Real effects VS computer effects

[wickednick]

Special effects have improved greatly since we were kids.It used to be that the first Star Wars movies were the pinacle of movie magic. But with the heavy use us computer graphics now days, there are less and less movies being shot with real models, I am some what dissapointed by that.
Even though computer effects have improved by leaps and bounds since they first began to be used, and look pretty real, they still can't compare to a real model.In a movie were there are computer effects being composited with real footage, I always find it easy to pick out the computer effect, because the lighting and textures always seem to be slightly off from the surronding real enviroment.
The advantage of computer effects is that movie makers can create creatures and enviroments that would be almost impossible to do with a real model.I saw Return of the King today and the computer effects are impressive but are still easy to pick out.Gollum for example looks real when he is in a scene that is completely computer generated, but when he is in a scene with the real live actors the fact that he is computer generated stands out, because the lighting on his body and the textures are off.
 I always preffer a real live effect to a computer one.The real effects always look more real, and I admire the technical and artistic ingenuity that goes into creating them.I wish that film makers would strive to use more real models and effects rather than reliying on a computer.

[FearlessFreep]

"Dark Crystal" was mentioned in another thread and while Jim Henson and Co have done incredible work with puppets (See "Labyrinth" and "Farscape") It's still fairly obvious that they're just puppets.

The same is true with minitures.  Some can fool you for a bit, but pretty often something is just not right about the lighting or the detail and you can tell you are looking at a little platisc spaceship.

Stop motion and Go motion have gotten pretty good, but there's still a bit of jerkiness to the movement that ruins the realism

Blue screens and matte paitings and...

All of these effects are pretty good, but they all have artifacts that betray them on screen.   They all require the observer  to give a little..suspend a little disbelief and be willing to take movie and the effect on it's own terms

CG is the same way. Done well it can be pretty convincing, done poorly it looks pretty bad. EIther way, it still doesn't always look quite right and the observer has to be willing to meet the effect at some point in the middle and say "It's good enough, I'll allow the fantasy"

Contrary, I suppose, to many, I don't have anything against CG any more  than any 'traditional' effect. It still comes down to my willingness to enter the filmakers world and take it on it's turn.

[ulthar]

Stephen King discussed an offshoot of this effect in "Danse of the Macabre."  He talked about a very creepy movie from the early days of motion pictures that just falls flat on its face now.

He argued that the reason for this is that in those days, movie effects were "poor" and the audience accepted it.  That was the state of the art at the time, and with no other frame of reference (ie, better special effects), it was quite easy for the audience so suspend disbelief and go with the story.  When a modern audience, weaned on Star Wars and newer, more advanced, movie 'magic,' watches this particular older movie, the effect just seems cheesy.  Nothing, no power of fantasy.  It just looks lame.  The next generation of movie watchers will probably view Star Wars the same way ... not 'it was good for its time,' just lame.

CGI has advanced a LOT in a very short time.  I just watched MIB 2 along with Sonnenfeld's comments.  I was interested in the scenes that contained the same 'character' as puppet and CGI, depending on the particular shot.  It was amazing.  But, as Fearless Freep mentioned, I still know that talking worm guys are special effects whether puppet or CG.

To me, one of the most amazing CGI feats was "Final Fantasy."  I absolutely hated the movie with its dumb, sappy story, but I went to see it solely for the effects (I do some 3-D programming and focus on code optimization).  I was in awe.  A completely CG world with completely CG characters.  There were MOMENTS when I really did 'forget' for an instant or two I was watching CG people.  But the clues were there, of course.  The big giveaway - the eyes.  That, and the faces were just too symmetric, too perfect.  All in all, though, I have to tip my hat to what they accomplished with the CG in that flick.

The next generation CG humans will, of course, be even better.  Within 20 years or so, I would say, you will be hard pressed to tell the difference.  The Devil's in the details.

As for another  movie with heavy CG I personally found impressive - Eight Legged Freaks.  I watched the director's comments on the DVD and there were some CG effects in that movie that when watching it the first time, I really thought were done with models, puppets or some other technique.

Personally, I hope CG never completely replaces modeling and other "real" effects.  I doubt it will.  CG remains very, very expensive.  Plus, as a programmer, I understand the essence of how CG is done, whereas those cats that make models astonish me (I try to make models, sometimes, too, alas).  It'd be really, really sad to such an art form die.

[JohnL]

I always thought I was good at picking out special effects, but an article in TV Guide a while back really surprised me. They're using computers to fill in the backgrounds in construction scenes, street scenes, even to put a building behind someone. I knew this ind of stuff was done, but I had no idea it was this widespread. I always figured that most 'normal' scenes were still shot on real locations.

Not to mention that recently, I've seen several commercials that I would have sworn were done with actual physical items, but which had to be done with computers. For example, the commercial where the falling lego blocks form a car.

[Dunners]

things move so fast in the world of computers a 'next generation' is like every 5 years :P.

but hey look at the spiderman 2 teaser, dr.Ocks arms are done using puppetry as well as CG, and guess what? they look really f**king real. Maybe the key is to blend the two and you'll achieve a better effect?

[Brother Ragnarok]

About the falling legos thing, it's always easier to make something symetrical and synthetic look real with CG than it is to make something organic and alive look real.  The same people who did that lego commercial could the ones responsible for the CG beastie in Crocodile for all we know.
Even if a model is sorta cheesy and cheap, it still looks more reaslistic than bad CG.  At least there's something physical there that the camera is picking up, something you can tell exists in reality even though it might be smaller than it looks.  But to pretty much end the argument of which is better, I direct your attention to exhibit A, the Queen Alien.  'nuff said.

Brother R

[Grumpy Guy]

I kind of like CG effects.  Since I know next to nothing about how they are put together, they are just as impressive to me as models, stop-motion, and so on.  Moreso, in some ways, simply because they only exist in the realm of the digital, and have no coresponding construct to point to.

When I see behind the scenes footage, and I see the models, I go "Okay, so that's how they did that."  When I see them working on a computer, I'm still going "How do they do that?"

That having been said, bad CG is worse than bad stop motion, models, or minitures.  It just is.  For justification for this, I point to to truely terrible films:  Anaconda and Komodo.

Both of these films would have been bad even with good special effects, be they CG or otherwise.  The science just doesn't fit, and since they're presented with a "these are the facts" attitude, and I know better, I just can't like them.  

But, damn, man.  Just look at the CG in these movies.  How in the hell did someone NOT notice how bad it was?  How could they NOT have seen that they would be better off with models?

In short:  If you have the budget to do CG right (i.e. LOTR, Spider Man 1-2) then I say go for it - I'm not LOOKING for the flaws when I sit down to enjoy it.

If, however, you don't have the budget, or the know-how - please, stick to models, stop motion, and so on.  Cheap models look better than cheap CG any day of the week.

[wickednick]

I aboslutely f**king agree with you Brother, in fact it was after watching the Aliens directors cut that I got the idea for this post.If they could make the a puppet look that real in Aliens then they could do a hell of a lot more.

[ulthar]

I don't know if this is really worth pointing out, but a lot of CGI is not "pure" CG in the strictest sense.  For example, in MIB2, the CGI of the worm guys (and a lot of other CG in the movie) were based on scanned images of the puppets.

So, even that CG was based on the puppets.  I imagine a lot of the other "better" CG is similar.  In a sense, the best of modern CG is a blend of digital and traditional physical techniques.  I think a better term for this would be 'computer generated animation,' since it is the motion (and placement within the scene) that the computer is doing.

When I hear the term CGI, I think of a more *pure* digital image, that is one completely generated on computer (not based on scanned images of a real object).  This is like "Monsters, Inc," where all the artwork, texturing, lighting and motion is computer based.  

The better movie makers are still learning just how to use CGI in their special effects toolbox, and I think the lesson bearing out is that it is good to *enhance* the effects, but not necessarily do them completely.  I don't think  it will come down to "which is better" but rather a "which is better for this PART of  THIS effect."

---One guy's opinion  :)

[The Burgomaster]

I think computer effects are great for science fiction movies (like creating tremendous space battles and weird creatures).  Other than that, computer effects are VERY over used in today's movies.  I prefer live action effects and stunts 90% of the time.

[Velvet Brotha]

This is a damn good question my man. I myself have been rather partial to traditional effects myself as a film maker and effects artist. However, ever since I've become educated on the whole CGI aspect of film making, I prefer to combine the two. The ways of old are not dead yet my brothas!!! ; )

[trekgeezer]

I direct you attention to Lord of the Rings.  A lot of the battle scenes definitely have that done  on a computer look.  

The crowning accomplishment of these movies was Gollum. On the Two Towers Extended version, there is a documentary on how they developed  Gollum. They weren't satisfied  with the way he looked and the skin  has always been hard to render realistically in CG.  One of  the CG guys was looking a the dead body of Boromir in the boat one day and noticed the detail of  skin and wondered how they did it . Well they ended up having one of the make guys teach the CG guys how to use an airbrush to make the veins and such that you see in real skin. They in turn taught him how to spray paint using the computer.

I think this blending of the old and the new is the best way to go, like in Jurassic Park they ended up using Phil Tippets shelved dinosaur puppets to do the motion capture for the CG dinosaurs.

[daveblackeye15]

I prefer real effects, especially when where're on the subject of Giant Monster Movies. I hope Toho never makes Godzilla totally CGI, sometimes there are scenes with a CGI Godzilla but when he fights another monster it's normaly a guy in a suit, that's the way it should be.

[Scott]

I love the man in a rubber suit or make-up, but I think Computer graphics will continue to get better, but the 90's stuff should be throw into the waste basket as they ruined the films they intended to enhance.

[JohnL]

>the 90's stuff should be throw into the waste basket as they ruined the films they
>intended to enhance.

Would you include Jurassic Park in that collection?