[star wars] How Much Better Movies Look WITHOUT CGI and Green Screen!

'No not in the least', but you can tell the difference in where they did use it and didn't? Which is it?

Wow, I just mention that they used the technique (and FTR, I was going to mention they used blue and not green, but I could tell you were sensitive on the subject and didn't wanna ruin your WHOLE day). Obviously the mere proposition of truth upset you enough to call me a know it all, and that was just for asking "didn't they use it?"

So, now, I have to research and tell you what part was done that way to get you to admit the shortcoming of your statement /argument? Of course, KC's link should have been enough for your to at least re-qualify your examination, but I guess not since no explanation was forthcoming, and since you didn't retract your ever so biting "knowitall" comment.

Or maybe you feel that Blue screen is alright, while green screen really musses things up? And you're using Wall-E as an example of a movie that used CGI not measuring up realistically?

Guess I'll just pull the ripcord on this one with a big "meh" but that's just because I'm a know it all.

 

Are you questioning the wisdom of the stonecutters?

 

Well, they do hold back the electric car...

 

You are completely deluded then.

First, there are plenty of examples of modeling and stop-motion techniques that are plain horrid and dated by today's standards, as well as plenty of examples that still hold up quite well.

The same can be said of CGI.

And you can't blast CGI and then totally disregard the effects in the very scenes you use to praise the older techniques. Without the lightning effect and fire trails in back to the future, you just have a car that can go really fast.

Again it all boils to down to the competency of the filmmakers using the technique and how well they can blend the story, the action and the effects.


And there is absolutely no way you could achieve the level of detail they were able to reach on those transformers animations using modeling and stop-motion. Go watch that film again and look at all the moving parts on those bots. If you'd tried to model that it would be so time consuming it'd probably take 10 years to make the film. Go watch LOTR and look at Gollum's facial work and then go find me a living, breathing person that looks the same as him; or find me a costume that would allow such body distortions and still allow the actor to move as freely and emote as effortlessly as the animation. Go find me a way to take away Gary Sinise's legs in Forrest Gump and allow him to move from his wheel chair, to the railing of the boat and off into the water. Or how bout Yoda...the Yoda of old looked good, but looked like a Muppet. The Yoda in Clones and Sith could actually do something more than walk with a cane. Go find me a full scale, working model of the Titanic...and just to show you how exhaustive, time-consuming and financially challenging such a feat would be, Cameron was only able to be build about a third of the ship for production.

Hey I love the old school effects...I remember when Starship Troopers debuted; it came out at about the same time CGI started to become popular but hadn't advanced enough yet to look realistic. While other films were using CGI, Troopers used models mixed with digital effects. And it looked damn good. But now, the technology has advanced far enough to allow filmmakers to achieve the same thing using CGI.

And T2 effects >>>>>> T1

 

to anyone that CGI is not as good as old fart techniques... go watch District 9 and tell me you still believe that.
every single movie/tv show/commercial at least has compositing now. most have a whole hell of a lot more than you could spot.

 

Satisfied? Not really, but only because you choose to ignore the simple point that I made which caused you to make some snarky comment rather than just accept that what I was asking about was indeed true. As you can see from my very straightforward and simple post, there isn't much room for confusion

So as you can see, I didn't even mention CGI, though I might argue that with you too if I thought there was a point to it.

Contest of facts? No... just a fact.
You stated that you were watching ESB, and that it looked amazing, then went on to deride more recent movies, and blamed it on CGI and "green screen". I made the simple comment that the very movie you were qualifying with, and others in the series, did in fact use one of the technologies that you were complaining about and comparing to.

It really isn't a big deal, man, I was just stating/asking in regards to a point regarding the very technology you referred to being subpar, and somewhat contrary to your post. If you don't get that and have to go on about it, do your thing, homeskillet. I ain't hatin'... just seemed an appropriate original response to your original point/question.

I concede that sometimes CGI is overused, and poorly executed, but this does not change my point, which in my opinion, was not snarky or of a "know it all" persuasion. Just question about a fact.

 

Planet Earth didn't use CGI, despite what some conspiracy theorists may suggest.

 

Avatar = Amazing.. thats all I can say.. but I agree some times its CGI overkill which is annoying ... or its really bad CGI

 

Second slice of cheesecake? You are the conquistador.

 

Yeah my reading comprehension skills are just fine....but your documentary to science fiction comparison doesn't make a lick of sense. If you can't see the value in CGI and how the technology has pushed the industry forward the past couple of decades, just like modeling and stop-motion and puppetry and animatronics before it, then that's just sad. CGI has a place just like all those other tools in the toy chest. Again if used responsibly it's just as effective as anything else.

 

Avatar? Overrated. Like watching a video game. CGI fatigue.

 

People have a tendency to look back to "the good old days" with rose tinted glasses. The CGI in the prequels was excessive and fake at times, but their effects blow away the original trilogy's and do many things that movies can't do without CGI.

The prequels have some cartoony looking aliens...the originals used muppets.

The prequels used CGI...the originals used stop-motion Gumby effects for things like the Imperial walkers.

If you have the original SW on VHS, watch Luke's speeder going through the city. There's some undefined red FX error following underneath it. Go watch Luke jumping down into the depths of Cloud City too, near the end of TESB. Totally fake.

Physical models beat CGI in realisim (while being more limited). But I can see the good and the bad of both. I really don't like "good ol' days" nostalgia.

 

Exactly right. I would wager that not a single person attached to the making of the original Star Wars would argue that the effects of 1977 > the effects of 1999-2005. The whole concept of 1977 superiority reminds me of guys like this:


"Worst. Effects. Ever."

 

Anyone who thinks that the effects of yesteryear are superior to today's CGI needs to have their head checked.

 

Weird, since Star Wars and Lucas Arts started the CGI and green screen revolution.