MovieChat Forums > Priest (2011) Discussion > Why hasn't CGI evolved???

Why hasn't CGI evolved???

posted 14 years ago by jonathanmarklund
12 replies | jump to latest

I happened to see lord of the rings on tv just before I saw this movie, and I have to say that the CGI looks pretty much the same.
I would expect something more from a movie made 10 years after LOTR.

[–] NolanSorrento 14 years ago

the $35million gap in budget makes a big difference in quality

Brought to you by Carl's Jr

[–] psilome 14 years ago

LotR used new technology, allthough Peter Jackson admitted that the possibility to use this tech had been "available" for some time (mustve been to expensive previously.) Gonna be some time before we see further evolution if you dont count 3D evolution.

[–] FredBurroughs 14 years ago

Perhaps the disparity had something to do with the different directors. Perhaps Peter had a better eye for detail in 2001, while Scott Stewart could only manage images half as sophisticated ten years later.

[–] tetrahex 14 years ago

it has, now directors can use a load of excessively cheap cgi. art still takes time and money, low end stuff can be spammed out is all that is different now.

[–] Darknessviking 14 years ago

compare the dinosaurs in the jurassic park 1 and 3,in the first one there was about a total of 1 minute of datadinos,in the third there was a whole lot.

the same technique but it gets cheaper along the years.

nowadays b-movies can have "decent" cgi that big budget movies used a couple of years ago.

but yeah i agree,i almost prefer "real effects" that at least looks real before badly drawn cgi

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CasseroleWorshipper 14 years ago

It's funny watching the burly brawl sequence of THE MATRIX RELOADED now - it has aged so badly it's ridiculous.

I thought PRIEST's CGI was passable, at least they compensated the poor digital creatures with some fairly excellent set design and wardrobing.

Now think of the vampire assclowns from I AM LEGEND and the bloodsuckers from this one are pretty OK.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.

[–] Suntory_Times 13 years ago

I actually thought the creature cgi was very well done, the train and lighting on the other hand....

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time...

[–] An_Animator 13 years ago

I thought the CGI was one of the only good things about the film. I love the designs of the vampires.

That and the animated opening title sequence. That was amazing. The whole film should've been animated in that style. The animated sequence was so cool that I was actually disappointed when it switched to live action. It looked so bland compared to the amazing opening.

-----
"An animator is an actor with a pencil (or a mouse!)."

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

I listened to the director's commentary and cost definitely played a part in determining how some of the scenes were eventually done. Also in the analysis of certain scenes where CGI was most evident the director explianed how they mixed it with a range of other effects, stunts and shadow fighting etc to try and achieve the best possible visuals.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] Dyellyc 13 years ago

it comes down to finance and software capability.

ILM produces superior computer graphics compared to Weta Workshop's LoTR, KING KONG and the recent RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES.

[–] zyggums 13 years ago

cgi leaves me cold. its no better now than the last starfighter which was from the early 80s.