Bad cgi

[sirjacktorrance]

For what we have read , the movie has very bad CGI .i didn´t like in diary and land but in each movies there was some headshots practical.i watched the survival trailer and there´s some practicice headshots.
for the people who ahve seen the movie:

-are all the headshots made with cgi? o there are some practical like diary?
there is a combiantion of both?

-is really the cgi THAT BAD? i recall some gags in diary and there was not terrible.(i still don´t like them ,but the final shot with the sword was great!!

[krakenslayer]

we've already seen at least one headshot from the finished film - the harbour zombie getting shot in the head. It was either a clever practical or a very convincing CGI shot. One thing that horror movies tend to do these days that is a little silly is using CGI to redden the on screen practical blood fx to make them more "impressive". Land had a lot of this - with blood in some dark shots almost glowing bright red in stark contrast to its surroundings - from what I've read, there is a bit of this in Survival too.

[MinionZombie]

While Land had some dodgy CGI, it also had some superb CGI - like when Riley and Charley walk up the steps out of the subway - the whole thing is CGI, and I had no idea. There's many such shots in Land, and they work a treat.

But yeah, CGI blood is only sometimes good, but many times obvious. I can understand why it's used, but it's never as good because it has been plotted precisely by a computer. With a jug of blood and a pump anything can happen, and that randomness (as well as clearly being physically present on set) makes it the best on screen blood.

[AcesandEights]

I've seen some truly bad CGI. You've seen some truly monstrous CGI. We all have. That said, I'm not worried at all about 'bad' CGI. I heard some people question the CGI from Land and Diary, but those weren't even blips on my radar (springy-headed priests, aside).

I don't quibble too much over a bad cgi blood spurt etc. I've seen too many crap movies with truly bad CGI to get thrown off by something of the sort. As long as there won't be any shtick use of CGI (see above comment about Springy-headed priest), all should be well on that score, at least for me.

[bassman]

I've seen some truly bad CGI. You've seen some truly monstrous CGI. We all have. That said, I'm not worried at all about 'bad' CGI. I heard some people question the CGI from Land and Diary, but those weren't even blips on my radar (springy-headed priests, aside).


Aside from the Priest, the only other CG shot that REALLY stood out to me was when one of the zombies is shot in the cage with Slack. There's a spurt of blood that shoots out as he's falling and it looks pretty bad....

But as MZ mentioned....CG used the right way to enhance the scene can be great. It's just not as great when they use it for budget or time reasons(some headshots).

[sirjacktorrance]

the thing is that i like the trailer headshot and i fera that the finished movie ends up having truly bad taste additions of spray blood.i´have seen truly amazing headshots with cgi in many horror movies seen lately like the ones of the hills have eyes remake .i wonder why romero´s last movies didnt have better cgi gore because other art departments were great.

[SymphonicX]

the big shot in land of Charlie and Riley leaving the subway....great shot....barely CGI though...I could knock that shot up myself in After Effects with some textures, lights, and a track matte.....but that is indeed the best use of CGI in the movie....

except for maybe doubling up zombie hoardes, I'd rather not see any CGI in my zed flicks...especially gore...I know its cheaper to do gore on computers now but goddamn I miss Tom Savini...!!

[darth los]

I just posted some thoughts on cgi in the "My thoughts on "Survival of the Dead" thread as well. Didn't wanna repost it fearing it would would violate some rules. So mods if it's appropriate... work your magic.







:cool:

[Trin]

I don't have a strong opinion on CGI use for zombies or headshots or blood - heck, I doubt I could ever pick it out of a movie.

But I will say this... I want my Dead movies to have hordes of zombies. Big hordes. A horde so big that when you see them you run scared like Miguel back to the chopper.

Land had a failing that the numbers of zombies we saw on screen vs. the way the characters acted/reacted (both in fights and just in how they lived) was way out of whack.

So use CGI for zombie hordes. I don't care if the second tier zombies look like Poser characters and the third tier of zombies is freakin stick figures vaguely reminiscent of the Microsoft Paperclip. I will believe. I will play along. If it helps me buy into the plight of the characters and the claustrophobic feeling it's worth it.

[sirjacktorrance]

i have seen the trailer 10 or 12 times and i realized that in the second 0:13 there´s a headshot with lots of real liquid blood.it´s an awesome headshot and it´s the way i would like to be in the movie.the thing i worried about it´s if that this kind of headshots are going to be "corrected" with cgi

[livingdeadboy]

For what we have read , the movie has very bad CGI .i didn´t like in diary and land but in each movies there was some headshots practical.i watched the survival trailer and there´s some practicice headshots.
for the people who ahve seen the movie:

-are all the headshots made with cgi? o there are some practical like diary?
there is a combiantion of both?

-is really the cgi THAT BAD? i recall some gags in diary and there was not terrible.(i still don´t like them ,but the final shot with the sword was great!!

I wouldn't say the CGI is bad, for the most part it works in Survival. It's much like the last two dead films, at some points the CGI works, and other points it doesn't work as well. There is a pretty good 50/50 with practical headshots and CG headshots. A lot of the time the CG headshots are quite good.

There are only three scenes that come to mind where the CG was a tad too obvious. But it's still passable, and it gets the point across. I found the movie was engaging enough that the effects didn't take away from the story.

[sirjacktorrance]

I wouldn't say the CGI is bad, for the most part it works in Survival. It's much like the last two dead films, at some points the CGI works, and other points it doesn't work as well. There is a pretty good 50/50 with practical headshots and CG headshots. A lot of the time the CG headshots are quite good.

There are only three scenes that come to mind where the CG was a tad too obvious. But it's still passable, and it gets the point across. I found the movie was engaging enough that the effects didn't take away from the story.

50/50 is totally practical headshots like the ne in the trailer? that´s really good.thank for share your thougs!