Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I'm going to chalk it up to personal opinion. I think the costumes and props of the 1993 Super Mario Bros. film have held up, even now, while Gollum in Lord of the Rings and the Na'vi, animals, and vehicles in Avatar just looked unbelievably fake to me. I don't think the technology is really at a point yet where I won't have suspension of disbelief.

DuneFishUK wrote:Me too...

There has never been any question of this being anything other than a live action adaptation. 2d or 3d.

I agree with Redstar that models can be better than CGI (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a modelmaker) but any effect has to be a balance - there are some things that models look terrible at, and some things that CGI ruins. Although as CGI becomes more advanced it is becoming more useful - The Baron for example will almost certainly get some CG fat

They can make a 3D film into regular, but not vice versa, so why not?

You obviously haven't heard about Titanic 3D - coming 2012.

The Fat Suit seems to have evolved quite a bit. See: Ryan Reynolds in Just Friends and Martin Short as Jiminy Glick.

I'm with Redstar on this one. I think muppets usually look better than CGI.

DuneFishUK wrote:

Redstar wrote:Rewritten, though not really necessary since I clarified afterward.

DuneFishUK wrote:I agree with Redstar that models can be better than CGI (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a modelmaker) but any effect has to be a balance - there are some things that models look terrible at, and some things that CGI ruins. Although as CGI becomes more advanced it is becoming more useful - The Baron for example will almost certainly get some CG fat

On average, practical effects are usually much better than CGI, but really only because not every production puts the proper money into it (SyFy channel is a really bad offender). If you're not going to go all out, you might as well go practical... Or even a mixture, which is one of the most effective routes.

Er.. what?

Practical and CGI both have their own sets of limitations and can both look equally crap no matter how much money you throw at them. I can think of plenty of examples where a practical effect removed the need for CGI, however I'm struggling to think of an example where a practical effect is much better than modern CGI..

Ultimately a good effect is one you don't notice and the best way to achieve that is determined by the effect itself.

Yeah, I'm with Redstar, models/real effects almost ALWAYS look better than CGI. Want examples? Yoda. Muthafucking Yoda. Movement is the big issue, but CGI always looks like CGI - I've yet to see much CGI work at all that looks truly realistic, 99% of the time it looks like a really good cartoon. District 9 was some of the best I've seen actually, but even that could be identified as CGI.

If I was making a movie right now, I would have everything that I could possible do without CGI without CGI.

I agree District 9 is the best example of CGI I can think of. But I have yet to see CGI that could compared to effects in Alien(s), The Thing,Terminator. CGI either looks very fake or it enters the uncanny valley and looks weird. And both tend to disconnect me from what I am watching.

I think the new series Spartacus does it right. Looking over the top fake by design.

Thodol wrote:And both tend to disconnect me from what I am watching.

one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of "scifi" movies,
altho I've enjoyed reading some over the years ...

Word. We are all in agreement then.

Word up. CGI looks awful.

It's a small red flag.
The reason it's there has to do with how 3-D movies almost get their own genre. A movie is either made for it or needs the extra gimmic. In a way, the criteria seems to be forgetability. 'Serious' movies are never in danger of becoming 3-D. A lot of fluff out on the net keeps bringing up Lord of the Rings to support the possibility of a good Dune movie, ok- ask yourself, would 3-D enhance or degrade LotR?
It's a nice effect, can be fun, can be removed. I feel like the director will have his hands full doing the movie, lets not add this to the plate.
you want a nice effect for the movies? make them start filming in VR, I want to put on a set of goggles & look around. total immersion.

I all comes down to "a means to an end"...
when the means(3D, cgi, you name it)becomes the end then you have a typical failure at storytelling as a whole. Examples of this don't lack, as we know.

Btw; Titanic 3D????? What the what??? Will Kate Winslet still look good naked I wonder...

A series with a lot of puppets and make up: Farscape.
Rigel was a real character(in more ways than one), and that's what happens when someone who's mastered their art sets his mind on doing something good it shows!

Most directors now(especially in SciFi movies)have become lazy and their audience less demanding...
Why bother with creativity when stupid sells?

lotek wrote:Btw; Titanic 3D????? What the what??? Will Kate Winslet still look good naked I wonder...

Better!

Oh, wait...

But Cameron is warning fans not to get too excited about the 3D effects: "It's never going to look as good as if you shot it in 3D. But think of it as a sort of 2.8D".

it will probably be the same weird feeling colorized b&w induces

merkin muffley wrote:Word up. CGI looks awful.

Only the bits you notice

Re: the Baron - he's a man so fat he can't support his own weight, that calls for one hell of a fatsuit. They can do a lot these days, however, I would be very very suprised if they didn't follow that with CG touch-ups in post production.

Fingers crossed - nobody will ever notice them.

(Bleedover from the dictionary discussion in the Humor thread: CG is for visuals. CGI is for websites. )

What's the acronym for Computer Generated Imagery then?

Because I can't be arsed to type that every time....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meh. CG gettin' all fancy-schmancy.

Pshaw!

ack.


also:

pffft.

(I don't know why I'm defending CGI so much - I make models )


(I'm also defending Modern Art elsewhere on the internets.. must be defend a twat day or something)

Under the tag "Stupid Casting Posts"...

Whoever the person currently posting for Official Dune over on Facebook is, they're an idiot. (I'm figuring it's Byron, but it could be Kim or some other Herbert or a ROT/GORGE flunkey.)

In response to a Wall comment about casting, Official Dune has suggested Clive Owen as Leto and Zachary Quinto as... wait for it...

Paul.

WTF?!


How many ways can YOU say EPIC FAIL?

You know, I'm so mercifully disconnected from Hollywood that I had to google those two names.

Isn't Zachary Quinto a bit...err...old to play Paul?

Clive Owen leaves me cold, though, at least visually. I can't see him as anyone.

But then, I've never seen either of these two act.
If that is in fact what they do for a living.

If I had any say whatsoever, I'd vote Edward James Olmos as Duke Leto. I don't see how it could possibly be more badass than that.

Sorry, goofy hijacking?

Not at all - I mean it's fine by me.

I'll help you hijack this thread - I'm from the hijack capital of the world, after all.

That Edward James Olmos does have a certain blue-blooded baddassery about him, doesn't he?

You know, nobody has ever got Jessica right, as far as I'm concerned.

Funnily enough, I see her as a younger version of Beverley Herbert.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:If I had any say whatsoever, I'd vote Edward James Olmos as Duke Leto. I don't see how it could possibly be more badass than that.

I agree that Edward James Olmos would be amazing as Duke Leto, and is going to happen in the alternate universe in which the new Dune movie will be good and interesting, where the oil spill never happened and the only place that would hire Kevin J Anderson was Penthouse Forum. The question is, "Would we want to live in a world that had such poorly-written pornography?" It's like a Star Trek episode about a dystopia.

"How To Serve Your Man" by Kevin J. Anderson. It's a cookbook!!!