CGI vs Realism
#1
Posted 09 December 2001 - 10:21 AM
And I have to confess, when it comes to the SFX Episode 1 is impressive. So much technology in there, it's a great human feat and a step in the right direction.
But I still prefer the technology of A New Hope (Ep 4). Why? Because of the realism. Because they used real models everything looks mostly real. You really feel like you can reach out and touch everything.
While this old fashioned stuff has it's disadvantages and all, some of it still seems more realistic. Especially when you deal with something like a space ship in Star Wars.
That said, the reason I love Bond so much (or it helps anyway) is the realism. Most everything seems like it is really done, or is possible at least.
Take a look at the CGI effects in TWINE. I must admit the saw blades weren't perfect, and nor were some of the helicopter models. But they still looked real!
And Renard's head was fantastic, the hologram version I mean
Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
#2
Posted 09 December 2001 - 10:58 AM
#3
Posted 12 December 2001 - 08:28 AM
#4
Posted 09 December 2001 - 01:50 PM
While listening to the second audio commentary track on the TWINE DVD, I couldn't believe my eyes when Vic Armstrong pointed out some of the CGI/model shots, such as some of the shots when Bond arrives in Baku and the scenes on the dock outside the Maiden's Tower. The effects in Bond films still looks absolutely real. Kudos to EON for keeping it that way.
#5
Posted 09 December 2001 - 03:32 PM
I don't care how they do an effect, just make it so I don't know it's an effect (at least on the first viewing), and I'll be happy.
#6
Posted 09 December 2001 - 11:39 AM
But, like what Red says, what impresses me is a CGI, or modelwork for that matter, that is not easily detectable. Especially when it's not supposed to be.
I commend the EON team for resisting the overuse of CGI.
The giant door that opened to let the chopper into the underground cavern in LTK only required the use of a model placed close to the camera. A CGI would have been noticed, I'm sure.
Same with the astro jet flying through the hanger in Octopussy. Admittedly, a bit of roto-scoping could have been used to erase that stupid stand, but the gap of the closing doors was shrunken by having a model of one door close to the camera so as the gap could look uncomfortably narrow for Bond to escape through. No CGI was needed here, either.
Bond does not need CGI very often as it is played out in the real world, not in a galaxy far far away.
#7
Posted 09 December 2001 - 11:24 PM
Finally, to Mr. Asterix, do I have to die now?
#8
Posted 11 December 2001 - 09:29 PM
I guess it's not the mony or the technology, it's just that you can't get the staff these days!
#9
Posted 09 December 2001 - 11:31 PM
DJ (09 Dec, 2001 11:24 p.m.):(edited)
Finally, to Mr. Asterix, do I have to die now?
Yes, You must die now. Or you can have cake.
#10
Posted 11 December 2001 - 06:18 PM
Mister Asterix (09 Dec, 2001 03:32 p.m.):
Goldeneye[/b][/color][/url] teaser proves that. If the effects in the Goldeneye teaser would have been realistic, it would in my mind be in at least the top 3 teasers, instead it is just a disappointment.
Thats the one I was going to say also. As I watched that movie, that was the moment when the spell was broken. And worse, I was thinking to myself "uh oh, are they gonna be using cheesy CGI from now on?"