The Matrix Reloaded, bad CGI...

[Fearless Freep]

I've only seen Keenu Reeves in three movies (The Matrix, Speed, and Bill and Ted's...) and he seemed to do well in the role in all three so I have nor criticisms of him as an actor


In "Deep Blue Sea", the sharks often looked pretty obviously CGI, but then in "20 Million Miles To Earth" (thanks for the review, Andrew...) the creature is pretty obviously a stop-motion animated puppet.. Both are obviously not real, but  in neither case does it really distract me from the story because I  know it's not real going in and I'm willing to give the movie a break,.  "Deep Blue Sea" in particular has so many other problems going for it that a CGI shark was the least of my criticisms.

People seem to criticize CGI as looking 'fake' as if there is an assumption that if it's done with a computer it should be perfect.  Most forms of special effects have rarely actually looked real enough to fool the discerning eye.

The only real difference with CGI is that it cam be used in place of many types  of traditional effects and can be also  used in ways that other effects can't, so it's starting to become a bit ubiquitous due to it's flexibility

[Andrew]

In "Deep Blue Sea", the sharks often looked pretty obviously CGI, but then in "20 Million Miles To Earth" (thanks for the review, Andrew...) the creature is pretty obviously a stop-motion animated puppet.

But, despite being a stop motion creation, the Ymir is so very alive!  It has mannerisms and a definite personality.  The sharks in "Deep Blue Sea" were awful.  They moved all wrong.  Heck, the giant shark in "Shark Hunter" was heads and tails above those in "Deep Blue Sea" in realized design.  I could believe that it was an ancient shark (both a fantastically old species and old in itself).  And "Shark Hunter" had a lot of problems too.

[Fearless Freep]

But, despite being a stop motion creation, the Ymir is so very alive! It has mannerisms and a definite personality. The sharks in "Deep Blue Sea" were awful

I think the personality, though, was more a reflection of the skill of the artist than anything inherent in the medium

[JohnL]

>People seem to criticize CGI as looking 'fake' as if there is an assumption that if
>it's done with a computer it should be perfect. Most forms of special effects have
>rarely actually looked real enough to fool the discerning eye.

The problem is that CGI CAN look perfect, but when it isn't, it looks really bad. The fight in Blade II was horrible, the characters looks like bugs jumping around. They didn't move at all like humans. What I saw in the Matrix Reloaded previews looked like cartoons in spots. I don't mean they looked silly, but the bodies bending and such made them look like someone drew them.

If you want to see really good CGI of human's, track down some episodes of the Starship Troopers show, I think it was called Roughnecks. The first time I hit it while flipping channels, the characters were walking around outside and I thought it was live action. Only their faces gave it away.

[Fearless Freep]

Actually, I just watched the pod-race scene in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" and was thinking that it was indeed some very good CGI.

Say what you want about "special-effects over story" in the new Star Wars movies, at least the special effects are very good.

Bad CGI can look really bad, but I'm thinking of the dragon in "The Barbarians" and that was just as bad as the worst CGI I've seen.

[Chadzilla]

I like Keanu Reeves, too.  Sheesh.

I'm surprised no mention Speed as a movie that used him well.  He is a lot smarter than people give him credit for, and, as an actor, well...very little range, but watching him makes the movie easier for me to watch.  Go figure.

Although I HATED Sweet November.  What a manipulative witch that chick was!  Grr.

[Chadzilla]

Shark Hunter also featured the tough talking bad ass getting his ass kicked and whimpering...

"You know David and Goliath?  This is like Bambi meets Godzilla!"

And yeah, the shark looked and acted like a very big, very mean, and very old shark.

I like Shark Hunter, dammit!  Nyah, nyah.

[Fearless Freep]

Keep meaning to pick up "Shark Hunter" actually

[Evan3]

Actually, I downloaded an extended Matrix trailor, and for whatever reason, the CGI looks much better on my computer than my TV. Maybe they polished it for the extended version??? In any event, Matrix 2 and 3 looks out to prove that more is indeed better. Time will tell.

[The Burgomaster]

>People seem to criticize CGI as looking 'fake' as if there is an assumption that if
>it's done with a computer it should be perfect. Most forms of special effects have
>rarely actually looked real enough to fool the discerning eye.

I don't hate CG effects because they look fake (I think that a lot of them look pretty good, actually). I hate CG effects because Hollywood over-uses the hell out of them. EVERYTHING is done with computers now. When I watched the extras on the CONTACT dvd I almost puked. They used CG effects to put clouds in the sky, or to remove clouds from the sky, or to show peoples reflections on windows . . . just about EVERYTHING. Whatever happened to filming the damned sky "as is?" Or filming someone's ACTUAL REFLECTION on a piece of glass instead of sticking it in with a computer. CG effects are fine for showing people transforming into monsters and stuff like that. But when they have to stick an effect into every damned frame of film, I get really aggravated.

I think that the last "pure" decade of filmmaking was the 1970s. Sure, a lot of cheesy movies came out of the 70s, but they all had an "honest" look about them. For instance, they actually filmed movies in New York City rather than in front of a green screen with CG images of New York City on it.

THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE managed to turn a whole damned ocean liner upside down using only sets and miniatures. Why did James Cameron need to spend a trillion dollars to do the same thing in TITANIC?

MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS STARTING TO RISE!!!!!!


*
*
*