Guillermo del Toro's Pacific Rim!!!

[GasparZizou]

Yeah that's what I thought when I saw the trailer; "They just threw in a cgi robot samurai for the sake of it"

Also, something that I absolutely despise: Digital blood, ew.

 

[CelticPredator]

I can be OK with digital blood...but I hate hate hate plug in blood. That's the laziest **** known to man.

I use them, because I'm too cheap to buy squib stuff. So I plug in the red stuff, and it's fine because I'm not making big high budget productions.

But if you are, you have no excuse...Walking Dead.

Here's a video of plug in blood.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwOOGLJFZNo[/ame]

 

[Frank]

But in all seriousness....look at some of the films that are getting notice from big name directors. They rarely have good stories...or any story for that matter. Just some neat looking CGI. And that some how makes them able to make a feature length film?

I don't hate the guy, but the director the Evil Dead remake did a neat little short film, but it wasn't anything mind blowing. Cool effects, but that's it. Yet, that landed him a job with Sam Raimi, and he went on to direct Evil Dead. While it was visually good looking, and the guy made great decisions when it came to the use of practical make up effects.....the characters were weak and pretty horrible. The script wasn't bad, but the filmmakers and actors did nothing to make it better.

Or that other guy who made that movie...The Raven? Whatever it was. It was a five minute video of a guy running around a city being chased by CGI. it was filmed with a Red camera as well. Is that what it takes to get into Hollywood now? Expensive camera's and CGI?

On the flip side, look at Neill Blomkamp. Dude tells a story with every short he makes. Every bit of CGI is used in a way that allows this tale to be told. When you see Alive in Joberg, you see a story. It tells you everything you have to know. And you can see why that film was picked for his first feature length movie.

The biggest obstacle for films with lots of CGI is the need to get a return on the investment. This encourages directors and producers to aim for the lowest common denominator in entertainment. Even though we've had a lot of great exceptions over the years, mediocrity is the norm.

 

[Spidey976]

There are certain type of stories that NEED CGI, specially for most comic book movies and such.

You just conceived my point.



And he didn't, hence; there's no way of making such robots and not looking bad without CGI, period.

"Killing" CGI is not the answer, making people more demanding of storytelling is, but you got people making Grown ups 2 outperform PR....

PR is a great film that LOOKS awesome and the CGI looks AMAZING, but the CGI is only a tool.

The Avengers though INCREDIBLY RELIANT on CGI, hell almost the whole last battle scene is in a CGI environment, only works because of the story telling of Josh Whedon. CGI is just a story telling tool that, when in the hands of a GREAT story teller, can help to tell an AMAZING story.

Saying that we should go backwards in the technology used to tell a story is short sighted and quit frankly stupid. What we need to do instead is start hoping for a better class of directors. Ones that know how to meld the technology of CGI with the practice effect like an Abrams, GT, or a Whedon.... Then we will get some amazing films.

 

[CelticPredator]

That's not going to happen. So that's a stupid idea.

Besides, you can't stop the Hollywood burst. It's coming soon.

 

[CelticPredator]

The biggest obstacle for films with lots of CGI is the need to get a return on the investment. This encourages directors and producers to aim for the lowest common denominator in entertainment. Even though we've had a lot of great exceptions over the years, mediocrity is the norm.

Correct. I like Elysium and all, but that movie's message seemed to have been dumbed down to it's most blunt and basic form. A film that costs that much can't be subtle and have any real depth to it.

And don't say Nolan gets away with it, because he really doesn't. Inception is a good flick. And it's well made, but it's like a smart movie for dumb people. It's not that hard to figure out. It seems overly complicated because they explain everything. Go figure.

 

[GasparZizou]

What's not going to happen? People who know how to use CGI? That's no true, there are, they're the minority but there are.

 

[CelticPredator]

"But why go for those guys who want control over their projects? Lets grab the cheap dudes who WE can control what they do on their projects. "

- Studio head.


But honestly, I have a feeling that theater going will be a thing of the past. With new films now being able to be delivered to your front door for the price of 30 bucks a month....I don't see how theaters can stay in business if they keep churning out all these dumb blockbusters. People are getting tired of them. They're feeling fatigue to big spectacles. They want something more. Hence why TV is now all the rage. People are getting into story telling again.

I think. I hope. Who knows for certain. But I hope to god that's the case.

Also, i'm just rambling because this is frustrating to me. I used to love going to movies. But this year kinda broke me. I've only seen 3 movies this year that made me feel really positive toward them. And the rest I enjoyed to an extent.

 

[ironwez20]

Celtic we live in a time where **** and blandness is all it takes to get anywhere. Justin bieber,twilight, transformer movies, rhianna, and most movies that I'm to lazy to name are all bland and ****. We just live in a time where people accept and take bland over quality and hard work. The best you can do is pray that things change or keep pushing til someone appreciates your work.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's not really about my work. it's about everyone's work. There are people better then me in every way that could tell a story without CGI, and they'll never be seen, or at least not for a while because they don't have pretty effects to back up their ****.

 

[Spidey976]

That's not going to happen. So that's a stupid idea.

Besides, you can't stop the Hollywood burst. It's coming soon.

I can name a 10 directors who know how to meld CGI and story telling together to make a great film. When it comes to story telling it starts on the page, and very few directors can take a so so screenplay and make it a GREAT FILM. Supporting the amazing directors who can do great work isn't a stupid idea, blaming the TOOLS used by the ****ty directors who made ****ty films is though.

"But why go for those guys who want control over their projects? Lets grab the cheap dudes who WE can control what they do on their projects. "

- Studio head.


But honestly, I have a feeling that theater going will be a thing of the past. With new films now being able to be delivered to your front door for the price of 30 bucks a month....I don't see how theaters can stay in business if they keep churning out all these dumb blockbusters. People are getting tired of them. They're feeling fatigue to big spectacles. They want something more. Hence why TV is now all the rage. People are getting into story telling again.

I think. I hope. Who knows for certain. But I hope to god that's the case.

Also, i'm just rambling because this is frustrating to me. I used to love going to movies. But this year kinda broke me. I've only seen 3 movies this year that made me feel really positive toward them. And the rest I enjoyed to an extent.

Do you know what films tend to do the BEST at the Box Office... LARGE SCALE SPECTACLE FILMS!!! Avatar, Titanic, and the Avengers are as CGI ladden as any other film, but Cameroand Whedon KNOW how to tell a story like few others. Almost ALL of the TOP 100 films of ALL TIME are SPECTACLE films... Those are the films that get asses into the theater seats. I, like many others, don't go to the theater to see small vision films. I go to see things that are bigger then life in an experience I can't get at home.

I get that you arw bitter, but you are blaming a tool and forgetting that it is just that.... A tool. I will fill you in on a little secret a LOT of movies sucked BEFORE CGI, and it didn't matter if they had the best go motion in the world... They still sucked.

Bad movie happen when one of four things happens: bad script, bad director, bad acting, bad studio involvement. It is never the tools they used to make a film tht make it bad... Only HOW the tools were used.

Your arguments are the same ones that were used when the Televison first came out.... And movies adapted and survived. They may change form, and become a more in home ore interactive experience, but movies have been around since the moving pictures first started, and they aren't going to die anytime soon.

What's not going to happen? People who know how to use CGI? That's no true, there are, they're the minority but there are.

 

[CelticPredator]

Actually, I didn't blame the tool. I just think we need to put that tool away so people can actually THINK instead of using that tool as a clutch.

I have no problem with CGI. Only people who can't use it. And I think people need to re-learn how to live without it for a while, and then bring it back.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's funny how arguments start off from jokes.

 

[darthviper107]

I love stop motion, but it only works with certain tones and themes, like Paranorman (****ing love that movie).

Paranorman wouldn't have been possible without CGI--each facial pose was animated in the computer first and then they printed it with a 3D printer

If GDT had a good way of doing these robots practically, he probably would've. Hell, the man told Pan's Labyrinth without any real CGI characters, aside from the fairies. Like I said, it isn't the CGI's fault, it's the filmmakers reliance on this expensive technology.

Pan wouldn't have been possible without CGI because of the legs. The whole movie wouldn't have been possible without CGI since they weren't allowed to use explosive devices of any kind, so all explosions and gunfire were added later. Try getting past that problem without a computer

 

[Kuzeh]

I love practical effects, and I love CGI, they can both co-exist if done right.

With that said, there is no way the Kaiju and Jaegers would look realistic enough for today standards done with practical effects.
Del Toro is a huge advocate for practical effects, but even the best work with them, like the fights between Sammael and Hellboy in the first movie, could look a bit clunky.

[ame]https://youtu.be/Z_uysUyZodo[/ame]

That's why he ended using a combination of CGI and practical FX.

I cannot understand anyone complaining about the CGI on PR... at least not yet... maybe in 20-30 years...
Now imagine it done with practical FX... it would look outdated in about 10-15 years.

 

[nemenforcer]

Good debate going on in here

 

[GasparZizou]

It's funny how arguments start off from jokes.

Well when you try to pass an actual argument as a joke, people will reply to it, you and I do it every time

Paranorman wouldn't have been possible without CGI--each facial pose was animated in the computer first and then they printed it with a 3D printer

1. That's not CGI, they may have used a computer, but the imagery itself is not generated by it.

2. They could have totally done the entire movie with stop motion only and clay sculpting, it was just a choice.

 

[CelticPredator]

I don't know, I figured the idea of using stop motion for a big budget movie was kinda funny.

 

[jnmx2000]

I don't know, I figured the idea of using stop motion for a big budget movie was kinda funny.

they were going to use stop motion for the original jurassic park, but then speilburg saw the digital effects test reel and everything changed.

 

[CelticPredator]

I know.....