MovieChat Forums > Rogue (2007) Discussion > The CGI in this film

The CGI in this film

posted 17 years ago by LinkfxTBP
21 replies | jump to latest

Just to start off, I love good horror films. Jaws, The Shining, The Descent, 28 Days Later. I also am a fan of great visual effects, being in the Visual Effects industry myself as a VFX supervisor. I do have a few criticisms on the film's narrative and style, being that the ending felt a little too "stagey" compared to the rest of the film. Albiet it was still a great ending, just a change in tone from the rest of the movie. I loved this film, I thought it was unique and it was told in a way that reminded me of all those travelogue horror stories you read in the Reader's Digest or other magazines.

Onto the CGI in this film. It was minimal for sure, but it was used probably better than any creature film since I can remember. You get the presence of the creature. You feel the threat without having to ruin the film with an over-present menace. The crocodile acted like a real crocodile, it slipped around, it was fat and less mobile in the mid-section(something most croc and most monster movies ignore is the fact that ribcages don't really twist and bend) and it's legs moved liked real stubby little legs. Very impressed. Also the jaws looked very real and were accompanied by wonderful sound effects. Overall the texture and the wetness looked real and the creature was always lit properly. I also loved how it distorted the water. I'm sure they used some physical prop to integrate it.

It really seemed like the VFX team behind this film knew what they were doing. I give them huge props for making me believe in CGI. I work in CGI myself, but I know it's limits, and I know it has to be done right without excess to look real. There was no need for a puppet(even if there was one used I couldn't tell). But the creature effects in this film are my favorite since, and better than Jurassic Park.

[–] guiltyrain 17 years ago

I enjoyed reading your post LinkfxTBP. It's always great to hear from someone who works in the film industry. I don't know anything about CGI and special effects, but to me the croc they created looked pretty real, plus totally creepy.

Greg Mclean said in an interview that he wanted to make the croc as real as possible, and they definitely achieved that. The music written for the movie was terrific too, and the 'croc theme' was really effective.

I have to say though, that I think all the actors were very brave to even go on that boat, that was so low on the water. What I found scary was the real ones they filmed in the Northern Territory, and you just saw their head and eyes out of the water, and then they'd disappear so quietly, you wouldn't know they were there. I'm just sorry that 'Rogue' never got a wider release in the US, which it really deserved. I'd have loved to have seen the movie on an IMAX screen here in Australia, which some people were lucky enough to do. It would've been awesome!

[–] LinkfxTBP 17 years ago

Thanks, I'm glad you liked what I had to say. I also wish the film had recieved a bigger market here. I really don't understand why they didn't have the confidence that this horror film would succeed. Maybe it was lack of any major American Actors. Radha Mitchell and Michael Vartan are known, but not on a wide enough scale. Everyone did a great job with the film, definitely will be one I watch repeatedly and reccomend to horror and film enthusiasts as well as VFX geeks like myself.

[–] GirlyfromOz 17 years ago

I love Michael Vartan. He is an untapped actor. Sure not as well known on the big screen as many other so called big stars, the bulk who I think are quite average and think it unfair that those really talented haven't got the name. Publicity machines obviously do wonders for them. I don't see hollywood movies anymore because the acting is not as good as indie/art house movies, nor are the story lines that interesting, nor the way the movie is shot. Great work - I have played the documentaries almost as much as the film.

[–] GeneticSugarKane 17 years ago

Praise the lord that there are still people with some sense working in the VFX industry! (I'm talking about the people behind Rogue and YOU Linkfx).

~Spirit desire, spirit desire, we will fall.~

[–] LinkfxTBP 17 years ago

I really wish there were more of us. It's this new batch of recent grads who grew up playing videogames that are ruining it all. I'm from the generation before, but didn't play videogames as much as I watched old classic(and not so classic)horror and sci-fi films instead, valuing different things besides shiny over-mobile creatures that make me laugh more than scare me.

Unfortunately, CGI is the cost effective approach in alot of cases and there are alot of people pushing for it because it saves them location shoots and giant practical effects. Alot of the time, too, practical can be more cost-effective if implemented correctly with the proper experience and crew behind it. But it all boils down to the intelligence of the filmmaker. Obviously the people who made Rogue were able to see the inherent problems that come with CGI creature effects and work through and around them to create a living breathing creature that is naturally frightening.

[–] willywilly 17 years ago

Huh, thats funny. When I finally saw the croc in its lair I felt a big fat disappointment.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LinkfxTBP 17 years ago

hahaha!!! Shark Attack 3, I love Shark Attack 3 what a terrible terrible film, yet incredibly entertaining in it's genius level trashiness.

[–] eatmepapi 17 years ago

I loved the minimal use of minimal CG as well, it really made the actors shine IMO. Until that uber-Hollywood over the top ending, of course. Too much CG at that point, marring the experience and veering into silly Lake Placid territory but still way better. I liked the serious treatment and atmosphere, without having humour laid on too thick.

[–] LinkfxTBP 16 years ago

I actually was referring to the film overall, I loved the CGI in the end as well, because it looked so well-researched. It seemed like a real croc and not like a movie monster. Regardless, you're right in that ending felt to me as well a little too Hollywood, albiet, still pretty darn terrifying.

[–] puirt-a-beul 16 years ago

Overall, I think they did really well.

Two things that often disappoint me about CGI critters are when they don't seem to get the skin or fur quite right -- sometimes it seems as if just one more pass of texture-mapping might have nailed it, but maybe the budget has run short or something -- and when they don't seem to get the physics right, the weight or inertia of the creature.

This movie did pretty well on both counts, I think, with the exception of just a couple of shots towards the end of the flick -- just moments, really -- where the croc briefly looked like a 2D object matted into the scene. Otherwise, for the most part, it seemed physically real. Quite an achievement.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] millenniumgroup 16 years ago

what the hell? Besides the actual croc, the CGI was dowright TERRIBLE. Every scene that took place from 0-40 minutes = CGI background templates (VERY obvious). This movie sounds and looks like a cheap low budget. I'm amazed how they even managed to get Radha Mitchell to star in this piece of turd.

"Wait!" "Worry" "Who Cares?"

www.alienexperience.com
tiwwa.info/

[–] moysant 16 years ago

I was impressed from the moment that the first dude got taken from the island bank (while Kate was holding out her hand to help him up). I paused the scene and put it on slo' mo, and it looked just as impressive.

But I didn't think the croc looked any good when it rushes out of the pool in the cave (just before it is killed) - it looked like an off-colour rubber contraption. It was too green, and its jaws caved in as it sawed away at the rock.

But this was a much better movie than I was expecting. Pity the marketing was so lousey that I'd never heard of it, and I live in Australia!

[–] willywilly 16 years ago

its eyes were way too small

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alywin 15 years ago

Sounds as though (depending on where you live - I get the impression that the bonuses vary from country to country) you ought to get hold of the DVD and look at the bonus material and listen to the director's commentary. They go into quite a bit of detail as to how the effects were done.

[–] bureau203 15 years ago

I agree with this. It was very hard to see the CGI. None of it actually looked like CGI to me. It all looked very realistic.

Something about Aussies and New Zealanders doing awesome CGI, something it the water maybe.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."