Special Effects: What will WOW you? (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

I wish I could say that the story in every movie I saw was the most important aspect, but I'd be lying. A lot of times I just like to see spectacle and views of worlds and characters that are just not possible with conventional techniques. That is why I have no problem with massive use of CGI in movies. CGI allows effects shots to be created that could never be done with models or any other real world technique. For example, take 2012. Is that going to be a "good" movie? Not likely. Is it going to be spectacular to look at? Yes. The JFK rolling over the White House looks spectacular. To me, there is no way that shot could have been done with models and still look even half as authentic as it does using CGI.

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
For example, take 2012. Is that going to be a "good" movie? Not likely. Is it going to be spectacular to look at? Yes. The JFK rolling over the White House looks spectacular. To me, there is no way that shot could have been done with models and still look even half as authentic as it does using CGI.

That shot is on a billboard that I see every day on my ride home. I hate it. It is exactly what special effects should not be. Authentic? Give me a break. What body of water is there near Pennsylvania Avenue that could hold an aircraft carrier? I'm very very tired of seeing effects used for nothing but destruction, especially that of our iconic buildings and monuments. Like I said earlier in this thread, give us something beautiful to look at.

Oh, and based on that shot and that billboard, I will never see the 2012 movie. It's repugnant.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate




That shot is on a billboard that I see every day on my ride home. I hate it. It is exactly what special effects should not be. Authentic? Give me a break. What body of water is there near Pennsylvania Avenue that could hold an aircraft carrier? I'm very very tired of seeing effects used for nothing but destruction, especially that of our iconic buildings and monuments. Like I said earlier in this thread, give us something beautiful to look at.

Oh, and based on that shot and that billboard, I will never see the 2012 movie. It's repugnant.

To each their own. Authentic in a real world sense? No. Authentic within the context of an over-the-top disaster movie that shows a tidal wave washing over a mountain top monastery? Yes. I don't think the trailer even suggests that that aircraft carrier is moored anywhere near Pennsylvania avenue. As for destruction of iconic buildings and landmarks, it makes sense because those are the type icons that everyone is familiar with. They represent, in a nutshell, some of the human race's greatest accomplishments. Seeing them destroyed just amplifies the sense of civilization's destruction. Would anyone care if they showed some mundane roadside icon being wiped out? No.

Hell, I wish aircraft carriers would roll over the Victoria, BC and Ottawa, Ont legislatures for real. I would especially hope it happens while they were all sitting in there. Talk about the world's greatest housecleaning, but I digress. I have to disagree with your assertion that special effects should not be the type of thing being depicted in that JFK scene. That is exactly what special effects were created for, to depict visually what would otherwise be impossible to create in a full scale, real world sense. At least, that is one facet of special effects work and one that is immensely important in Hollywood movies.

 

[Leo Kerr]

a problem, that I think Edwin-S is trying to get at is being missed, is that "within context," there is a "realm of possibility." And even in the movie-house, there is still that "realm." AKA "Suspension of disbelief." Well, relaxation.

Then there are times when the movie makers go out of their way and do something wholly outrageous like rolling an air-craft carrier over the White House. (Not something I'd look forward to -- I work on the National Mall about, what, 3 blocks away?!)

Sometimes, it's something just wild-n-crazy like the carrier. Other times it's something stupid, like in the Die Hard that wasn't shot at Dullas Airport, where he downs the bad guy's plane with it's own fuel-stream.

And at that point, it just kicks you in the reality so hard that there's nothing you can do but point and shout "Boo!" like the old woman.

Many people making films seem to have lost sight of the fact that just because it's possible to present anything, doesn't mean that they should.

Granted, sometimes they end up doing stupid things that "work" -- say, the end of True Lies, when they pop the missile through the building. But given everything else that's happened, well, it's still in the range of plausible -- at least within that film's context. (Seems to me, missiles tend to drop quite a bit before they light off their engines... be very tricky to be able to pull that shot off, methinks.)

Now, maybe in 2012, by the time you get to that scene, it's perfectly 'okay' for the film and it's context. But yanking it out of context like that and plastering it on a billboard, well... "Boo!" (Though I have to admit that the times I've seen it's trailer, I sort of thought "Boo!" about the whole thing. But then I'm not a major disaster-film-fan, anyway.)

But I digress, and apparently am tired enough that I'm not thinking straight.

Leo

 

[Lou Sytsma]

heh. I see already responded here. Removed due to redundancy.

 

[Adam Sanchez]

I might be biased on this because I've been watching the Trilogy all this week and so it's fresh in my mind, but Gollum remains one of the most impressive effects I've ever seen in a movie. To the point where you forgot get is an effect, which of course, was the point.

A year or two ago, I had watched the entire Star Wars Saga and for a effect standpoint (Say what you will about the character) Jar Jar has not stood the test of time at all. But Gollum has.

Thinking of Gollum always brings me to Jackson's King Kong too, and some of the facial work on that character creeps me out it's so real. It's the eyes!

 

[Leo Kerr]

I wonder if your problem with Jar Jar (as an effect,) might stem from the ears?

A lot of his motion is lurch-y and abrupt (particularly in Phantom Menance,) and his ears don't seem to move right "with the rest of him." That's not to say that his motion is overall "good," just that the ears seem to call out oddly.

I don't know how much of that might be that Gollum doesn't have ears (or, rather, big floppy ones,) and that the action could be relatively simple motion-capture, or if it's something more subtle than that.

(Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing: was Jar Jar motion-capture, or was there just a "reference actor" that the animators then generalized off of?)

Leo

 

[Adam Sanchez]

This is totally of the subject but it's bugging the heck out of me; how can I make the forum jump me to the NEW post of a subscribed thread when I get the email notification? It always takes me to the very first page with the very first post. Especially annoying for multipage threads!

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Leo Kerr

(Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing: was Jar Jar motion-capture, or was there just a "reference actor" that the animators then generalized off of?)

Leo

To the best of my recollection, Jar Jar was animated but they did use motion capture to get an idea of the way that the actor moved as the character.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

The last film I saw that wowed me with it's effects was Cloverfield.

Considering what the budget was it is staggering what they did and best of all how real it all looked and i'm not only talking about the creature, the way they made me feel like I was on the Brooklyn Bridge as it was torn asunder or on the street as the head of the Statue of Liberty came hurtling out of the sky and crashing down the street, and don't even get me started on the street and city extensions...WOW!

I am still able to appreciate the greatness of effects, it's mind boggling what is involved in making the Autobots and Decepticons look like solid and photo-real metal with it's gleams, flashes and tracer flares from countless light sources.

Michael Bay stated on the commentary for Revenge of the Fallen that his team of effects wizards were robbed of the Oscar that year and that the votes are in the hands of those who don't really look and try to understand what hard work is involved in bringing such images to the screen...I agree with him.

Also, IMO most CGI work in newer films tend to look very artificial as compared to CGI work from say 1993, the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are staggering to look at, even more so than some of the dino shots in Jackson's King Kong or the organic creatures in the Star Wars prequels which tend to look like a blob of silicon with bump maps applied.

Not sure why that is but maybe it's because since ILM was just experimenting with bringing computer generated dinosaurs to the screen back then they put more effort into them whereas today maybe effects houses get a little lazy because CGI is so established?

Not sure if that holds water but it's just something i've noticed.

Even James Cameron's much celebrated new film Avatar leaves me cold with how things look, everything looks flat and cartoonish, maybe it's because everything except the actors are computer generated as compared to, again, Jurassic Park where very real looking dinosaurs were integrated into real locations. Avatar looks to me like a really cool looking PS3 game.

As for what I would like to see, that's tough as pretty much everything has been covered already in films from the past 20 years or so.

 

[JediFonger]

it'll take star trek TNG's holodeck or DS9's holosuites to truly wow me . we're not there yet.

or insert any of your fav. Matrix-like sci-fi franchise's simulated virtual world technology =).

 

[LynxFX]

Yellowstone's destruction in 2012 wowed me.