I live sifi/monster/fantasy/action/horror type movies but I hate all the cgi they use anymore. Whatever happened to using prop puppets and animatronic? The trailer to this movie looked like a live action cartoon. Ill take the worst puppeteering ove cgi any day.
I don't hate all cgi it can be amazing when done right like in district 9 it looked amazing.
You're preaching to the coir. This is part of why I think del Toro could have been a better choice to direct this. Not only is he a hard core fan of the Frankenstein novel (and probably would have cast Doug Jones instead of an overly buff, tan, pretty boy) but also because he still relies on practical effects for the most part. That's what impressed me about the Hellboy movies.
The thing is, CGI is a tool, and it should be appreciated for what it can do. However, it's just one tool in a toolbox. It should be used carefully, and in conjunction with other forms of effects work.
Case in point: the recent prequel to The Thing. There were some great-looking practical effects made for that film, and they were shot as well. Then some idiot exec ordered them to reshoot it with CGI. Sure enough, the CGI looked terrible.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
I'm on the fence about these types of movies for younger viewers. In the 90s, CGI was either really bad, or really awesome. But either way, there was never a lot of it.
These days, some movies still really impress me (the last being Catching Fire) where I cannot believe how an entire world is created out of CGI and how fairly good it looks.
But most of the time, it's the opposite. Unfortunately, I think filmmakers are still learning how to use that tool.
[deleted]
he looks nothing like frankenstein...
I really really hate all the Anti CGI attitudes.
Puppets look stupid, they did then and they do now.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Pretty sure the reference was to 'overuse' of CGI. As with any type of film fx, the most believable is when several techniques are mixed over the course of a scene. Too much CGI - unless done with extreme care - tends to make a movie look synthetic. Same with overuse of puppets, men in suits, etc. They all have their place within a scene. The absolute worst is watching CGI characters battle it out (i.e. Man of Steel).
Unfortunately, this film appears to be one that will rely too much on CGI. Too many 'epic' battle scenes...
Agreed. The premise, though corny, is interesting and doesn't need the constant Michael Bay explosions and Earth shattering battles.
I'm also sorry to say they cut out a flashback of a scene directly from Mary Shelley's novel where The Creature asks for a mate and Victor destroys her rather than give her to her, thus leading to The Creature's second quest for revenge...
I really really hate all the Anti CGI attitudes.
Puppets look stupid, they did then and they do now.
They need to train their actors better.
Voice Actors react to things not there all the time. That shouldn't be something a Director has to worry about.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
And yet it is. Voice actors are specifically trained for reacting to things not there. But stage and screen actors often have difficulty with it. This is why when Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out it's lead won an Oscar.
Puppets can look great just like cgi. The android head for example in Alien 3 I thought was the actor doing a similar trick to the first Alien, but it wasn't. Likewise cgi can be completely seamless and very often is whilst allowing for much greater freedom in terms of movement. The downside is when it is done poorly it is far more distracting.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
Why are you linking the Daniel Radcliffe turd? DO you think that one actually follows the book? I have the script for that one. It's a "Buddy" movie between Igor (who never existed in the original novel and in fact didn't exist at all until Universal's Son of Frankenstein) and Victor. It also has Igor as smarter than Victor, Victor with an over bearing and verbally abusive father, and a drug addict roommate.
A weird Les Miserables plot in which Igor is framed for murder. And the creature is flailling and mindless. Daniel Radcliffe himself said it's a Zeitgeist Frankenstein film that has nothing to do with the book. It will probably be a hit though for Daniel Radcliffe's name alone.
Didn't you notice NONE of those characters are from Shelley's story?
I could use your help in an argument I'm having on the Bitten board.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Damn straight. Movie looks like a *beep* Playstation game.
shareIf CGI is necessary I don't have an issue with it; you can't make a contemporary Hulk him with Lou Ferrigno in green makeup and you can't do a Transformers film with men wearing boxy suits.
If it's used unnecessarily, like in The Wolfman remake from 2010 where instead of real animals they used CGI, then I don't see why they would spend more money to create everything from scratch when it would be easier to get the real thing.
2014: The Year of Godzilla
The 2010 Wolfman was a mess. The editing was choppy and almost all the good Rick Baker effects had been swapped out for the CG for the theatrical release, which is ironic because it was the rick Baker effects that got it the Oscar nomination.
I agree, it was a mess. Universal butted in more than they should have and micro-managed it to hell, it especially irritates me that they didn't want to go with Mark Romanek's vision for the project, which he described as being "dark, rich, intelligent Jungian". Rick Baker said something similar. I can't believe Universal didn't have faith in either of them, or Andrew Kevin Walker's original script.
Mark Romanek is such an under-appreciated director, his music video and commercial work is extraordinary and his films are all solid. If anybody could've breathed new live to Universal horror it would've been him.
2014: The Year of Godzilla