How bad could they make it?

[Menard]

I did not know anybody was doing a remake of John Carpenter's remake. They would certainly have to use a different approach rather than trying to recreate the effects of Rob Bottin and Roy Arbogast. Maybe they can do a Toy Story version for the kids which would no doubt be directed by Tim Burton.

[Sugar_Nads]

Blade Runner, maybe... Aliens and The Thing, definitely not. modeling and animating organic objects is alot more difficult to pull of for several reasons.

[Joe]

The sad thing is, CGI is the way films will be made in the near future. The fact that "Sky Captain" could be shot for less than 1/4 the cost, had they tried to do it with sets and miniatures, only proves the point. Production costs are rising through the roof, thanks to the unions being out of control, and this may be the only way to continue to make "epic" films on a standard budget of $60 million or less.
 
Frankly, I see movies evolving into several catagories in the near future:

1. The ultra low-budget, shot in the backyard DVD movie. All that has to happen here is a regualr distribution systemt o be set up for them. Which is where a lot of new talent will come from, and be noticed by.

2. The studio financed, low budget shot of DV film. Where a studio allows a new film maker to prove that he can actually MAKE a movie in the studio system. (Like Timecode, or Bamboozled)

3. The midrange movie. Where you are shooting on real sets with real actors, and not much CGI is called for. (In time, these will all be shot DV as well.)

4. The studio spectacular. Probably shot in the "Sky Captain" mode, where style and art design is the real star, and maybe you'll remember they were trying to tell you some kind of story. (Sky Captain, Van Helsing, The Mummy, etc.)

The one thing I wish they WOULD do with CGI, is go back and sweeten a few shots in some dearly loved classics. For intance, they could do a little wire removal from "War of the Worlds" or maybe replace that end shot of the new planet landscape in "When Worlds Collide" That sort of thing.  I recently picked up a copy of "Dr. Who: Daleks Invasion of the Earth, 2150 A.D." with William Hartnell as the Dr.  Amazingly, there's an option where you can watch the serial with either new CGI effects, or watch it with the original "pie pan" flying saucer. More of this kind of use would be great.

[ulthar]

Joe wrote:


> The one thing I wish they WOULD do with CGI, is go back and
> sweeten a few shots in some dearly loved classics.

(Disclaimer) Okay, first of all, I am a die-hard fan of Carpenter's 'The Thing,' and I am also a proponent of keeping things as the original director made them (ie, I don't care for colorization, etc).  However, that said, I like Joe's idea for CG.

There are two scenes in 'The Thing' that the model effects are painfully obvious: where MacReady finds the dead Norwegian at the Norwegian's camp (the one sitting in the chair) and the close-up of MacReady holding the dish of blood that is momentarily going to sprout a creature (the hand is fake, and you can clearly tell).  I am not critizing Bottin's effects, and, again, I love this film.  BUT.....

If some enterprising CG artist wished to clean up these two scenes, I would not be too terrribly offended, so long as three criteria were met:

1. Any/all copies of anything purporting to be John Carpenter's 'The Thing' has the original as the default; the modified scenes are included only as an 'extra' or 'special feature' option.  For example, on a DVD, you can choose to watch the modified version or the original, with the original being the default.

2. Any copy that has the modified scenes is clearly marked that it contains modified scenes, not created by the original director/production crew as an extra or special feature.  This is a little different from a disk containing cut scenes that the original crew created.

3.  The CG were only used to modify the original images, such as maybe adding some texture or removing some glare or something similar that makes it only less obvious that the body and hand are models.

It's likely that with these constraints, few would even bother.  There would be very little (if any) financial incentive to do so.

[Sugar_Nads]

Well, I wouldn't diss CGI entirely. I just believe that there is use for both mediums. I mean, what's wrong with using sets, puppets,a nd make-up effects mixed in with "light" CGI?

[ulthar]

Sugar_Nads wrote:

> Well, I wouldn't diss CGI entirely. I just believe that there
> is use for both mediums. I mean, what's wrong with using sets,
> puppets,a nd make-up effects mixed in with "light" CGI?

I'm a cgi advocate, at least for when it is used properly.  I think the tool is maturing, which means it is, and will be, over-used while people figure out the when, where and how to make it most effective.

Sadly, due to the rate at which technology has grown, many view cgi (and other modern technologies like cameras on telephones) as something that 'just because we CAN do it, we should.'

Let's not forget that GOOD cgi is very, very expensive.  Hi resolution rendering of true 3d models with arbitrary camera angles, etc, is not done easily.  Big Idea (Veggie Tales) creator Phil Visher commented about buying an extra 200 some odd computers and housing them in a 'spare closet' down at the local mall (ie, an unleased store) in order to meet the production schedule on (iirc) The Star of Christmas.  Doing something like that on a short schedule takes some money and some qualified manpower on the tech side, to say nothing of the artists involved in a full cgi project.

One thing I'd like to know is of all the (mostly crappy) animation on tv for kids right now, how much is cg based?  What about something like The Simpsons, King of the Hill or Family Guy?  How much are computers used in those productions?

But bottom line, I don't think the BEST cgi money can buy can outdo The Thing or Alien.  The effects, though very, very good, are not what makes those films what they are: it is (imho) mood, acting, camera work and general direction.

By the way, someone mentioned "The Mummy."  I read a review of The Mummy a while back in which the reviewer really blasted the use of the cgi sand effect-it was overused, way overused.  That reviewer basically said someone had the ability to create this really cool sand effect, and that effect was essentially in every fx based scene.  To that person, this was a real turn-off, and I imagine a similar reaction to a schlocky cgi The Thing or Alien.  After all, which Mummy movie is creepier, the original with Boris Karloff or the Brendan Frasier version?  I know which one kept me up late afraid to go to sleep when I was a kid.

[Fearless Freep]

You saw The Mumy with Brendan Frazier when you were a kid?

[Menard]

I don't believe anyone was suggesting that the effects alone make the movie (although many reviewers on Amazon.com will judge a movie solely on its effects). Each aspect of a film contributes to the end result. If a movie like John Carpenter's 'The Thing', which is effects heavy, were to use the quality of effects from 'Dawn of the Mummy', it would not be the classic we know it as today, despite John Carpenter's best effort. An example of a classic that used few and simple effects but depended on its story, acting, atmosphere, and directing is 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Its subsequent sequels and remake proved that you cannot make up for what is lacking by just throwing in gore (although gore freaks will beg to differ). Certainly effects do not make a movie [___________________(insert comment here)], but poorly done effects or inappropriate effects can become a distraction from the rest of the film. Although it is humbling to remember that the reason we are on this site is due to poor effects, bad acting, shoddy directing, and cliched amateurish scripting among other likeable movie qualities ( :

[BeyondTheGrave]

I have to agree with ulthar. I dont mind the use of CGI if it used as a tool. When a movie becomes a "CGI feast" that when it just becomes stupid. I feel that it take away from the imagnation in some aspects. Think now if the movie Alien chestbuster was CGI. I dont think it would be half as scary. I think if a a special effect besides CGI could be in a movie use it. Dont take the easy way out and just use CGI for everything.

You can’t give it, you can’t even buy it, and you just don’t get it!-Aeon Flux

[Fearless Freep]

Although it is humbling to remember that the reason we are on this site is due to...[/url]

Bingo!!

I watch so many movies about time-travelling kick-boxing mutant cyborgs from a post-apocalyptic future taking over a cyber-reality from another dimension that 'good' special effects is the *least* of my concerns