(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdigilander.libero.it%2FOrionweb%2Fimmagini%2FH.R.%2520Giger%2Fhr_giger_alien_IV.jpg&hash=ef5fa5a07718b2892ad295f3570883e890eb5cbc)
if it looks exackly like this it would be a dream come true. the first alien from A L I E N looked very goofy , so they should update the design to make it look more authentic/stylized.
That is the first xenomorph from ALIEN, and it was never "goofy."
What you call 'goofy' I call 'perfect'.
Whaaa? That is as close to the first film's Alien as you can get...except for the tail-in-hand thing, but that doesn't count. ;)
What is it you think you're seeing in ALIEN that you're not seeing in that pic?
Yes, I am puzzled.
HAHAHA
Definately a front runner for silliest thread...
I don't think this is a silly post at all. That is a piece of concept art depicting the original alien, but we all know that the various props and suits used in the films never quite match up 100% with the intended vision. Look at any of the art depicting the ideal design in each film and you'll find myriad differences to the what was actually used.
Personally, I think that piece of artwork is perfect, and I definitely would like to see it transposed directly onto film.
Except that piece was done after the suit was made. The concept art of the suit itself never looked anything like that design. It wasn't done until it was, well, done.
Quote from: The Necronoir on Jun 11, 2009, 09:32:00 AM
I don't think this is a silly post at all. That is a piece of concept art depicting the original alien, but we all know that the various props and suits used in the films never quite match up 100% with the intended vision. Look at any of the art depicting the ideal design in each film and you'll find myriad differences to the what was actually used.
Personally, I think that piece of artwork is perfect, and I definitely would like to see it transposed directly onto film.
exackly what i was saying. my english was little short so i couldnt word it properly. thanx :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff291%2Fsabres21768%2Fother8%2FIMG_2800.jpg&hash=cc316683e6c484714c87b284b4120b8782e16a03)
i know this is just a toy but i couldn't find a good example. I'm sure it was slightly better looking than this in the movie but it looked like a man in a suit. So if the movie comes out in the near future, it would be neat to keep the design but make it more stylized like the art work so it matches today's standards.
It would still look like a man in a suit.
Because it is.
Technology's not going to change that, it's just the nature of the design. All anyone can do is make it less obvious, which Alien did up until they showed it full-body being blown out the shuttle.
^ well not really. they should make it extremely skinny like the art work(the above picture looks too bulky and thick). also the artwork seems to have a metalic feel to it. Instead of making it's skin color pitch black why not use chrome silverblack? There are a lot of things you could update on the design to match the artwork.
Also if there is a need for a shot of the full body of the alien , instead of having man on a suit why not portray it with computer graphic? Strause brothers failed to achieve to make a realistic looking alien with a man in a suit.
Yeah, just make the Alien CG. That has worked out pretty well thus far.
Wait, nearly forgot: ::)
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Jun 11, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Yeah, just make the Alien CG. That has worked out pretty well thus far.
Wait, nearly forgot: ::)
I for one would rather have the costuming...the modeling..the puppetry then CGI. Imo there's a "realism" that CGI cannot capture. It may not be perfection but its really there ;)
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Jun 11, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
Yeah, just make the Alien CG. That has worked out pretty well thus far.
Wait, nearly forgot: ::)
you mean 10 years ago(that was the starting era for cgi)? i still think alien resurrection was more realistic than avpr. thats just me ::)
dont even get started on avp cuz even YOU know that those aliens werent the best achievenment interms of cg.
The Aliens in AVPR looked like shit because the movie was made by a bunch of retarded monkeys, not because they used suits.
The suits used in A:R looked better than the CG, and that's saying something considering the ADI 'rubber turds' they used.
^
i've said the same thing on the other thred but i'll say it here again. CGI is not like they use to be. It's not 1997. It's 2009. We have better CGI capabilities. Look at startrek for example. have you watched it? Have you seen the creature in the ice? it obviosly looks better than any of the alien movies done with cgi or puppets or whatever.
Meh. Just a big, red shambling mess.
It didn't feel particularly real, either. I could name a half dozen 'old school' creatures that felt more real than that thing.
ok keep ur opinion while i keep mine.
That way we dont have to waste anymore badwidth.
case closed.
i hope. :-\
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
also the artwork seems to have a metalic feel to it. Instead of making it's skin color pitch black why not use chrome silverblack?
Uh, they did. Giger's Alien is coloured in metallic shades, but the lighting got rid of most of the paint detail.
QuoteAlso if there is a need for a shot of the full body of the alien , instead of having man on a suit why not portray it with computer graphic?
Because then it would look like a computer generated monster.
Because it is.
QuoteStrause brothers failed to achieve to make a realistic looking alien with a man in a suit.
That had more to do with incompetence and bad designs, not the nature of the effects work itself.
James Cameron managed to make his Aliens incredibly convincing, all in-camera, all using suits and puppets. The Alien bouncing between the walls in the hive in
Aliens wipes the floor with any CGI Alien shot that came after it.
Heck, he wasn't even working with full suits; those Aliens were half a suit over spandex, with latex detailing glued on in places.
Putting a guy in the suit can, does, and has worked. It just depends on the people doing it.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 10:24:30 AM
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f291/sabres21768/other8/IMG_2800.jpg
i know this is just a toy but i couldn't find a good example. I'm sure it was slightly better looking than this in the movie but it looked like a man in a suit. So if the movie comes out in the near future, it would be neat to keep the design but make it more stylized like the art work so it matches today's standards.
I even think that toy looks far better than the concept art.
QuotePutting a guy in the suit can, does, and has worked. It just depends on the people doing it.
Yep more or less. It's down to performance, angles, lighting and editing.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 03:34:30 PM
ok keep ur opinion while i keep mine.
I thought that was what we were doing already? I had no plans to change my opinion, and I didn't think you did either.
Quotecase closed.
It was never a 'case' to begin with. What, I disagree with you and suddenly the conversation is just over?
If you want the thread to be over, why did you start it? Were you expecting a barrage of compliments? Sheesh.
Some people just don't get the difference between discussing and arguing, I guess.
It'd be amazing to to have the portrait design in movie, but that pretty much removes the ability to have any human operators in suit... except Doug Jones, I guess.
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Jun 12, 2009, 01:37:51 AM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 03:34:30 PM
ok keep ur opinion while i keep mine.
I thought that was what we were doing already? I had no plans to change my opinion, and I didn't think you did either.
Quotecase closed.
It was never a 'case' to begin with. What, I disagree with you and suddenly the conversation is just over?
If you want the thread to be over, why did you start it? Were you expecting a barrage of compliments? Sheesh.
Some people just don't get the difference between discussing and arguing, I guess.
yawn..
Quote from: SiL on Jun 11, 2009, 11:30:38 PM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 11, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
also the artwork seems to have a metalic feel to it. Instead of making it's skin color pitch black why not use chrome silverblack?
Uh, they did. Giger's Alien is coloured in metallic shades, but the lighting got rid of most of the paint detail.
QuoteAlso if there is a need for a shot of the full body of the alien , instead of having man on a suit why not portray it with computer graphic?
Because then it would look like a computer generated monster. Because it is.
QuoteStrause brothers failed to achieve to make a realistic looking alien with a man in a suit.
That had more to do with incompetence and bad designs, not the nature of the effects work itself.
James Cameron managed to make his Aliens incredibly convincing, all in-camera, all using suits and puppets. The Alien bouncing between the walls in the hive in Aliens wipes the floor with any CGI Alien shot that came after it.
Heck, he wasn't even working with full suits; those Aliens were half a suit over spandex, with latex detailing glued on in places.
Putting a guy in the suit can, does, and has worked. It just depends on the people doing it.
Are you saying james cameron's alien looks more realistic than the recent film(king kong, startrek etc)?
It's impossible to make it look like the concept art withought using a cgi because if some one wears a suit it would look bulky. The reason why i love the concept are so much is the fact that it looks very thin.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 14, 2009, 07:08:48 AM
Are you saying james cameron's alien looks more realistic than the recent film(king kong, startrek etc)?
Uh, yeah. Kong is obviously computer generated. All the effects in Star Trek are obviously computer generated. It smacks you in the face. They're good computer generated images, but it's still obvious.
When you're watching
Aliens and you see the creatures, you don't say, "Holy shit, nice effects", you say "Holy shit it's an Alien."
Someone told me the creatures in Hell Boy 1 & 2 were a mixture of CGI and costume. I thought they looked good.
Yeah, only for when it was impossible to do anything pracitcal (movement wise, like expressions or athletic shit)
Quote from: SiL on Jun 14, 2009, 07:21:51 AM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 14, 2009, 07:08:48 AM
Are you saying james cameron's alien looks more realistic than the recent film(king kong, startrek etc)?
Uh, yeah. Kong is obviously computer generated. All the effects in Star Trek are obviously computer generated. It smacks you in the face. They're good computer generated images, but it's still obvious.
When you're watching Aliens and you see the creatures, you don't say, "Holy shit, nice effects", you say "Holy shit it's an Alien."
well yes . i did. when i was 10 years old. I think that was the first time i watched aliens.
I always thought the close up shots(even now) looked pretty realistic but when it comes to full body shots, it looked pretty lame. Even you agreed that the last scene from A L I E N looked fake.
i'm not trying to say that they should abuse the cgi effect but all i'm saying is whenever there is a need for a full body shot(which involves fast movenments) it is imo, a better way to approach with cgi due to movenment and the bulkyness of the medium.
Also i would rather have a nice effect (with slick design) than a realistic alien that looks like a man in a suit.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 15, 2009, 08:13:22 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jun 14, 2009, 07:21:51 AM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 14, 2009, 07:08:48 AM
Are you saying james cameron's alien looks more realistic than the recent film(king kong, startrek etc)?
Uh, yeah. Kong is obviously computer generated. All the effects in Star Trek are obviously computer generated. It smacks you in the face. They're good computer generated images, but it's still obvious.
When you're watching Aliens and you see the creatures, you don't say, "Holy shit, nice effects", you say "Holy shit it's an Alien."
well yes . i did. when i was 10 years old. I think that was the first time i watched aliens.
I always thought the close up shots(even now) looked pretty realistic but when it comes to full body shots, it looked pretty lame. Even you agreed that the last scene from A L I E N looked fake.
i'm not trying to say that they should abuse the cgi effect but all i'm saying is whenever there is a need for a full body shot(which involves fast movenments) it is imo, a better way to approach with cgi due to movenment and the bulkyness of the medium.
Also i would rather have a nice effect (with slick design) than a realistic alien that looks like a man in a suit.
I don't mind C.G.I as I've said before in other threads but they need to do the alien in a suit. Are you saying that in Predators they should do the predators completely C.G.I because they were done with people in suits?
I think we should stick to the tradition.
^
no. predators look very humanoid, much more so than the alien so i think they should stick with the man in a suit concept.
As for the alien, if they make it into a cgi they can some how make the proportion differently than the humans. Look at labyrinth(comic book) for examle. i like the way it had such a long slender legs.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jun 15, 2009, 08:13:22 AM
well yes . i did. when i was 10 years old. I think that was the first time i watched aliens.
There are always exceptions to a rule.
QuoteEven you agreed that the last scene from A L I E N looked fake.
Yes, but I'm not talking about
Alien, I'm talking about
Aliens. The Aliens crawling through the vents remain more convincing than any computer generated monster effect I've seen. Same with the Alien bouncing off the walls in the hive.
It's amazing what can be achieved if someone just knows how to do what they're doing.
Compare the Aliens crawling over the walls in
Aliens, to them crawling in either of the AvP movies. They're much more convincing in the older film, because Cameron understands effects and how to hide them.
The simplest solution to the "They look like a guy in a suit in full body shots" is to, well, not have full body shots, or have them be very quick. Worked so far.
The alien from ALIEN wasn't goofy! The hell's wrong with you? Sure, it looked faker than the newer films, but still! It's a design the world had never seen before, not a bootleg creature from Star Wars.
Cg=bad.
To me cg is more of a tool to help punctuage effects in a movie. But shouldn't be the main source of special effects in a movie. Jurassic Park to this day used it the best. Kept mostof the cg effects in darkly lit areas or in the rain. Looked and felt real.
Take that and compare it to I Am Legend. A movie helped not at all by TERRIBLE CGI when makeup'd and costumed performers could've been so much better.
Am I the only one that didn't think the Alien suite looked terrible in alien? I realize it was a guy in a suit, but I wasn't thinking during the movie, "man, thats a guy in a suit," when I watched it.
On the flipside, movies that overuse CGI only take me out of the picture.
I am Legend is a prime example. I'm happy that practical effects were used for the LOTR trilogy for the most part. I remember groaning in the theater during the prologue to Fellowship. As opposed to being blown away at the films final battle with saruman's orcs.
The same for the Matrix as oppossed to its sequels, where the overuse of CGI became apparant and distracting. Especially when they used it for absolutely no reason. Why do you need slo mo punching in the face of agent smith in cgi? You have normal actors that can do he same action.
CG is a tool. Its just not the only tool. For the whole, I vastly prefer robotics and suited performers.
i just watched kong again. i am still AMAZED at how they did all that stuff with cg. The t-rex vs kong is one of the if not the best cg effect ever created. jurassic park can kiss my ass. :D
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 11, 2009, 05:24:14 PM
The t-rex vs kong is one of the if not the best cg effect ever created.
Hardly. It's obviously computer generated the whole way through. The best effects are the ones you don't notice.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 11, 2009, 05:24:14 PM
i just watched kong again. i am still AMAZED at how they did all that stuff with cg. The t-rex vs kong is one of the if not the best cg effect ever created. jurassic park can kiss my ass. :D
This scene could have been 10 times better had PJ not used the terrible designs for the T-rex and the ridiculously-outlandish fight sequence. Jurassic Park is the King of the Dinosaurs.
Carnosaur 2 says otherwise... ;)
Alien=Goofy? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Try Alien=EPIC Greatest monster design in the greatest movie!
Quote from: SiL on Jul 11, 2009, 11:53:33 PM
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 11, 2009, 05:24:14 PM
The t-rex vs kong is one of the if not the best cg effect ever created.
Hardly. It's obviously computer generated the whole way through. The best effects are the ones you don't notice.
i agree.its good cg,but the fact that its so obvious dissapointed me.
it may have looked fake, it still looked artistically beautiful. i would rather have something that looks beautiful than something that looks real and ugly.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 21, 2009, 03:22:41 PM
it may have looked fake, it still looked artistically beautiful. i would rather have something that looks beautiful than something that looks real and ugly.
Yes, but they can make it look both real and good and artistic.
The thing about the last shot where the Alien looked like a guy in a suit may also have been the angle it was shot at, the editing etc... Not an issue with it being a guy in a suit. Today they can film it from a dozen angles, a dozen times, and pic out the best with little problem on the editing room floor.
CG may easily have not looked any better there.
Also, James Cameron found a way to make the suits much lighter and easier for the actor inside to move in, as he figured out that a lot of the detail on the full ruber suit did not make it onto film anyway, so he had details glued onto spandex, and it worked fine in slightly dim lighting.
The other issue with CG is that is costs a heck of a lot more than practical effects.
If all the creature shots can be done on film, then that saves the studio money and can be used for other things.
QuoteThe other issue with CG is that is costs a heck of a lot more than practical effects.
Depends. George Romero used CG effects on one of his recent zombie flicks and said it was much cheaper. Practical effects like squibs need to be rigged, and if they don't go off properly, it can take a very long time to reset them, which means $$$. CG blood spray can be done a lot quicker and cheaper in post.
As for some other stuff like Gollum or Yoda fighting with a lightsabre, money isn't really an issue because there's no way of achieveing those shots in camera.
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2009, 02:20:57 AM
QuoteThe other issue with CG is that is costs a heck of a lot more than practical effects.
Depends. George Romero used CG effects on one of his recent zombie flicks and said it was much cheaper. Practical effects like squibs need to be rigged, and if they don't go off properly, it can take a very long time to reset them, which means $$$. CG blood spray can be done a lot quicker and cheaper in post.
As for some other stuff like Gollum or Yoda fighting with a lightsabre, money isn't really an issue because there's no way of achieveing those shots in camera.
Right.
In regards to such a complex design like the Alien, the CG would cost a lot more than a simple costume.
Again, I mean "simple" costume. Combine the best techniques of A1 and A2 in making the Alien in a practical fashion. We dont need another giant bulky suit like ADI has been luggin around since AR. I made this thread: http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=24791.0
I think that such types of costumes would cost a lot less than CG, and would be rather easy to film and look good with the proper lighting.
Basically combine the best of the A1 design with the simplicity of the A2 costume build, and it would cost very little.
I think the creatures looked more real in A1 and A2 than anything since.
The most realistic looking chestburster was the first one. 30 years ago now, and since then, with all the computer effects, that first rubber chestburster looked really good.
Even the blood effects in A1 looked really good.
Movies like Star Wars, are not really hurt by obvious CG shots either. Those types of movies are supposed to have that type of feel.
The Alien movies are about nightmares, and have a far more Gritty tone. That gritt seems far better with practical effects, where CG just seems a bit too clean.
If they need to use CG for a few shots of the ships in space, or for some type of effect that woudl cost a ton to film, then so be it.
I think the creature effects look much better practical and being complex designs, I think would cost less practical too.
QuoteIn regards to such a complex design like the Alien, the CG would cost a lot more than a simple costume.
Doubt it.
Amateur CG artists have done some very nice CG Aliens for fun - never mind the expense. I was working on one myself a few years ago when I was but a CG hack, and it was turning out quite well until my HDD carked it. An Alien is essentially a biped with a tail and all sorts of nifty knobbly bits (an Alien would be MUCH simpler than a Gollum or Yoda because you don't have to worry about skin or clothing). If you had pros, of course there'd be a cost involved, but they'd get it done a lot quicker - plus you don't have to worry about creating extra suits for stunties and breakages. AND you have more options in composing your shot. And because you spend much less time on set with a larger crew, struggling with practical effects, you save money.
CG often falls down in the lighting and compositing however.
It all depends on what's best for the shot. Anderson could've done the Alien leaping on the Predator in AvP with a stunty in a suit on a wire, but coupled with the practical difficulties in achieving the shot, you then have to worry as to whether it's going actually look any good and not like a stunty in a suit on a wire.
I wouldn't advocate going back and re-doing any of the Alien films with CG Aliens for a second; but it's simply a case of using the tools that are available to achieve the best result - if CGI was available when Riddles was doing Alien no doubt he would've used it. Same with Cambo on Aliens. If a CG Alien gives the best result for a given shot; end of story.
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2009, 05:02:30 AM
If a CG Alien gives the best result for a given shot; end of story.
For that matter if a shot just is pointless and means for eye candy it can be done without too. Eye candy shots, even if done in practical often look out of place and pull the viewer out of a film.
I just am not sold that it does give the best result for such shots.
I think a lot of the CG in recent Alien films did not look very good, and was way too easy to spot. Even the CG bursters from AVPR, and that was a 2007 film.
Unless they can get it to not look obvious, then I prefer they stay away from it.
If it is good for a shot, and looks good, then sure, but so far I have not seen it looking good.
QuoteI just am not sold that it does give the best result for such shots.
All depends on the shot. I've always loved the Alien climbing into the lifeboat in Resurrection, but it's a fairly long shot and easier to get away with. And it couldn't have been done in camera. On the other hand the slow-mo shot of the Alien screaming underwater towards camera was much closer and didn't really work. I think that shot could've easily been achieved with a real costume in front of a blue screen - better make it a red screen come to think of it.
The eye candy is a non issue - it's what works best for the given shot.
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2009, 05:02:30 AM
Anderson could've done the Alien leaping on the Predator in AvP with a stunty in a suit on a wire, but coupled with the practical difficulties in achieving the shot, you then have to worry as to whether it's going actually look any good and not like a stunty in a suit on a wire.
They tried that. There's footage of it in some of the making-of features.
Looks like, well, a stunty on a wire. And not a particularly svelte one, at that.
Its not even the modeling that costs allot of money, its the character animation, because most of the time, they don't model the CG Creatures by hand as it doesn't turn out 100% true to the design sometimes and it takes a huge amount of time, they scan Marquette's designed by the artists and then rig them for character animation.
That's how they did it with Jurassic park as well i think.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 22, 2009, 09:01:30 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2009, 05:02:30 AM
Anderson could've done the Alien leaping on the Predator in AvP with a stunty in a suit on a wire, but coupled with the practical difficulties in achieving the shot, you then have to worry as to whether it's going actually look any good and not like a stunty in a suit on a wire.
They tried that. There's footage of it in some of the making-of features.
Looks like, well, a stunty on a wire. And not a particularly svelte one, at that.
Sil you nailed.
Therein lays the problem. The recent suits used have been bulk-tastic, heavy and worn by an average height man (is it Woodruff or Gillis in the suit?, I know it is one of those guys).
With a taller lanky actor, and a much lighter costume, made similar to the methods in A2, I think that shot could have been done far easier.
The bigger heavy suits make filming hard, as due to the weight they are more constrained.
The big bulk Alien look, I call it the Raptor, is not nearly as good a design as the Original tall thin Alien.
QuoteSil you nailed.
He nailed me by proving my point? There's logic... They tried it practically and it didn't work so they resorted to CG. As much as AvP sucked, that particular shot wasn't too bad. Problem solved.
Quoteits the character animation
A lot of which can be done faster and therefore cheaper using mocap these days. At least for creatures that are predominantly bipedal. Stuff that isn't will obviously take longer to keyframe. Even Alien facial animation would be straight forward because all the jaws do is open and close vertically and the inner jaw goes in and out and opens and closes vertically. There's no horizontal movement on either. The most difficult thing would be the lips - which would be a doddle for most CG artists. Mind you CG facial close ups should only be a last resort. When the camera's that close, practical would be better.
I think he meant nailed the issue between the two.
Oh yeah.
I think... ??? Doesn't help much when it's in Yoda speak.
I'm sure SiL is a very handsome man, but my bread isn't buttered on that side.
wuss.
I like my bread buttered on three sides.
CGI is a tool that should be used when it's needed. No more, no less.
Precisement.
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2009, 11:34:19 PM
QuoteSil you nailed.
He nailed me by proving my point?
Uhh,...no :-\
That was a
typo on my part. It was meant to say "you nailed it". As in hit the nail on the head correctly, or
made a good point.
Not nailed you.
Thats one issue with the internet, one typo, or expression someone is not used to and well...
Anyway, I was not trying to say he was doing anything to you.
why do people now days use cgi rather than other method? Because it works better and looks better. 8)
i'm pretty damn sure JC will use cgi from now.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 26, 2009, 12:06:23 PM
why do people now days use cgi rather than other method? Because it works better and looks better. 8)
Not always! :D
Plus CGI is so widely used today that it's expected, it's the norm. When I saw Transformers the first time I was blown away by the effects in it as I'm sure loads of people were. But when I saw T:ROTF, I didn't get that same feeling because it had already been done. Now when I look back at films like Aliens, I appreciate the workmanship that went into the effects ten-fold because it was pulled off fantastically, and you get more of a sense that he creatures were actually
there as opposed to added after the fact.
Quote from: Meathead320 on Jul 22, 2009, 03:40:17 AM
Even the blood effects in A1 looked really good.
Yeah, gimme good old artificial blood. CGI blood looks fake. >:(
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 26, 2009, 12:06:23 PM
why do people now days use cgi rather than other method? Because it works better and looks better. 8)
i'm pretty damn sure JC will use cgi from now.
So far in any Alien movie, I have yet to see it looking better.
That is not to say its not possible, but it has been used in places not needed, and stood out like dog balls.
If they can use it and well enough that it is not obvious to me, and takes me out of the movie, then fine.
So far however it has not looked better. At least not to me.
This could also be a desgin problem, as lately most of the Aliens have been looking furither and further away from the original design, and looking like moving crap does not help the CG any.
CG should be used as scarcely as possible, but now they just throw it out whenever. Back then, they had to use actual effort to make an effect look good.
I always thought that the picture looked exactly like the alien from the movie.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 26, 2009, 12:06:23 PM
why do people now days use cgi rather than other method? Because it works better and looks better. 8)
What a load of horseshit.
Quotei'm pretty damn sure JC will use cgi from now.
I'm pretty sure he made 1:1 scale exosuits for
Avatar.
QuoteBack then, they had to use actual effort to make an effect look good.
Because, as everyone knows, CG modelling, texturing, clothing, lighting and animation requires NO actual effort at all...
Quote
Back then, they had to use greater effort to make an effect look good.
Fixed.
CG is tedious and does take a long time, but a practical effect is much harder to do. However, the payoff is much more rewarding.
Payoff schmayoff.
A good effect is a good effect - and generally one you don't notice.
The tools and execution are entirely irrelevant if the audience buys it.
I don't want to get into a tussle.
Now, I agree that when used right, CGI is a very effective tool. It gets rid of the need for dangerous stunts and saves money. On top of that, it looks damn cool. But you can always spot CGI.
Before CG, you could tell that what was used was solid, something that was really there. Something that you could reach out and touch. That sold it for me every time.
Hell, in Aliens, the explosion of the processor was created with cotton balls. Cotton balls man! And it looks so damn real!
That is just my opinion. Can we agree to disagree?
No choice but to.
Mind you this:
"But you can always spot CGI."
Is nonsense. I've studied effects, I've watched docos and personally I cannot tell what is CG or miniature or full size set from shot to shot in many instances in films like Lord of the Rings. Similarly, digital sets in Star Wars. I only know they're CG because I know Luca shot against green screen most of the time.
Plus people view a lot of school visual effects through rose coloured glasses and say they're so much better, when we can see some very obvious use of rear-screen projection in Aliens, and the Queen falling through space from the Sulaco never looks quite right. And don't get me started on the Alien3 puppet...
I was totally convinced by the city CGI in Cloverfield when I saw it - Not so much the big guy himself, but his surroundings were superb.
At the moment I find that's what CGI is really good for - environments. Living creatures, not so much. That's not to say don't use it (If it's got tentacles, go CGI I say), and that it doesn't look good, but there's always something about a computer rendered character that just doesn't look ... right.
It's like the uncanny valley, except instead of looking more disturbing the more realistic you get, the more the tiny flaws stand out and ruin the immersion everything.
I always find that you can spot a mythical or Sci fi creature much easier than say a horse, because you instantly know it's not real . All the magic is on the back foot from the start, even before you can show it off. The best a CGI artist can hope for is the audience really respecting the effect.
Like Ive said before the Dino's in JP are the only thing IMO that has came close to making you believe they are actually living breathing creatures with no reference to compare to.
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2009, 05:38:41 AM
No choice but to.
Mind you this:
"But you can always spot CGI."
Is nonsense. I've studied effects, I've watched docos and personally I cannot tell what is CG or miniature or full size set from shot to shot in many instances in films like Lord of the Rings. Similarly, digital sets in Star Wars. I only know they're CG because I know Luca shot against green screen most of the time.
Plus people view a lot of old school visual effects through rose coloured glasses and say they're so much better, when we can see some very obvious use of rear-screen projection in Aliens, and the Queen falling through space from the Sulaco never looks quite right. And don't get me started on the Alien3 puppet...
Those are both good examples of not so good old school effects. I almost forgot about them. I kind of would like to see Fox go back and touch up some of those scenes in A2. Particularly the Queen falling through space, always looked like a floppy puppet. CG over that would likely look better.
There is another shot of her, just for a second, right before Ripley drops her into the airlock and gets pulled down, where the loader is holding up the Queen, we view it from the side for a split second, and it obviously looks like a floppy mini puppet, because in that shot it was. That short half scecond shot could be either CG'd over, or just cut.
Most shots were quite good however, especially the more close up shots with the large sized Queen machine/puppet. Those shots were done very well.
In A3, the scenes with the puppet look out of place. Some people even think that was cheap CG, but really it was a green screen puppet. That could also be gone over with CG once to make it look better. Actually, if they were to do that I think making a better edition (cannot call it directors cut, as well Fincher hates it). They could leave out the ox scene, and keep the dog scene, and keep the extra character development, and the Queen birth scene. Sort of the best of the theatrical version, with the best of the workprint added in, and then touch up some of the worse looking effects with CG.
The puppet doesn't need to be CGed. The performance was great, but it'd be interesting if they could get the original elements and composite them digitally rather than chemically like they did originally to see if they got a better result.
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2009, 11:58:59 PM
The puppet doesn't need to be CGed. The performance was great, but it'd be interesting if they could get the original elements and composite them digitally rather than chemically like they did originally to see if they got a better result.
So she would look a bit more like she is really there, and not drawn in like a cartoon?
Sorry, I am not as familiar with old school methods of composite.
Digital compositing just gives a lot more options in terms of making the elements look like they're in the same frame. You can do a lot of tweaking of matte lines , recolouring, and rotoscoping quicker and cheaper.
For both practical and CG, the trick is colormatching and compositing. Both benefit, and both look a hell of a lot more convincing when properly applied.
the cg is terrible in the aliens movies. they aren't working with a lotr sized budget and effects team, so it is all sub standard. the whole series suffers from producers cutting corners since even alien (in aliens, the hive was meant to be dark, but they had some lighting guy who made it all bright to spite cameron, and that whole element of the film was left in)
its really not good to use cgi on something that only worked originally because it DIDN'T use phoney looking animated nonsense. the first film was on the lowest budget but had a great team on it and so everything was done in a thorough and meticulous way.
they should consider that but they don't.
fox don't give a shit what we think.
just how many braindead teenagers will go to see big cgi battles.
look at the characterisation in avp2. belongs in some awful freddy vs jason style garbage or something.
I can never decide if I am for Alien CG or not. The first 3 movies were excellent without it, the fourth has terrible CG (but at the time I thought it was impressive, much like any aged computer effect), but then the AvP films have decent CG (then again I could just think that because the ADI suits look horrible).
QuoteI can never decide if I am for Alien CG or not.
This is completely the wrong take on it.
Simply be FOR good visual effects and AGAINST shoddy visual effects.
How the effects are achieved is completely irrelevant.
You shouldn't be able to tell in a perfect world.
Yup.
Quote from: Undeadite on Jul 28, 2009, 11:50:20 AM
I can never decide if I am for Alien CG or not. The first 3 movies were excellent without it, the fourth has terrible CG (but at the time I thought it was impressive, much like any aged computer effect), but then the AvP films have decent CG (then again I could just think that because the ADI suits look horrible).
first 3 movie was NOT excellent without cg
A L I E N = the last scene looked f**king horrible(you guys know which scene i'm talking about).
A L I E N S= many of the warrior scene looks too much like man in a suit. (the queen was pretty excellent even in todays standard)
ALIEN 3= lets not even talk about this horrid shit.(not saying the movie itself but the puppet was f**king worse than anything i have ever seen)
on the other hand the only subpar scene from AR(which involved cg) was the swimming and the climbing
scene which i thought was pretty great.(the feeling was there the moventment was there)
If you guys think any of the alien movies look more realistic(good looking, artistically great and etc) than
the movies that came out today(which invloves monsters) you guys should get ur eyes checked.
Alien 3 Had CG a few times...
Depends on the version.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Jul 29, 2009, 04:28:15 PM
If you guys think any of the alien movies look more realistic(good looking, artistically great and etc) than the movies that came out today(which invloves monsters) you guys should get ur eyes checked.
I'll take the practical effects in
Aliens over the creature effects we get these days. I buy the Aliens in
Aliens. I don't buy the monsters in
Doom.
I don't even remember the monsters in Doom.
probably cause you were staring at Johnson's backside. It happens to everybody.
RAWR. I AM A MONSTER. RAWR. *waves arms*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg31.imagevenue.com%2Floc841%2Fth_62364_shot00007_122_841lo.jpg&hash=ae661003ec95a34c6b7b37a305ccb5511d3eeb0f) (http://img31.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc841&image=62364_shot00007_122_841lo.jpg)
It was more the People's Strudel than his bum.
Everyone stops for Strudel.