Shhh, I'm hunting Grendels
Jul. 27th, 2007 06:21 pmBeowulf Trailer here.
What on earth is the point of making an entirely CGI movie and then making the characters look like the actors? You can make them look like _anything_, so why make them less realistic versions of themselves?
Also - I've seen good CGI. Frankly, I've seen CGI so good I didn't know it was CGI. So why does this look like CGI?
(cheers to
johnbobshaun for the link)
What on earth is the point of making an entirely CGI movie and then making the characters look like the actors? You can make them look like _anything_, so why make them less realistic versions of themselves?
Also - I've seen good CGI. Frankly, I've seen CGI so good I didn't know it was CGI. So why does this look like CGI?
(cheers to
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 06:32 pm (UTC)Personally, I've very rarely seen CGI (done for realism) which is genuinely good - just stuff which is good at its time.
However, why this push for realism, as you say? Fine, use it for things you can't do/show in real life.... but with very, very few exceptions, CGI backgrounds/monsters/effects that -could- easily be done without CGI are a lot less convincing that actual physical sets/guys in rubber suits or animatronics/explosions.
Look at that heinous CGI fire/explosions that -still- gets used. If you're watching cheap TV shows or straight to DVD stuff, sure... but in blockbusters?
Each time I see actors painfully interacting with objects and/or creatures which are patently not there, it just pisses me off. It's less convincing than Knightmare. If you're making a multi million dollar film, surely you could afford a few sets, perhaps?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 06:46 pm (UTC)Lots of it? Great big pants.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 08:10 pm (UTC)on CGI
Date: 2007-07-27 08:32 pm (UTC)