Orogogus wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 19:18:

mellis wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 18:45:
it's impossible for an actor to convey those subtle cues that humans pick-up on because it's not really happening to them and on some deeper level we, the audience, can tell.

In days gone by, those hints were conveyed because some set designer had actually built a life-size replica of the monster and when the scene was filmed, the actor / actress was actually facing it down. I mean, take Signory Weaver in Aliens 2 at the end where she's facing down the queen in the nest. That was a real model, and it must have been pretty frightening when the animatronics crews were operating it, even thought it wasn't real.

How frightening can it be after multiple takes and several hours? If we can intuitively tell they're working off a green screen, shouldn't we also be able to tell that they're just acting in the first place?

I read about how directors hide information from the actors about how there's going to be cold water coming out of the shower in Psycho or holy crap chestburster in Alien, and to be honest I can't recall the end results being any more convincing to me than any other movie.

The actors and director can make it work, Moon is an example of this considering who Sam Rockwell interacts with ... and it probably wasn't filmed on location either.

Then again, George Lucas.

DJ addresses the Alien scene and the actors reaction (which IMHO is superb) by saying that the alien could have been done as a practical effect but also enhanced with CGI. That's fine, but now the budget needs to cover both.

mellis wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 18:45:
it's impossible for an actor to convey those subtle cues that humans pick-up on because it's not really happening to them and on some deeper level we, the audience, can tell.

In days gone by, those hints were conveyed because some set designer had actually built a life-size replica of the monster and when the scene was filmed, the actor / actress was actually facing it down. I mean, take Signory Weaver in Aliens 2 at the end where she's facing down the queen in the nest. That was a real model, and it must have been pretty frightening when the animatronics crews were operating it, even thought it wasn't real.

How frightening can it be after multiple takes and several hours? If we can intuitively tell they're working off a green screen, shouldn't we also be able to tell that they're just acting in the first place?

I read about how directors hide information from the actors about how there's going to be cold water coming out of the shower in Psycho or holy crap chestburster in Alien, and to be honest I can't recall the end results being any more convincing to me than any other movie.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of CGI, but it should be unobtrusive. Check out Blue Bolts work in Game of Thrones for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhG1i_BobWY

The problem is directors nowadays overuse it - entire films can be filmed on a green screen and therein lies the problem. When an actor is facing down a CGI 'giant robot x' or engaged in 'high-speed jet bike chase' etc, it's impossible for an actor to convey those subtle cues that humans pick-up on because it's not really happening to them and on some deeper level we, the audience, can tell.

In days gone by, those hints were conveyed because some set designer had actually built a life-size replica of the monster and when the scene was filmed, the actor / actress was actually facing it down. I mean, take Signory Weaver in Aliens 2 at the end where she's facing down the queen in the nest. That was a real model, and it must have been pretty frightening when the animatronics crews were operating it, even thought it wasn't real.

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:59:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:26:

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 15:07:
How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though.

I didn't want to belabor the joke, but there's only so much you can do with practical effects. Lord of the Rings was full of CGI too. CGI is not automatically bad.

True, but your suggestion was that they do the creatures in full CGI: "there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG." My point is that the orcs in LOTR were completely practical, and worked better than the CG orcs in "Hobbit."

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:26:

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 15:07:
How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though.

I didn't want to belabor the joke, but there's only so much you can do with practical effects. Lord of the Rings was full of CGI too. CGI is not automatically bad.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:49:

Wallshadows wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:34:
Handcrafted designs and natural or elaborate sets age much better than CGI elements and that's the appeal they have to me. I can go back and watch The Thing from 1982 and still be amazed by how authentic everything looks (aside from the amalgamation at the end due to stop-motion limitations) whereas the 2011 feature of the same name totally degraded that experience due to the use of CGI.

I'm terrified about how the new Alien movie is going to look when they reveal the Xeno , set, and Geiger rooms are entirely done in CGI.

I dunno, I love the 1982 movie too, but most of the defibrillator scene doesn't look like anything but rubber models to me. It's just a different kind of fake-looking.

Carpenter always worked under a budget, I thought.

Wallshadows wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:34:
Handcrafted designs and natural or elaborate sets age much better than CGI elements and that's the appeal they have to me. I can go back and watch The Thing from 1982 and still be amazed by how authentic everything looks (aside from the amalgamation at the end due to stop-motion limitations) whereas the 2011 feature of the same name totally degraded that experience due to the use of CGI.

I'm terrified about how the new Alien movie is going to look when they reveal the Xeno , set, and Geiger rooms are entirely done in CGI.

I dunno, I love the 1982 movie too, but most of the defibrillator scene doesn't look like anything but rubber models to me. It's just a different kind of fake-looking.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:38:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:26:
There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though. LOTR's practical orcs and uruk hai were much better than The Hobbit's CG abominations. I realize that they'd look a bit different from the WoW's in-game orcs, but I think that's something you could sacrifice for the sake of telling the story.

Isn't WoW full of not-practical effect friendly races? Like, I gather undead are a big part of the story, and those bull-humanoids have been around a while, right?

I think you can get pretty close to WoW orcs and Taurens using mostly practical effects, with perhaps a bit of CG modifications. They're still humanoid upright walking two-legged creatures.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:26:
There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though. LOTR's practical orcs and uruk hai were much better than The Hobbit's CG abominations. I realize that they'd look a bit different from the WoW's in-game orcs, but I think that's something you could sacrifice for the sake of telling the story.

Isn't WoW full of not-practical effect friendly races? Like, I gather undead are a big part of the story, and those bull-humanoids have been around a while, right?

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 13:17:
It's funny this comment is coming from Duncan Jones. His Moon was a sci fi movie that used a lot of practical effects enhanced with CGI (as opposed to being all CGI for the effects shots). Here's an article.

Why is it funny it came from him? His past work isn't at odds with what he said, and he even specifically mentions enhancing practical effects with CGI in the article.

Unless I missed something, he says the exact same things in the link as what everyone here is.

Handcrafted designs and natural or elaborate sets age much better than CGI elements and that's the appeal they have to me. I can go back and watch The Thing from 1982 and still be amazed by how authentic everything looks (aside from the amalgamation at the end due to stop-motion limitations) whereas the 2011 feature of the same name totally degraded that experience due to the use of CGI.

I'm terrified about how the new Alien movie is going to look when they reveal the Xeno , set, and Geiger rooms are entirely done in CGI.

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 15:07:
How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though. LOTR's practical orcs and uruk hai were much better than The Hobbit's CG abominations. I realize that they'd look a bit different from the WoW's in-game orcs, but I think that's something you could sacrifice for the sake of telling the story.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 13:17:
It's funny this comment is coming from Duncan Jones. His Moon was a sci fi movie that used a lot of practical effects enhanced with CGI (as opposed to being all CGI for the effects shots). Here's an article.

Also, if you haven't seen Moon, get on it. One of the better sci fi movies of the last decade. Don't watch any trailers or read any reviews (or even that article above), just watch it blind. You won't regret it.

I'll second that. It's one of the best proper science fiction films in recent years, as in more 2001 than Star Wars. Sam Rockwell is excellent and it has a great soundtrack too.

I agree with Duncan Jones' comments on CGI: "The best CGI has you forgetting its CGI". There is CGI used all over the place in scenes that I wouldn't expect it to be but if I'm thinking about the CGI while I'm watching your film, it has failed.

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 15:07:
How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

Then how do you explain Alec Baldwin?

How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

PHJF wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 13:52:
No amount of CGI can recreate a good practical explosion. Blowing shit up is truly an art form.

Yeah this is my pet peeve, most CGI explosions are awful. Some films do it well, on a budget so crazy I have to wonder if any money was actually saved vs the alternative. I get why TV shows have to do this stuff but its usually so glaring that I just wish they had written the scene in a different direction, it just takes you right out of it.

No amount of CGI can recreate a good practical explosion. Blowing shit up is truly an art form.

Beamer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 12:07:
CGI is great for things that aren't organic.

CGI is often, usually, terrible for things that are. And, right now, it's still terrible when it's the bulk of a set, but great when it's less than the bulk of a set.

Going back and watching something like The Thing makes me lament how much of that is lost. Or, really, anything with weight, like car chases and crashes. But then you have something like the world of Game of Thrones, which is often ridiculously well done CGI backdrops that are far better than old matte paintings (though I love the skill required to make those.)

BSG had a lot of great CG that you didn't notice, like the hangar.

It's funny this comment is coming from Duncan Jones. His Moon was a sci fi movie that used a lot of practical effects enhanced with CGI (as opposed to being all CGI for the effects shots). Here's an article.

Also, if you haven't seen Moon, get on it. One of the better sci fi movies of the last decade. Don't watch any trailers or read any reviews (or even that article above), just watch it blind. You won't regret it.

Theoretically I don't approve of CGI but many films use it in a fashion where one doesn't even realize it could be CGI. When it's used in that fashion, who gives a fuck?