Quote: Aaron @ May 25 2008, 10:29 PM BSTEh?
Simpsons, Family guy & Futurama all use CGI. Quite frequently.
Don't see the new Indiana Jones Page 4
Then yes, if you're making me go all or none, then they are included.
Quote: Aaron @ May 25 2008, 10:34 PM BSTThen yes, if you're making me go all or none, then they are included.
LOL! That is mental! So we're gonna burn everything post 1999?
As far as The Simpsons goes, that's not a big loss.
I dont like it when they use CGI for aliens and things like that, even a dodgy prosthetic or man in a suit just feels better and more real; you cant believe in a CGI alien/monster. If CGI isnt used for the showy things then its fine, but the moment its something like a character it ruins things. How crap would 'The Thing' be if made now? All CGI'd up to its ass?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 25 2008, 10:37 PM BSTI dont like it when they use CGI for aliens and things like that, even a dodgy prosthetic or man in a suit just feels better and more real; you cant believe in a CGI alien/monster. If CGI isnt used for the showy things then its fine, but the moment its something like a character it ruins things. How crap would 'The Thing' be if made now? All CGI'd up to its ass?
Ah how I love The Thing, what a perfect example of the brilliance of puppets and goo.
<3
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 25 2008, 10:37 PM BSTI dont like it when they use CGI for aliens and things like that, even a dodgy prosthetic or man in a suit just feels better and more real; you cant believe in a CGI alien/monster. If CGI isnt used for the showy things then its fine, but the moment its something like a character it ruins things. How crap would 'The Thing' be if made now? All CGI'd up to its ass?
Agreed. Never disputed.
Quote: Leevil @ May 25 2008, 10:38 PM BSTAh how I love The Thing, what a perfect example of the brilliance of puppets and goo.
Exactly, and theyd never make it the same way today.
Quote: Gavin @ May 25 2008, 10:40 PM BSTAgreed. Never disputed.
Yeah, Im not against CGI in general, just for things like Ive mentioned.
My favourite example of bad CGI is American Werewolf in Paris, remember how brilliant 'London was? That has an AMAZING transformation in it.
Here it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmgsIyVrv0I 
Quote: Leevil @ May 25 2008, 10:44 PM BSTMy favourite example of bad CGI is American Werewolf in Paris, remember how brilliant 'London was? That has an AMAZING transformation in it.
Here it is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmgsIyVrv0I
"In Paris was shit from start to End"
Here's a better clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSzCSBrWQ4&feature=related
Ooh, so much to disagree with in this thread.
As an animator, I want to say that the idea that using CGI somehow lacks creativity and a "human element" is bullshit. I know where the idea comes from, and I agree that movies made simply to show off effects are tedious and pointless; but if you've seen good 3D animators at work you'd appreciate the effort and talent that goes into almost every one of those despicable effects shots; just as much effort and talent as went into the hand-crafted shots in King Kong or Jason And The Argonauts.
The problems is, with 3D computer work, executives can come along afterwards and tweak the shot until it's shit. This is the main problem with computers - they allow corporate dickheads with no skill, talent or ideas to f**k around with stuff until it's as bland as they think it needs to be. When Ray Harryhausen was working the budget only allowed for one take, so the execs had to put up with what they were given.
Also, I liked this Indy film. Obviously it's not Raiders; but is it really worse than Temple Of Doom or The Last Crusade? It is clunky and it doesn't make much sense and (*SPOILER*) I can't understand why super powerful aliens allowed one of their heads to be stolen in the first place, but as a silly swashbuckling adventure piece I thought it was pretty good. The bit with the ants was ace, and the Commies and the flying saucer were totally in keeping with a movie set in 1957. It's just a shame that Harrison Ford is so old.
And I may have improved the film in my own mind by expecting it to be utterly shit before I went in. This technique works; I'd have been happy had it been only mediocre, and was thus overjoyed when it turned out to be quite good.
Re effort, I don't think anyone's actually disputing that in reality. It just feels simpler, like there's less love and toil gone into it.
Quote: Mike Greybloke @ May 25 2008, 11:04 PM BSTAs an animator, I want to say that the idea that using CGI somehow lacks creativity and a "human element" is bullshit. I know where the idea comes from, and I agree that movies made simply to show off effects are tedious and pointless; but if you've seen good 3D animators at work you'd appreciate the effort and talent that goes into almost every one of those despicable effects shots; just as much effort and talent as went into the hand-crafted shots in King Kong or Jason And The Argonauts.
Well yeah, as an animator your biased! What I saids true though; add a CGI alien/monster/person/whatever to a film, instant trouble with sustaining belief. CGI has its uses and place, but at least right now, creating characters aint it for me, not in a live action movie.
Quote: Aaron @ May 25 2008, 11:07 PM BSTRe effort, I don't think anyone's actually disputing that in reality. It just feels simpler, like there's less love and toil gone into it.
Yeah, and the end result is almost too perfect often.
Exactly. There's a certain charm to hand-drawn animation, to good old fashioned puppetry, animatronics, the inventiveness of it all. CGI just feels like such a cop-out "oh don't worry, we'll just do it on the computer". Bah!