averagesocalgirl
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Posts: 70
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
To CGI or not to CGI?
How did you like Ben Grimm in the Fantastic Four?
Would you have preferred his character to be CGI'ed like The Hulk or was he good as a real life character.
As for the Hulk, who was more convincing? Lou Ferrigno as the real life Hulk in the tv series, or the CGI comic book Hulk?
Referring to the question above.....Would you prefer a CGI'ed Superman as he appears in the comics and cartoons (huge and buffed way out) or the real life average Joe's who played Superman before?
When is CGI appropriate and when is it NOT appropriate?
Kelly
Last edited by averagesocalgirl, Dec/7/2005, 12:29 pm
|
|
Dec/7/2005, 12:27 pm
|
Send Email to averagesocalgirl
Send PM to averagesocalgirl
Blog
|
EmmaFrost
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Posts: 115
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: To CGI or not to CGI?
Seeing the still shots the costume looked odd, but after seeing the actor actually act there is something that was a lot more convincing about it.
I am glad they went with makeup and prosthetics for beast. Too bad they did not go for the more feline look of the current comics. That would have gotten away from that sort of Hellboy in blue look.
Juggs is interesting, but Callisto seems a bit dull as does Stacy X.
Loved the Danger Room with Wolvie and Colluses doing a Speedball Special.
|
|
Dec/8/2005, 9:41 am
|
Send Email to EmmaFrost
Send PM to EmmaFrost
|
DarkQueen
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 08-2005
Posts: 59
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: To CGI or not to CGI?
Such a fine line with to CGI or not to CGI . . . . with movies such as Narnia, Harry Potter, LOTR triliogy and the Matrix trilogy - beautifully done and essential to the overall affect. Godzilla is looking fantastic, and such a huge list of CGI making the movie work.
But with characters, such as The Hulk - I get disappointed...would have preferred a human in costume. For backgrounds and creatures - oh yeah, need the CGI, but for actual characters, nothing beats the real thing to me . . . even with the physical limitations of real vs. CGI.
---
I may be bad....but I feel good.
|
|
Dec/8/2005, 10:39 am
|
Send Email to DarkQueen
Send PM to DarkQueen
Blog
|
mrwayne74
Head Administrator
Global user
Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 192
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: To CGI or not to CGI?
CGI has its place and it should be used in moderation. I think the Hulk looked fine because that's how he looked in comics. Lou looked ok for the time period but if you noticed, they tried to make him look bigger than he was because David Banner wore pants and when the transformed into the Hulk, he had shorts on. Supes should definitely be a real actor. A good example of bad CGI was in the Catwoman movie when they had Halle flipping everywhere and running across walls (terrible). I haven't seen it yet but i'm glad they used a real actor for Beast too. A good example of going overboard is the Star War sequels. George got a little to happy about the fact that he had the technology to use CGI for virtually anything but he missed out on the opportunity to make some great costumes and puppets.
---  |
|
Dec/15/2005, 1:50 am
|
Send Email to mrwayne74
Send PM to mrwayne74
Yahoo
|
Nasric Tenretni
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 12-2005
Posts: 20
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: To CGI or not to CGI?
Oh... this is a tough one...
I agree with Mr. Wayne about some of the excessive CGI characters in the SW Prequels. I would have liked to have seen real people in Clonetrooper gear, even if they did the effect of shooting one person (Temura Morrison) in the costume and then populated him all over..
(think of what they did to the clone boys on Kamino... that was one actor - Daniel Logan - placed all over the room.. and it worked)
However, I think for certain characters CGI is the only way to go. For example, take the upcoming Transformers Movie that is in the works. Let's face it, to build a fully functioning, life size Autobot or Decepticon would be more costly than making them on a computer.
Sure, give Stan Winston the time and money, and He'll make a Prime that is not only life-sized, but could Transform, walk, and even fire his plasma cannon. After all look at what he did to bring a full, life-sized T-Rex to life!!! But... the key issue there is money.
In this case, I think they NEED to be CGI.
However, it is a very fne line. One can quickly go overboard with computer effects and very quickly turn a film that was supposed to be story driven into a mess of CGI characters and a lot of flash, but no story.
In cases as the remake of King Kong, I think it is vital he be CGI. True, he's a main character, but WETA studios have shown that over the last 5 years, effects have grown by leaps and bounds. Look at Gollum. That was a beautiful effect, purely digital.
So, it is a very tricky area. Too much and it detracts from the film, not enough, and it looks like you don't care...
|
|
Dec/15/2005, 2:17 pm
|
Send Email to Nasric Tenretni
Send PM to Nasric Tenretni
|
Add a reply
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: Nov/24/2009, 8:37 am
|
|
|
