Rick Baker retires. This is bad.

[Peanutt_Buta]

This is pretty depressing.

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.

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.

[Anahki]

Originally Posted by Splice

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.



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.

I really think that there is a small misconception here. When most of us complain about the CGI, it is not because of what can be done with them, but how they are used, mainly because the producers could be good with money issues, but real assholes in terms of creativity, what works and what does not (yes, with the exception of your you-know-who midas-touch bunch ones), and they finally decide to apply CGI in ways that tend to ruin the experience, or simply being stingy.
For me, the paradigmatic example is Bitten. They could have done the best female werewolf transformation ever, and the effects they used (especially in episodes 1 and 5 from the first season) were incredible, to the point that they were almost perfect... but the combination of the scarce resources used by Mr. Sugar, the nudity dodgy Ms. Vandervoort and the children-friendly script by Ms. Fryklind ended up ruining the show in terms of werewolf TFs (the show itself is enterteining, though).
Said all this, the ultimate argument for this is the fact that the TF from AAWIL has not been surpassed... even by Rick Baker himself, mainly because of the constant intromissions from the producers in The Wolfman or in Cursed. Did you see the figures that Mr Baker was supposed to use for Cursed, and what was done afterwards? Simply regrettable.

[Xanderfox]

well I just have to say, it isn't just ONE problem here. The over use of CGI has left audiences jaded to the point that impressive practical effects are dismissive as "just cg". Studios have the problem of applying CGI when a practical effect would look better or applying CG as a band-aid to situations where effects are called for.

One example is lower budget horror movies, the "goreorror"(movies that depend on gore for scares) genera often has CGI used to add buckets of unnecessary and unrealistic looking blood. While unrealistic blood levels old hat for many horror movie generas, the GCI blood is poorly done and makes it look like everyone has over pressured veins pumping tomato soup though their bodies. the effect isn't needed and makes the film even hokier.

[salmonmousse]

Resurrecting a dead thread just because Underworld is on again.

Rick Baker is a creative genius and his leaving films is a tremendous loss for us all. The Howling (which he started the FX work on and then left to do AWIL) has good to great effects (fireside sex/transformation scene is a rarity), while AWIL has the scene that is still the standard 35 freaking years later. Underworld caught my eye immediately (and not just for Kate Beckinsale in a latex catsuit... ok, that DID catch my eye) because from the first viewing it was clear that it had real prosthetic effects and very well blended CGI. As others mentioned AWIP used a lot of CGI. I can tell you from being in the A/V business back then (1997), the special effects CGI that were developed for that were a huge advancement and were touted at all of the industry shows. The problem was that they forgot about the physical and relied on the amazement factor (and probably cost reduction) of CGI. CGI effects combined with physical (Wolves, Bitten, etc...) can be excellent. Or when physical is well done (Ginger Snaps series) so we see, and believe, the process, it pulls you in. When they forget about that and go all CGI with some half-assed physical (Darkwolf, etc...) it ruins the whole movie. I guess what I'm trying to say is Please don't go Rick, also Kate Beckinsale in a latex catsuit...

[Anahki]

Originally Posted by salmonmousse

Resurrecting a dead thread just because Underworld is on again.

Rick Baker is a creative genius and his leaving films is a tremendous loss for us all. The Howling (which he started the FX work on and then left to do AWIL) has good to great effects (fireside sex/transformation scene is a rarity), while AWIL has the scene that is still the standard 35 freaking years later. Underworld caught my eye immediately (and not just for Kate Beckinsale in a latex catsuit... ok, that DID catch my eye) because from the first viewing it was clear that it had real prosthetic effects and very well blended CGI. As others mentioned AWIP used a lot of CGI. I can tell you from being in the A/V business back then (1997), the special effects CGI that were developed for that were a huge advancement and were touted at all of the industry shows. The problem was that they forgot about the physical and relied on the amazement factor (and probably cost reduction) of CGI. CGI effects combined with physical (Wolves, Bitten, etc...) can be excellent. Or when physical is well done (Ginger Snaps series) so we see, and believe, the process, it pulls you in. When they forget about that and go all CGI with some half-assed physical (Darkwolf, etc...) it ruins the whole movie. I guess what I'm trying to say is Please don't go Rick, also Kate Beckinsale in a latex catsuit...

I just see the Underworld series because of the story and action... Something we can learn from the franchise is that female werewolves are very shy and don't transform in front of the camera

[abingdondr]

Here is a nice tid bit for this thread to chew on, take it how you want.
In the movie John Wick with Keanu Reaves , there is a puppy. The puppy goes outside to do his business. The said 'business' is not an actual pile of doggy poo, it is in fact, a CGI effect.
...Yep, you read that right. They used CGI to lay down a dog turd. Now for the part that really sounds crazy, it is rumored that this 'turd' effect cost over $5000 US dollars to create and place in the movie.
This might be the thesis for argument that CGI is waaay over used in movies today.

[Shadow_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Anahki

I just see the Underworld series because of the story and action... Something we can learn from the franchise is that female werewolves are very shy and don't transform in front of the camera

Also on other somewhat related news, a new Underworld movie.

http://www.slashfilm.com/underworld-5-begins-shooting/

[Buzy]

Even on a non-werewolves themed standpoint, I believe that Mad Max and the latest Star Wars(yes, that) have shown that CGIs only work at it's best when mixed with practical effects(in fact, in Star Wars' case, I would say the special effects where sometimes at their weakest when clearly CGI. *coughs*Snokes*coughs* versus more practical stuff like BB-8 whom I am still amused was actually made as a Practical effect prop for a lot of his showing considering his construction).

[Mr_DNA]

When John Waters filmed the infamous final shot of Pink Flamingoes, they had to wait for that dog to do his business. They waited and waited and waited. And when the moment arrived, Divine scooped up that fresh turd, brought it to her mouth, and chewed. That entire film's budget was twice that of John Wick's CGI poo, and Keanu Reeves probably didn't even so much as pretend to sniff it.

What were we talking about?

Oh, right. Practical effects. Today's cinema still has a place for it, dwindling as it might be. I just watched The Hateful Eight, which was done entirely with practical effects, courtesy of Greg Nicotero. His company, KNB, was responsible for the effects in Evil Dead 2. Without spoiling anything, I can say that Tarantino hired the right men for the job.

[sybersamurai]

Rick Baker already retired practically. When was the last movie that fully utilized him? The Wolfman is a perfect example. You have the legend himself doing the movie he always wanted to do and they ended up using him more as just a consultant in favor of that garbage CGI scene.

[Xanderfox]

Originally Posted by sybersamurai

Rick Baker already retired practically. When was the last movie that fully utilized him? The Wolfman is a perfect example. You have the legend himself doing the movie he always wanted to do and they ended up using him more as just a consultant in favor of that garbage CGI scene.

It's more the who "it's official now" thing, he was effectively retired before he officially retired.

Hollywood has always had problems and always will. Finding the right way to use special effects technology is just one of a laundry list of issues that will always persist. A New technology will often be used unnecessarily, making certain moves worse experiences by focusing on a gimmick rather than an entertaining story and characters. When a film is CGI driven failure is easy to see, when film makers misuse it or rely on it too wow the audience to try and make what is a sub par effort successful. There will also always be film makers who use technology right, who can use a spectacular CG effect to make a film better.