I've always thought that Jar Jar was a tremendous achievement though. In a perverse mirror of the Gollum comments above, I find it fascinating that people moan about how awful a character Jar Jar is but they rarely mention the execution of the CG when talking about him.
The problem with Jar Jar is that he was so thoroughly cartoony in his execution and design as to be utterly unbelievable.
Bill Nighy who played Davy Jones got to wear some lovely grey pyjamas as he called them, covered with tracking dots. They also applied Davy Jones makup to his eyes in case the CGI didn't work out on the characters face. In the end ILM did such a fantastic job that the make-up was never needed and DJ is 100% CGI.
Most impressive. It's the number of close-ups on his face that fooled me, I was certain that make-up was used.
The greatest CGI creation yet - and one that is ignored time after time - is Stuart Little, helped by the fact that the same amount of love went into the films as the SFX. But he's stunningly realized throughout the first two films.
Interestingly though, he wasn't cheap! I think Stuart Little 2 - minute per minute - is still the most expensive film ever made.
Very nicely observed comments from some of you which I 100% agree with. Jar Jar Binks as a character was a major PITA, but as a digital creation, pretty damn believable.
Personally, I think Gollum's over-rated - for what they've tried to do with him, ie emote, react to others, interact with scenery/characters, then WETA have done an incredible job, but as far as seamlessly blending in with the background to try and give him a natural look, maybe it's me, but I just look at him and it screams 'obvious CGI' to me.
Davy Jones would have been my second choice. Exemplary work by the FX artists there.
I shall also add the digital dogs that were also created by The Secret Lab in 102 Dalmations.
And of course, Mighty Joe Young, created 7 years before WETA's Kong, and just as good as that digital creation IMHO.
Trailer: (apologies in advance for the God awful soundtrack)
Last edited by LordoftheDance; 17-03-2009 at 13:02.
I think 'Teddy' from AI deserves a mention to. There's only one scene I can think of where it looks a little cheeky but apart from that ILM's work is flawless (Which just makes me despair a little more when they do something like 'The Mummy Returns')
__________________
Its called the BAG-L325!
It's quality. You can well imagine it hangin about with R2-D2. And when the fan is switched on it looks like it's scanning for life-forms like R2-D2 does on the ice world of Hoth when Luke Skywalker goes missing. Quality in moton. The other day it disappeared. I said, "where's the bag-l gone? have the jawas come to pick it up in the sandcrawler?" to which one of the girls in the office replied, "No, Les the porter!" —Captainchode
And of course, Mighty Joe Young, created 7 years before WETA's Kong, and just as good as that digital creation IMHO.
He's very well done, but much of it was an actor in a suit and animatronics. Kong was entirely a digital creation and his facial expressions were a lot more expressive. There was life in Kong's eyes in a way that I've never seen in a digitally created creature. On top of that, fur is always a challenge and that was flawlessy handled as well. He's a step up from Gollum and he had to be because he's the central character.
I quite like The Mighty Joe Young remake, it's good fun despite the generic plot. I was a big fan of the original too. As a kid I actually preferred it to the original King Kong.
Last edited by Todd Tomorrow; 17-03-2009 at 14:31.
I think 'Teddy' from AI deserves a mention to. There's only one scene I can think of where it looks a little cheeky but apart from that ILM's work is flawless (Which just makes me despair a little more when they do something like 'The Mummy Returns')
I thought teddy was a complex rod puppet (by the brilliant Stan Winston) and obviously all the rods etc were removed in post production.
Yeah, the CG for the T-1000 still looks incredible. Some of it is a little cheesy, but most of it is great and there are even a few genuinely photo realistic moments too. It's hard to believe that T2 is creeping ever closer to its third decade.
And where's Jurassic Park in HD already? I wanna see how those Dino's stack up in 1080p.
I didn't find the T-1000 that impressive when T2 first came out and now the CG effects look truly dated. The character animation was very poor and I much prefer the moments with the Stan Winston prosthetics to the CG work. The first film that convinced my that CGI was really going to change the film industry was Jurassic Park. The close ups of the dinos were animatronics, but all the wide shots were CGI and they still hold up very well now.
Last edited by Todd Tomorrow; 17-03-2009 at 22:36.
Wasn't the dino's mainly models? They look good on DVD.
As with the T-1000 there was a bunch of practical stuff, sure. But there's some tremendous CG work in there, like with the raptors near the end of the film.
As with the T-1000 there was a bunch of practical stuff, sure. But there's some tremendous CG work in there, like with the raptors near the end of the film.
Yeah, there's a wonderful shot where one of the raptors is standing on the table with the computer's GTAC DNA code reflected all over its body - I love that bit.
I was never that impressed by the T2 effects either, even when the film was still fresh in the cinemas. I thought the same with the slo-mo Matrix effects - boooring.
The T-Rex in J.Park though, that blew me away at the time. As for later years, Jackson's King Kong would get my vote. I never liked Gollum, as (like LOTD mentioned) he always seemed very CGI. I wasn't a fan of the films either, so that probably didn't help my suspension of disbelief.
Most impressive. It's the number of close-ups on his face that fooled me, I was certain that make-up was used.
Linear Mode
