CG mania

[ngm231]

whats with all the CG in Land? it was very dissapointing to me.
what about everybody else?

[AcesandEights]

whats with all the CG in Land? it was very dissapointing to me.
what about everybody else?

Save for pogohead, I barely noticed it; such was my commitment to suspending my disbelief :skull:

[Hawkboy]

Save for pogohead, I barely noticed it; such was my commitment to suspending my disbelief :skull:

Who's pogohead?

Oh and I thought the CGI was all done very well...

[livingdead7]

Movies can be done in by overuse of cgi. With that said, I think Land was fine in this regard. The cgi wasnt bad at all.

[Danny]

speaking as a movie fan/ film director/ clone of kevin smith (:D ) i ****ing hate cg so mutch!!!!!!!!!!!!

its cheap and tacky in the old days we used to ahve guys that literally hung off sky scrapers and **** now that asshole who plays harry potter is "a big hero having to fall ten feet down a slope onto a large air bag...sniff....such a trooer" ,its a cheap way to make films and i hate it, lord of the rings was one of the few films that needed it to have things like isengards tower and gondor and all that, but king kong was a piece of crap they should get to jurassic park 3 level cg and stop any more and there gonna end up with a film looking like reboot.


god damn i hate cg.

[MinionZombie]

While not as militant as Hellsing on the topic - CG can be put to good use and can be used a lot in the *right* movie - I feel the CG used in Land was, for the most part, good. In fact watching the CG featurrette on the DVD was quite an eye opener as there was a lot more CG used than I'd originally thought. That's how CG should be used in movies that aren't big blockbusters, used so that you don't notice they are there, or simply used to enhance the film.

I'd have preferred REAL blood gushes and headshots en mass, but I can fully understand why they chose that route. Nicotero wasn't making money, he was losing money in fact, by doing the film. They had a tight schedule to keep as well, so always having real headshots and so on would slow everything down, just a shame they couldn't have all been real is all.

But shots like Charlie and Riley stepping out of the underground were really good, I had no idea that was CG until I saw the featurrette, now that's a good use of CG.

As a final note, the thing with CG that is annoying is that it isn't real, you can't plan or map the random little changes of say material flowing in the wind, or how blood will drip and splatter across a surface, and it's always most impressive if you see it for real.

But overall I can understand why/had no beef with it.

[EvilNed]

I'm with Minion. I really don't like the CG headshots, and I would rather have less gore than that much CG gore. But the Green Screen shots are awesome, because you never notice them! At first, I thought that the cg headshots were the only computer effects in this film, but I was wrong.

But films that I really hate are the ones that blend in CGI just to make the film "cool" or "hip", or to save the creators alot of extra work. CGI can never replace models, it looks so fake! Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Blade 2... ****ty films.

[bassman]

While not as militant as Hellsing on the topic - CG can be put to good use and can be used a lot in the *right* movie - I feel the CG used in Land was, for the most part, good. In fact watching the CG featurrette on the DVD was quite an eye opener as there was a lot more CG used than I'd originally thought. That's how CG should be used in movies that aren't big blockbusters, used so that you don't notice they are there, or simply used to enhance the film.

I'd have preferred REAL blood gushes and headshots en mass, but I can fully understand why they chose that route. Nicotero wasn't making money, he was losing money in fact, by doing the film. They had a tight schedule to keep as well, so always having real headshots and so on would slow everything down, just a shame they couldn't have all been real is all.

But shots like Charlie and Riley stepping out of the underground were really good, I had no idea that was CG until I saw the featurrette, now that's a good use of CG.

As a final note, the thing with CG that is annoying is that it isn't real, you can't plan or map the random little changes of say material flowing in the wind, or how blood will drip and splatter across a surface, and it's always most impressive if you see it for real.


I agree with all that.

With the exception of the priest zombie and a few headshots, I thought the CG in "Land" was great. Especially the aerial shots of the streets and the zombie that gets decapitated while Big Daddy is holding his head.....freaking great.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I thought the CG was medicore.

The priest - The worst display of CG use I have ever seen. great concept, poor execution.

The Arrow in the zombies chin in the liquor store - Bad bad bad

The Dumping grounds

Head shots

Zombies rising out of the water - really poor that zombies 50+ feet out are still above water when big daddy is chest deep and the BG zombies are waste deep and they are further out.

Zombies on Dock - You can see the CG line it is plain as day.

[bassman]

The arrow through the head is bad to you? I think that's one of the less obvious CG shots.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The blood coming out of it's head plus now that i think about it the cop being shot as it walked out of the liquor store. Notice none of the blood splatters across the store itself.

[Adrenochrome]

.... Notice none of the blood splatters across the store itself.
I will agree here.
I prefer a squib or, as our new friend Scott pulled off, a tube and an air hose. (no-one will ever convince me that CGI is cheaper than a squib or an airhose)
I cannot stand CGI!!! There are a few places where it can be used these days, but,......hmmmm. I remember back in the day, when film-makers would arrange for a nieghborhood or a "busy street" to be blocked off during filming.
I still LOVE Land of the Dead, tho.....

[Tullaryx]

I think use of CG in horror movies will rise just for the fact that it can be easily ramped up or lessed in the amount of blood and gore shown on the screen. It makes it easier to release the film with an R-rating and then back to unrated when time to show more of the red stuff.

As for CG in films, it's a fact of life and those complaining either just dont like the technology or have no conception of how to fully use it to enhance a film in a positive way. Without CG films like Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter and pretty much every historical epic of the last 10 years could've been made. Even less epic films like Black Hawk Down couldn't have been made with an eye for realism if CG wasn't available to be used. The problem with CG is that some of the younger directors in the industry think its the only way to do effects nowadays. These young ones will have a tendency to overdo the use of CG instead of using a combination of CG, animatronics and old-style make-up and prostethics.

Spielberg made great use of CGI with his War of the Worlds remake and one could tell the animators took their time and effort to make each tripod look as realistic as possible and to seamlessly put CG with real-time scenes. If one was to look at that film again and watch the scene where the Jersey turnpike gets blasted in the background a person knows its CGI but it still looks realistic as hell. I would disagree with EvilNed characterizing LOTR CG as ****ty and the film as ****ty. The story was one that was labeled as unfilmable, yet Jackson and WETA's use of CG with the help of miniatures, camera tricks, make-up and prostethic effects helped to make things as real as possible. Sure there were certain CG effects that still looked like it was clearly CG, but in LOTR those rough looking CG were far less noticeable.

Also as a film technology it's still a growing and evolving tool. Every year films using CG have less and less of a CG look to them as the technology improves. Really the only reason why CG still looks fake in some scenes has less to do with the tecnology but more to do with the animators using the tools. So, CG is neither good or evil. As they saying goes, don't blame the tool...blame the hands that wield it.

[kar98k]

i always thought that cheesey blood and gore was funny, kinda what gave romero's movies their charm

[Tullaryx]

Except for a few scenes, I was of the mind that CG-blood effects weren't used but real ones were. Though I have to go with DJ and agree the bolt Cholo used to pierce the Bub-looking zombie's head in the liquor store did look CG-ish.

[MinionZombie]

*ahem*

Lord of the Rings used a hell of a lot of "bigatures" - really big, expansive, models. So did King Kong. I love that trilogy *glances at Adreno ... quiet you - backhands him*.

Blade 2 - indeed, very sh*t. First time I hated it, then I gave it a second chance only to discover it was still utter turd nuggets. Blade Trinity was better, and that's saying something, because the film itself was really hit and miss, but brainless fun anyway...with Jessica Biel.

The new Star Wars films - yes, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much CGI, I actually feel CGI sick, physically sick, after watching those films. Like how I felt physically queasy after watching "Gang Tapes" ... I discovered I had a limit to how many times I could hear "f*ck" and the "N" word in 90 minutes...

[Tullaryx]

The new Star Wars films - yes, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much CGI, I actually feel CGI sick, physically sick, after watching those films. Like how I felt physically queasy after watching "Gang Tapes" ... I discovered I had a limit to how many times I could hear "f*ck" and the "N" word in 90 minutes...

"Gang Tapes"? Don't you mean "Gang Land".... :p

I think of all the films made since the inception of CG, Jackson has been one of the first, if not the only one, who has used it heavily but not as the end all and be all of LOTR's effects but to combine it with other effects methods. Plus, I still haven't met anyone who quickly saw Smeagol/Gollum as a real character and not one made by CG.

[MinionZombie]

No, I do mean "Gang Tapes". That's the name of the film, it's all done as if some teenager has filmed it on a family videocamera. IMDb it and you'll see. I got the DVD from America.

[Tullaryx]

No, I do mean "Gang Tapes". That's the name of the film, it's all done as if some teenager has filmed it on a family videocamera. IMDb it and you'll see. I got the DVD from America.

Ahh, thought it was some newfangled porno. :lol:

[mista_mo]

as did I my friend...as did I.

I can't really watch the new star wars movie...I really dislike all of that CGI they used, and the same for Lord of the Rings, although it isn't as noticible..

[EvilNed]

*ahem*

Lord of the Rings used a hell of a lot of "bigatures" - really big, expansive, models. So did King Kong. I love that trilogy *glances at Adreno ... quiet you - backhands him*.

True, but so did Star Wars. If you watch the battle scene in Return of the King, it's all CGI, and coincidently, all crap. What happened to good old fashioned action, eh?