Pacific Rim films

[OmegaZilla]

Did Lone Ranger's? (Genuine question)

[SiL]

Probably not either, but effects don't have to be revolutionary to be nominated or awarded.

Also did the studios actually put Pacific Rim up for nomination? I remember there were problems with rights before the film came out, what with studios not getting along/splitting/whatever.

[Xenomorphine]

Pacific Rim wasn't photorealistic in every detail. And there wasn't anything "revolutionary" about its effects. The processes used on the movie haven't changed how filmmakers see or utilize visual effects.

Totally.

The best effects are the ones the average viewer doesn't have any clue about - because that means they're doing their job.

Whether one film utilised them for the sake of spectacle, versus another's requirement to simply enhance something in a way you don't realise, should never be factored into whether the end results, themselves, are more deserving of a particular award. Just because effects are most famously used to generate spectacle, means nothing.

Go and watch 'Underworld'. Yeah, that shot of the werewolf's taloned hand squeezing the metal train roof is iconic, but the best effects shot is the one you don't know was there: The mechanical clockwork nature of Viktor's tomb opening up. Everyone thinks that's a practical shot - it's not.

Same applies to the first of the AVP films. CGI spaceships, CGI Aliens, CGI Predators... Yeah, all very flashy. But the best CGI was how the pyramid shifts around. Again, something a lot of viewers assume to be practical, but was all done with lots of CGI.

Go and watch 'Black Hawk Down'. A ton of CGI was used to make a helicopter look like it's blowing debris all around the place and you'd swear it was just a conventional practical shot with actual hardware. No-one holds it up as an iconic piece of special effects-heavy wizardry, though, because it doesn't have spaceships zooming around or giant robots stomping all over the landscape...

[MrSpaceJockey]

Agreed.  I actually find it funny when I read comments still complaining about the overuse of CGI, because it's longer appropriate for a lot of films (the Nostalgia Critic's editorial about CGI that was released a few months ago ago didn't hate on CGI, but still seemed quite outdated because it cited things like Jar Jar Binks - from 15 years ago). 

Yeah, there are definitely movies do not use CGI properly, but we've reached a stage where a good amount of movies do use it without the audience every knowing, whether its subtle usage you'd never notice or entire backgrounds you'd never would've guessed.  Those ILM behind the scenes videos sometimes blow my mind.

[DoomRulz]

The problem isn't CG being overused I think. The problem is that the CG is meant to overshadow the lack of story or a poor story, i.e. the Transformers movies, Avatar, etc...

My favourite use of CG is when something is clearly CG-rendered like the dinosaurs in JP or the jaegers in PR and they look real. Visually, the film was stunning because there were scenes to me where they didn't look like computer creations.

[Requiem28]

[Kimarhi]

To me CGI's problem is that it hasn't quite replaced practical effects on characters.  I can count on one hand how many times I've been fooled by CGI when it comes to use on characters in films.

Its also surprising to me how older movies like JP and the first SST have better CGI than many movies today.  Suppose it has to do with them being shot in a more background role, and often times in the dark.

Still it has come along way and I don't particularly mind it.

[Dovahkiin]

To be honest, I'm surprised this topic has lasted so long. Still a top discussion in the movie section so long after the release.

[DoomRulz]

Hey, people still find stuff to talk about in The Dark Knight Thread.

Its also surprising to me how older movies like JP and the first SST have better CGI than many movies today.  Suppose it has to do with them being shot in a more background role, and often times in the dark.

Were they? JP had numerous day time shots and it still looks incredible to this day.

[Requiem28]

Hey, people still find stuff to talk about in The Dark Knight Thread.

Its also surprising to me how older movies like JP and the first SST have better CGI than many movies today.  Suppose it has to do with them being shot in a more background role, and often times in the dark.

Were they? JP had numerous day time shots and it still looks incredible to this day.

It think it's because the animated characters in shots were done on location.  Natural lighting and camera work is an ally for well done CGI.  Most films, especially Pacific Rim and Avatar, have animation in almost completely digital and artificial environments.  Excessive green screen use, while a big visual problem solver in many cases, also diminishes the naturalistic quality of a shot. 

Jurassic Park and Star Ship was basically all on location.

That's why I'm hoping Gareth's Godzilla will have pretty flawless CGI like Emmerich's did, because both these guys have/ will be animating on raw footage.

[OmegaZilla]

Yes!

[Kimarhi]

Hey, people still find stuff to talk about in The Dark Knight Thread.

Its also surprising to me how older movies like JP and the first SST have better CGI than many movies today.  Suppose it has to do with them being shot in a more background role, and often times in the dark.

Were they? JP had numerous day time shots and it still looks incredible to this day.

For the most part they were background to the main characters.  The one scene that they weren't that I can recall off the top of my head is the Gallamimus (sp?) scene which has subsequently aged the worst.  The Raptors were mostly shot indoors or far enough away that you weren't analyzing every little movement.  TRex was mostly shot at night in the rain or indoors again far enough away that I didn't think the CGI was obvious.

[Gilfryd]

[Requiem28]

YES.  SOON.

And movable hands on Cherno!

Btw, what's the significance of 34 on Coyote's and Gipsy's shoulders?

[DoomRulz]

No Trespasser pics? Disappointing.