PDA

View Full Version : The problem with full length computer generated films



DOA4
June 13th, 2005, 04:55 PM
Those movies never look real. I believe computers are able to generate a realistic-looking face.

Auggie2k
June 13th, 2005, 05:04 PM
Funny this post came up. Just watching the fight in matrix reloaded where he fights about 100 agents, it's a bit to obvious that its computer generated, it's too neat! Tip for creating realism...imperfections! (I got that from bicentennial man)

tomars
June 13th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Those movies never look real. I believe computers are able to generate a realistic-looking face. I don't want to watch a movie of an actual fish.
Anyway, I reckon that a realistic looking face would be cheesy - you might as well just use a real actor.

Wipeout
June 13th, 2005, 05:39 PM
That's very weird. I went to wikipedia.com and there are only 18 computer animated films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer-animated_films

WE_DELIVER
June 13th, 2005, 05:43 PM
A lot of the full lenght CG films aim for an unrealistic look. Im sure it would not be as fun to look at green monsters, talking fish, and talking cars if they looked realistic. Besides, it takes a huge amount of computing power if you try to go for super realism. Just doesnt make sence when you can use actors in most scenes to save money, and put CG where you absolutely need it.

Wipeout
June 13th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Well, I guess CG films are something new. I went to a timeline of CGI in movies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_CGI_in_movies

I think what he/she meant with full length was feature length.

MPXX
June 13th, 2005, 07:38 PM
Ha "ReBoot" is on that list...I remember watching that when I was a kid...great show, althought at the time I though people were actually running around in my computer :D

Jim Morrison
June 13th, 2005, 09:59 PM
I cant stand when they use all that cgi shit in horror movies these days.

Afn
June 14th, 2005, 07:22 AM
CG is more of a script plot device for weak scripts.

I think some films are made better without CG. CG is overused, however CG is cheap.

The best films have little to no CG. What they have is STORY, something that is lacking from most movies today.

A great story can be told without CG, and FX. Good writing that translates into filmed performace is hard to do, but if the material is compelling, people will buy tickets filling theaters regardless of cgi/fx content.

And that is what it is all about. For now. Digital is going to make most studios unprofitable, but that is my opinion.

rastabob2
June 14th, 2005, 10:14 AM
The problem is that our eyes/brains will instantly spot the slightest missing or erroneous detail in a human face, body, or movement.
Much more so than in any other living or inanimate thing.
You can get away with CG dinosaurs much easier than you can with 3d humans. If we take the matrix as an example, it was instantly obvious when they were switching to the 3d version of Neo rather than the filmed one, which just spoils the scene.
Full length CGI movies need to stick to very cartoonish looks - those that dont just tend to have characters that look like corpses (e.g. the polar express, which did not even make the wikipedia list)

Wipeout
June 14th, 2005, 02:25 PM
-Star Wars

-Lord of the Rings

My point is the best films DO have CG.

Happe''2
June 14th, 2005, 03:47 PM
-Star Wars

-Lord of the Rings

My point is the best films DO have CG.

anybody who uses best film and star wars in the same sentence should be tar'd and feathered...

my biggest problem with CG movies are that they tend to be Really lame.

WE_DELIVER
June 15th, 2005, 05:32 AM
I think some CG movies were great:
Shrek
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles
are all great movies and great examples of good story writing.

As in other movies, CG is a tool and should be used skillfully. In some shots it can definetely be more afordable to do a CG shot than a miniature or realworld performance. In some shots such as shots heavy with water, fire, hair and complicated elements, it may be easier and more affordable to go with an actual on camera performance instead of the CG.

So, I dont think that "Digital" is going to make most studios unprofitable especially if you have a director/producer that knows how to balance CG and real footage. Not to mention that now-a-days Digital Video production can be pretty much half as cheap as the old-school 35mm production price.
Thats why a lot more individuals and independent groups are making movies with the ability of editing them on their laptops or whatnot.

Lord_of_the_Dense
June 15th, 2005, 09:24 AM
anybody who uses best film and star wars in the same sentence should be tar'd and feathered...

For a film that won 6 Academy Awards, the most that year which would include best visual effects (for the time), I would think it deserves better recognition. It may not have won best picture, but I think it is safe to say it was the best film of 1977.