Poll
Question:
Should this movie bring back the original Alien design?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 77
Option 2: No
votes: 15
I think we all know that there is a HUGE difference between the Original ALIEN and all the others that came after it. So since this movie is a prequel to ALIEN, do you want the 8 foot tall biomechanical monstrosity or do you want the cannon fodder bugs?
Give me a monster, not an insect.
Silly question really. :-\
They said there's only going to be one alien so it can't be a cannon fodder bug. This is good because we'll probably get a good design and they'll spend more budget focussing on creating the alien.
C'mon, what kind of git would vote no? :D
This is the most single dumbest question I've ever read, no offense to Jigsaw85.
Quote from: DoomsdayApocalypse on Jun 08, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
They said there's only going to be one alien so it can't be a cannon fodder bug. This is good because we'll probably get a good design and they'll spend more budget focussing on creating the alien.
Has this been confirmed? or just fan talk?
If so , I'm slightly disappointed, a single puts it away from an origin story and puts it back in the realms of a remake.
We've already seen one alien wreak havoc on humans......twice, how much more can you do with it?
Apparently a lot more, otherwise they wouldn't be making this movie with a single alien.
The movies always work best with the one creature, it's how it always should have been. Theres no suspense, tension or mystery left when you've got loads.
'Cannon fodder' is situational and a rather poor, extremely superficial phrase, in any case.
anyone who voted no deserves a fine spanking.
How much money would Giger demand? I would pay him if i could. ;)
Quote from: War Wager on Jun 08, 2009, 05:46:44 PM
The movies always work best with the one creature, it's how it always should have been. Theres no suspense, tension or mystery left when you've got loads.
I got an idea. After the first alien is dead....>SCARE MOMENT<...the second shows up. That means there were two aliens all the time. =)
I got an idea. After the first alien is dead....>SCARE MOMENT<...the second shows up. That means there were two aliens all the time. =)
[/quote]
When the remake was rumoured I was expecting there to be a scene like that.
2 people have voted no. It's just like I thought, some people perfer the bugs to the monster. So sad.
id love for the giger bug, and voted for it, BUT nothing will ever reach the same level as the original, so it probbably wont happen.
It's because of cgi and modern techniques that today's special effects don't look as good. Instead of going for minimalistic, and making every shot count; they go for gratitious shots and show way too much.
That's not true at all.
Only a poor workman blames his tools. There's nothing wrong with CGI, it just needs to be used right.
The same can be said for models and prosthetics.
Honestly, if its Giger's design, it would be nice, if not, I wouldn't flip. Half the fun is examining the new designs of the Alien and how they vary through each film.
Quote from: Undeadite on Jun 09, 2009, 07:27:50 AM
The same can be said for models and prosthetics.
Exactly. It's only good if it's done well.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 09, 2009, 07:25:34 AM
That's not true at all.
Only a poor workman blames his tools. There's nothing wrong with CGI, it just needs to be used right.
I didn't say anything against CGI. CGI is awesome if done right. But because of CGI, audiences demand bigger and better. They want to see more aliens. So we see cgi aliens running around, and they don't look anywhere near as good as the originals.
Some of the cgi shots of the alien in A:R and AVP were particularly bad. Revealed too much of the creature. Though some shots were good.
Your exact words were "It's because of cgi and modern techniques that today's special effects don't look as good." Which is fairly damning. What say we got back to the good old days of the ever changing scale of Alien rod puppet and shonky compositing. Which showed the most of the creature up to that pount. There's a handful of full body shots of the Alien in Resurrection where you can get a good look without pausing. Hardly a big deal.
It's all about balance, when you can tell its a CGI shot, then it's probably went too far. If we are going to stick with one Biomech alien, it better be one hell of a script. You can't really get better than alien.
Unless they start with one and expand the egg morph into the second half of the movie, that might work out.
You know they might even go way out there and not actually show the full grown alien and just have a tale about the eggs. Although that would be a very "Ballsy" move.
Well, I have such low expectations that I think we can safely assume that the new Alien film won't get even close to the psychological terror of the original. Something like "wave goodbye to sexual undertones from Alien, please welcome torture porn from AVP:R".
^^^^ NOOO!!!
I want a Aliem monster this time not some bug that gets killed in a ease like in AVPR.
QuoteIt's all about balance, when you can tell its a CGI shot, then it's probably went too far.
What about when you can tell it's a guy in a suit?
Quote from: Kaworu on Jun 09, 2009, 06:02:57 PM
I want a Aliem monster this time not some bug that gets killed in a ease like in AVPR.
Well seeing how there is going to be one Alien, there wouldn't be much of a movie if it got killed easily...
is that for sure? If so that's disappointing. I thought this was going to be an origin story which would require multiple aliens. A bunch of giger aliens working together is something i always wanted to see.
Quote from: SM on Jun 09, 2009, 11:37:04 PM
QuoteIt's all about balance, when you can tell its a CGI shot, then it's probably went too far.
What about when you can tell it's a guy in a suit?
Well that's all up to the man with the lens! I'm not going to mess with you on the CGI mate, I know it's your baby. Just stating little tid bits and background usually work better than a full blown clone war... ;)
CGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell. Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.
Once SM reads that he'll hit the launch button... :D
(was more than special effects that ruined it, falling over 3 water falls and still managing to stay seated in the vehicle....what the?)
Well i prefere that over small chinise boy from part two, who was fighting better than Bruce Lee himselve. About Alien in prequel: I think that more than one creature (2-3) would do fine without remaking first film concept.
Yeah... I too think that there should be more than just one. But if there's only a few, then they can all be a return to the original form... just with the added element of teamwork (well, I say teamwork).
QuoteCGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
:D
Hate to make a liar out of highlandpred - so "what a load of ignorant wank".
They used the best effects at the time for the Indiana Jones films, and did exactly the same for the last one. And if one didn't look at the older films with rose coloured glasses, one would see the myriad effects shots that don't hold up - and indeed didn't at the time.
QuoteI'm not going to mess with you on the CGI mate, I know it's your baby. Just stating little tid bits and background usually work better than a full blown clone war...
CGI isn't my baby. Convincing special effects are though. Whether it's CGI, models, or a combination. As long as it looks good I don't care how it was achieved. Ignorant twats mindlessly lambaste CGI, but ignore bad model or compositing work, when they should really be lambasting bad special effects in general.
As for the "clone war" - fans were crying out for it for decades. What can you do?
Quote from: J-Syxx on Jun 10, 2009, 10:25:55 AM
CGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell. Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.
I agree. CGI is a tool, but a tool that should only be used as necessary and never be used as a gimmick or easy way out. Problem is that many times the CGI option is actually cheaper than the practical idea.
I just watched the special features on 'Underworld: ROTL' and the director was saying the same kind of thing, that he tried to keep it real, but whereas two or three werewolves in corridors in 'Underworld' was doable practically, hundreds of running, jumping and transforming ones in ROTL could only have been done with CGI.
Some films use CGI better than others as well. 'PJ's King Kong' was very fake-o, especially the stampede sequence and the giant bugs, whereas, say, 'Starship Troopers' looked amazingly real, and its an older film. I still can't believe that it missed out on an Oscar for effects.
And, finally, yes, CGI ruined Indy4 and Spielberg needs to pull himself back together. He's losing his spark.
As for the Alien prequel, the more practical the better, I am not expecting hordes of the buggers, just a couple perhaps. Still, the story is my main concern.
Quote'PJ's King Kong' was very fake-o, especially the stampede sequence and the giant bugs, whereas,
The stampede was a combination of real set, model and CG dinosaurs. It suffered from dodgy compositing more than anything else. Giant bugs - there were a couple of shots of Lumpy that didn't quite work, but by and large it was fine.
By the same token compare the sets of New York in Wellington to the final digital New York and it's difficult to fault.
Quote from: SM on Jun 11, 2009, 01:17:33 AM
Quote'PJ's King Kong' was very fake-o, especially the stampede sequence and the giant bugs, whereas,
The stampede was a combination of real set, model and CG dinosaurs. It suffered from dodgy compositing more than anything else. Giant bugs - there were a couple of shots of Lumpy that didn't quite work, but by and large it was fine.
By the same token compare the sets of New York in Wellington to the final digital New York and it's difficult to fault.
True, bad compositing can drag down excellent CGI, I agree. NY was fine, but the climax and his fall were pretty unconvincing IMHO.
Its not quite as bad, but I put it in the same category as Indy4, a victim of excess. :)
I'm struggling to think of bad CG in Indy 4 off hand. I suppose the ants could've been a bit better. One thing that stuck for me - and I really enjoyed Indy 4 - was when they're tearing through the jungle sword fighting and machine gunning etc on nice straight stracks - where only minutes earlier they needed that honking great cutting thing to actually make a track. But that's more a story issue than an effects one.
But then I've always ignored the question of how Indy's been trekking for days in South America in Raiders, but runs back to the plane in a couple of minutes. ;D
Quote from: SM on Jun 11, 2009, 01:54:24 AM
I'm struggling to think of bad CG in Indy 4 off hand. I suppose the ants could've been a bit better. One thing that stuck for me - and I really enjoyed Indy 4 - was when they're tearing through the jungle sword fighting and machine gunning etc on nice straight stracks - where only minutes earlier they needed that honking great cutting thing to actually make a track. But that's more a story issue than an effects one.
But then I've always ignored the question of how Indy's been trekking for days in South America in Raiders, but runs back to the plane in a couple of minutes. ;D
The effects in Indy4 were 'too much' IMO. The animals, the insects, the settings, some chases and so forth were all, very obviously, CGI. Sure, Lucas thinks CGI is just another tool that should be used to enhance, like models and opticals - I agree, but it did more harm than good to my enjoyment of a very 'earthy' franchise. There was just too much of it.
The chase along the cliff face looks fake due to the framing and the way the shot is done. Just bad compositing like what was said earlier with that KK sequence.
Still, glad you enjoyed it! :)
Sorry, tad off topic, what was this thread about again? :-\
Quote
Hate to make a liar out of highlandpred - so "what a load of ignorant wank".
They used the best effects at the time for the Indiana Jones films, and did exactly the same for the last one. And if one didn't look at the older films with rose coloured glasses, one would see the myriad effects shots that don't hold up - and indeed didn't at the time.
If that was the "best effects" they shouldn't have even made the film. The CG in that movie was absolutely horrendous. My suspension of disbelieve was pretty much destroyed by it. Frankly, I'd rather watch a cartoon or anime than some of thise crappy films that rely too much on CG becuase at least they're consistent with the cartoony look. Monster movies from the 50's do indeed look more convincing a lot of the time to me becuase at least they look like they actually exist in the 3-D world. CG a lot of the time can't seem to accomplish that at all.
QuoteIf that was the "best effects" they shouldn't have even made the film.
By that rationale they shouldn't have made of the Indy films.
I was watching the Seventh Voyage of Sinbad last night. The stop motion stuff was, for it's time, very good. Very smooth animation on the cyclops. But two things let it down - the compositing with live action actors and the lack of motion blur. Same goes for Clash of the Titans, which had those same problems 20+ years after Sinbad.
In terms of a convincing effect and performance Gollum is streets ahead of anything Harryhausen did. And that's not a criticism of Harryhausen - he was a true master of his craft. He just worked in a different time as did Willis O'Brien. I can easily suspend my disbelief with older films and simply enjoy them knowing that was the best effects work of it's time.
Quote from: DoomsdayApocalypse on Jun 08, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
They said there's only going to be one alien so it can't be a cannon fodder bug. This is good because we'll probably get a good design and they'll spend more budget focussing on creating the alien.
where did u hear this?
although i like the idea of having just one alien, i 'm slightly dissapointed that there will be no queen.
Oh well we are not even sure if they are gonna green lit the film anyhow :-\
you guys are dumbass. You guys actually thought the avpr alien (guy in a suit) look better than ANY of the movies that come out recently (that are cgi)? look at lord of the rings, king kong , star trek(that reptilian monster at the ice scene was phenomenal) they are pure GOLD.
It's not that they cant model an alien CG properly it's just that fox dont want to spend money on it. If SHITVPR had money as much as kong , we'd get a better and more realitic look. and dont you f**king lie to me that it's not possible cuz it is.
Why cant we have both? Personally i loved both the horror suspense of the single creature as well as the CM & crew discovering that these creatures werent as brainless as they thought/hoped. I agree with most people here that seeing xenos die in droves takes away from the effect a la AVP:R but I think 2-3 Giger style aliens would be a terrific way to go.
You can explore the behaviors of the creatures as a group as well as a lone predatory creature. I think an alien style Jurrasic Park Muldoon moment could be incredibly tense and scary if done solemnly without the sillyness of AR's "look my brains!" or a cheesy chestburster though the headsacrifice.
Quote from: SM on Jun 11, 2009, 01:54:24 AM
I'm struggling to think of bad CG in Indy 4 off hand. I suppose the ants could've been a bit better. One thing that stuck for me - and I really enjoyed Indy 4 - was when they're tearing through the jungle sword fighting and machine gunning etc on nice straight stracks - where only minutes earlier they needed that honking great cutting thing to actually make a track. But that's more a story issue than an effects one.
But then I've always ignored the question of how Indy's been trekking for days in South America in Raiders, but runs back to the plane in a couple of minutes. ;D
The ants were badly animated and weren't lightmatched properly, and in general compositing in the movie is godawful. Like Flash Gordon HawkMen awful.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 01:50:20 PM
you guys are dumbass. You guys actually thought the avpr alien (guy in a suit) look better than ANY of the movies that come out recently (that are cgi)? look at lord of the rings, king kong , star trek(that reptilian monster at the ice scene was phenomenal) they are pure GOLD.
The only dumbass here is you.
You're comparing a film made by a group of incompetent hacks, to films with established filmmakers and incredibly large budgets. For every movie with great CGI creatures there are plenty with utterly useless CGI creatures.
Want a better example to compare against the likes of Kong and Star Trek? Pan's Labyrinth, or Hellboy. Look at the practical work in those. They're so beautiful you could
cry.
Yeah, but by the same token there were quite a few CG shots in Hellboy that I found a bit lacking.
QuoteLike Flash Gordon HawkMen awful.
Harsh!!!
Quote from: J-Syxx on Jun 10, 2009, 10:25:55 AM
CGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell. Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.
Complain about C.G.I now, but in 50 years time, when we're in a whole new territory of cinema effects, we'll look back on films such as Indy4 and say they're classics, and no one will complain about about the effects because they'll be old techniques.
Indy 4 is awesome.
Quote from: SM on Jun 11, 2009, 11:54:57 PM
Yeah, but by the same token there were quite a few CG shots in Hellboy that I found a bit lacking.
Which only goes to prove the point that suits can still be better than CGI ;D
At least in that film. Interesting to see how GDT goes with WETA.
The only time I've ever been convinced by a computer-rendered living, breathing organism was Jurassic Park, or in films where they're really far away.
Jurassic Park to this day still stands alone in my eyes as cgi perfection, the only thing besides other jurassic park films that can come close is Transformers and...damn that's about it.
I actually thought the cg T-Rex looked better than the practical one.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 12, 2009, 12:38:04 AM
The only time I've ever been convinced by a computer-rendered living, breathing organism was Jurassic Park, or in films where they're really far away.
For the most part of the film, I agree, but some shots of CG, the kitchen raptors for instance, it looks iffy.
Its nothing to make them seem real if they don't blend well.
Aside from JP, 'Starship Troopers' and 'Spider-man 3' are also very convincing. The forming of the Sand Man in the pit after the accident is just beautiful. :o
Never found any of the Spider-Man effects to be much chop. The first film was particularly appalling.
Quote from: SM on Jun 12, 2009, 06:00:41 AM
Never found any of the Spider-Man effects to be much chop. The first film was particularly appalling.
Suits the films fine, I think they work very well. The style of films have a lot do with the effects, just like compositing and animation IMO. Speaking of which, just watched the interesting "A Sound Of Thunder" with some decent shots, but many cringley ones too.
There are definitely some pretty dodgy effects in Spidey 1. But then, there are heaps of shots in it that look really great, but those tend to stick in people's minds less than the crummy ones.
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Jun 12, 2009, 07:04:29 AM
There are definitely some pretty dodgy effects in Spidey 1. But then, there are heaps of shots in it that look really great, but those tend to stick in people's minds less than the crummy ones.
Ain't that the truth. Same with anything really isn't it? Bad service, bad products...
Quote from: Alien³ on Jun 11, 2009, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: J-Syxx on Jun 10, 2009, 10:25:55 AM
CGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell. Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.
Complain about C.G.I now, but in 50 years time, when we're in a whole new territory of cinema effects, we'll look back on films such as Indy4 and say they're classics, and no one will complain about about the effects because they'll be old techniques.
Indy 4 is awesome.
I will
never call Indy 4 a classic. >:(
Quote from: SiL on Jun 11, 2009, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 01:50:20 PM
you guys are dumbass. You guys actually thought the avpr alien (guy in a suit) look better than ANY of the movies that come out recently (that are cgi)? look at lord of the rings, king kong , star trek(that reptilian monster at the ice scene was phenomenal) they are pure GOLD.
The only dumbass here is you.
You're comparing a film made by a group of incompetent hacks, to films with established filmmakers and incredibly large budgets. For every movie with great CGI creatures there are plenty with utterly useless CGI creatures.
Want a better example to compare against the likes of Kong and Star Trek? Pan's Labyrinth, or Hellboy. Look at the practical work in those. They're so beautiful you could cry.
Strause brothers did not make the actual aliens in the film. ADI did. I agree that they had the money issue thus making it look cheaper.
Pan's labyrinth may looked realistic (although not as stylish as kong or startrek) the moventment was subpar imo. If some one wears a suit or whatever, they can only move as much as a human can thus making the movent very generic and human like. If CGI is used however the movent can vary a lot more.
Even JC said the movement of the creature is more important than the detail it self. Which is WHY aliens should be made in CGI.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 14, 2009, 07:17:01 AM
Strause brothers did not make the actual aliens in the film.
Obviously. But they were in charge of executing them.
QuoteEven JC said the movement of the creature is more important than the detail it self. Which is WHY aliens should be made in CGI.
You're quoting the guy who executed the Alien in an incredibly convincing manner using suits and puppets ... to make the argument that CGI is how the Aliens
should be done? What are you on?
Hell yeah, if the alien will show up in a time before ALIEN, then it should like the original.
Quote from: deadmeat on Jun 14, 2009, 12:30:52 PM
Hell yeah, if the alien will show up in a time before ALIEN, then it should like the original.
amen to that.
I don't care how they do it, as long as two things are ticked off, 1. It's looks realistic enough and 2. I'm scared shit-less of it.
QuoteSuits the films fine, I think they work very well.
Spider-Man usually look liked he was boneless and had no weight, and there were some Green Goblin shots that absolutely stunk.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jun 11, 2009, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: J-Syxx on Jun 10, 2009, 10:25:55 AM
CGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell. Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.
Complain about C.G.I now, but in 50 years time, when we're in a whole new territory of cinema effects, we'll look back on films such as Indy4 and say they're classics, and no one will complain about about the effects because they'll be old techniques.
Indy 4 is awesome.
I will never call Indy 4 a classic. >:(
I agree. Neither shall I, personally. The cinema institution, however, probably will, just like they call 'Plan 9' a classic.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 14, 2009, 07:20:05 AM
You're quoting the guy who executed the Alien in an incredibly convincing manner using suits and puppets ... to make the argument that CGI is how the Aliens should be done? What are you on?
Cameron did suceeded when it was in the 80s period. Now it's 2009. Things have changed. Now people are using CGI for almost everything. Even you agrree that JC is good at trying to make a realistic monster. Although i have not seen avatar i'm PRETTY sure that he will make the monsters in avatar with cgi than the old fashied way like he did in aliens. Why do you think he is doing that? So it looks more unrealistic? I doubt it. He is using it so he can portray ALL of his vision into his movie.
I'm also pretty sure that if jc ever gets involved in the new prequal i'm pretty sure he will use some(if not all) CGI effects to create his visions. He seems to be pretty obssessed with the new cgi thing anyhow.
well i wish i could point out more but since my english is a little short, i'll stop here.
Quote from: Nachtfalke on Jun 15, 2009, 12:26:43 AM
Quote from: TJ Doc on Jun 12, 2009, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jun 11, 2009, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: J-Syxx on Jun 10, 2009, 10:25:55 AM
CGI f**king sucks. It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film. I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films. God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell. Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.
Complain about C.G.I now, but in 50 years time, when we're in a whole new territory of cinema effects, we'll look back on films such as Indy4 and say they're classics, and no one will complain about about the effects because they'll be old techniques.
Indy 4 is awesome.
I will never call Indy 4 a classic. >:(
I agree. Neither shall I, personally. The cinema institution, however, probably will, just like they call 'Plan 9' a classic.
'Plan 9' is a classic for all the wrong reasons. But still a classic.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 14, 2009, 07:17:01 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jun 11, 2009, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 01:50:20 PM
you guys are dumbass. You guys actually thought the avpr alien (guy in a suit) look better than ANY of the movies that come out recently (that are cgi)? look at lord of the rings, king kong , star trek(that reptilian monster at the ice scene was phenomenal) they are pure GOLD.
The only dumbass here is you.
You're comparing a film made by a group of incompetent hacks, to films with established filmmakers and incredibly large budgets. For every movie with great CGI creatures there are plenty with utterly useless CGI creatures.
Want a better example to compare against the likes of Kong and Star Trek? Pan's Labyrinth, or Hellboy. Look at the practical work in those. They're so beautiful you could cry.
Strause brothers did not make the actual aliens in the film. ADI did. I agree that they had the money issue thus making it look cheaper.
Pan's labyrinth may looked realistic (although not as stylish as kong or startrek) the moventment was subpar imo. If some one wears a suit or whatever, they can only move as much as a human can thus making the movent very generic and human like. If CGI is used however the movent can vary a lot more.
Even JC said the movement of the creature is more important than the detail it self. Which is WHY aliens should be made in CGI.
For the record dude, Doug Jones is brilliant. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the suitwork in Pan's Labyrinth.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 15, 2009, 08:28:04 AM
Cameron did suceeded when it was in the 80s period. Now it's 2009. Things have changed.
And? If Cameron can pull off realistic suitwork in the 80s, it should be even easier now. The only thing stopping people is laziness and/or time restraints.
And time = money.
But SiL is right. If those practical effects in Aliens still stand up today - and they obviously do (even the Queen in Aliens is better than AvP) - then they could still be utilised today and succeed.
I'd rather this movie wasn't being made.
But if they must, use Giger's original creature design :)
Quote from: SM on Jun 15, 2009, 11:34:25 PM
But SiL is right. If those practical effects in Aliens still stand up today - and they obviously do (even the Queen in Aliens is better than AvP) - then they could still be utilised today and succeed.
This is where I say CGI has ruined ingenuity.
Obviously the technique itself can't be blamed, only the people that use it, but since it started becoming so readily available, people have become lazier and lazier with how they choose to execute effects shots.
There's a lot of love that went into the effects of
Aliens, and it shows. People saw "Aliens running on walls" and "14 foot tall mumma Alien" on the page in the script and went out and made it happen. They dragged people into the air on wires and stuck two dudes in a rubber suit, all in-camera.
Then you get to the AvP movies, and it's "Well f**k it, we'll just do it in the computer". Anderson wasn't too bad on this - He really only used it when he had to - but AvPR was just ridiculous. Sure it had a small shooting schedule and budget, but damn, it's not like they couldn't have covered it in the re-writes they did.
I still can't tell where the full scale Queen finishes and the puppet starts in the final fight. If I gave it some thought I could work it out, but nothing jumps out immediately as being a model.
Ingenuity doesn't always come off either. The Alien3 rod puppet probably sounded good on paper, and the actual puppeteering performance is pretty decent - but the final execution in a lot of cases did not work.
The Aliens swarming up the pyramid in the AvP is probably the best shot in the film - the wide shot anyway, and there's no other way of doing that beyond spending years on a stop motion shoot.
I was watching the first Narnia flick again last night and that's wall to wall CGI. Some works and but a lot doesn't. Aslan is generally okay, as are the beavers, but the wolves are sorely lacking. And apart from the aforementioned Aslan and beavers, most of the shots that linger on CG characters too long give too much away.
Quote from: SM on Jun 16, 2009, 05:24:08 AM
I still can't tell where the full scale Queen finishes and the puppet starts in the final fight. If I gave it some thought I could work it out, but nothing jumps out immediately as being a model.
I didn't even know they used models until I watched the special features, then started seeing it in the final fight on later viewings because I was looking for it.
QuoteIngenuity doesn't always come off either.
True ... but that's where CGI comes in.
That's what's sorely lacking. It's a balance between effects. Some people still have it, like Guillermo Del Toro, and it works out beautifully. Some people don't have it, and it's all "HEY AREN'T THESE EFFECTS PRETTY?"
Obviously there are always time and budget restraints to think about, and slavishly choosing one over the other is silly if you can't pull it off, but there's barely even the consideration for compromise these days.
It's one of the things I like about
The Dark Knight. Wanna flip a truck in a street? Then bitches,
let's flip a god-damned truck in a street. And they did.
That's one thing that confuses me. That some filmmakers embark on these ventures not really knowing if they could pull it off. But then I guess they did that on LOTR with Gollum. They thought they could do it, but never actually knew - and the early tests were decidedly dodgy. And if they hadn't it could've sunk Two Towers and Return of the King.
It's the only way to expand, though.
If everyone remained fine with the technologies available, we'd never develop. It takes people like Cameron to look at what's available, and say "Okay, but now I want a 14-foot tall Alien. Gimme.", and people like Stan Winston to say "Sounds absolutely insane! When can we start?"
Sometimes it fails spectacularly, obviously. But when it works, it lets us go from a 14 foot tall two-dudes-in-a-suit held up by a crane Alien Queen to a fully functioning animatronic Tyrannosaurus Rex.
These days, though, it's just refinement on what we've got. We've pretty much stagnated when it comes to effects - The only place to go from here is more and more realistic, not necessarily developing new technologies (Screw 3D right up its ass).
This makes me a sad panda. :(
Quote's the only way to expand, though.
If everyone remained fine with the technologies available, we'd never develop. It takes people like Cameron to look at what's available, and say "Okay, but now I want a 14-foot tall Alien. Gimme.", and people like Stan Winston to say "Sounds absolutely insane! When can we start?"
Yeah but they were finding a way to make that bad boy work before they got to the sound stage. And whatever Cambo's faults may be he knows how to make that stuff look good on film even if there's a squillion cables just out of frame.
There seems to be a thing in Hollywood now of "Just shoot it and we'll comp the CG stuff in later" without knowing that they can actually pull it off "later". I dunno if this impression is true or not, but the often less-than-convincing stuff that pops up would seem they often bite off more than they can chew.
Some may poo-poo the Star Wars prequels, but at least Lucas didn't suddenly go "We can make the other Star Wars films now" as soon as they did Young Sherlock Holmes. It was only when JP came out that he thought it was possible.
Quote from: SM on Jun 16, 2009, 07:37:21 AM
Quote's the only way to expand, though.
If everyone remained fine with the technologies available, we'd never develop. It takes people like Cameron to look at what's available, and say "Okay, but now I want a 14-foot tall Alien. Gimme.", and people like Stan Winston to say "Sounds absolutely insane! When can we start?"
Yeah but they were finding a way to make that bad boy work before they got to the sound stage. And whatever Cambo's faults may be he knows how to make that stuff look good on film even if there's a squillion cables just out of frame.
There seems to be a thing in Hollywood now of "Just shoot it and we'll comp the CG stuff in later" without knowing that they can actually pull it off "later". I dunno if this impression is true or not, but the often less-than-convincing stuff that pops up would seem they often bite off more than they can chew.
Some may poo-poo the Star Wars prequels, but at least Lucas didn't suddenly go "We can make the other Star Wars films now" as soon as they did Young Sherlock Holmes. It was only when JP came out that he thought it was possible.
The thing is, sure, fine, use the new technology, just don't go overboard - thats my opinion - the SW prequels, King Kong and Indy4 all made me cringe.
How else could they do Kong, though? It's like looking at the original and saying "Yeah, it was good, but it would've been nice if they didn't use so much danged model work."
Meh, they shoulda used a guy in a suit in '33.
Quotehe thing is, sure, fine, use the new technology, just don't go overboard - thats my opinion - the SW prequels, King Kong and Indy4 all made me cringe.
Sucks to be you I guess. I dug 'em.
Who said the monsters in Star Trek looked "great" and real, because it looked like absolutely crap to me and completely fake. I felt no fear at all during that scene. Living creatures can not be portrayed well by CGI at all.
Another thing I don't understand is all this winning about "well you can't see the whole creature because of wires, etc." Maybe you don't understand the point of the first film if you feel there's a need to show the entire monster on the screen for fifteen minutes or whatever.
Prepare to make the jump to hyperbole on my mark... ::)
Quote from: J-Syxx on Jun 17, 2009, 02:33:19 AM
Who said the monsters in Star Trek looked "great" and real, because it looked like absolutely crap to me and completely fake. I felt no fear at all during that scene. Living creatures can not be portrayed well by CGI at all.
Another thing I don't understand is all this winning about "well you can't see the whole creature because of wires, etc." Maybe you don't understand the point of the first film if you feel there's a need to show the entire monster on the screen for fifteen minutes or whatever.
yeah so you want the same old garbage fashioned way of showing close up shots like avpr where you cant tell crap whats happening. good for you
(it's not just the darkness, either)
Well, it depends.
If they want to do a freaky horror like the first film, stick with Giger's. It's much more like a poltergeist than a war machine.
If you want to an all-out action-war like the second, stick with James Camerons' aliens or AVP's aliens. They're faster, stronger, more built for war.
Yeah, cos the speed and toughness is inherent in the look of the thing.
Oh wait, no it isn't.
Jurassic Park for me is and probably always will be my bench mark for a movie containing both puppets and CGI. Some people may say that a Dinosaur is not the same as doing an alien but it's still a living breathing monster that does not exist in the real world.
Can you get much better than the T-rex in JP? - Probably not
IMO it cannot be topped.
If they bring back the Giger design I wonder if they'll go back to the original RP method from the first film. I hope so because that's a pretty sick idea.
Quote from: highlandpred on Jun 19, 2009, 12:28:42 AM
Jurassic Park for me is and probably always will be my bench mark for a movie containing both puppets and CGI. Some people may say that a Dinosaur is not the same as doing an alien but it's still a living breathing monster that does not exist in the real world.
Can you get much better than the T-rex in JP? - Probably not
IMO it cannot be topped.
Jurassic Park will always have the best C.G.I and animatronics ever.
Very true. Jurassic Park was a benchmark in CGI.
But if they could do it in 1993, why cant they do it in 2009?
If only Fox could call in Industrial Light and Magic, maybe we could see breakthrough CGI for the Alien. Since Stan Winston is gone, I cant see a breakthrough in puppetry.
We need real people to do the special effects for the Alien. Like they did with Predator.
They can't do it in 2009 because we aren't that awesome anymore...seriously though, I have no clue why. ILM did it for Jurassic Park and they coulnd't even top themselves with Transformers.
Look at Transformers 2. Those are breakthrough, Oscar worthy effects.
I know they are, but i still haven't seen anything that can top Jurassic Park, i'm going to wait until i see the movie to comment any further.
There were a number of points where the dinosaur puppets and suits are obvious, actually. :)
CGI wise, no.
Quote from: Jigsaw85 on Jun 08, 2009, 07:16:01 AM
I think we all know that there is a HUGE difference between the Original ALIEN and all the others that came after it. So since this movie is a prequel to ALIEN, do you want the 8 foot tall biomechanical monstrosity or do you want the cannon fodder bugs?
as long as theres aliens in it itl be great!
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jun 19, 2009, 02:47:31 AM
If they bring back the Giger design I wonder if they'll go back to the original RP method from the first film. I hope so because that's a pretty sick idea.
thats a no for me. Not that i think that the method is bad idea , but my love for the queen is a little too strong.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jun 19, 2009, 10:25:48 PM
There were a number of points where the dinosaur puppets and suits are obvious, actually. :)
Never!!!
What the hell do you guys have against the warrior?
Seriously. This website isn't an AVP fansite, it's just a Giger worshipping zealot site. Dont get me wrong, I love the original design, but whats the point of having a Alien Films forum when the only one you guys give two shits about is the first one? Is anyone else with me?
No.
QuoteSeriously.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
A cursory glance would show that there's plenty of love for the other creatures.
Quote from: Maxyboy on Jun 23, 2009, 07:24:29 AM
What the hell do you guys have against the warrior?
Seriously. This website isn't an AVP fansite, it's just a Giger worshipping zealot site. Dont get me wrong, I love the original design, but whats the point of having a Alien Films forum when the only one you guys give two shits about is the first one? Is anyone else with me?
i'm actually with you on this one. i agree that the giger design was pretty good at the time, however the design needs a major update. I personally dig the alien 3 design (more so than the first one) and my favorite alien design is the queen from aliens..
Quote from: Maxyboy on Jun 23, 2009, 07:24:29 AM
What the hell do you guys have against the warrior?
Seriously. This website isn't an AVP fansite, it's just a Giger worshipping zealot site. Dont get me wrong, I love the original design, but whats the point of having a Alien Films forum when the only one you guys give two shits about is the first one? Is anyone else with me?
Looking at your post count maxyboy, its clear you have not hung around here long enough. As a rough estimate, I'd put the warrior and Aliens as favorite against the Alien and the original if your going on posts by members. Most of the crowd here are young(ish) and there are probably more than the lions share of Alien's fan's on here.
It only makes sense that a prequel would contain the original design, unless it provides some explanation for the different chains of alien.
Quote from: highlandpred on Jun 23, 2009, 02:32:14 PM
Quote from: Maxyboy on Jun 23, 2009, 07:24:29 AM
What the hell do you guys have against the warrior?
Seriously. This website isn't an AVP fansite, it's just a Giger worshipping zealot site. Dont get me wrong, I love the original design, but whats the point of having a Alien Films forum when the only one you guys give two shits about is the first one? Is anyone else with me?
Looking at your post count maxyboy, its clear you have not hung around here long enough. As a rough estimate, I'd put the warrior and Aliens as favorite against the Alien and the original if your going on posts by members. Most of the crowd here are young(ish) and there are probably more than the lions share of Alien's fan's on here.
It only makes sense that a prequel would contain the original design, unless it provides some explanation for the different chains of alien.
this is somewhat bullshit though. It's not the AGE preference that really matters. i my self is 23 (still young) and i've grown up with these alien franchise. i thought the aliens were very scary at the time. However after seeing it again (exception of the queen) the first two film's aliens looked pretty fake and goofy looking compare to todays monsters. So they needed an update and we 've got it. Look at alien resurrection, i know a lot of peole cry and bitch and mown that it doesnt look gigerish but as for me i thought it looks more life like and more believable.
However i think they made it a little too organic , so maybe this time i hope they go and use some bits of gigerisk design and some bits from ar design and combine these two to make it look good and please everyone except u know who.
My post wasn't meant to be offensive to younger members, I'm only 29 myself, but i think your response proves my point. Although the AR models are updated, the alien jumping from wall to wall in aliens, or the alien jumping into the lift trumps anything done in AR. The Original was just too dam scary when i watched it and the scenes involving Kane or Ripley are as good as anything to date.
Yes maybe they do look fake at certain points, but so does the roof crawler in A3 or the Swimmers in AR - a good many years later.
Even more so than Alien or Aliens.
Quote from: highlandpred on Jun 23, 2009, 02:32:14 PM
It only makes sense that a prequel would contain the original design, unless it provides some explanation for the different chains of alien.
I would love this BTW.
Quote from: highlandpred on Jun 23, 2009, 02:32:14 PM
Quote from: Maxyboy on Jun 23, 2009, 07:24:29 AM
What the hell do you guys have against the warrior?
Seriously. This website isn't an AVP fansite, it's just a Giger worshipping zealot site. Dont get me wrong, I love the original design, but whats the point of having a Alien Films forum when the only one you guys give two shits about is the first one? Is anyone else with me?
Looking at your post count maxyboy, its clear you have not hung around here long enough. As a rough estimate, I'd put the warrior and Aliens as favorite against the Alien and the original if your going on posts by members. Most of the crowd here are young(ish) and there are probably more than the lions share of Alien's fan's on here.
It only makes sense that a prequel would contain the original design, unless it provides some explanation for the different chains of alien.
I dont know, it seems lilke everyone prefers the original design over the subsequent ones(The only other competition being the warrior and maybe the runner)
So what if they do prefer the original?
Quote from: highlandpred on Jun 23, 2009, 03:09:42 PM
My post wasn't meant to be offensive to younger members, I'm only 29 myself, but i think your response proves my point. Although the AR models are updated, the alien jumping from wall to wall in aliens, or the alien jumping into the lift trumps anything done in AR. The Original was just too dam scary when i watched it and the scenes involving Kane or Ripley are as good as anything to date.
Yes maybe they do look fake at certain points, but so does the roof crawler in A3 or the Swimmers in AR - a good many years later.
the swimming alien looked bad cuz of the cgi not the design it self. I still think the swimming alien was pretty good though. I know alot of people say it looks fake but the movement and the feeling was there.
For me underwater scene was best one in whole A:R (i do like A:R) despite dated cgi. I think that in 10 years time LOTR cgi also are going to be dated and young audiecne won't be satisfied with them. I think that both Alien and Aliens and A3 designs are great and does not exclude one another. A:R design is different but fits films fable and thus is logical. AvP is different story. First one seems to be cheap come back to A1 design by changing legs and colour of A:R alien. It not good but dosen't hurt either in opose to AvPr which aliens look ridicolous due to gigant teeth and to wide mouths.
Quote from: DoomsdayApocalypse on Jun 09, 2009, 06:47:58 AM
It's because of cgi and modern techniques that today's special effects don't look as good. Instead of going for minimalistic, and making every shot count; they go for gratitious shots and show way too much.
This comment is full of win.
I've read a lot of people saying that JP was the best CGI movie ever made, and I agree 110%. I still remember watching the movie when I was a kid, and I just couldn't believe how real everything looked. The CGI was so perfect in that movie because the technology was still reletively new and untested at the time, and Cameron gave it the proper respect.
But I feel like now, we are at a point where filmakers are constatly trying to one-up each other in the special effects department, and are going out of their way to use CGI effects at every available opportunity, even at the expense of the scene itself. Its almost like there is this mentality that "more special effects = better movie". I would compare it to a cheff over-seasoning his food. At a certain point, you are just serving a bowl full of pepper and garlic.
Take me back to the days of "every shot counts". Showing the audience everything all the time doesn't lend itself well to this franchise.
But to answer the original question, I definately prefer the A1 design for the prequel since there is only going to be the one Alien.
QuoteI've read a lot of people saying that JP was the best CGI movie ever made, and I agree 110%. I still remember watching the movie when I was a kid, and I just couldn't believe how real everything looked. The CGI was so perfect in that movie because the technology was still reletively new and untested at the time, and Cameron gave it the proper respect.
This comment is full of fail.
CGI doesn't force a gun to someone's head and say "SHOW EVERYTHING, BITCH!" Modern techniques are not responsible for the ineptitude of the people using them.
When Neil Marshall made Dog Soldiers he said "Screw it, I'm doing this in-camera", and lo, he did. He could've used cheap shitty CGI, it's always an option, but he went without. Guillermo del Toro could've done Pan's Labyrinth with nothing but CGI creatures, he still did everything possible with suits.
Hate the player, not the game.
Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2009, 10:58:40 PM
QuoteI've read a lot of people saying that JP was the best CGI movie ever made, and I agree 110%. I still remember watching the movie when I was a kid, and I just couldn't believe how real everything looked. The CGI was so perfect in that movie because the technology was still reletively new and untested at the time, and Cameron gave it the proper respect.
This comment is full of fail.
Sigh. Anyone who didn't know I meant Spielberg feel free to troll.
Anyone who can't type a coherent and informed post feel free to whine.
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2009, 11:43:53 PM
Anyone who can't type a coherent and informed post feel free to whine.
Obviously, you were able to understand the post enough to correct the mistake. If one incorrect word is tantamount in an incoherent post, then I would encourage you to revise some of the ones you have made in the past.
Keep the nerd rage comin.
Yowch! That irony is HOT!
It just passed thru my mind... Do Aliens evolve? I mean, should the alien from Alien be different that the ones in AVP?
The original idea was that Aliens are born with this overwhelming bloodlust, and after this was sated they would become highly intelligent and cultured beings who lived for more than a century.
Quote from: Da-Wolf on Jul 01, 2009, 02:41:28 AM
It just passed thru my mind... Do Aliens evolve? I mean, should the alien from Alien be different that the ones in AVP?
Depends, do you consider Tigers and Venus Flytraps to be identical?
Ooooh... Venus Fly traps that actively hunt their prey! And have stripes! That's almost as cool as a sharkalotyl.
Quote from: Da-Wolf on Jul 01, 2009, 02:41:28 AM
It just passed thru my mind... Do Aliens evolve? I mean, should the alien from Alien be different that the ones in AVP?
idk they look different!
I hope they dont use ADI's Alien Design for any future Alien movie, as their design is terrible. The only Alien creature design they did thats smoking hot is the Dog/Ox burster from Alien 3.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jul 01, 2009, 07:18:28 PM
I hope they dont use ADI's Alien Design for any future Alien movie, as their design is terrible. The only Alien creature design they did thats smoking hit is the Dog/Ox burster from Alien 3.
Yeah, the dog was drop-dead beautious!
The design from AvP:R isn't that different to Alien3.
Yes it is. Chest is different, stomach's different, arms are different, neck's different, hands are different, feet are different, tail is different. The only thing that's the same is the design of the ridges on the head.
See - not that different.
it would be cool to see that faded skull on the front of the aliens head look back! like in the original alien!
Quote from: drake@ on Jul 02, 2009, 06:22:37 PM
it would be cool to see that faded skull on the front of the aliens head look back! like in the original alien!
Yes, ive always loved that in the original.
They should most definitely bring back the Giger design! Its been 30 years since we've seen it. I think its time to see it again after that much time away from it.
Also, I'm hoping for egg morphing to come back in this one as well.
Tweak the design some or bring Giger back to design a new xenomorph.
They must pay him to bring back the Giger Alien. I'm afraid that it won't happen.
I could live with a Cameron Alien with Giger Alien's head.
Hell yeah as long as the thing move imo more "alien" then man in suit and act more apex predator then suicide bugs
Personally i would like the man himself to get in hands on improving the design. However given Giger's last dealing with Fox, it may not be possible :(
I always thought of the xenomorph in alien to be a scout or drone while the ones in aliens are warriors. Another thing is that the xenomorph in 1 is young while the xenomorphs in 2 are slightly older. ( I always liked the Aliens xenomrph(s)(???)) maybe they will elaborate on this. I did not like the aliens in AVPR because it looked like they had translucent teeth (like a Queen) which pissed me off for some reason
Quote from: predalien27 on Jul 11, 2009, 07:23:58 AM
I always thought of the xenomorph in alien to be a scout or drone while the ones in aliens are warriors. Another thing is that the xenomorph in 1 is young while the xenomorphs in 2 are slightly older. ( I always liked the Aliens xenomrph(s)(???)) maybe they will elaborate on this. I did not like the aliens in AVPR because it looked like they had translucent teeth (like a Queen) which pissed me off for some reason
It would be interesting to see more than one version of the alien and maybe expand on it a bit, either through the story directly or just an on screen tell. As for the alien designs , I dont have much issue with whatever model they pick, It's the way that it's shown to be moving and also the way it's shot for me.
AVPR had some of the worst shots of the alien you could possibly come up with. Fan's have done better. AVP was not too bad.
Idk. the way its shot does have alot to do with how the Alien is potrayed. however. its no surprise that a large majority of the fan base will most likely demand the return of the Giger Alien.
personaly. I would like Baloji to return in the suit. he is what made the first ALIEN most memorable.
Isn't he dead?
Think so.
Oh YES. Bring the 8th wonder back.
..or is it 9th?
Quote from: TITANOSAUR on Jul 12, 2009, 08:03:57 PM
Idk. the way its shot does have alot to do with how the Alien is potrayed. however. its no surprise that a large majority of the fan base will most likely demand the return of the Giger Alien.
personaly. I would like Baloji to return in the suit. he is what made the first ALIEN most memorable.
I think hes dead, but even if he is alive, he is likely too old, and no longer 6'9". Some sources say 7'1", but according to Giger, in his book, he lists Baloji as 206cm, that is 6'9", which is quite tall anyhow. The Alien head made him well over 7ft, and the way he was fillmed looked around 8ft.
However, it is not impossible to find another man of his height and build. They did not have too look all that hard to find Baloji in the first place. Didn't they find him at a bar or something like that, by accident? I thought he had some sort of geek job working on early computers or something on those lines.
I have seen a number of people in my life that were around 6'8" or taller who were pencil thin and had long arms.
Heck, they could try a few Basketball teams, not even have to be NBA, even collage teams have some players who need to make buck.