Johnston Once Attached to JP4?

Luke Skywalker · Post by **Luke Skywalker** » 14 Aug 2005, 14:38

QUOTE but look at JP, they blended them together so well. nowadays, they don't texture them enough and so the environment doesn't effect them.[/quote]

In all three movies...

Just one example: they wanted to make buckbeack in HP3 an animatronic animal. In the end, instead they did one of the greatest CGI cretures i have ever seen.

And you seem to generalise, i think that in ROTS or WOTW, to give an recent example, the CGI is affected by wind, rain, light and everything they throw at them.

Im not saying CGI is always great, there are many movies that have crap CGI even nowadays (better have an animatronic then), but when ILM is involved (and does all major work in the movie) the result is always great.

pack raptor · Post by **pack raptor** » 14 Aug 2005, 17:08

If you ask me, the quality of CGI declines with each JP film. In the original JP the CGI is nearly flawless, I can watch the film today and still be fooled. There are only a few minor shots that look fake to me. In TLW, the animation is still convincing for the most part, but there are more scenes where the CGI dinosaurs stand out. In JP3, they used so much CGI that nearly none of the scenes were realistic. I guess, part of that is the lighting director's fault, the film was too bright.The lighting was always off, and all the dinosaurs had a waxy skin texture. The only CGI dinos in JP3 that looked realistic in every scene were the velociraptors. I have to say that they matched the CGI raptors to look exactly like the animatronic ones. But the rex looked fake, the spino looked fake, and the pteranadons looked the worst of all. There was more of a clear difference between the animatronic shots and the CGI shots in JP3 than any other JP film.

By the way, ILM doesn't always deliver the goods. Just watch "The Hulk", or Star Wars Episode: I, II, and hell, even III. Also, I think Sony has done a rather poor job with the Harry Potter films. I will say I may be a little biased because I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I feel the same way about the visual effects Sony did for the Spider-Man films, and I'm a big fan of Spider-Man. Sony just has too many ex-video game developers on their visual effects staff.

SSJDinoTycoon42 · Post by **SSJDinoTycoon42** » 14 Aug 2005, 19:03

yes i was being very general, i didn't mean that all CGI is bad today, just a lot of them. he's right, there has been a steady decline in quality for the JP CGI dinos.

the thing you have to remember with Star Wars is that, they're creating things that aren't real(some things), and so you can't be sure how they are supposed to react to the environment. i thought the CGI in Star Wars was excellent

Spider Man to me looked real in the first one, but then in the second one he looked like a cartoon character ( look at when he turns his web into a sling shot and look closely as he's swinging on webs)

Harry Potter does look kinda bad now that i think of it

Luke Skywalker · Post by **Luke Skywalker** » 15 Aug 2005, 07:14

pack raptor wrote:If you ask me, the quality of CGI declines with each JP film. In the original JP the CGI is nearly flawless, I can watch the film today and still be fooled. There are only a few minor shots that look fake to me. In TLW, the animation is still convincing for the most part, but there are more scenes where the CGI dinosaurs stand out. In JP3, they used so much CGI that nearly none of the scenes were realistic. I guess, part of that is the lighting director's fault, the film was too bright.The lighting was always off, and all the dinosaurs had a waxy skin texture. The only CGI dinos in JP3 that looked realistic in every scene were the velociraptors. I have to say that they matched the CGI raptors to look exactly like the animatronic ones. But the rex looked fake, the spino looked fake, and the pteranadons looked the worst of all. There was more of a clear difference between the animatronic shots and the CGI shots in JP3 than any other JP film.

By the way, ILM doesn't always deliver the goods. Just watch "The Hulk", or Star Wars Episode: I, II, and hell, even III. Also, I think Sony has done a rather poor job with the Harry Potter films. I will say I may be a little biased because I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I feel the same way about the visual effects Sony did for the Spider-Man films, and I'm a big fan of Spider-Man. Sony just has too many ex-video game developers on their visual effects staff.

SW I, II, III have the most outstanding CGI in the date they were released (and it can be true that maybe some shot or creature doesnt look good, but in proportion it may be just 1% of the movie, other movies though with less CGI have more percentage). And in the prequels there are surely so many CGI things that you dont know they are there, so that it must not be that awful.

Hulk is amazing. Have you ever seen a digital human face and skin that good? And he acts exactly as in the comics (even the jumps). I cant believe people prefered a bulky green person than a CGI greature like the one is in the movie. No living person could portrait HUlk as it is meant to be.

Sony, usually does awful effects, specially CG creatures (i cant believe they won the oscar for Spiderman 2). Harry potter films have a mix of good effects and bad effects, and the movies are improving (the 1st one was a pain to watch, specially the quidditch match). But for example, the hipogriffon i mentioned was not made by them.

Well some dino shots in JPIII can look bad, but i dont think TLW is worse than JP at all. And the pteranodons looked very real.

TyrannosaurusMatt · Post by **TyrannosaurusMatt** » 15 Aug 2005, 08:23

pack raptor wrote:If this film ever gets greenlit, (which it probably won't) they better use animatronic dinosaurs in some of the scenes. I'm sick of films that rely entirely on CGI, especially when the CGI isn't convincing at all. Lately, the film industry has become too dependent on lackluster computer effects simply because its trendy.Whatever happened to practical effects? Nothing looks better than a real object interacting with actors. Besides the realism that practical effects bring to films, they're also cheaper than visual effects.Why spend 2 million dollars on a CGI shot lasting 3 seconds when you could do it as a practical shot for a few thousand dollars?

I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. What has happened to the old skool art of stop motion and puppets. Those are awesome ways to SFX.

SSJDinoTycoon42 · Post by **SSJDinoTycoon42** » 15 Aug 2005, 17:20

stop motion has too many kinks; they turn out shaky and don't move the way they should(i can't remember how to describe it). they also can't get the lighting as good as it should. the little kinks are the reason Spielberg opted for the CGI rather than Go-motion(the latest stop-motion technique)

(for example compare the AT-STs(chicken walkers) and AT-ATs(elephant walkers) in the orignal Star Wars trilogy, to the CGI vehicles in the prequels)

puppets are still good though, just need good people controlling them

Luke Skywalker · Post by **Luke Skywalker** » 16 Aug 2005, 07:36

though Return of the Jedi was the pinnacle of optical SFX, which has shots with CGI reality, i think that nowadays CGI looks better than go motion, and thank goodness Spielberg chose CGI over it in the 1st movie.

TyrannosaurusMatt · Post by **TyrannosaurusMatt** » 16 Aug 2005, 08:49

Yeah I agree CGI is the best tech, just wish peeps in Hollywood movies would stop be lazy and try to push the boundaries of photorealism with CGI. Its too easy to notice CGI these days.

pack raptor · Post by **pack raptor** » 16 Aug 2005, 08:53

Quote (Luke Skywalker)
SW I, II, III have the most outstanding CGI in the date they were released (and it can be true that maybe some shot or creature doesnt look good, but in proportion it may be just 1% of the movie, other movies though with less CGI have more percentage). And in the prequels there are surely so many CGI things that you dont know they are there, so that it must not be that awful.

Are you kidding? Episode I looked like a video game, I can pin point every CGI creature, set piece, and alien in that movie. I can say the same for Episode II. The CGI during the battle of Geonosis was just horrible. The lighting was so bright that they had to put a halo effect on the live-action actors to try and match them with the harshly lit CGI environment. But it didn't work, the CGI around the actors sticks out like a sore thumb. Even Episode III's animation doesn't look that good. I do think that it looks better than the animation used in episode I&II, but it still looks cartoony.

[/QUOTE](Luke Skywalker)
Hulk is amazing. Have you ever seen a digital human face and skin that good? And he acts exactly as in the comics

The Hulk looked like Shrek on steroids.

When I was talking about practical effects, I meant robotics, make-up, prosthetics, miniature models, and trick photography. Which is still used, but in a minimal way.
Too many directors waste money on pricey CGI when it is not always the best way to get the shot done.

pack raptor · Post by **pack raptor** » 16 Aug 2005, 09:00

Damnit! I still haven't figured out how to use quote boxes.

Anyways, I just wanted to add that I like stop-motion animation, but I realize that it's a dated art-form. It could still be used as a visual effect in some films, but it would have to be done in a real subtle way.