This is why most of modern FX cinematics suck

I mean just look at the awesomeness of these props. There is some kind of mood going on all the time even when they are not filming.

more: http://www.angusrshamal.com/best-of-bts-2

they'll never go back to doing that way. it's just like how roland now only makes VAs -- oodles more cost-effective and quick-to-market, and only a few purists complain. it still turns a buck, that's key.

others complain that movies suck, but are unable to name specific reasons. there's more than just the loss of "real" props....

This is so true. I've been complaining about it for the last ten years. Luckily I didn't watch movies that frequently when I was younger, so there's still a lot of 70's/80's cinema for me to enjoy for the first time. Modern sci-fi and horror sucks 99% of the time largely due to all the cg bullshit. It has all but killed two genres for me.

CGi is cheaper soooo...

Movies these days use both to great success, it's not like everyone is a fucking tool like Lucas, go see how the effects were done on The Walking Dead, you probably wouldn't guess what was digital or real props/sets. Movies these days suck because the talent sucks, the audience sucks (teens), piracy sucks, society sucks... CGI is not the issue anymore, it was in mid 90's-05's but these days it's decent enough unless used wrongly (see Robert Rodriguez fake blood and other cheapness).

What was great on those movies was the art direction, the designs, the teams, the talent, not so much the special effects.

  On 5/10/2011 at 10:56 PM, vasio said:

The CGI is not the issue here, Dude.

I'm currently watching aliens extended edition, you just can't beat real sets and real monsters, props ftw. Cgi has its place but its overused.

I really need to watch Kubrick's films again

Here's an article to make you all happier.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19140_8-movie-special-effects-you-wont-believe-arent-cgi.html

There's still hope.

Most of them are 90's movies, but Eternal Sunshine and Dark Knight are in there.

I'm actually quite fond of using some cgi myself now and then but I always try to use it in ways that are not noticeable.

However, no new effects will ever be as creepy as the hand painted clouds from Poltergeist.

I'll always be amazed at how realistic Blade Runner looks. It feels lived in, while so many CGI green screens feel like a whiteboard about to be erased.

But after re-watching Avatar, you can't deny the last 30-40 minutes of it are FUCKING AWESOME.

  On 5/11/2011 at 2:34 AM, Terpentintollwut said:

I always try to use it in ways that are not noticeable.

Lemme see.

Showing off what one isn't supposed to see could be kinda difficult ... but I'll look for some examples tomorrow, it's 4 am in my place.

It's just little things mostly, removing a bush for better framing, adding little stuff in the background for atmosphere and so on. I'm much more fond of matte paintings than of blue screen stuff, and I try to combine things using various blend modes rather than manual masking as I find it more natural looking. When I have to use actual 3D models, I like to give things a grainy, un-polished lo-fi look to make it less obvious that it's computer generated. Many people don't seem to realize the big effect this has, yet it's so easy. I don't like "clean" cgi so much.

E.g. in this REALLY old video (~5 years), I just wanted to show a friend a 3d model of a little clock I had built. Instead of rendering a movie with a smooth camera movement, I tracked some old shaky footage from my first camcorder to use it for the virtual camera and added some grain to the image and the sound of a camera motor plus some camera-handling-noises. To my surprise, lots of people thought it was real, despite the obviously poor texturing job I did there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7gOE1mJNas

Like I said, this is quite old and it's not exactly up to date, quality wise. But it's the only thing I can find right now, and it's funny how some people still fall for it.

  On 5/11/2011 at 2:35 AM, Candiru said:

I'll always be amazed at how realistic Blade Runner looks. It feels lived in, while so many CGI green screens feel like a whiteboard about to be erased.

 

But after re-watching Avatar, you can't deny the last 30-40 minutes of it are FUCKING AWESOME.

Yes, but that was using CGI in a sincere artistic manner, especially since it was such a imaginative landscape. To me it was closer to certain animated masterpieces than "traditional" live action blockbusters. And wasn't that part of the reason it was not made for so long, the technology wasn't there?

I'm totally a sucker for the real thing, especially in war films. CGI can be used as an asset but not a substitute. That's why Pearl Harbor is so godawful and offensive compared to a film like Tora Tora Tora...the shitty, moronic storyline was just the icing on the cake.

  On 5/11/2011 at 2:08 AM, Pennywise said:

Thank you!

no one is talking about the set from Rear Window...thats impressive.

  On 5/11/2011 at 2:35 AM, Candiru said:

But after re-watching Avatar, you can't deny the last 30-40 minutes of it are FUCKING AWESOME.

avatar was good like a roller coaster is good. just a nice adrenaline rush -- dumped in the middle of a jungle, warrior training, flying lizard thing, jumping off cliffs, climactic battles, explosions. i'm nearby an imax that's the fucking tits, and i went to see it a few times simply because it was engaging. especially after 150mg dxm and a bit of a smoke on the way.... but it didn't really change my life, my mind, or anything. it just thoroughly entertained me the shit out of me for however long it lasted. and that is what hollywood, cgi, etc. is good at, these days. philosophically, though, we're all starting to feel like starved housewives.

Then again - there is always CGI that is done rather tastefully.

[vimeo]18275127[/vimeo]

  On 5/11/2011 at 6:18 AM, chenGOD said:

Then again - there is always CGI that is done rather tastefully.

 

[vimeo]18275127[/vimeo]

pretty incredible. you really can't trust video evidence anymore.

  On 5/11/2011 at 5:49 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

no one is talking about the set from Rear Window...thats impressive.

Yeah holy shit, that movie is amazing. The entire thing is filmed from inside one room if you think about. And the opening shot of that movie is just one LOOONG take looking from his window. Actually, looking at it again there is one camera cut 2 minutes in after looking at James Stewart's sweaty face, but then it goes in for another 2 minute shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTl7i1I_fFE

I also love the car driving shots in vertigo. Just the slow feeling of suspense as he is stalking the girl. This particular one is brilliant, and the "oh shit" moment at the end where you realize she is going back to his house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpxFFREcn6Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=340s

(meant to link this to the part starting at 5:45 or so)

Alice in Wonderland vs. Beetlejuice

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus vs. Brazil

Drag Me to Hell vs. Evil Dead 2

I think the bad visuals, being basically half of what film is in the first place, can potentially completely destroy the film. the 'bad graphics' thing is actually hurting the 'art'

there are some folks who know how to utilize the technology for positive effect. that is, instead of using it to cut corners, use it to progress into new realms

see: Speed Racer, Enter the Void

i thought speed racer was great. complete sensory overload. entertained me thoroughly for however the fuck long it lasted... etc...

it seems like a lot of times studios go for the latest technology just because it's the latest technology, even when older techniques could look better.

i think there used to be far more dependence on acting. people doing something emotional in front of a camera. if you don't have the tech to show the mood of the situation, you have to use actors' expressions and such to do it. the original three star wars movies had revolutionary FX, but they also had a lot of charming scenes with no FX whatsoever. "Get this walking carpet out of my way!"