I know! CGI is ruining so many movies for me. It's great when used with subtlety, but any more than necessary and it breaks the fantasy and instead of getting enthralled in the movie you're thinking to yourself "there's a lot of cgi going on, and it's bad."
Maybe in a decade it'll be good enough to blend in without ruining everything, especially crap sequels of classics!
Good news! Lucas is back on board with a special edition:
Time Warp wrote:
kdod, wrong...
space is curved. space is infinity large. everything loops back on itself. if you had an infinite amount of time you could get back where you started. the problem is that time changes everything. you would have absolutely no clue where were back where you started. in fact, the where you started would be in another place in space, and it atoms, molecules, etc., would be in different places.
god got it right. closed-loop, ever changing, infinity.
False again. You guys are complete idiots. I wasn't talking about the geometry of space. I was talking about comparing the geometry of space to the geometry of Earth. But even talking about the geometry of space alone, you are still wrong.
figured as much wrote: Yep. The one person who finally figured out the secrets of the universe is some random idiot on letsrun.com
Yup. The only person who every existed who knows what is NOT the secret if the universe is some ignorant troll named "figured as much" on LRC.
kdod, the earth is not flat and static. It is three dimensional and always changing. Basic science teaches you that much.
kdod wrote:
kdod, the earth is not flat and static. It is three dimensional and always changing. Basic science teaches you that much.
I never said the Earth was flat and static. You idiots just keep coming. Who's next??
Jenehe wrote:
hipity hipity hipity hooey!!!! wrote:What the hell is a hipster anyway? I think I started hearing that term maybe 15 years ago. And now everyone is like hipster this and hipster that for EVERYTHING. What the shit is a hipster?!?
A hipster is anyone who hates mainstream things, no matter the quality of the product. Most hipsters hate even quality cgi simply because it's "overused". When in reality cgi can be very useful when used correctly and in appropriate amounts.
And while we're at it, what the hell is CGI?
fasd wrote:
Well, as usual, the hipster CGI haters flood the chat and hate CGI simply because it's new and slick.
I know this may BLOW your minds, but CGI isn't just pushing buttons. Every frame has to be rendered, meticulously crafted with every detail in mind and polished to perfection. It's essentially an artwork that is rendered over time as a moving sequence. CGI haters tend to forget that CGI is very difficult, which is the reason that fully animated films take 3-4 years to complete.
That being said, it can be overdone. The prequels used CGI way too much, and to the point where the quality was significantly downgraded and the sets looked fake. The characters were limited from portraying realistic and emotional actions due to the small sets, and it hampered the ability for the audience to connect with the movie.
From the trailer, there are plenty of shots where CGI doesn't appear to be used, and it's been reported that a lot of filming occurred ONSET outside Abu Dhabi. The CGI that we do see (x-wings, millennium falcon) looks like pretty quality CGI, with each scene portraying an atmospheric aurora. Pay close attention to the details; the clouds, fogs and x wings moving at different paces with respect to the distance to the camera, the contrails, camera work and lighting on the millennium falcon as it performs its maneuver. The CGI presented in this short trailer does look promising and I wouldn't mind if it's used correctly in the upcoming movie. This is in contrast to the horrible CGI used to create simple settings in the prequels which created a fake and boring tone. Already this cinematography in this teaser alone makes George Lucas look like a f*cking ret*rd.
But nope, you get letsrun nerds with barely an ounce of film making observation pounce on the CGI just because that's the same, old, boring argument that's been rammed into every hipster's head on the internet on popular forums/messageboards. Form your own opinion for once, you idiots.
I know cgi. I know it has it's place in modern movie making. I've modeled, render, and set up scenes (lighting and all). I know that it takes tremendous talent and dedication to do what they're doing. I've waited hours upon hours to to render a single model, and I know it can take 6, 12, 24 hours to render a single frame. I know that whoever they have doing the graphics probably has an entire building dedicated to rendering frames 24/7. But, in the end, is it going to look and feel any better than what the original Lucas team cranked out over 20 years ago? Watch Duncan Jones' "Moon" - Nearly all the effects were traditional.
There's just something that feels more real about traditional effects. Combine that with limited cg and you've got a win. Why build a virtual millennium falcon when you can build an actual millennium falcon and film it!? CG the contrails and other small details. I guess I'm just disappointed because I'd read that they were going to try and go the traditional animation route as much as possible, but it doesn't seem to appear like that's the case.
And While We wrote:
And while we're at it, what the hell is CGI?
A quick google search defines CGI as Computer Generated Imagery.
oijjerer wrote:
And While We wrote:And while we're at it, what the hell is CGI?
A quick google search defines CGI as Computer Generated Imagery.
Balderdash. Everyone knows it's Culinary Gastrocnemic Infection.
No doubt it will be "slick." Gone are the days of static action sequences. Lots of hand-held camera work to give a sense of movement. The 2nd? Bourne movie had so much camera motion I couldn't see what was happening half the time. Still a good movie though. A fanboy at work explained to me that a Lightsaber's "stability" is derived from the quality of the crystal used to make ones Lightsaber. Therefore the "unstable" or "jagged" effect is most likely from a crystal of lesser quality. Like diamonds I guess the 3C's still apply.
Check that. 4 C's.
kdod wrote:
kdod wrote:kdod, the earth is not flat and static. It is three dimensional and always changing. Basic science teaches you that much.
I never said the Earth was flat and static. You idiots just keep coming. Who's next??
What I meant was, the Earth has air to breathe. GPS lets you find your way back where you were. Space is just like that.
oijjerer wrote:
And While We wrote:And while we're at it, what the hell is CGI?
A quick google search defines CGI as Computer Generated Imagery.
Nope - Common Gateway Interface
oijjerer wrote:
I know cgi. I know it has it's place in modern movie making. I've modeled, render, and set up scenes (lighting and all). I know that it takes tremendous talent and dedication to do what they're doing. I've waited hours upon hours to to render a single model, and I know it can take 6, 12, 24 hours to render a single frame. I know that whoever they have doing the graphics probably has an entire building dedicated to rendering frames 24/7. But, in the end, is it going to look and feel any better than what the original Lucas team cranked out over 20 years ago? Watch Duncan Jones' "Moon" - Nearly all the effects were traditional.
There's just something that feels more real about traditional effects. Combine that with limited cg and you've got a win. Why build a virtual millennium falcon when you can build an actual millennium falcon and film it!? CG the contrails and other small details. I guess I'm just disappointed because I'd read that they were going to try and go the traditional animation route as much as possible, but it doesn't seem to appear like that's the case.
I think I have finally figured out why CGI feels fake and traditional effects feel real to me. It nothing to do with *what* I am seeing. In fact I will buy into some pretty fakey looking stuff. The problem is *how* I am seeing it. Specifically, in 99.9% of action CGI sequences, there are wild and completely impossible camera moves which take me out of the movie. Subconsciously I realize that a real camera was not used to make the scene, that the whole thing was composed inside a boring computer, and then my mind starts to scrutinize the quality of the CGI. The CGI might be quite good, but it doesn't really matter--I'm no longer engaged with the story.
Back when all of this was done with models and stop motion, I don't think they had the luxury of fancy camera moves. It was enough to get the model motion correct.
CGI just isn't believable. I can't quite explain it. I don't know if it's that the director is trying too hard or something, but something just fails to resonate properly.
Consider "The Dark Knight" -- from what I can tell, there was very little CGI used in that (apart from that sequence at the end with the cell phones). That movie looked remarkable, and really kept you "within" the movie.
Then consider something like "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" -- apart from being a terrible story, it just LOOKED terrible. Cartoonish even. I just found myself overly conscious of digital animation going across the screen. It just looks tacky.
Honestly, I would prefer the low-grade "special effects" of something like The Exorcist than I would most CGI these days. There's just something about it that makes everything really dull.
CGI just isn't believable. I can't quite explain it. I don't know if it's that the director is trying too hard or something, but something just fails to resonate properly.
Consider "The Dark Knight" -- from what I can tell, there was very little CGI used in that (apart from that sequence at the end with the cell phones). That movie looked remarkable, and really kept you "within" the movie.
Then consider something like "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" -- apart from being a terrible story, it just LOOKED terrible. Cartoonish even. I just found myself overly conscious of digital animation going across the screen. It just looks tacky.
Honestly, I would prefer the low-grade "special effects" of something like The Exorcist than I would most CGI these days. There's just something about it that makes everything really dull.
What, you didn't buy Shia Lebeouf swinging from vines through the jungle like a monkey? Obviously if the movie shows something completely stupid, you're going to hate it whether it's CGI or a traditional effect :) When it's CGI, it's just a more polished turd.
And While We wrote:
oijjerer wrote:A quick google search defines CGI as Computer Generated Imagery.
Nope - Common Gateway Interface
Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.
The Donger wrote:
Time travel? Ala old Spock/New Spock?
I always thought a 3.5 film that basically had Darth Vader hunting down all Jedi would make a great film.
Also it's not a star trooper in the trailer. They were clones of the bounty hunter.
Hey, Donger! You're a heeler!