Quote from: Le Celticant on Dec 02, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
Quote from: St_Eddie on Dec 02, 2011, 04:19:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 02, 2011, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: JKS1 on Nov 30, 2011, 02:27:36 PMSo, please, some examples of scenes and movies where the CGI depicted landscapes and spaceships arent obviously CGI
'Underworld' was made on a relatively cheap budget, but the entirety of the working mechanical crypt scene was completely generated by computers. Nobody realises it, because it looks so real.
Also, I believe that a lot of the rotor blades and associated effects during Ridley's own 'Black Hawk Down' were done in CGI, for reasons of safety. Something else few people realise, because it's done well.
Another example would be 'Independence Day'! The military withdrew support when mentions of Area 51 were refused to be removed from the script. It meant they had to switch completely over to CGI for all the air combat. A few shots were miniatures (possibly the explosions), but all the rest were done by computers. Everyone assumes they were models, but they're digital.
Then there's the stuff done for the new version of the 'Battlestar Galactica' television show. Completely CGI.
^
This.
I'm a huge supporter of practical effects and matte paintings and hate badly executed CGI with a vengeance but I've watched a fair few films on DVD, only to learn afterwards that a lot of CGI was used for landscapes. I would never have known had I not been told.
It's worth pointing out that in these cases there always tends to be a certain amount of practical location in combination with the CGI. Still, the fact is that bad CGI is very noticeable but well executed CGI is seemless, which is why some people claim CGI can't ever live up to practical methods; they've simply failed to recognise when it's done well.
Hello,
Before Vue & Terragen became over-popular by CG artists,
The landscapes (CG) you're referring were usually very real.
The only difference is the place they are put and matte painting
always looks "good" as CGI because it is usually "believable".
As I said in another thread of this forum:
There is a difference between what tells your eyes and what
tells your brain.
Your brain here at 1:38 will obviously tell you there is CG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVWG5IQ7w#
Because it can't believe there were so many soldiers, or the
set itself seems to not exist in real life.
Yet if you ask your eyes "what is CG for sure" I'm pretty sure
they have no idea at all.
Spoiler
Brain & Eyes, working together, yet, different things.
yeah but I actually cited LOTR and Jurassic Park as movies that for the most part, in my opinion, employed good usage of good CGI
the CGI in those movies were for the most part a very positive contribution to the finished product, whereas Star Wars 1,2 and 3, probably the ultimate examples, were ruined by an endless barrage of empty CGI effects and creatures that rendered those films as nothing more than glorified cartoons with actors as mere props.
Along with the [still amazing] opening sequence to Balde Runner, 'Alien' could be used as another example that highlights my point:
I have not seen a single modern movie (utilising CGI effects) that has the same 'wow' factor that the whole 'derelict' sequence does in Alien. From the moment they clamber in through the openings of the ship, to the moment they encounter the Space Jockey, to the moment they come across the egg chamber and its seemingly massive scale......its 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor, and a perfect example of the powerful impact that the unique and ingenious conception and design of Giger,
coupled with expert set building, model building and matte painting, can have.
All of this is really just to counter the argument of a previous poster who posted something along the lines of
'i cant believe anyone would build models and utilise matte paintings when CGI can do the same thing quicker, easier and in more detail'.I have nothing against good usage of well executed and appropriate CGI but again I have to repeat that
I have yet to experience this same 'wow' factor on watching any modern day movie utilising advanced CGI effects......and this is why that for the most part, with Prometheus, I truly hope Ridley built models and sets and resorted to a [hopefully minimal] reliance on CGI only when he absolutely had to, or when the CGI actually did enhance what was being depicted on screen yet remained seemingly 'invisible' as CGI.
When I'm finally sitting in the theatre in June 2012 and that iconic 20th Century Fox logo fades out, I for one want to experience that same dazzling 'wow' factor that I experienced, each time, during Ridley's earlier two iconic masterpieces,.