if not primarily, did they use it in some instances?
I noticed a lot of the UFO scenes were shot using stop-motion-animation and scale models, but some shots looked like early renditions of CGI, similar to what we see in 80s films like 'The Last Starfighter' and even 'Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan".
Hi, I'm God. Can I touch You?
[deleted]
Nope, this was back in the days of good old animatronics and blue screen.
share[deleted]
Some CGI is ok. It isn't all bad. I don't get it. Why do people hate CGI so much?
Film recommendation >>>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/
[deleted]
stop-motion isn't all that great either.
Film recommendation >>>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/
[deleted]
I'll cite a perfect example of great CGI- Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park used CGI, stop motion, anamatronics, mineature models and full size models. It's because of the perfect combination of these effects that movie still looks real to this day.
[deleted]
I agree! Peter Jackson did a great job of mixing the CGI in and not compromising the story for it.
He pounds his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts
| think you should just do what you need to do to bring your vision to life.
a good example is Lynch's "Twin Peaks", the 'Black Lodge' was supposed to be an unsettling mysterious place. and when you finaly saw the inside of this mystery hell, all it was is a square room, with a stipped flood, and red curtains for walls....thats all. and it works great.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In my opinion if you want a movie to look real, you can't just use models, and you cant just use CGI you need to use them both. Stephen Speilberg seems to be able to do this with most of his movies, while George Lucas is so self indulgent with CGI it's off putting.
I don't like films like the new Star Wars movies and the Matrix because they overuse CG and the story ends up lacking.
shareTo set the record straight, there was no stop/go motion in Jurassic Park at all, and no miniatures, either. Stan Winston handled the full-scale animatronics, Dennis Murin at ILM handled the full-motion CGI Dinos and Michael Lantieri handled the on-set effects.
IMO, people dislike CGI simply because eveyone else dislikes it, when the truth is is that it is a far superior filmmaking tool than anything used in Hollywoods past. But, I completely agree that CGI needs to be used to propel the story along and remain annonymous, not be the center of attention, otherwise the only thing were left with is a big effects reel.
Simply because stop motion came first means nothing, it's still as fake looking as any bad CGI done now, nostalgia does not factor into this debate. Both have their pro's and con's, I think that guy's like Ray Harrihausen and Phil Tippet did the best work that could be done with that and what they accomplished looked great, even though you could obviously tell it was phony, the sam can be said for CGI.
[deleted]
IMO, people dislike CGI simply because eveyone else dislikes it
weird... I was under the impression that everyone else LOVED it! why else has it tainted practically ALL flms released over the past ten years? ... the CGI in T2, Jurassic Park, and Starship Troopers is excellent and I embrace those films without question ---- but all other uses sicken me... it's like an over-sweetened dessert ---- too much, and it becomes nauseating... right now I can't stomach the sight of it whatsoever - I vastly prefer stop/go motion and blue screen effects / miniatures etc ----- and as somebody already mentioned above: Ray Harryhauses is the king!!
Raider heißt jetzt Twix, ... sonst ändert sich nix
[deleted]
It was a combination of blue scene, stop motion (very good stop motion)and some animatronics. It's quite well done.
shareThe question wasn't "does cg suck?" it was did they use any. And the answer is yes, but not very much at all. The scene with the male alien in the breadbox jumping down the hall, well the breadbox was definatly cg, and no offence because it was the 80s, but not very good cg. :). Hope this helps the op.
"I'm a Repo man!" (Jack, LOST)
[deleted]
No, that wasn't cgi either. Every effects shot in this was done using traditional methods(blue/greenscreen, stop motion animation, animatronics, etcetera).
"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having."-Emma Goldman
Sometimes (not ALL the time) CGI is overly-relied upon. When a movie relies more on the eye-candy than the actual story, the entire movie suffers for it. That's why people dislike overuse of CGI. Younger people who grew up on CGI-based movies may not even understand that point of view, and perhaps to them, stop-motion animation looks clunky, jerky, and unrealistic. Well, because it was. LOL. To an extent. But for people who were young at THAT time, when those movies first came out, seeing a T.Rex fighting with King Kong was really amazing! A lot of it has to do with what you grew up with. The reason stop-motion animation didn't "take over" in older movies was because they couldn't; it was so time-consuming & expensive, they simply could not do an entire movie full of special effects, although King Kong came close. A lot of those older movies were not written so well either, and padded with a lot of climbing scenes LOL. In every era, there are good & bad movies. And everyone probably loves whatever era they grew up in the best, and has some very good reasons to defend it with.
The truth is, though, CGI is going to get used more and more, probably to the point where they can use an actor's likeness in a movie without them having to physically even DO anything, and you won't even be able to tell if it's really them or not. And of course, next they will be using dead actors in new roles! Imagine that!! People then will be saying, "remember back when CGI first started, and it was all blocky & unrealistic, and you could tell that it was CGI?"
¸«¤º°»«ëÕ|{¥(V)°º¤»¸
"I'm a winner, see my prize! You're a loser who sits and cries!" ~Squidward
I don't know if any CGI Was used in this film but yes people there was CGI back then. It was very limited but it was there. Even 10 years earlier there was basic CGI. The Death Star Trench Run model during the pre-battle meeting in Star Wars, was CGI. Jurassic Park popularized and advanced its development ten fold. And yeah guess what PONG on the Atari was...
---------------------------------------
Anime is Forever
I don't know what you are on about but the trench scene in "Star Wars" was definitely NOT cgi.
"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having."-Emma Goldman
I just watched this for the first time in HD (I saw it in the movies with my cub scout den when I was 8 :)), and there is definitely some early CGI involved. It's not visible on the DVD/TV versions, but on HDTV it is plainly obvious.
The most damning is the scene where Frank and Faye are sitting in the cafe and the machine pours the coffee.. The coffee pot is fake (it has a 'cartoony' look to it, and the coffee does not slosh at all, it stays perfectly level), and the coffee itself is totally fake on the pour and in the cup.
What is with you people? There is no cgi in this movie. **eyeroll**
"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having."-Emma Goldman