Starship "bugs" look better than Freak "spiders" (1 Viewer)

[chris larralde]

I just got back from Eight Legged Freaks and I'm even more impressed than ever with the CGI bugs in Starship Troopers!!

In Starship you can actually see the bug legs hit the ground and leave a mark. In Eight Legged Freaks they still look like they're "floating".

 

[Terrell]

Eight Legged Freaks was made on a budget of about $2!

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

You also have to remember that Starship Troopers had a $90 - 100 million budget while Eight Legged Freaks only has a $30 million budget.

 

[LarryH]

I was also impressed with the lack of believability for the CGI, even in the TV ads. They don't look like they're really there. I would have thought CGI capability would have improved over the interval between Star Ship Troopers and Eight Legged Freaks enough so that they could have done as well for a lot less money.

Anyhow, I think if you're going to make a movie like this, you should spend whatever money it takes to make it look good. I guess they just didn't expect it to make enough money to justify that. Maybe that's because it's just a spoof? Unfortunately, the inferior CGI is the main reason I'm not likely to see this before it hits DirecTV.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Whatever happened to seeing the movie for the content over the FX? And yes, Larry, I believe that the bad CG (while certainly a byproduct of the budget) was deliberately hammed up to imitate the bad FX of the films it's parodying.

 

[Patrick Sun]

They might as well just used spider marionettes in some of the scenes. It was that bad!

 

[Terrell]

Whatever happened to seeing the movie for the content over the FX?

I was gonna ask the same thing. Has it really, gotten to the point where people skip a movie because they hate CGI? It's not about CGI. It's the story and performances.

 

[Matt Stone]

Yah, Terrell...but in the case of a campy spider movie...the focus is really on the spiders, not the actor's performances.

In general though, I agree with you.

I believe that the bad CG (while certainly a byproduct of the budget) was deliberately hammed up to imitate the bad FX of the films it's parodying.

That's exactly how I viewed it too.

 

[Terrell]

Agreed! But the CGI should be secondary. Not saying there should be any excuse for bad CGI, but CGI doesn't even factor in whether I see a movie or not.

This movie is pure B-movie camp. It's cheesy, and it's meant to be.

 

[Matt Stone]

Amen to that.

 

[Seth Paxton]

But then why use CGI at all?

Why not blue screen in little puppets?

Because it wouldn't look good??? I hope that's not your response because it goes against your criticism of what people are saying about the bad CGI.

There is going to be some level when bad FX are going to take you out of the picture. Now where that level is has a lot to do with how much the FX are used, how important to the film they are, and how good the rest of the film around them is.


I haven't seen it yet to judge, but I can understand what Adam and Matt are saying. Sometimes this stuff in intentional in B-films. And then just because it is doesn't mean we have to like it either. But I'd be willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt if the rest of the film maintains the same tone.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Realistic? Not even close. But I haven't seen CGI delivered with as much personality or fun in years. If it was a 'serious' monster CGI movie like Godzilla, I could see skipping it becuase you were unimpressed by the effects. But the quality of the effects is not the point here. The movie is an honestly fun B-movie camp horror film the likes of which hasn't been shown in a long time, and was budgeted accordingly.

 

[Terrell]

Oh well, different strokes for different folks. I don't look at CGI and say hey, I'll check that out. The story and the quality of the film is what matters most. I've seen many films I've enjoyed that had poor CGI or effects. Likewise, I've seen dreadful films with jawdropping effects. I'm not arguing that the CGI in Freaks is good. Just that CGI shouldn't be the deciding factor in the decision to see the film. Isn't story, character, performances, and quality of the product far more important than the effects? Not that good effects aren't important. They are. But compared to other areas of film, they pale in terms of importance.

As for Godzilla, I thought the effects were very good. But that didn't make the film anymore enjoyable.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

The FX for Starship Troopers' ground bugs remains, IMO, the best melding of CGI into live action that has ever been done; the only surprise I have is wondering how the team who created those effects haven't passed on their experiences to other FX teams such that we see this kind of blended perfection commonplace.

 

[Terrell]

Well, I thought the FX in Troopers was hit and miss. The bugs looked good, in fact extremely good, but the space shots and the ships looked bad. They had no scale and no mass. They looked like miniature models. The ship explosions weren't all that hot either. But, the bugs were impressive.

 

[Seth Paxton]

But I haven't seen CGI delivered with as much personality or fun in years.

 

[Malcolm R]

ELF was a fun movie. Personally, I just enjoyed the ride and didn't nitpick anything, especially the special effects. If I were to try and compare the CGI in ELF to ST, at this point I honestly couldn't say that I saw any difference. But, as I said, I wasn't watching to find flaws in the effects. To me, the CGI was sufficient that I was able to believe there were truly giant spiders crawling and jumping around that town.

 

[Terrell]

Well, we disagree. I'm not saying FX are important. But I don't judge or think of FX when I go see a film. I certainly don't base my viewing decisions on a film's effects. I base it on whether I think it's a good film or enjoyable flick.

 

[Matt Stone]

But the point Seth is trying to make is that the FX are a factor to whether "it's a good or enjoyable flick." You can't tell me that you don't judge the FX when you go see a film...because we discussed CG shots, etc many times in the Star Wars threads...so you've obviously thought of them.
Seth's point (and mine) is that CG shouldn't necessarily be a deciding factor in whether you go see a film, but it is a deciding factor in whether you like it.

 

[Matt Pelham]

I think the CG and FX shots in Eight Legged Freaks were a little bit hit and miss, but not as bad as some are saying. I mean some of the shots looked bad (spiders in the desert, etc) but some of them were great. That giant tarantula was simply INCREDIBLE except for that one shot of it up against the window
, other than that I was very impressed.