Total Recall (2012)

[Devil_666]

Go watch Ray Harryhausen's Medusa in the original "Clash of the Titans" and compare it to the craptacular CGI mess in the remake and you'll have your answer.

 

[darthviper107]

Which is nothing. Again I ask name, name one reason why stop motion is better?

 

[Alex Logan]

Go watch Ray Harryhausen's Medusa in the original "Clash of the Titans" and compare it to the craptacular CGI mess in the remake and you'll have your answer.

That's a VERY bad example. They both look like ____. If you want a good example just watch the first Terminator and then watch the CGI terminators in T3.

Or the mask in both Total Recall films.

Which is nothing. Again I ask name, name one reason why stop motion is better?

There isn't one.

 

[Reinhardt]

I'd have to say that while I love stop motion animation (ED-209, clunky and all, is badass), it might be a bit dated if you want to achieve total realism. Yes, lots of CGI looks bad, but that is likely because it is simply not done well. When you see good CGI, it can look great.

Another comparison could be CGI to real sets / miniatures / models / animatronics. I think more often than not, real sets and miniatures/models/animatronics will look better than CGI, but CGI can come in handy to enhance a scene (not replace, but enhance). I believe Starship Troopers used a good mixture of both real models and CGI, and used each where it was best suited.

I don't hate CGI, but I hate that EVERYTHING is CGI now. It's almost too easy now, it feels like lazy filmmaking. It should be used sparingly, and where it makes the most sense. If you haven't seen The Fall, I'd highly recommend it. The only places CGI was used was in removal of wires etc... almost everything else was real, and in camera. One of my favorite films.

 

[Alex Logan]

I'd have to say that while I love stop motion animation (ED-209, clunky and all, is badass), it might be a bit dated if you want to achieve total realism. Yes, lots of CGI looks bad, but that is likely because it is simply not done well. When you see good CGI, it can look great.

Another comparison could be CGI to real sets / miniatures / models / animatronics. I think more often than not, real sets and miniatures/models/animatronics will look better than CGI, but CGI can come in handy to enhance a scene (not replace, but enhance). I believe Starship Troopers used a good mixture of both real models and CGI, and used each where it was best suited.

I don't hate CGI, but I hate that EVERYTHING is CGI now. It's almost too easy now, it feels like lazy filmmaking. It should be used sparingly, and where it makes the most sense. If you haven't seen The Fall, I'd highly recommend it. The only places CGI was used was in removal of wires etc... almost everything else was real, and in camera. One of my favorite films.

I think you need a combo of CGI, real sets, miniatures, models to make things look good. Use them AS they are need, not Lucas style.

 

[CelticPredator]

^ Stop saying these things. You don't even need CGI. Ever really.

Models in Alien look fine today. In 1080p, in a movie theater....
CGI is a great tool. But you could live without it. And effects never make a better movie.


Terminator is a billion times better then Terminator Salvation. And The first has a dated Stop Motion puppet. But that stop motion puppet is scarier, and more interesting then the CGI t-800 in Salvation because we care about the characters. We don't want to see Reese or Connor die from this thing.

Special effects mean nothing. Period. They can be awesome, and cool, but they're a tool, not a story telling device.

(Unless on the off chance they are, like Transformers, or King Kong Remake....)

 

[Alex Logan]

^ Stop saying these things. You don't even need CGI. Ever really.

Models in Alien look fine today. In 1080p, in a movie theater....
CGI is a great tool. But you could live without it. And effects never make a better movie.


Terminator is a billion times better then Terminator Salvation. And The first has a dated Stop Motion puppet. But that stop motion puppet is scarier, and more interesting then the CGI t-800 in Salvation because we care about the characters. We don't want to see Reese or Connor die from this thing.

Special effects mean nothing. Period. They can be awesome, and cool, but they're a tool, not a story telling device.

(Unless on the off chance they are, like Transformers, or King Kong Remake....)

You contradict yourself a lot huh? You still don't get that for the most part I agree with you?

 

[Reinhardt]

So you don't need CGI EVER, unless it is Transformers or King Kong? Should add Toy Story in there.

I agree with everything else you've said, and it adds to my point that CGI is a great TOOL. And with respect to

Special effects mean nothing. Period. They can be awesome, and cool, but they're a tool, not a story telling device.

(unless it is Transformers? Because Revenge of the Fallen was the biggest blockbuster piece of crap I have ever seen)

 

[CelticPredator]

You really don't. UNLESS on the off chance your movie actually needs it to tell a story.

You don't ever need it really. Unless it's essential.

There's always that "Unless".

 

[CelticPredator]

So you don't need CGI EVER, unless it is Transformers or King Kong? Don't forget Toy Story. :lol

I agree with everything you've said, and it adds to my point that CGI is a great TOOL. And with respect to

Oh yes!


If it's absolutely essential to your tale. If you cannot in anyway get around the creatures, monsters, whatever. Then use it. That's what I meant.

I'm doing a 100 things right now. So whatever.

 

[RIDDICK]

watch the first Terminator and then watch the CGI terminators in T3.

===>

That's a VERY bad example.

You can't compare some old verrrrrrry low budget movie fx to the one from the modern blockbuster sequel

Even w/o consideration that old low budget movie is 10000000000000000x times better than this modern pos.

 

[darthviper107]

^ Stop saying these things. You don't even need CGI. Ever really.

Models in Alien look fine today. In 1080p, in a movie theater....
CGI is a great tool. But you could live without it. And effects never make a better movie.


Terminator is a billion times better then Terminator Salvation. And The first has a dated Stop Motion puppet. But that stop motion puppet is scarier, and more interesting then the CGI t-800 in Salvation because we care about the characters. We don't want to see Reese or Connor die from this thing.

Special effects mean nothing. Period. They can be awesome, and cool, but they're a tool, not a story telling device.

(Unless on the off chance they are, like Transformers, or King Kong Remake....)

Effects actually do make a better movie, since I think films would be worse without them. Not meaning that every movie should have it there, since some have no use for it.

And Terminator isn't better because of the FX, its other parts are better and they overcome the FX.

FX are definitely a storytelling device. The reason is to achieve a point, realism or artistic design.

What happens these with CG is that many directors don't know how to use it and often forget physical accuracy when creating shots, in the way shots are designed. There's movies with ridiculous action shots that are impossible and that's not realistic even if the FX itself is.

Take for instance Avatar, tons of CG but what matters is that it's shot like it was a real movie, so on top of realistic CG it's got realistic camera shots.

 

[Reinhardt]

Take for instance Avatar, tons of CG but what matters is that it's shot like it was a real movie, so on top of realistic CG it's got realistic camera shots.

Yeah, but the story sucked. (runs)

 

[darthviper107]

And the CG made the movie

 

[Deckard]

Yep, looks totally real.

I didn't say totally real, I said not terrible. It is a mask in the movie, it's not supposed to be 100 percent real, its not an actual woman's head.

Name one reason why Stop Motion is better

Practical Effects will always be better then CGI when affordable and done correctly IMO.


Jabba ANH (97) vs Jabba ROTJ (87)

The Thing (83) vs The Thing (2011)

Velociraptors in JP1 Vs CGId Raptors in JP3

 

[darthviper107]

I said, why is Stop Motion better

There are certainly still cases where practical FX are a better choice than CG. Stop motion is not one of them.

 

[Deckard]

Ok, then more particularly, The Life Aquatic's stop motion comes to mind as something that looks cool, is intentional to set the film apart, and works brilliantly.

Also Anderson's The Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is all stop motion and way cooler looking then CGI.

 

[Alex Logan]

===>

You can't compare some old verrrrrrry low budget movie fx to the one from the modern blockbuster sequel

Even w/o consideration that old low budget movie is 10000000000000000x times better than this modern pos.

And I agree with you. T1 is bomb. T3 is ____.

However, the discussion was not about the quality of the story. It was about how things look, but someone choose to change the direction to suit their own needs.

 

[Alex Logan]

I didn't say totally real, I said not terrible. It is a mask in the movie, it's not supposed to be 100 percent real, its not an actual woman's head.

But yet this "mask" is suppost to fool people into believing that Arnold is a woman. I would say looking real is pretty important. The new mask makes way more sense and it looks prefect.

 

[darthviper107]

Ok, then more particularly, The Life Aquatic's stop motion comes to mind as something that looks cool, is intentional to set the film apart, and works brilliantly.

Also Anderson's The Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is all stop motion and way cooler looking then CGI.

That's not "particularly" that's an opinion. Again, name a reason why stop motion is better