Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanderfox
CGI isn't bad thing, but it also isn't the Special Effects wonder tool it's treated as, and lots of what is out there is bad. I think I personally mostly gave up when Underworld came out, the idea that CGI was the only thing was so ingrained that that film's participial effects where literally blown off as "oh it's just CGI" when with the exception of transnational morph effects for the lycans everything was done with practical effects, no matter what you think of the film's story or the acting the effects are impressive one you know 90% of them where NOT CGI. But it's gotten to a point where audiences think every effect is CGI and studios think CGI effects are all they need.
|
If the audiences can't tell the difference between CGI and a practical effect then it's probably not fair to say that CGI sucks. Rather, people aren't impressed by a movie's special effects anymore because they're no longer limited to big-budget productions. As much as i like practical effects, they have certain limitations that are very hard to overcome. For example if you want to map a human's facial performance to one with different anatomy like say, a lion's, a computer model is going to do a better job capturing subtle nuances compared to a group of puppeteers.
Quote:
|
if you really want to see what CGI does to a film just watch the werewolf transformation from "American werewolf in London VS the one one in part 2
|
American werewolf in Paris came out in like, 1997. The best graphics workstation you could get at the time was something like the
SGI Onyx.