WHERE CHATTERS GO TO TALK ABOUT OFF TOPIC STUFF!
CGI Special Effects in movies can be categorized into 4 distinct groups, as to how it relates to the use of CGI over practical effects. 1. Absolutely necessary to accomplish the shot. Sometimes practical effects just won't cut the mustard. Without the use of computer generated images, there would just be no realistic way to show what the filmmaker intends the audience to see. Some good examples of this would be Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park. There would be just no way to get the same level of detail, of movement, from a stop-motion dinosaur being inserted into the scene. The use of CGI, even in it's earlier, less technologically adept form, was absolutely vital to make this guy look as real as possible: The CGI work in Jurassic Park was one of the best possible applications of the technology. Not that it always looked 100% realistic, but this is exactly the type of use CGI is meant for. Practical effects would be incapable of replicating the life-like dinosaurs. 2. Next, we have CGI that is perhaps not necessary, but still might represent a better option than 100% sticking to practical effects. I am thinking of the lightsaber dueling scenes that involve Christopher Lee's Count Dooku character in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, and how they used a CGI'ed Christopher Lee face over the stuntman's body. Now, Christopher Lee is an accomplished fencer (among other things, if you aren't familiar with Christopher Lee's entire history, Google it, the man is truly fascinating). Were he 10-20 years younger when they filmed those scenes, he very well probably would have done his own stunts. Now, they could have shot those scenes with just a stuntman, and used camera angles to disguise the fact that it wasn't Christopher Lee. But, by digitally inserting Christopher Lee's face over the stuntman's, they could show full face camera angles during the duel. The duel in AOTC also demonstrates Yoda as a CGI example that ultimately, was simply easier to do than practical effects. For the entire Original Trilogy, Yoda was a puppet, a practical effect. Perhaps they could have found a way to have him engage in a lightsaber duel while remaining a puppet, but making him fully CGI for those scenes solved a lot of potential problems. Most CGI probably falls into this category, where the CGI is supplementing the practical effects, rather than outright replacing it, either because of cost or sheer practicality. 3. The CGI effects that are completely unnecessary for any reason whatsoever, and the filmmaker did it just because he could. Case in point: Henry Cavill's missing mustache in Justice League. Henry Cavill was simultaneously filming Mission Impossible-Fallout while filming reshoots for Justice League. His M.I. Character had a mustache. So, during filming of Justice League, he looked like this: Which through post-production, got digitally removed using CGI, so that he looked like This decision cost Warner Bros a lot of money. Instead, what they probably should have done? Made a fake mustache for him as a makeup job, and had him shave the real one off. Hollywood movie makeup artists are exceptional at what they do. They could have designed a prosthetic mustache identical to Cavill's own real one, for a LOT less money, and taking up a lot less time than it did to digitally remove his...The CGI was entirely not-needed, practical effects could have done the job a lot quicker, and a lot cheaper. 4. Finally, we get to the real reason for this post: CGI effects that are not only completely unnecessary, like type #3, but are SO POORLY DONE, you can't help but laugh your ass off at the attempt. Unfortunately, I have to use one of my favorite movies as a kid, as one of the prime examples of this category, The Last Starfighter. The Last Starfighter, along with Disney's Tron, was one of the early attempts at incorporating CGI into film. I am not going to knock the Starfighter itself. While they probably could (and should) have built a model ship to film for most scenes, given that they needed a CGI version for the Death Blossom weapon, because a model ship couldn't have been rotated like that and gotten the same shots...OK. Obviously CGI, but it was 1984, and they were trying something new. FINE. But, I can only suspend my disbelief (and snark) so far. It's not quite as noticeable on a VHS cassette, but when you watch this movie on Blu-Ray? THIS REALLY STICKS OUT: Seriously. What the hell is that? That looks like something out of one of the Lucasarts X-Wing/TIE-Fighter games in the early/mid 1990s. They couldn't have just made a mountain out of paper mache and built a model star base? Even being forgiving because of the time in which they attempted it, this CGI shot is just...TERRIBLE. It doesn't even remotely look realistic.
You've all seen good and bad CGI, what comes to your mind as examples of each category? Know of some CGI that is absolutely indistinguishable from real life? Got some CGI that you make fun of because of how pathetic it looked? Practical effects shots you think should have been made CGI instead? Posting images is encouraged!
Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2021
CategoriesOur sister Sites:
NCAA Chatters ncaachatters.weebly.com/ NFL Chatters nflchatters.weebly.com/ Patriots Place patriots-place.weebly.com/ MLB Chatters mlbchatters.weebly.com/ |
Photo used under Creative Commons from ColinD13