|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 7, 2009 17:18:26 GMT -5
A question for you then, Erisi: What would make a CGI creature look WORSE than some of Harryhausen's stop-motion work? Because I have seen some Sci-Fi pictures where that is most certainly the case, and have always wondered about it. Is it the fact that the CGI artists are rushed? Do they not have the resources needed to fully flesh out these creatures? Why would something created using advanced computer imaging look WORSE, and more fake than something created using modeling clay and wires? Time, money and resources. To make a high quality photorealistic creature takes gobs of computing power, the artists themselves are probably capable of making basically anything look good but the better things look the longer it takes to render, and that's the real crutch of the matter, rendering. Even on a really good multi-set system it takes a day to make one second of something that looks like half way decent SyFy stuff, you try and go photorealistic and you're going to have to have a room full of computers just for that same one second of movie. So basically you have to find a balance on how much time you have and how good you want your creatures of spaceships or whatever to look. All these guys cranking out SyFy stuff want to make the best stuff they possibly can, but there's no way that's going to happen when you get 3 months to do it, so you gotta trim the quality. This is very interesting, and actually makes me wonder why then, since good CGI and realistic creatures consume so much time, resources and energy, Syfy DOESN"T just go with practical effects? I mean, yeah, I can understand if they're doing a gryphon, or some sort of dragon-creature...but I've seen rock-monster and Bigfoot movies where those creatures are CGI too! I cannot believe that the budget allowed for such shoddy CGI, and yet prohibited a costume that tops out at $200 max. I mean, I get what you're saying....doing CGI right, making it look good, takes time and CPU power. Not everyone is going to be WETA studios, and I get that. But when you sit back, and the artists tell you "Look, for what you want, and what you can afford time and money wise, this is going to look ATROCIOUS," shouldn't you then explore other options? Like maybe using the CGI sparingly, and then going all out in the last fifteen minutes of the film with a GREAT looking monster? Dunno, but this is an interesting line of discussion.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Aug 7, 2009 17:21:55 GMT -5
I hate CGI period, I just think it looks awful.
Apart from Dark Knight, I thought the CGI was good in that.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Aug 7, 2009 18:45:06 GMT -5
The thing about the CGI in Sci-Fi Network movies is that they're so bad so consistently that it's become a staple. Sure, practical effects would probably be cheaper and look better, but I leave that sort of decision to GOOD movies. Most Sci-Fi Network movies are unwatchable but the crappy FX puts it in the "so bad it's good" category.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Aug 7, 2009 19:12:47 GMT -5
This is very interesting, and actually makes me wonder why then, since good CGI and realistic creatures consume so much time, resources and energy, Syfy DOESN"T just go with practical effects? I mean, yeah, I can understand if they're doing a gryphon, or some sort of dragon-creature...but I've seen rock-monster and Bigfoot movies where those creatures are CGI too! I cannot believe that the budget allowed for such shoddy CGI, and yet prohibited a costume that tops out at $200 max. I mean, I get what you're saying....doing CGI right, making it look good, takes time and CPU power. Not everyone is going to be WETA studios, and I get that. But when you sit back, and the artists tell you "Look, for what you want, and what you can afford time and money wise, this is going to look ATROCIOUS," shouldn't you then explore other options? Like maybe using the CGI sparingly, and then going all out in the last fifteen minutes of the film with a GREAT looking monster? Dunno, but this is an interesting line of discussion. I think the main appeal of CGI for any given SyFy movie director is basically the scope of what you can show. It may be a crappy looking CGI rock monster, but you can have it do a huge amount of things that either you couldn't do with practical stuff or would take too much time/money to do it, and I can show a lot of it. My CGI rock monster can run around, smash stuff, jump over a car, transform into a regular pile of rocks, get blown up, ect, it might not look perfect but anything I can think of it can do. It can take your really cheap movie and give it a bigger feel then you could with an animatronic monster that would cost roughly the same. I can make a pretty convincing practical giant spider, or I can make a million mildly fake looking giant spiders, a lot of small time directors would apt for the million mildly fake ones. Of course it can be said that a small looking movie can be much better, for example the movie Splinter that was on SyFy, it had a practical creature terrorizing a couple of people hiding in a gas station, and it worked. But a lot of directors just want to go all out and try for the most shots they can get away with to give it that big feel, and that's what CGI works best for, even if it's low end stuff it gives you more to work with.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Aug 8, 2009 0:21:33 GMT -5
I hate CGI period, I just think it looks awful. Yeah, I think the golden rule of CGI is if you can tell it's blantly fake then it's bad CGI. Some films in the early nineties don't hold up as well because of the dating of the technology used. I was watching the stendhal syndrome which was the first Italian film to use CGI and boy did it look bad.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Aug 8, 2009 8:25:49 GMT -5
Very interesting discussion on CGI, guys. I had no idea that much computing power went into even the simplest creations. It gives me a better understanding as to why companies use it, despite some of it looking blatantly fake.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 8, 2009 12:22:38 GMT -5
Ok, TR...hold on to your hat, but I think you've been ripped off.
In the latest trailer for Zombie's HALLOWEEN II, they have an extended sequence where two medics/coroners are talking in an ambulance, and they have Myers in the back. It cuts to two seconds later, and apparently, Myers kills them and causes the ambulance to wreck. Then we see him, in the headlights of the wrecked vehicle, pulling on his mask.
I think it bears more than a passing resemblance to a certain scene in a certain screenplay of yours, don't you? I mean, it's not line-for-line plagiarized, but it's definitely...err...a strong homage.
And speaking of the newest spots for this....they also show Myers FLIPPING OVER A CAR. As if the "RRRRRRAAAAGHHH! MYERS SMASH!" stuff wasn't bad enough before.....YEESH.
*Shakes head*
I don't even remember Jason doing anything like that, and he's the prototype for over-powered villains. Seriously, they're turning Myers into Nemesis from Resident Evil here.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Aug 8, 2009 12:25:22 GMT -5
Ok, TR...hold on to your hat, but I think you've been ripped off. In the latest trailer for Zombie's HALLOWEEN II, they have an extended sequence where two medics/coroners are talking in an ambulance, and they have Myers in the back. It cuts to two seconds later, and apparently, Myers kills them and causes the ambulance to wreck. Then we see him, in the headlights of the wrecked vehicle, pulling on his mask. I think it bears more than a passing resemblance to a certain scene in a certain screenplay of yours, don't you? I mean, it's not line-for-line plagiarized, but it's definitely...err...a strong homage. And speaking of the newest spots for this....they also show Myers FLIPPING OVER A CAR. As if the "RRRRRRAAAAGHHH! MYERS SMASH!" stuff wasn't bad enough before.....YEESH. *Shakes head* I don't even remember Jason doing anything like that, and he's the prototype for over-powered villains. Seriously, they're turning Myers into Nemesis from Resident Evil here. Someone here needs to Photoshop Michael Myers as The Hulk immediately. That's just too good of a visual to pass up.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 8, 2009 13:10:07 GMT -5
They honestly might as well do a CGI Myers the size and strength of the Hulk, for as close as this is to it. I mean, everyone knows I *hate* the "Incredible Myers" with a passion, but it seems like Zombie is souping him up more and more as a direct F-you to all the fans of the original. What's next, Rob? Is he going to be able to LEAP like the Hulk too? Crush two police cars and make "gloves" out of them so he can smack around Loomis? Swing a tank around like a shot-put, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Aug 8, 2009 14:38:14 GMT -5
They honestly might as well do a CGI Myers the size and strength of the Hulk, for as close as this is to it. I mean, everyone knows I *hate* the "Incredible Myers" with a passion, but it seems like Zombie is souping him up more and more as a direct F-you to all the fans of the original. What's next, Rob? Is he going to be able to LEAP like the Hulk too? Crush two police cars and make "gloves" out of them so he can smack around Loomis? Swing a tank around like a shot-put, perhaps? What you just described is likely how the third movie will turn out. Maybe they'll give him more new superpowers and have him shoot laser beams out of his eyes.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 8, 2009 15:00:49 GMT -5
Ok, TR...hold on to your hat, but I think you've been ripped off. In the latest trailer for Zombie's HALLOWEEN II, they have an extended sequence where two medics/coroners are talking in an ambulance, and they have Myers in the back. It cuts to two seconds later, and apparently, Myers kills them and causes the ambulance to wreck. Then we see him, in the headlights of the wrecked vehicle, pulling on his mask. I think it bears more than a passing resemblance to a certain scene in a certain screenplay of yours, don't you? I mean, it's not line-for-line plagiarized, but it's definitely...err...a strong homage. And speaking of the newest spots for this....they also show Myers FLIPPING OVER A CAR. As if the "RRRRRRAAAAGHHH! MYERS SMASH!" stuff wasn't bad enough before.....YEESH. *Shakes head* I don't even remember Jason doing anything like that, and he's the prototype for over-powered villains. Seriously, they're turning Myers into Nemesis from Resident Evil here. HAHAHA! Really, more than anything, I just find it hilarious that with that move Zombie confirms everything his detractors say about him. Commencement is not technically good, and I know that - it's a slasher flick on steroids, which is something that a lot of people say about Zombie's movies. So leave it to him to do something utterly ridiculous like yours truly. I'm also flattered that you remembered the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 8, 2009 15:03:07 GMT -5
They honestly might as well do a CGI Myers the size and strength of the Hulk, for as close as this is to it. I mean, everyone knows I *hate* the "Incredible Myers" with a passion, but it seems like Zombie is souping him up more and more as a direct F-you to all the fans of the original. What's next, Rob? Is he going to be able to LEAP like the Hulk too? Crush two police cars and make "gloves" out of them so he can smack around Loomis? Swing a tank around like a shot-put, perhaps? What you just described is likely how the third movie will turn out. Maybe they'll give him more new superpowers and have him shoot laser beams out of his eyes. The Order of the Thorne creates....MyersPool! He has Wolverine's claws and healing factor, Cyclops's eyebeams, can teleport like Nightcrawler, and is the size of Sabretooth. I can see that happening. Seriously...even though JASON X used nanobots to "amp up" Voorhees, it kind of made sense, as the story was set in a science fiction environment. This...this is absolutely beyond belief. Myers goes from chubby little kid...to Andre the Giant in a Shatner mask...to the Incredible Hulk in the span of two movies. Going by those extrapolations of power, he almost HAVE to be able to fly or crush steel by HALLOWEEN III.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Aug 8, 2009 15:11:48 GMT -5
Much like Doomsday, every time Myers is defeated he comes back twice as strong.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 8, 2009 16:23:16 GMT -5
Much like Doomsday, every time Myers is defeated he comes back twice as strong. Even more unsettling...out of the "classic" slasher villains, I think Myers just might be the biggest one now. Used to be it was the huge hosses like Jason and Leatherface, and then the smaller, normal sized guys like Freddy and Myers, and then the teeny folk like Leprechaun and Chuckie. But hey...no dwelling on the negative here...we've got some amazing stuff coming out in the genre, like DISTRICT 9 and THE FINAL DESTINATION, and even THE COLLECTOR has been gettinv decent reviews. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Aug 8, 2009 16:30:13 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you.... THE INCREDIBLE MYERS![/i]
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 8, 2009 16:34:32 GMT -5
Much like Doomsday, every time Myers is defeated he comes back twice as strong. Even more unsettling...out of the "classic" slasher villains, I think Myers just might be the biggest one now. Used to be it was the huge hosses like Jason and Leatherface, and then the smaller, normal sized guys like Freddy and Myers, and then the teeny folk like Leprechaun and Chuckie. But hey...no dwelling on the negative here...we've got some amazing stuff coming out in the genre, like DISTRICT 9 and THE FINAL DESTINATION, and even THE COLLECTOR has been gettinv decent reviews. ;D I've been so discombobulated by the godforsaken midnight shift lately that all my time seems like one continuous day, and really, not a whole lot of my non-sleeping hours are spent watching actual television. Thus, I haven't even seen ads for any of those films. Scratch that, I have seen ads for District 9. Looks like it makes the TR sin (in that I hate the plot device, but everyone else is free to love it) of making the human beings the villains, although I might be wrong there. I also can't remember the name of the movie, maybe somebody can help me - I remember seeing ads earlier this summer for a friggin' ANIMATED KIDS MOVIE where humans were portrayed as villainous warmongers and aliens were the good guys. Can anybody help me with the name of that one? Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you.... THE INCREDIBLE MYERS![/i] [/quote] YES! There's my sig for the next thread, right there. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 8, 2009 16:39:31 GMT -5
The Incredible Myers.....the madder he gets, the stabbier he gets!
And I think that movie you're thinking of might have been DELGO, but I'm not sure. However, I think the difference with DISTRICT 9 is that the humans REALIZE they're jerkoffs, and try to change after a while...not too sure.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 8, 2009 16:53:14 GMT -5
The Incredible Myers.....the madder he gets, the stabbier he gets! And I think that movie you're thinking of might have been DELGO, but I'm not sure. However, I think the difference with DISTRICT 9 is that the humans REALIZE they're jerkoffs, and try to change after a while...not too sure. It wasn't Delgo. Although it reminds me that I read somewhere that Delgo is in fact the lowest grossing studio movie in the history of cinema. $40 million budget, and it grossed a granad total of $511,920. Ouch. Just a few more posts, guys, then we can get to some stellar hall of fame inductions.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Aug 8, 2009 16:53:49 GMT -5
On Halloween II (and Rob Zombie generally):
I think Rob is a great director. I love House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. House is like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre on acid. All the complaints of its "MTV style" of editing I think strengthen the film rather than detract from it. I like some of the random inserts of the crazy people of Ruggsville county. I actually said to a friend of mine (who is a HUGE Zombie fan) that a spin-off film of vignettes detailing these peoples' lives would be really interesting. Rob does the idiosyncrasies of hillbillies well.
The Devil's Rejects was a huge step-up in his directorial abilities and screenwriting. All the pretense found in House is stripped down (Otis is no longer albino, Baby doesn't laugh maniacally all the time, Spaulding's make-up comes off). I've even argued that Rejects is truer to the grindhouse spirit than the Rodriguez/Tarantino double bill. The grit of the cinematography demonstrates a real "vision" unique from many of today's horror directors, like Aja (what happened to you?), Roth (ugh...), or Nispel (yawn).
The first Halloween, for me, was a failure, but an interesting one. I think what makes it truly interesting is how competing interests clashed with authorial vision. The theatrical cut with the entire attic sequence at the end dragged and dragged, while the second half on the whole was Carpenter's first film on adrenaline. I thought the first half of the film was much better, yes, even with it's rather cliché plot trope of Myers and a "damaged family." What I said of the film 2 years ago, if you take out all the dialogue, the film plays so well as a silent movie, driven by the visuals, sound effects, and music. The mental hospital sequences were my favourite part of the film, complete with its Kubrickian lighting (an homage all-the-more ironic given who is featured throughout).
Zombie though, when it comes to his scripts, seems to be struggling much like M. Night Shyamalan has. I think Rob needs to do something similar to what M. Night has, to go outside himself (in this case, M. Night is working on an idea not derived from himself, so Zombie should perhaps do something outside the horror genre). At least this year, finally, The Haunted World of El Superbeasto is being released (sadly, direct to video). Development for T-Rex has stalled apparently, which given the look of its Mad Max, post-apocalyptic aesthetic, would be something of a breath of fresh air.
I'm hopeful that Halloween II is a better film than I. I'm not a diehard Myers fan, so some of the changes initiated don't bother me, so long as what happens on screen makes sense and is relatively believable (and yeah, flipping a car kind of is... I will suspend my disbelief for that, because it looks like he's still struggling). The nails and hammer are ready because I do want this to be a good film, but I'm more than willing to stick it to the wall if it's not. That doesn't mean I'll swear him off though. If anything, Zombie does too much at once and the overall product suffers for it. He tours, he writes, he directs, he puts out albums, he does promotion. He should just focus on less because what he puts out would be better for it.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 8, 2009 16:59:05 GMT -5
I don't disagree with a whole lot of what you said, TAP. Interesting point about looking at the first half of Zombie's first Halloween with the MUTE button on - I'm sure it IS a lot better to watch if you don't have to listen to the wonderful dialogue in that first half of the film that does so much to endear the cartoonish hillbillies to us. Like you said, he's definitely not an incompetent director, and has his own style and voice. It's just that his voice is TOTALLY wrong for Halloween.
|
|