Question about multimillion dollar sci-fi movies

[ctc]

>Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.

I'm quite okay with the CGI part.... it's the "Debbie Gibson" thing that bothers me....

Don C.

[Seeker]

An argument for those agaist CGI. Take a look at Debbie Gibsons latest...

Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus. I heard about it on the radio and thought they were joking but sadly its true.

[mego73]

The CGI done for movies is more exacting (ideally) then the stuff even done for shows in High Definition video.

The bigger the screen, the more time you have to spend on each CGI or other visual effects shot. And time (especially in movies) is money.

On the upside, the quality curve between high budget and lower budget CGI effects is less extreme, making more and better effects possible for lower budget productions.

Sometimes those lower budget CGI shots are not as meticulously tweaked into looking real as the larger budget effects. And also, the best people in the industry generally are on the big budget productions with less experienced ones on the lower budget.

Take a movie like The Journey To The Center Of The Earth remake. It was not a high budget movie. Still it had a lot of effects and they were able to show a lot more things that would've been impossible for even a high budget movie in the pre CGI days. The effects look nice, even if they often look like CGI and the movie was a lot of (silly) fun.

[Gorn Captain]

I've always hated CGI used on spaceships

To me, their movements are TOO soft and fluid ...
The jerkiness of mounted model filmed with a motion control camera brings more life and feel into a moving spaceship.

Also, CGI spaceships reflect light weirdly.
I think the makers overdue it and always put too much shine on the ships.
CGI ships are always in the perfect spot ... which is another thing that makes them unrealistic.

I don't know what it is, but the texture on CG ships is often different than a physical model. They often use a certain type of grey that gives it a "painted" look. The depth of the CG model is sometimes also lacking. When it feels "painted" to me, I feel like I'm watching a cartoon.
But we're back in the CG/no CG thread, of course....

[ctc]

>To the actors, writers and directors ?

A lot of it goes to the "names;" be they actors, writers or whatever. A known name is a known commodity; NOBODY'S gonna take a chance on an unknown. (It's mostly for CYOA for the execs that they do this. "I dunno WHY our film tanked, I hired the top guys!")

>I can't imagine CGI costing more then physically building a Death Star model, filming it, and blowing it up in real life.

It does; mostly 'cos it takes a LOT longer to produce, and time is money. It's even more expensive and time consuming than old school, and drawn LINE animation. At the moment any CGI item is insanely complicated to design and use, although as the library of finished models and shots increases this comes down. ('Cos they can recycle stuff pretty easy.)

Don C.

[megoscott]

First, your comment that TV is on par with movies is way off. A TV show is going to have a lot less CG shots. I think the best CG on TV was Battlestar and they really had to scrimp their budget to save up for shots. That's why you had so many political episodes indoors, they'd save it up for big action shows.


Secondly, models are still in wide use and to good effect. Check out the behind the scenes material on the LOTR dvds. Lots of models were built and photographed, peter Jackson was very into that.

With CG, you have to pay modelers, texture artists, lighting and rendering artists, animators, compositors to put all the elements (CG, models, actors, FX) together, plus a big expensive render farm of computers, plus all the programmers and IT support to make it work. You have to pay a lot of people, and very often they are working 7 days a week 12-15 hours a day in the last few months of rush to deadline so there's lots of overtime and buying them food.

[Werewolf]

I've always hated CGI used on spaceships

To me, their movements are TOO soft and fluid ...
The jerkiness of mounted model filmed with a motion control camera brings more life and feel into a moving spaceship.

I prefer models to CGI as well. I feel models give a better sense of I guess mass, for a lack of better word, because they are actual physical objects. CGI is great for clouds, starfields and stuff like that. But for the ships, models all the way.

[Mikey]

I've always hated CGI used on spaceships

To me, their movements are TOO soft and fluid ...
The jerkiness of mounted model filmed with a motion control camera brings more life and feel into a moving spaceship.

Also, CGI spaceships reflect light weirdly.
I think the makers overdue it and always put too much shine on the ships.
CGI ships are always in the perfect spot ... which is another thing that makes them unrealistic.

[Gorn Captain]

I personally love CGI,I thought it was great on Transformers,LOTR,and stuff like that. Those films would'nt be half as good as they are with out it

You mean Transformers could actually have been even worse (without the CG)?


For LOTR I agree. Most of the CG was great, served the story well, and was used because it was necessary. There just aren't any Cave Trolls out there, and I don't see it done as a man/men in a suit!
The only exception for me would be Gollum. I'm sure there are plenty of talented skinny actors out there who could have played the role. Hey, if they had starved Serkis for a month, he would have been perfect!

I'm not knocking CG, I just prefer "in camera" effects.
When you need to create a planet, CG is great. I'm not nostalgic about a planet scene were you just get styrofoam rocks and an orange sheet in the background. CG is perfect for this.

But if you make your alien humanoid (six foot tall, head, torso, two legs, two arms), you don't need to make it CG. That's just showing off.


PS: Transformers still sucks, and so does Shia Lebeouf! That guy is poison!

[Mikey]

I'm not sure where I read it, but I did read somewhere the old 70's ABC 4:30 Movie intro cost a ton of money to make.

YouTube - ABC 4:30 MOVIE

It also said, today just about anyone with some basic animation computer skills could make it - and make it pretty fast.

[toys2cool]

I personally love CGI,I thought it was great on Transformers,LOTR,and stuff like that. Those films would'nt be half as good as they are with out it

[Wee67]

Huedell makes a good point about the TYPE of CGI a studio uses. I think the big money comes with movement and amy sort of realistic flesh or life-like representations. Its like comapring the traditional animation we'd see on a given Saturday morning in the 70's versus the stuff they did in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.'

A lot of the TV shows that use CGI do not use it as extensively as the big movies. It still looks pretty good compared to old special effects and can actually be cheaper than old effects. Most digital technology is relatively cheaper than its older counterpart. In my newsroom, we carry around 40K-dollar cameras. They are on the way out. You can get the saem quality with a decent pro-sumer digital camera AND buy some great editing software for your powerbook and turn out similar quality product. HOWEVER... you can still buy some really expensive digital cameras and editing equipment that blows away what we're using. Back to Huedell's point.

[jds1911a1]

the new star wars films and matrix were the end of traditioanl model work. everyon raves about CG and what you can do with it. I think that models has to cost more becuase if it wasn't cheaper to have a virtual set they wouldn't do it BUT the CG world allows them to do alot more visually than almost any set they can build for the same money. Sam reason CG animation has replaced paint and cell (sadly) it's cheaper.

[Gorn Captain]

I guess building CGI models takes a zillion hours of work.
I'm not a fan of CG overuse, but I can appreciate the hard work they put in it.

Personally, I'd rather make ten $30 million movie with conventional modeling, than one $300 million with tons of CG. But I'm old school.

I miss the smaller movies. Movies like Soylent Green, Rollerball. Great stories, good acting, limited SPFX. These days, it seems to be about "blowing stuff up", "bigger than the last movie" and "actors that ask for $20 million",....

I recently saw Transformers.
My opinion: terrible acting. Hardly a story. Overuse of just about everything. Must have cost a fortune anyway. They spent so much, but in the end most scenes look like a blur.
Glad I didn't spend $12 on that one...

[huedell]

Mike----take THIS into consideration----

the BIG MONEY on CGI probably comes from the fact that
the production team for any given movie is always trying to have the BEST
CGI that they can fit into their budget.

So, depending on what their budget is, THAT will affect greatly
the amount of money they'll spend on CGI.

Now, if the production team decides they wanna go
"full-tilt" "cutting edge" CGI---as I presume they would in a flick like
STAR TREK (2009), then it stands to reason that it's gonna be an
expensive venture CGI-wise.

So who followed me on that theory----and what do you guys think?