Jurassic Park Series

Started by War Wager, Mar 25, 2007, 10:10:16 PM

Author
Jurassic Park Series (Read 1,366,656 times)

Ratchetcomand

Ratchetcomand

#12360
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 28, 2015, 02:14:42 PM
Lol, I loved the sloth. Though they could've put in a Smilodon for the scare effect.

Some pre-Trassic animals are pretty deadly.  Dimetrodon where pretty deadly from what I can remember. You also had early sea animals like Pterygotus, Dunkleosteus, and Jaekelopterus

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#12361
Dunkleosteus! I love me some placoderms.

SiL

SiL

#12362
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 01, 2015, 11:43:19 AM
Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?
Lazy audiences.

Where dodgy, unconvincing effects would ruin effects pictures, they're perfectly fine these days so long as the spectacle itself is big enough. The CGI gets more and more technically accomplished -- better shaders, better movements, better textures, etc. -- but the people in control of them have become convinced (and the public financially backed up the idea) that "The only limit is your imagination!" is actually a good mantra to have.

The CGI in JW is beautiful, but it's not the least convincing. You still watch JP and feel like you're watching dinosaurs. You watch JW and feel you're watching CGI dinosaurs. Big difference.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#12363
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2015, 11:49:43 AMThe CGI in JW is beautiful, but it's not the least convincing. You still watch JP and feel like you're watching dinosaurs. You watch JW and feel you're watching CGI dinosaurs. Big difference.

Yeah, this. Somewhere along the way, something got lost.

Alien³

Alien³

#12364
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
The CGI in JW is beautiful, but it's not the least convincing.

I guess that boils down to how invested you are in the storytelling.

I personally was convinced by them as living, breathing characters in the new movie.

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#12365
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 01, 2015, 11:43:19 AM
Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?
Lazy audiences.

Where dodgy, unconvincing effects would ruin effects pictures, they're perfectly fine these days so long as the spectacle itself is big enough. The CGI gets more and more technically accomplished -- better shaders, better movements, better textures, etc. -- but the people in control of them have become convinced (and the public financially backed up the idea) that "The only limit is your imagination!" is actually a good mantra to have.

The CGI in JW is beautiful, but it's not the least convincing. You still watch JP and feel like you're watching dinosaurs. You watch JW and feel you're watching CGI dinosaurs. Big difference.

So what's the solution?

Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 02, 2015, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
The CGI in JW is beautiful, but it's not the least convincing.

I guess that boils down to how invested you are in the storytelling.

I personally was convinced by them as living, breathing characters in the new movie.

I was and I wasn't. I bought that they were made to look that way but they didn't feel that way. I didn't feel as though I could reach out and touch them.

Alien³

Alien³

#12366
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 02, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
I didn't feel as though I could reach out and touch them.

Man during these scenes I really felt like I could touch them.


DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#12367
Even those moments didn't look that good. I know they were animatronics but they still looked fake. I can't recall which reviewer said it, but it's like CG effects were imposed onto them because the director wanted them to have more facial expressions.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#12368
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 02, 2015, 12:46:52 PMMan during these scenes I really felt like I could touch them.

I didn't. I thought they looked noticeably artificial.

Alien³

Alien³

#12369
Well of course they look artificial because they are.

They look no more real than this for example...



I really believe its down to how invested you are in everything that is at play, not just how real the effects are.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#12370
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 02, 2015, 01:05:24 PMWell of course they look artificial because they are.

Yes, but it stood out how artificial they were. I was acutely aware that they were not real.

Corporal Hicks

Corporal Hicks

#12371
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 02, 2015, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 02, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
I didn't feel as though I could reach out and touch them.

Man during these scenes I really felt like I could touch them.



I'm with you here. I thought these moments looked gorgeous.

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#12372
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 02, 2015, 01:07:54 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 02, 2015, 01:05:24 PMWell of course they look artificial because they are.

Yes, but it stood out how artificial they were. I was acutely aware that they were not real.

This. They looked plastic.

Alien³

Alien³

#12373
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 02, 2015, 01:24:41 PM
This. They looked plastic.

Nowadays most people know the basics of how an effect is achieved before they even enter the theatre to watch the film they're seeing. This is why some say modern effects are not amazing (when what they are seeing are leaps and bounds ahead of what came before) because the mystery is gone.

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#12374
It may be leaps and bounds ahead on a technical level but that doesn't mean it's pleasing to the eye. The Hobbit was presented in 48 FPS in IMAX but it looked awful to me.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News