR's effects convincing at all. To me, like POTTER, they are obviously cartoons when the effects take over. The fight with that big monster in the second LOTR movie, in the cave, was lousy and about as bad as the first POTTER movie's flying rugby match, or whatever that was...CGI is not as great, IMO, as some of you think it is. And this new WOLVERINE movie, which I just saw, is a giant stepbackwards..

The best CGI I have seen, recently, in a movie was the first TRANSFORMERS movies. That stuff rocked....and was far better than LOTR and or HARRY POTTER's effects..IMO..

Rob

 

[CaptainHawk1]

The best CGI I have seen, recently, in a movie was the first TRANSFORMERS movies. That stuff rocked....and was far better than LOTR and or HARRY POTTER's effects..IMO..

Rob

Transformers is very good.

 

[shapeshifter]

The best CGI I have seen, recently, in a movie was the first TRANSFORMERS movies. That stuff rocked....and was far better than LOTR and or HARRY POTTER's effects..IMO..

Rob

Transformers is very good.

Agreed.

I think the issue here has to do with what is being portrayed in CGI.

Transformers proves good CGI is possible so why isn't all CGI good, because flesh doesn't render as well as inanimate matter. Perhaps that short-coming could be overcome with more money though, shitloads of more money. More than studios want to shell out.

 

[M'Sharak]

LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

To be fair, the LOTR movies used a heck of a lot of miniatures (which they often called "big-atures" since they were often quite large). True they touched it up with a lot of CGI, but never so much that it pulled me out of the movies like it sometimes did in the Star Wars prequels.

(emphasis mine)

This is reminding me of an article which was linked in this forum several months ago, which indicated that there has been observed a general trend back toward using physical models and physical sets wherever possible, and limiting the use of CGI mainly to effects shots which would be cost-prohibitive, too dangerous or just plain impossible to get any other way. Abrams is one of several people cited and quoted in the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/may/23/actionandadventure

 

[cbp44189]

Looked good to me.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

I thought the creature looked great! I love how, even though the creature isn't 100% convincing, at least it doesn't take place on a totally CGI landscape like it would in the SW prequels.

Having said that, not sure why this scene was the one chosen for the Lost clip. What were they trying to accomplish? Attract monster movie fans? The scene hardly shows off the best of what the film has to offer (or presumably has to offer).

 

[CaptainHawk1]

LOTR... same deal. Nothing convincing at all about the effects in any of them. I'm not knocking the films, I'm just saying all the effects look animated. Seriously, have you ever hinestly sat back and watched LOTR and said, "OMFG these effects look so REAL!" The bar has been set very by Hollywood and I'll be impressed if they ever decide to go back to the days of combining CG with physical models, sets and characters a la First Contact and DS9.

To be fair, the LOTR movies used a heck of a lot of miniatures (which they often called "big-atures" since they were often quite large). True they touched it up with a lot of CGI, but never so much that it pulled me out of the movies like it sometimes did in the Star Wars prequels.

(emphasis mine)

This is reminding me of an article which was linked in this forum several months ago, which indicated that there has been observed a general trend back toward using physical models and physical sets wherever possible, and limiting the use of CGI mainly to effects shots which would be cost-prohibitive, too dangerous or just plain impossible to get any other way. Abrams is one of several people cited and quoted in the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/may/23/actionandadventure

Christ, if I didn't know better, I'd think that I wrote that article.

M'Sharak, thanks for that validation.