Ragin Cajun Redneck Gators

[Coal]

Is the movie available anywhere, or just the relevant scenes?

[Shadow_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Coal

Is the movie available anywhere, or just the relevant scenes?

Google the movie and I'm sure you will find the answer to what you're looking for...

[Coal]

Originally Posted by Shadow_Dragon

Google the movie and I'm sure you will find the answer to what you're looking for...

Yeah, dumb question in hindsight.

[cpt soban]

I don't really understand this forums hateon for CGI.

Yes, low budget films do a terrible job with it.

They would do a terrible job with pretty much anything. You don't get great people in the field in low budget. I've seen perfectly good CG alongside actual environment, and things look highly detailed and like they belong. They also have competent animators, a decent time-frame, planning, and funding.

So why do we hate CG? Shouldn't we just hate low budgets?

[Anahki]

Originally Posted by cpt soban

I don't really understand this forums hateon for CGI.

Yes, low budget films do a terrible job with it.

They would do a terrible job with pretty much anything. You don't get great people in the field in low budget. I've seen perfectly good CG alongside actual environment, and things look highly detailed and like they belong. They also have competent animators, a decent time-frame, planning, and funding.

So why do we hate CG? Shouldn't we just hate low budgets?

No, it is not that easy. The first problem is not the budget itself, but how much of this budget has been allocated into the FX crew. Second, competent animators don't do the work the best they can, but just good enough to be paid for their job. Third, the CGI, even today, have to be extremy well done to seem "realistic", and that implies not only a good definiton and realistic graphics, but also a good animation work at the same time, and in this case it is something just reachable for the best of the best. Fourth, because we love old-fashioned horror movies, and we asociate them with good things, meanwhile we associate lameness-90's-abusing-CGI with bad things.
And as it is said in my conuntry, "you just need a button as a probe": Remember The Wolf Man? Remember AAWIL? Rick Baker was involved in both of them, with lots of means, budget, and so on. And the TF scene for AAWIL kick the ass of the Wolfman ten times. Bad ideas? Bad planning? Whatever, but CGI still sucks. Ok, I am not against it, when it is used in combination or reinforcing the traditional effects, but to the date, alone, it is plain bullshit.

[Cursebearer]

I disagree and in general agree with cpt soban. Nothing wrong with CGI and in fact plenty of good scenes have come of CGI. It is not by any stretch of the imagination 'plain bullshit'. It is however often the resort of low-budget ventures which frankly I don't think would have done any better with traditional effects. People forget that alongside bad CGI is plenty of bad traditional effects which have likewise produced plenty of subpar TFs. Traditional effects are just glorified because they've provided us one of the best werewolf transformations in film which hasn't been matched since- even by others using traditional effects.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Cursebearer

Traditional effects are just glorified because they've provided us one of the best werewolf transformations in film which hasn't been matched since- even by others using traditional effects.

That's not the only reason that practical effects are thought of in higher regard than CGI. It's not even limited to TF scenes. Just earlier tonight I was talking to a buddy of mine about RoboCop, and how it absolutely doesn't need a remake but is getting one anyway, and that we both really just wanted to watch the original. Practical effects have a way of looking more real because it's a physical thing in the scene rather than something rendered and added afterwards. Practical effects match the lighting of a scene perfectly, react to any wind or movement in the scene and give actors on set something to actually look at and react to instead of pretending something is there. It's more believable in general. CG effects can be stunning I will admit, but they're best when used as part of a CG set with CG actors, mixing live actors with CG characters is notorious for looking fake and wrecking the suspension of disbelief. Well that's how I feel about it anyway.

[cpt soban]

They are remaking Robocop?

For the love of god why? Sure you can take the premise and do a much more mature take on it and expect audiences to appreciate it these days, but most people who would try and see it have heard of Robocop already and will be going for the same reason they watched it behind their parent's backs when they were nine: the gore and ultra-violence, and completely retarded disasters caused by retarded people.

Also, I remember a lot of CG in Robocop, in fact, I remember CG rendered at around 5 frames per second in Robocop which made it very jarring and out of place. We also had the main character with fantastic costume design and makeup, but there was still bad CG, generally in whatever cheesy robot was being fought near the end of the movie.

Anyway back on topic, my main issue with the hateon for CG, is that makeup and prosthetics do have a very finite amount they can do. Safely that is. If you want to do those bulging changing muscles without CG, you have to use some form of self expanding packet, unless you can hide a hose very well. Those explode, not often but it happens. There's also just simple things like maybe a monster design that doesn't fit human morphology very well, unless you offscreen it and have a CG monster (and that monster will be CG, machines can only do so much, and they generally will look robotic) you will only get a very limited first signs done in makeup, which generally is even MORE annoying than a full offscreen.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by cpt soban

They are remaking Robocop?

For the love of god why? Sure you can take the premise and do a much more mature take on it and expect audiences to appreciate it these days, but most people who would try and see it have heard of Robocop already and will be going for the same reason they watched it behind their parent's backs when they were nine: the gore and ultra-violence, and completely retarded disasters caused by retarded people.

Also, I remember a lot of CG in Robocop, in fact, I remember CG rendered at around 5 frames per second in Robocop which made it very jarring and out of place. We also had the main character with fantastic costume design and makeup, but there was still bad CG, generally in whatever cheesy robot was being fought near the end of the movie.

That was stop-motion, not CG in the original RoboCop.