![:(](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/public/style_emoticons/default/censored.gif)
![:)](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Posted 13 September 2008 - 08:58 PM
Posted 13 September 2008 - 09:04 PM
Posted 13 September 2008 - 11:12 PM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 01:01 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 01:51 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 01:52 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 02:08 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 02:11 AM
Edited by Dell Deaton, 14 September 2008 - 02:12 AM.
Posted 14 September 2008 - 03:56 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 04:12 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 04:27 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:49 AM
I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !
![]()
Posted 14 September 2008 - 06:04 AM
LOTR couldn't have been realized without CGI. Not without looking like Clash of the Titans.
No, CGI is not ruining modern cinema.
Edited by quantumofsolace, 14 September 2008 - 06:19 AM.
Posted 14 September 2008 - 08:11 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 09:05 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 10:57 AM
Edited by Gabriel, 14 September 2008 - 10:58 AM.
Posted 14 September 2008 - 11:13 AM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 01:35 PM
... What ruined the movie for me was the poor script....
Posted 14 September 2008 - 04:05 PM
I agree with you on WALL-E. That movie just impressed the hell out of me. These scenes of WALL-E on earth just going about his business are some of the best CGI to date. The backgrounds are the most photorealistic I have seen. The fact the animators gave the characters emotions without giving them over the top obvious human traits (eyes, ears, noses, mouths, eyebrows, etc.) is really impressive.I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !
![]()
Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.
Posted 14 September 2008 - 04:15 PM
Posted 14 September 2008 - 06:06 PM
Absolutely. I could have watched WALL·E and EVE's interactions for the whole running time. The movie lost a bit of steam once they introduced humans, but those dialogue-free opening 45 minutes are simply phenomenal - and the reason it's so brilliant is entirely due to the gorgeous CGI animation.I agree with you on WALL-E. That movie just impressed the hell out of me. These scenes of WALL-E on earth just going about his business are some of the best CGI to date. The backgrounds are the most photorealistic I have seen. The fact the animators gave the characters emotions without giving them over the top obvious human traits (eyes, ears, noses, mouths, eyebrows, etc.) is really impressive.
I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !
![]()
Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.
Posted 15 September 2008 - 03:10 PM
I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !
![]()
Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.
Posted 15 September 2008 - 10:02 PM
Like I said, I still can't grasp this argument. I think you're missing the point of Pixar's films. They aren't about "puppetry". Nor are they attempts to create photo-realistic environments that seem to never quite cut it (phenomenally close, though they may be). Opting to turn on your faucet and watch real water over the impressive, but synthetic likes of that in Finding Nemo is not a valid argument, as all film is ultimately synthetic, anyway.
I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !
![]()
Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.
WALL-E is just a damn special effects film with characters that have no personalities. I don't under stand how people are being suckered into actually thinking that film is anymore then dreck. Soupy Sales had better puppetry on his show. Wall-E was just some little big eyed moving trash can and Eve was egg shaped, flying trash can. They don't do anything other then make little movements for the audience to say "Aw, that's cute". Findind Nemo ? What does that have ? Realistic water ? I'll turn on my faucet and stare in awe. The Incredibles ? That was among Pixar's best but hardly phenomenial. Ratatouille ? Bland characters that are little more then standard Disney roles and Paris seems to resemble Southern California. You want to see good puppetry ? Watch an episode of Soupy Sales. Billions of dollars and CGI computers and can't even imitate one iota of feeling from Pookie the Lion.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 12:16 AM
Like I said, I still can't grasp this argument. I think you're missing the point of Pixar's films. They aren't about "puppetry".
Nor are they attempts to create photo-realistic environments that seem to never quite cut it (phenomenally close, though they may be). Opting to turn on your faucet and watch real water over the impressive, but synthetic likes of that in Finding Nemo is not a valid argument, as all film is ultimately synthetic, anyway.
Take WALL·E: arguably the most well-drawn character I've seen in a movie in some time. Yes, he's cute (so are dozens of - pardon the pun - well-drawn animated characters), but it's obvious that an incredible amount of detail and thought went into the design and execution of the character.
And it's all there on the screen - it's impossible not to be moved when you're watching his various tics and traits.
WALL·E oozes personality. He emotes like countless "real" actors never could - all while uttering little more than his name. The very fact that WALL·E delivers a stunning, almost dialogue-free, opening 45 minutes is testimony to the potential of CGI animation (like any form of animation) to deliver film experiences equal to - and possibly even beyond - those offered by live-action.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 01:12 AM
Is CGI ruining modern-day cinema?
Posted 16 September 2008 - 01:25 AM
Posted 16 September 2008 - 04:07 AM
I adore hand-drawn animation, and believe there will always be a market for it, but "testimonies" that CGI animation technology is "dozens of years behind hand-drawn animation" simply don't make sense. What are these technologies supposedly working towards? Completely photo-realistic animation (which would be pointless)? In what sense are they "behind"?CGI is just fancy puppetry. I have heard testimonies from animators that the CGI programs they recieved are not meant to do animation at all. The technology is dozens up years behind hand drawn animation. I can make a flip book animating more specfic expressions registered then any multi-million CGI piece of crap.
I do feel Finding Nemo is overrated, but it's still a gorgeous film.Nor are they attempts to create photo-realistic environments that seem to never quite cut it (phenomenally close, though they may be). Opting to turn on your faucet and watch real water over the impressive, but synthetic likes of that in Finding Nemo is not a valid argument, as all film is ultimately synthetic, anyway.
There is nothing in Finding Nemo that has never been seen in any disney animted film in the past few decades. I speak in terms of character and story. One dimensonal, CGI suits that taken up by over paid actors. The only thing that has been improved in Pixar films over the years is the textures, not acting, not character, and not story.
Precisely - a lot of detail. From something broad, like his charming morning rituals, to tiny nuances, like the manner in which he tilts one of his eyes, WALL·E is all about "a lot of detail". In fact, "a lot of detail" is exactly what makes WALL·E such a captivating character.Take WALL·E: arguably the most well-drawn character I've seen in a movie in some time. Yes, he's cute (so are dozens of - pardon the pun - well-drawn animated characters), but it's obvious that an incredible amount of detail and thought went into the design and execution of the character.
WTF ? He's a box that just has alot of detail. That isn't well drawn and that isn't animation friendly either.
Like I said, I love hand-drawn animation (and adore Looney Tunes), and I totally agree with you on clips such as that - it's superb. But WALL·E's appeal lies in the subtleties. It doesn't have to be a barrage of expressions and gestures. Indeed, the movie's appeal lies in just how low-key the whole affair is - at the very least, in its Earth-bound scenes. It's a slowburn movie and it requires patience for - and an appreciation of - those subtleties.And it's all there on the screen - it's impossible not to be moved when you're watching his various tics and traits.
Jesus, are you serious ? I am sorry but it must take very little to entertain you. Look at this acting in Tortise Wins By a Hare:
http://www.dailymoti...-wins-by-a-hare
You can feel that emotion. You can freeze frame every single expression and feel the power of Bugs on screen. WALL-E is one boring motion after another, you get nothing out of that.
Audiences and critics. Plenty of critics, actually. No, the critics' word is not gospel, but that is a near-universal consensus on the film's merits - both technical and dramatic.WALL·E oozes personality. He emotes like countless "real" actors never could - all while uttering little more than his name. The very fact that WALL·E delivers a stunning, almost dialogue-free, opening 45 minutes is testimony to the potential of CGI animation (like any form of animation) to deliver film experiences equal to - and possibly even beyond - those offered by live-action.
Alright then tell me what personality does he have ? All he does is utter his name and make some little robotic movements. All Wall-E proved is that you can make a big, souless, special effects film and make alot of money at the box office. Also it proved how boring human animation can be. What were those things in the film talking ? Those weren't human. Hell, they weren't even organic. They were just big, rubber, beachballs. Of course if it's small and has big eyes, audiences will fall head over heals for it.
WALL•E scoots happily around the dilapidated planet to the musical stylings of Michael Crawford in the aforementioned Hello, Dolly!, crushing the detritus of humanity into little cubes. He does his job quietly and diligently and, once the work is done, indulges his obsession with man’s trash: one man’s garbage is another robot’s treasure. Wall•E is a character of genius, as pure and wondrous an example of the possibilities of animation as you will ever see. He’s an encapsulation of all the medium’s ability to give anything personality. He has no eyebrows, mouth, language, thumbs, or any of the humanistic elements that a cartoon generally requires to mimic emotion. Yet everything this little fella feels is perfectly palpable and genuine.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 02:34 PM
Audiences and critics. Plenty of critics, actually. No, the critics' word is not gospel, but that is a near-universal consensus on the film's merits - both technical and dramatic.
but the film's strong point lies in its robot characters, who were, amazingly, its most human characters. WALL·E was a loner, but a trooper. He had a job to do, aimless though it seemed, and he persisted. He took joys in the small, seemingly inconsequential things in life, and made the most of it from what he had. And when a life-changing event occurred - the arrival of EVE - WALL·E transformed. He had a raison d'être.
Empire sums up the character's appeal wonderfully...
WALL•E scoots happily around the dilapidated planet to the musical stylings of Michael Crawford in the aforementioned Hello, Dolly!, crushing the detritus of humanity into little cubes. He does his job quietly and diligently and, once the work is done, indulges his obsession with man’s trash: one man’s garbage is another robot’s treasure. Wall•E is a character of genius, as pure and wondrous an example of the possibilities of animation as you will ever see. He’s an encapsulation of all the medium’s ability to give anything personality. He has no eyebrows, mouth, language, thumbs, or any of the humanistic elements that a cartoon generally requires to mimic emotion. Yet everything this little fella feels is perfectly palpable and genuine.
I could understand an indifference to CGI, or even a slight aversion, but an outright disdain and failure to appreciate it's possibilities, especially when exhibited as marvellously as they are here, is beyond me.
At no point in the eco-friendly storyline (Moral: don’t buy aimlessly, kids, unless it’s WALL·E merchandise!) was I drawn in to care about any of these machines. Neither of the two main characters, WALL·E and EVE, are engaging, and they have no hope to be if they’re cold CGI robots. (The animation of the morbidly obese humans is quite bland as well.) There’s something warm and inviting about most animation in just about any classic Disney animated feature, and computers are just never going to pull it off. And from what the obnoxious trailer for the upcoming “Bolt” feature from Disney (which I have no desire to see whatsoever) shows, other studios are catching up in making the coldness look more polished.
The film’s integrity is also castrated using the tried and true animated feature formulaic ending. I never think critiquing how you’d change the movie’s story is very useful (particularly when it’s as bad of a story as “WALL·E”’s), but if this film wanted to redeem itself, it would have been a groundbreaking twist had WALL·E’s memory been fried, forgetting all it (robots don’t have sexes and can’t procreate, geniuses) had done. Naturally, though, we get the usual “Everything worked out great!” ending we’ve seen far too many times.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 02:47 PM
I adore hand-drawn animation, and believe there will always be a market for it, but "testimonies" that CGI animation technology is "dozens of years behind hand-drawn animation" simply don't make sense. What are these technologies supposedly working towards? Completely photo-realistic animation (which would be pointless)? In what sense are they "behind"?
In any case, why can't the two co-exist? In my view, they aren't even comparable. Apples and oranges; both fruit, but that's where the similarities end. Ditto CGI and hand-drawn animation
Precisely - a lot of detail. From something broad, like his charming morning rituals, to tiny nuances, like the manner in which he tilts one of his eyes, WALL·E is all about "a lot of detail". In fact, "a lot of detail" is exactly what makes WALL·E such a captivating character.
Like I said, I love hand-drawn animation (and adore Looney Tunes), and I totally agree with you on clips such as that - it's superb. But WALL·E's appeal lies in the subtleties. It doesn't have to be a barrage of expressions and gestures. Indeed, the movie's appeal lies in just how low-key the whole affair is - at the very least, in its Earth-bound scenes. It's a slowburn movie and it requires patience for - and an appreciation of - those subtleties.
In any event, Pixar isn't in the business of killing off hand-drawn animation. As others have said within this thread, CGI is just another tool and one that, in my opinion, is just as effective as hand-drawn animation.
Posted 16 September 2008 - 03:17 PM
You are. I did. So did most folks who saw the film, I wager.You can't register any emotion in little robotic movements and you certaintly can't in reflective, telescopic eyes. LOL ! I loved how the camera focused on the little trash can's eyes. I am suppose to feel emotion ?