posted
I just saw the previews for this a few days ago and realized that the entire movie is actually a friggen CGI cartoon. I suppose its cheaper to have actors supply their voices for doing animation than to do several takes for a scene, big budget for sets, wardrobe, decent script, etc...
I guess in another 20 years when Angelina Jolie isn't so hot and youthful she can have animators insert her CGI character from her youth into her movies and just supply the voice for it. As long as her voice sounds the same and doesn't turn into that of a gravelly voiced, phlegm coughing cigarette smoking truck driver by then. Of course then that could probably also be altered with a little tweaking from the computer geniuses that animates every movie that seems to be released from Hollywood these days.
posted
I'm reluctant towards CGI when not used properly... It can add a little boost to a genuinely shot action scene, especially when you can't really tell unless they say so when watching the 'extra features' on the dvd... Although some cheaper style movies rely on too much CGI can turn the movie to crap... Seein' the Mila Yovovich movie ULTRAVIOLET to me was a let down due to the cartoon like CGI actions seens (although she's still very very very sexy)....
I see what you mean about the Beowulf trailer... I was suprized also when I realised it was shot in CGI half way through the trailer.... From the cartoons of the 80s movies to now seems more life-like and probably in another 20 years as you've said (or maybe even less due to the speed of technology)... probably won't be able to tell the difference from CGI to Real Actors/Acteresses... Probably won't even need Actors/Actresses in the future and maybe get returning actors as Marilyn Manroe, Elvis and even the young Sean Connery
P.S.. Then alotta people will be outta the job eg. Actors/Actresses, Stunt crew, Alotta Camera Crew, Special Effects Crew, Wardrobe Crew, Explosive Crew.....etc.. And all the other Titles & names that come up in the ending credits that we don't give a crap about anyway Then all you'll need is the voice, so you could be 300lbs and not have a bath, but still be slim and sexy on screen
-------------------- "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr Emmit L. Brown (Back To The Future) Posts: 7894 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
CGI won't replace live action, not even 50 years from now. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoy CGI and I suppose a movie like Beowulf could be well-served by CGI considering the high fantasy element in it. The thing is though, CGI makes me lament the decline of traditional hand-drawn animation. I miss the days of actually getting excited for the next Disney animated feature, but these days, it seems the only think Disney likes animating by hand are derivative sequels to hit feature movies and TV shows. I guess I have to go the anime route to get my hand-drawn animated fix.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that a bit of it is good in some movies when it is used as you said to "enhance" a scene. For example in "The Lord of the Rings" it was pretty decent for a good part of the movie like making the actors portraying hobbits appear to be smaller than they are next to the normal sized characters. However, I thought it was rather lame for some of the monsters in it that were completely done with CGI like the troll from the first movie in the "Moria" scene. Gollum wasn't too bad though, but I think it could have been portrayed just as well using a live actor in makeup and costume. Just relying on it for most everything in a movie (George Lucas comes to mind now as a primary abuser) is to the extreme.
quote:Originally posted by LeDaemon: For example in "The Lord of the Rings" it was pretty decent for a good part of the movie like making the actors portraying hobbits appear to be smaller than they are next to the normal sized characters.
See... that just put alotta oompa loompas outta the job ....
It's going to be released here on the 29th on standard Big Screen and also "3D on IMAX" and no need to guess which one I'm gonna see ....
-------------------- "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr Emmit L. Brown (Back To The Future) Posts: 7894 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It all depends on the style of the movies as well. CGI works great for a film like Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children because we all know that it's based off of a video game. That movie can never be live action just because of the scope of the action and the locations. Same with Lord of the Rings, in some spots CGi works great, in other scenes the live action works fine. I kinda feel like the recent Babylon 5 DVD, Lost Tales, really didn't work well. I could tell everything thing on the screen was CGI except the characters. Compared to the original series, the blend of CGI and live action made for a much better product. Plus I really want to see Angelina Jolie naked (her character anyway). Hope she looks good....
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)
![[Nana]](graemlins/nana.gif)
.... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
....
