theBRB Banner

 Forum      Theater      Contests      Stockpile

Welcome Guest.

Login | Register

Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Obviously CG  (Read 9192 times)
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« on: April 16, 2006, 12:24:33 PM »

Random rant:

"It's obviously CG."

GAH!

No. No it's not. It's not obviously CG at all.

I hear people say that so much. "It's obviously CG", totally dismissing anything amazing. Ugh.

No, you're not some crazy CG expert, able to tell what's CG and what's not. You're just annoying.

The thing is, most people only say that when they decide something's too amazing to exist in real life. Which doesn't make you an expert, it just gives you an explanation you can throw around to sound smart and all knowing. Man.

I've had so many arguments with people after walking out of a movie and they'll go, "That one part was obviously CG." Except the thing is, it wasn't. And I'll say that, and they go, "No. It was totally fake."

Except it wasn't.

Which brings me to another point; being able to know somethings CG because it could never exist in real life does NOT make it BAD CG!

THAT'S why I hate CG lots of times. Because it allows people to dismiss anything amazing as fake, while at the same time assuming the personality of some crazy CG conneseur.

People may have built months constructing a giant robotic whatever, and everyone will say, "OHP! It's just CG. Nothing amazing here, folks".

GAH! People still do put effort into things! My goodness.

I dunno. CG has just been causing me a lot of grief, recently. Well, not grief, more irritance. I may spend hours and hours perfecting an effect, then when someone sees it, they go, "Whoa! How'd you do that?" and someone else in the room goes, "He just used a computer" and the first goes, "Ah". . . It's tough to have your work completely disregarded like that. I've pretty much gotten over it, cause that's how it goes, but yeah.

Although, on the topic of bad CG, I've never cared. Generally I'm watching a movie from the story perspective, meaning that if I see a guy in a lizard suit bursting through a bunch of buildings, I may give a small chuckle, cause hey, it's awesome, but I'm not gonna say the movie sucked.

Look at what it symbolizes. I see movies as I do books, if a book says 'The giant crushed a building" I accept it as a story point, same as in a  movie. If a fake giant crushes a fake building, I accept it.

I dunno.

Random rant. I gotta go clean for Easter company.  
Logged
Blank avatar

Magus



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 710


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2006, 01:04:13 PM »

Mmm I totally agree...

I would post something big and huge but instead, I wont.

=P

Good thing about your movies is, if someone doesn't like it, there are MILLIONS of other people out there who WILL like it.

Modeling takes so much time, I know this. I don't even model (unless its the type where they pay me to take pictures of me, that's always fun =P), it's just tooooooo confusing and what not... Mmm Hmmm

So Ian, we love you.. We understand how hard it is to make your work, and we congradulate you on that. XD


Props
Logged

And I saw a mountain, and I saw a city;
Steadily sinking but suspiciously calm
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2006, 01:13:11 PM »

Lol. I wondered why I was posting that even as I did.

I just got irked, cause there's so MANY of those people.

Haha. Dude! I just reread my post.  I didn't even have a point! My goodness.  
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 01:21:08 PM by Mrdodobird » Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2006, 01:32:56 PM »

I totally disagree. I have yet to see much of anything CG that has ever convinced me its real. Actually, Ian, your stuff comes about as close as any (including pro stuff), but, still... puppet yoda over CG fake yoda any day.

It's funny to hear people talk about how to light CG to it looks real. Or how to texture it so it looks real. Gah! Seriously... just make a REAL model and, oh, look, its PERFECT with NO effort, save for modeling, which you must do with CG anyway.

There are obvious advantages to CG:
1. It's cheap. This is why people use it.
2. It's more controllable than real stuff... you can do a 360 flyaround of a spaceship so much easier with cg than real stuff. Motion controlled cameras are hard to find and work with.


I hate the trend to go toward CG. It makes things look fake.

As for you, personally, Ian, I love your stuff. It's wonderful. You couldn't possibly do what you do without CG, and you come darn close to immitating reality, but you do, however, still only IMMITATE reality. It's not real. Therefore, it looks CG.

While you might make something really cool in CG, you still must spend countless hours trying to make it look "not CG", whereas someone  who used a real model just needs to finish the shot then its done.


There are people who just whine about it, but, really, CG DOES look fake. It gets old to say it, but... yeah.



Random note: It's funny that people actually add noise or downgrade the quality of CG just so it doesn't look 'better' than the real stuff.



I realize that you feel attacked because CG is your art, but, still,  you must realize that you spend hours on hours just trying to immitate reality, and, since nothing can ever be perfect, it ALWAYS will look (somewhat) CG.




EDIT: My biggest pet pieve with any of this is that CG is used instead of other methods that work just fine. Best example: Yoda. If CG must be used to do something like a complex battle with 1000s of Gungans and Battle droids, then go for it! But if it's just a shot a stunt guy could easily do, then, seriously, make it real. That's why people hate the Matrix sequels (and plot).
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 01:35:45 PM by djr33 » Logged
Blank avatar

scriptcoder

« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2006, 02:19:55 PM »

Hah! Yes!

People have been saying things like this to me also. You spend so much time making something and people dismiss it because it was made on a computer.

 <_<

  :lol: When you add grain to CG its to made it easier to composite. Its like when you film a backround plate using one camera and a toy with another and you want to put it together you need to make the visual quality somewhat the same.

Isn't the point of every single aspect of filmmaking to imitate reality? You create a script; you imitate what people say. You make a puppet; you imitate movement.


Heh and I liked the digital Yoda. The puppet was cool and all but the CG Yoda really could express its emotions much clearer.
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2006, 02:43:25 PM »

I wasn't even talking about whether it looks real or not. I could care less. As I said, I look at what the CG is representing, not if it totally looks like it.

Although really, my "generalization" alarm went off with "CG DOES look fake".

Nope! I mean, some does. But what does that mean? ALL CG looks fake? What the heck? How can you even say that? And what defines CG?

"I have yet to see much of anything CG that has ever convinced me its real."

See. That's my whole thing right there. I have two things to say to that.

1.) OF COURSE! I mean, if you saw CG that you thought was real, you would'nt KNOW you'd seen it.

2.) You've never been convinced that something CG is real? Again, Of course! If you know something's fake, you're obviously not going to think it's real.

The truth is, there's CG that fools you all the time. Honestly! I think you're just thinking about Spaceships.

I'm not talkin' about 3d CG, but just, like, any type of CG. Paint out stuff, painting IN stuff, thingsl ike that.

Saying you've never been fooled by CG is impossible Cheesy

Quote
Heh and I liked the digital Yoda. The puppet was cool and all but the CG Yoda really could express its emotions much clearer.

Exactly! It helps tell the story better than the "real" one, which for me is what it's all about.

The only time when that would be BAD is the whole, "suspension of disbelief" thing, in which if you're obsessing about the poor CG, you're not experiencing the story.  But you can get that with a puppet too. In fact, I get it practically the whole time I watch "Little Shop of Horrors" Cheesy  
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 02:45:53 PM by Mrdodobird » Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2006, 03:35:48 PM »

Quote
I wasn't even talking about whether it looks real or not. I could care less. As I said, I look at what the CG is representing, not if it totally looks like it.
Then there's no point in arguing. 'Cause, in the end, your stuff does LOOK CG, but you don't care. So... what's the complaint?
Logged
Blank avatar

Tyler



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 73


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2006, 04:14:28 PM »

This thread is obviosly CG.

I'm very impressed with CG, but sometimes it's better to use real things.  CG will never look real, because real things will look more realistic.  Does that sentence even make sense?!  I wish Lucas would've used real clonetroopers in Episode II, even if it meant hiring a bunch of extras.  He used real people for the armies of stormtroopers in the OT....

I'll stop typing before I end up trying to talk about something I have little knowledge in.  Woops, too late....lol
Logged

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/3534/fakecello4qp.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
An IMDb user praising this "diverse" and "complex" music:
"Look at the incredible variety of themes he does - from Gladiator, a masterpiece, to Matchstick Men, a fun, jazzy style, then Pirates - a theme that moviegoers (however musically inclined they may be) will never forget. These scores are not only more diverse, but more complex as well."    :-\
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2006, 06:05:52 PM »

Daniel, I respectfully disagree that "nothing CG looks real" stereotype.  I have seen multitudes of excellent CG that I would have sworn was done with a live model or some sort, and until I hear the commentary, I don't believe it's CG.

On the other hand, I've seen CG that looks terrible.

The same goes for stop motion or miniature modeling.

Now, I would say that it is easier to make real things look real, hence all the miniatures in LOTR.  However, there are a ton of parts in LOTR that people said, 'Man, what lousy CG', and it was a miniature.  In other parts, they said 'Wow!  That's good CG!' and it was a miniature.

People just expect every effect these days to be CG, whether it is or not.

I think that the best effects are the ones that nobody even notices, CG, miniature, practical, etc.  The trend of glory effects being done in CG is merely because as you said, the impossible is made possible.  People just assume therefore that anything they couldn't do themselves must be CG.

At any rate, I think anything can be done well or poorly, but the end goal is to tell a story, and if the story can be gotten across better with a miniature than CG, so be it.  I'm all for it.  The same goes for the other way around...
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 06:06:18 PM by JohnMoore » Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2006, 07:44:59 PM »

When someone doesn't know the difference between miniatures and CG, and they say it's good or bad--
1. They don't know what they're talking about, so it isn't an insult either way.
2. They are still generally saying "looks bad", so it was either badly done CG or badly done miniatures (or good/well done).

CG rarely looks real... when it does, that's great, but so much of the time it's overused.

I totally agree with you, Tyler. The CG troopers were quite fake looking... very well done, but just a bit too perfect to be real.


John, people who assume aren't the people I'm agreeing with... I do know what is and what is not CG.

Quote
At any rate, I think anything can be done well or poorly, but the end goal is to tell a story, and if the story can be gotten across better with a miniature than CG, so be it. I'm all for it. The same goes for the other way around...
I agree. That's exactly why I'm saying CG is overused. There are times it's NEEDED, but other times the directors are just too cheap to hire extras, stunt people, or build a real miniature, etc.
Logged
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2006, 07:47:18 PM »

And there are times when CG can be much BETTER than any other option.

I think they used CG well in The Two Towers, but poorly in Return of the King.
Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2006, 07:48:50 PM »

I thought the LOTR saga was incredibly well produced. They're really one movie, and were filmed as such, so it's really hard to seperate them in many ways. I didn't have a problem with the CG in there.... it's not like you can just go and film an Ent Smiley ...and it was very well done Smiley


CG can be much better, but that's not as frequent as the amount of times they use it.
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2006, 07:51:59 PM »

Quote
Then there's no point in arguing. 'Cause, in the end, your stuff does LOOK CG, but you don't care. So... what's the complaint?

Eh?

I never once mentioned being irked by people saying my CG looked CG.

What bugged me was when people totally dismiss all the hard work that goes into it. Like paintings; few people judge paintings soley on how well it emulates real life, because "real life" is not usually what the artist is trying to show.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

And I just randomly found those. Great pictures, eh? All painted on a computer. And yet I know some people who will completely dismiss that art because of that.

THAT'S what bugs me. People putting down art because of the medium.

I've actually seen clips put online of CG composited robots and stuff, and everybody's like, "Wow! That's neat!" but there's always a surprising number who go, "You guys are all idiots. He just used a computer. Morons"

.... yeah. I know. That's what he was showing.

Although really, I've never really understood "miniature" purists. Or CG purists.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I can't really understand ANY kind of "artistic purist". I was watching an anime with a "hand drawn cell animation anime" purist. (We were watching Steamboy. Awesome movie). And in the background out of a train window was scenery going by. You know, int he layered way Anime does it. And it went on and on and on. The guy I was with booed at the screen, "Boo! CG!" And I asked him, "How do you know that that's CG?" "Because it IS CG! I just know!" It went on like this for about a minute, till he finally said that it was cause, "It would be impossible to do that Non-CG!"

See, that doesn't make sense to me. The only way he knew it was CG was cause it was something that would be impossible to be done without it, and yet he hated the CG.

Is it cause it's ruining some sacred medium of traditional anime? Call me a pragmatist, but geez, that dont' make much sense to me.

I say, if the CG lets you do something not possible otherwise, dont' just say, "I know that's CG, therefor, it's bad", just go along with it.

My goodness!

 :peace:  
Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2006, 09:08:50 PM »

Quote
"It's obviously CG."

GAH!

No. No it's not. It's not obviously CG at all.
That's what I was referring to... isn't that what you're saying?



I agree, though, about purists. That's what I don't like. CG is good and CG is bad. That's what must be understood. I still say it's overused, though.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 09:11:03 PM by djr33 » Logged
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2006, 09:44:12 PM »

I agree with you on the overused bit.

Honestly, two of my alltime favorite movies are Braveheart, and Tom and Huck;

One pulled off huge battle sequences without CG, the other is a movie I would love to have made, because it's simple, beautiful, and has no apparent effects of any sort.

It's brilliant.
Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to: