Yvonne Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Also I'm wondering if partly CG is being a victim of its own success - one of the best things it can do is be invisible. When its doing its job right, unless it's a deliberate FX show (I'm not a huge fan of these) CG shouldn't be noticed in a kind of "woah, special effects" kind of way. erhaps this is skewing remembered instances of decent CG a bit?
Dog-amoto Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 After seeing this, all other visual effects look like shit to me
Dan_Dare Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 So who's seen Rise of the Apes? Thought I'd mention it because it does something interesting with CG in that it genuinely does something that puppetry could never achieve and in a really good way, too. Ceaser and the other apes are genuine digital actors and, though they're mute, convey tonnes of range and emotions throughout the film. Stuff like this, which is obviously backed by great physical performances in the mo cap studios, is where CGI justifies itself and pushes the boundaries a little.
Solo Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Totally agree. I've been getting pretty sick of visual effects (with the likes of Transformers, comic book films etc) but then Rise of the Planet of the Apes came along and renewed my faith.
Dan_Dare Posted August 22, 2011 Posted August 22, 2011 Yeah, I guess it all comes down to the workman / tools thing. For the record, I thought Avatar was another really good example where tech was used to do something genuinely new and exciting. Just a shame the script wasn't as ground breaking in the end.
Recommended Posts