so how far CGI in films still could go?

[Earl Hickey]

i'm interested in seeing cgi used to change the way actors look.

like if you remember in Terminator 4 they had this cg version of arnold



Well what if in a few years they can use that technology to overlay an actor (Arnold) and make him look 30 again, so we could have terminator 5 without him looking ancient?

be pretty cool

[Jerub_Baal]

Originally Posted by Earl Hickey

i'm interested in seeing cgi used to change the way actors look.

like if you remember in Terminator 4 they had this cg version of arnold



Well what if in a few years they can use that technology to overlay an actor (Arnold) and make him look 30 again, so we could have terminator 5 without him looking ancient?

be pretty cool

yeah, they did a fantastic job with jeff bridges in tron legacy....

[Null]

CGI is the reason so many movies, made today, are terrible. Guess what, they forget about having a good story and hope that the CGI makes up for it. Although CGI is good, in some aspects, it's better for those making the movies to have more creativity and not really depend on CGI, so much. I am sad realizing that the arts, music, film, which thrive so much on creativity, are all going downhill now since we have this huge crutch, known as technology. It will only get worse.

One of the greatest sci-fi movies, Metropolis, was made in the 20's. It has so much creativity and not so much technology. Today, people just put out crap since they only care about the money. No one is passionate about their craft anymore.

CGI should complement a good story and not vice versa. I am sad thinking of how badly they are going to butcher my beloved Robocop in 2013. It's only because these people are not creative or original that they look to the past in order to profit from other people's ideas.

[MaD vEiN]

just as long as Pixar were the ones making these movies, i have no prob at all watching cgi movies instead of hamfisted acting of some good looking actor/actresses

with that said, no cgi can replace the gravitas of Denzel, Day-Lewis, Crowe, Depp, Pacino bring to the big screen

[Jerub_Baal]

Originally Posted by Sparkman0811

CGI is the reason so many movies, made today, are terrible. Guess what, they forget about having a good story and hope that the CGI makes up for it. Although CGI is good, in some aspects, it's better for those making the movies to have more creativity and not really depend on CGI, so much. I am sad realizing that the arts, music, film, which thrive so much on creativity, are all going downhill now since we have this huge crutch, known as technology. It will only get worse.

One of the greatest sci-fi movies, Metropolis, was made in the 20's. It has so much creativity and not so much technology. Today, people just put out crap since they only care about the money. No one is passionate about their craft anymore.

CGI should complement a good story and not vice versa. I am sad thinking of how badly they are going to butcher my beloved Robocop in 2013. It's only because these people are not creative or original that they look to the past in order to profit from other people's ideas.

What about Andy Serkis role as Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes....that was a brilliant performance....

[talip bin osman]

Originally Posted by lebrick

but cgi actor wouldn't win an oscar award, would he?

it has been debated in several movie forums with andy serkis' performance in LOTR and apes...

like movies ala avatar... does it count as an animated feature or a "real" feature...

[talip bin osman]

Originally Posted by Sparkman0811

CGI is the reason so many movies, made today, are terrible. Guess what, they forget about having a good story and hope that the CGI makes up for it. Although CGI is good, in some aspects, it's better for those making the movies to have more creativity and not really depend on CGI, so much. I am sad realizing that the arts, music, film, which thrive so much on creativity, are all going downhill now since we have this huge crutch, known as technology. It will only get worse.

One of the greatest sci-fi movies, Metropolis, was made in the 20's. It has so much creativity and not so much technology. Today, people just put out crap since they only care about the money. No one is passionate about their craft anymore.

CGI should complement a good story and not vice versa. I am sad thinking of how badly they are going to butcher my beloved Robocop in 2013. It's only because these people are not creative or original that they look to the past in order to profit from other people's ideas.

good post...

films of directors like mcG are 90 minute advertisements of tech... the story takes a back seat at the expense of visual ooooohs and aaaaahs...

man, mcG makes michael bay look like "arthouse..."

[rorymac]

CGI can go a long way, but it won't ever fully replicate human movement/likeness.

Films that use CGI excessively are invariably awful (insert Sam Worthington film here).

I think it can be fantastic when used in animations, but when it comes to a live action film, Christopher Nolan's approach is my favourite. If you can do it for real, do it for real, but use the ever-improving CGI to fill in the gaps.

[K.Webster]

Originally Posted by rorymac

CGI can go a long way, but it won't ever fully replicate human movement/likeness.

Films that use CGI excessively are invariably awful (insert Sam Worthington film here).

I think it can be fantastic when used in animations, but when it comes to a live action film, Christopher Nolan's approach is my favourite. If you can do it for real, do it for real, but use the ever-improving CGI to fill in the gaps.

I thought Prometheus was a great example of how to use CGI. Ridley Scott built huge elaborate sets and filmed on location in Iceland, however, he combined CGI with real world assets thus everything looked quite convincing. Far better than Avatar where everything looked too clean to fool the viewer into thinking it was real.

P.S - Michael Fassbender is the new Daniel Day Lewis. Phenomenal actor.

[talip bin osman]

Originally Posted by rorymac

CGI can go a long way, but it won't ever fully replicate human movement/likeness.

Films that use CGI excessively are invariably awful (insert Sam Worthington film here).

I think it can be fantastic when used in animations, but when it comes to a live action film, Christopher Nolan's approach is my favourite. If you can do it for real, do it for real, but use the ever-improving CGI to fill in the gaps.

beowulf a few years ago looked good... but yeah, its a looong way still to fully imitate human nuances...

with regards to nolan, the use of CGI in his films are very subtle... he still prefers practical effects in his films...