Return of the Giger ALIEN?

[J-Syxx]

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.

[Highland]

Once SM reads that he'll hit the launch button...

(was more than special effects that ruined it,  falling over 3 water falls and still managing to stay seated in the vehicle....what the?)

[Master]

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.

[TJ Doc]

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).

[SM]

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.

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.

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 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?

[Nachtfalke]

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.

[SM]

'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.

[Nachtfalke]

'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. 

[SM]

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. 

[Nachtfalke]

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. 

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? 

[J-Syxx]

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.

[SM]

If 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.

[xenomorph36]

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 

[xenomorph36]

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.

[FearPeteySodes]

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.