Ridley Scott Directing/Rebooting Blade Runner - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Usendyduexy** · 08-20-2011, 03:57 AM

Of course, but the CGI in a Blade Runner remake would basically be whatever is on screen. lol.

That is why they need to use models. They look better.

**freevideoandoicsI** · 08-20-2011, 04:08 AM

it doesnt matter how good you make the CGI... sure you wont notice the difference in the detail but the interaction/behavior with the environment is completely disconnected with CG. CG can look great and be helpful to show a vast landscape or w/e like when flying over a city/landscape and so on.. but to use CG in everything such as the entire room where a gun fight takes place is so awkward and disconnected feeling. Look at westerns... The fact that the scenes were real gave it such a gritty and real feel. Wood spintered like real wood and not this high density CG splintered wood crap when a bullet hits it... Real set = Grit, More Realistic behavior/relationship with surroundings, and just awes inspiring when done right. CG = no thanks. The only way it would ever work is when we get the technology to holographically change a room into what ever we want so that the actor sees the room as well instead of acting in front of some green screen/white screen.

**gortusbig** · 08-20-2011, 04:18 AM

it doesnt matter how good you make the CGI... sure you wont notice the difference in the detail but the interaction/behavior with the environment is completely disconnected with CG. CG can look great and be helpful to show a vast landscape or w/e like when flying over a city/landscape and so on.. but to use CG in everything such as the entire room where a gun fight takes place is so awkward and disconnected feeling. Look at westerns... The fact that the scenes were real gave it such a gritty and real feel. Wood spintered like real wood and not this high density CG splintered wood crap when a bullet hits it... Real set = Grit, More Realistic behavior/relationship with surroundings, and just awes inspiring when done right. CG = no thanks. The only way it would ever work is when we get the technology to holographically change a room into what ever we want so that the actor sees the room as well instead of acting in front of some green screen/white screen.

The methods for CGI implementation have improved quite a bit over the years. Studios can finally use real set pieces when incorporating large layers of CGI. The new Planet of the Apes movie allowed Andy Serkis to act out his role in a real environment instead of being forced to use a studio and a green screen (it obviously must have worked, since they are pushing for an oscar for a few category). I would imagine real set piece would be used for a new Blade Runner, with CGI used only to "sweeten" certain scenes.

**HBPujWBe** · 08-20-2011, 05:14 AM

Whether CG can be distinguished from real actors and sets that have been filmed is not the issue. (It is a problem in photo-journalism, but that's another debate.) Cinema is itself an illusion that simulates movement by the rapid succession of images to deceive the eye. So criticizing the "fakeness" of CG is a pointless argument because all cinema is fake.

The problem with CGI is that it almost always fosters artistic laziness on the part of the director and designers, who would otherwise be required to expend great creative energy to recreate his vision to the screen. If you compare the artistic output of any director (say, Gilliam or R. Scott) who was active before the prevelance of CGI you invariably find their most recent work has suffered tremendously in terms of its visual style.

**Usendyduexy** · 08-20-2011, 05:27 AM

Whether CG can be distinguished from real actors and sets that have been filmed is not the issue. (It is a problem in photo-journalism, but that's another debate.) Cinema is itself an illusion that simulates movement by the rapid succession of images to deceive the eye. So criticizing the "fakeness" of CG is a pointless argument because all cinema is fake.

The problem with CGI is that it almost always fosters artistic laziness on the part of the director and designers, who would otherwise be required to expend great creative energy to recreate his vision to the screen. If you compare the artistic output of any director (say, Gilliam or R. Scott) who was active before the prevelance of CGI you invariably find their most recent work has suffered tremendously in terms of its visual style.

I agree with the 2nd part, but you are wrong on the first part. Duh movies are fake, but the idea is that using sets and models creates a more realistic environment and atmosphere in the movie. When you see something that is CG, 9 times out of 10, it blatantly stands out and draws you out of the experience.

One day, I'll teach you to be as big as a movie aficionado as me!

**gortusbig** · 08-20-2011, 06:11 AM

The problem with CGI is that it almost always fosters artistic laziness on the part of the director and designers, who would otherwise be required to expend great creative energy to recreate his vision to the screen. If you compare the artistic output of any director (say, Gilliam or R. Scott) who was active before the prevelance of CGI you invariably find their most recent work has suffered tremendously in terms of its visual style.

I'm still blown away by Jurassic Park's animatronic T-Rex scenes. And I do agree, the advent of CGI perpetuates a ton of laziness. The problem is that not all CGI is created the same, as, just like a painting, it requires an artistic integrity to properly convey realism (not the mention the technological constraints already in place).

**AdobebePhoto** · 08-20-2011, 06:21 AM

What you guys are complaining about isnt exactly CGI, because CGI is extremely hard and time consuming to create compared to what most companies do. You guys are complaining about After Effects, which is psuedo CGI.

**HBPujWBe** · 08-20-2011, 06:28 AM

What you guys are complaining about isnt exactly CGI, because CGI is extremely hard and time consuming to create compared to what most companies do. You guys are complaining about After Effects, which is psuedo CGI.

No. I'm complaining about all CGI. I prefer the look of mattes and models as it displays more artistry and ingenuity. I can appreciate the technical work that went into CGI-laden movies like Avatar or Jurassic Park, but they do not have the artistic depth of Blade Runner or 2001. Ditto with animation: Pixar films apear only superficially beautiful until you compare them to most hand-drawn animation, especially to the animated work of independent auteurs. Whether CGI looks real or fake doesn't make a difference.

**AdobebePhoto** · 08-20-2011, 06:42 AM

I think your opinion sucks Spara. Gollum in the lord of the rings was not marred because of CGI. Dobbi in the tripe known as Harry Potter was not marred by CGI. Terminator 2 was not marred by CGI. The abyss was not marred by cgi. Minority Report was not marred by CGI. The matrix (original) was not marred by CGI. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was not marred by CGI. All of these movies were enhanced by CGI. The list goes on. CGI sucks if not used properly, sure - but After Effects is the true culprit behind lazy inartistic film making. Why? Because it allows you to take 2d elements and project them as 3d mattes ect. I'll however agree with you on Pixar.

**HBPujWBe** · 08-20-2011, 06:54 AM

I think your opinion sucks Spara. Gollum in the lord of the rings was not marred because of CGI. Dobbi in the tripe known as Harry Potter was not marred by CGI. Terminator 2 was not marred by CGI. The abyss was not marred by cgi. Minority Report was not marred by CGI. The matrix (original) was not marred by CGI. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was not marred by CGI. All of these movies were enhanced by CGI. The list goes on. CGI sucks if not used properly, sure - but After Effects is the true culprit behind lazy inartistic film making. Why? Because it allows you to take 2d elements and project them as 3d mattes ect. I'll however agree with you on Pixar.

The excessive CGI in LOTR, Harry Potter, Minority Report certainly did detract from these films. Action and fantasy movies may rely on CGI more than most, but that doesn't mean these films are improved by CGI. Buster Keaton's The General has action sequences that are more thrilling than the Matrix, and it was made nearly a hundred years ago.

As I said, it's not a dispute between "bad" CGI and "good" CGI, although "bad" CGI may certainly compound the problem. Your fallacy is in thinking artistic quality depends on its ability to accurately reproduce our reality. This idea has been discredited since the mid-19th century and no longer holds any currency.

**AdobebePhoto** · 08-20-2011, 07:59 AM

Artistic quality is dependent on the artist and not the artists ability to reproduce reality, your fallacy is in thinking CGI has no artistic merit. You obviously prefer film to be film, which is fine - but CGI is here to stay; and will only get better with time.

**Usendyduexy** · 08-20-2011, 10:00 AM

I. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was not marred by CGI. ar.

Thanks for bringing this up!

Did you know that Batman Begins uses scale models? Hahaha. Thanks for backing up my point.

**gortusbig** · 08-20-2011, 10:47 AM

Thanks for bringing this up!

Did you know that Batman Begins uses scale models? Hahaha. Thanks for backing up my point.

IIRC in TDK, the only CGI was when the helicopter crashed.

**jamisi** · 08-20-2011, 11:51 AM

IIRC in TDK, the only CGI was when the helicopter crashed.

I could be way off, but I thought parts of the batpod scene were CG. Why can't I remember a helicopter in that movie?

**Leczyslaw** · 08-20-2011, 03:51 PM

I suggest those who decry CGI have a look at Dragonheart - the detailing and integration of the 'dragon' is rather impressive - even down to the rain falling on the wings and running off in streams and as for the 'articulation' of the face to convey nuances...

Poor CGI can certainly be a major distraction, especially when it ignores physics (Peter Jackson's LotR and King Kong!), but that's down to the person doing the CGI and the director allowing it to happen. Just as non-computer generated FX can be appalling.
Some of the SF movies of the fifties and sixties were incredible for their affects, which were the result of skilled FX guys without a computer in sight. Kubric's 2001 is an excellent example.

**SzefciuCba** · 08-20-2011, 04:17 PM

No. I'm complaining about all CGI. I prefer the look of mattes and models as it displays more artistry and ingenuity. I can appreciate the technical work that went into CGI-laden movies like Avatar or Jurassic Park, but they do not have the artistic depth of Blade Runner or 2001. Ditto with animation: Pixar films apear only superficially beautiful until you compare them to most hand-drawn animation, especially to the animated work of independent auteurs. Whether CGI looks real or fake doesn't make a difference.

Oh well the thread is hijacked anyways, so here goes.

Good CGI isn't just about technical proficiency or math. There is a lot of art that goes into animating and distilling a design into a memorable 3D character. For example, Woody from the Toy Story movies. A lot of thought and care was put into the design of Woody; then animators had to animate him in a certain way that gave him a distinct personality etc from the other Toy Story characters. A lot of the same skill and care that needs to be applied to scale models, claymation etc applies to CGI as well. And guess what...many 3D characters start out as 2D pencil sketches and models made with "traditional" means.

Also, because nearly anything is possible in a CGI world, it's impressive when a CGI design, character, or world is well done because what could have been a total chaos of unruly infinite digital possibilities were tempered by a certain direction/sensibility to produce something that is artful and blends with the narrative.

**echocassidyde** · 08-20-2011, 05:05 PM

Isn't Prometheus said to be the prequel to Alien? Or just a seperate movie related to the Alien franchise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28film%29

**AdobebePhoto** · 08-20-2011, 05:33 PM

Thanks for bringing this up!

Did you know that Batman Begins uses scale models? Hahaha. Thanks for backing up my point.

No problem, I've been studying film making for a long time. From working at Malone Pictures film studio here in Dallas known for the films Undocumented and Hurry up and Wait to working on my own Machinima project. I love movies, and I love Film. I thought Batman Begins limited use of CGI did enhance the movie.

**Leczyslaw** · 08-20-2011, 05:53 PM

Horrific use of CGI!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emiua3X4p4

**gortusbig** · 08-20-2011, 06:53 PM

Horrific use of CGI!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emiua3X4p4

Horrible. Neil Patrick Harris doesn't even come close to looking real.

08-20-2011, 03:57 AM	#21
Usendyduexy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 660 Senior Member	Of course, but the CGI in a Blade Runner remake would basically be whatever is on screen. lol. That is why they need to use models. They look better. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 04:08 AM	#22
freevideoandoicsI Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 600 Senior Member	it doesnt matter how good you make the CGI... sure you wont notice the difference in the detail but the interaction/behavior with the environment is completely disconnected with CG. CG can look great and be helpful to show a vast landscape or w/e like when flying over a city/landscape and so on.. but to use CG in everything such as the entire room where a gun fight takes place is so awkward and disconnected feeling. Look at westerns... The fact that the scenes were real gave it such a gritty and real feel. Wood spintered like real wood and not this high density CG splintered wood crap when a bullet hits it... Real set = Grit, More Realistic behavior/relationship with surroundings, and just awes inspiring when done right. CG = no thanks. The only way it would ever work is when we get the technology to holographically change a room into what ever we want so that the actor sees the room as well instead of acting in front of some green screen/white screen. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 04:18 AM	#23
gortusbig Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 476 Senior Member	it doesnt matter how good you make the CGI... sure you wont notice the difference in the detail but the interaction/behavior with the environment is completely disconnected with CG. CG can look great and be helpful to show a vast landscape or w/e like when flying over a city/landscape and so on.. but to use CG in everything such as the entire room where a gun fight takes place is so awkward and disconnected feeling. Look at westerns... The fact that the scenes were real gave it such a gritty and real feel. Wood spintered like real wood and not this high density CG splintered wood crap when a bullet hits it... Real set = Grit, More Realistic behavior/relationship with surroundings, and just awes inspiring when done right. CG = no thanks. The only way it would ever work is when we get the technology to holographically change a room into what ever we want so that the actor sees the room as well instead of acting in front of some green screen/white screen. The methods for CGI implementation have improved quite a bit over the years. Studios can finally use real set pieces when incorporating large layers of CGI. The new Planet of the Apes movie allowed Andy Serkis to act out his role in a real environment instead of being forced to use a studio and a green screen (it obviously must have worked, since they are pushing for an oscar for a few category). I would imagine real set piece would be used for a new Blade Runner, with CGI used only to "sweeten" certain scenes. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 05:14 AM	#24
HBPujWBe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 442 Senior Member	Whether CG can be distinguished from real actors and sets that have been filmed is not the issue. (It is a problem in photo-journalism, but that's another debate.) Cinema is itself an illusion that simulates movement by the rapid succession of images to deceive the eye. So criticizing the "fakeness" of CG is a pointless argument because all cinema is fake. The problem with CGI is that it almost always fosters artistic laziness on the part of the director and designers, who would otherwise be required to expend great creative energy to recreate his vision to the screen. If you compare the artistic output of any director (say, Gilliam or R. Scott) who was active before the prevelance of CGI you invariably find their most recent work has suffered tremendously in terms of its visual style. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 05:27 AM	#25
Usendyduexy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 660 Senior Member	Whether CG can be distinguished from real actors and sets that have been filmed is not the issue. (It is a problem in photo-journalism, but that's another debate.) Cinema is itself an illusion that simulates movement by the rapid succession of images to deceive the eye. So criticizing the "fakeness" of CG is a pointless argument because all cinema is fake. The problem with CGI is that it almost always fosters artistic laziness on the part of the director and designers, who would otherwise be required to expend great creative energy to recreate his vision to the screen. If you compare the artistic output of any director (say, Gilliam or R. Scott) who was active before the prevelance of CGI you invariably find their most recent work has suffered tremendously in terms of its visual style. I agree with the 2nd part, but you are wrong on the first part. Duh movies are fake, but the idea is that using sets and models creates a more realistic environment and atmosphere in the movie. When you see something that is CG, 9 times out of 10, it blatantly stands out and draws you out of the experience. One day, I'll teach you to be as big as a movie aficionado as me! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 06:11 AM	#26
gortusbig Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 476 Senior Member	The problem with CGI is that it almost always fosters artistic laziness on the part of the director and designers, who would otherwise be required to expend great creative energy to recreate his vision to the screen. If you compare the artistic output of any director (say, Gilliam or R. Scott) who was active before the prevelance of CGI you invariably find their most recent work has suffered tremendously in terms of its visual style. I'm still blown away by Jurassic Park's animatronic T-Rex scenes. And I do agree, the advent of CGI perpetuates a ton of laziness. The problem is that not all CGI is created the same, as, just like a painting, it requires an artistic integrity to properly convey realism (not the mention the technological constraints already in place). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 06:21 AM	#27
AdobebePhoto Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	What you guys are complaining about isnt exactly CGI, because CGI is extremely hard and time consuming to create compared to what most companies do. You guys are complaining about After Effects, which is psuedo CGI. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 06:28 AM	#28
HBPujWBe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 442 Senior Member	What you guys are complaining about isnt exactly CGI, because CGI is extremely hard and time consuming to create compared to what most companies do. You guys are complaining about After Effects, which is psuedo CGI. No. I'm complaining about all CGI. I prefer the look of mattes and models as it displays more artistry and ingenuity. I can appreciate the technical work that went into CGI-laden movies like Avatar or Jurassic Park, but they do not have the artistic depth of Blade Runner or 2001. Ditto with animation: Pixar films apear only superficially beautiful until you compare them to most hand-drawn animation, especially to the animated work of independent auteurs. Whether CGI looks real or fake doesn't make a difference. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 06:42 AM	#29
AdobebePhoto Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	I think your opinion sucks Spara. Gollum in the lord of the rings was not marred because of CGI. Dobbi in the tripe known as Harry Potter was not marred by CGI. Terminator 2 was not marred by CGI. The abyss was not marred by cgi. Minority Report was not marred by CGI. The matrix (original) was not marred by CGI. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was not marred by CGI. All of these movies were enhanced by CGI. The list goes on. CGI sucks if not used properly, sure - but After Effects is the true culprit behind lazy inartistic film making. Why? Because it allows you to take 2d elements and project them as 3d mattes ect. I'll however agree with you on Pixar. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 06:54 AM	#30
HBPujWBe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 442 Senior Member	I think your opinion sucks Spara. Gollum in the lord of the rings was not marred because of CGI. Dobbi in the tripe known as Harry Potter was not marred by CGI. Terminator 2 was not marred by CGI. The abyss was not marred by cgi. Minority Report was not marred by CGI. The matrix (original) was not marred by CGI. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was not marred by CGI. All of these movies were enhanced by CGI. The list goes on. CGI sucks if not used properly, sure - but After Effects is the true culprit behind lazy inartistic film making. Why? Because it allows you to take 2d elements and project them as 3d mattes ect. I'll however agree with you on Pixar. The excessive CGI in LOTR, Harry Potter, Minority Report certainly did detract from these films. Action and fantasy movies may rely on CGI more than most, but that doesn't mean these films are improved by CGI. Buster Keaton's The General has action sequences that are more thrilling than the Matrix, and it was made nearly a hundred years ago. As I said, it's not a dispute between "bad" CGI and "good" CGI, although "bad" CGI may certainly compound the problem. Your fallacy is in thinking artistic quality depends on its ability to accurately reproduce our reality. This idea has been discredited since the mid-19th century and no longer holds any currency. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 07:59 AM	#31
AdobebePhoto Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	Artistic quality is dependent on the artist and not the artists ability to reproduce reality, your fallacy is in thinking CGI has no artistic merit. You obviously prefer film to be film, which is fine - but CGI is here to stay; and will only get better with time. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 10:00 AM	#32
Usendyduexy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 660 Senior Member	I. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was not marred by CGI. ar. Thanks for bringing this up! Did you know that Batman Begins uses scale models? Hahaha. Thanks for backing up my point. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 10:47 AM	#33
gortusbig Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 476 Senior Member	Thanks for bringing this up! Did you know that Batman Begins uses scale models? Hahaha. Thanks for backing up my point. IIRC in TDK, the only CGI was when the helicopter crashed. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 11:51 AM	#34
jamisi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 414 Senior Member	IIRC in TDK, the only CGI was when the helicopter crashed. I could be way off, but I thought parts of the batpod scene were CG. Why can't I remember a helicopter in that movie? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 03:51 PM	#35
Leczyslaw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 647 Senior Member	I suggest those who decry CGI have a look at Dragonheart - the detailing and integration of the 'dragon' is rather impressive - even down to the rain falling on the wings and running off in streams and as for the 'articulation' of the face to convey nuances... Poor CGI can certainly be a major distraction, especially when it ignores physics (Peter Jackson's LotR and King Kong!), but that's down to the person doing the CGI and the director allowing it to happen. Just as non-computer generated FX can be appalling. Some of the SF movies of the fifties and sixties were incredible for their affects, which were the result of skilled FX guys without a computer in sight. Kubric's 2001 is an excellent example. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

08-20-2011, 04:17 PM	#36
SzefciuCba Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 544 Senior Member	No. I'm complaining about all CGI. I prefer the look of mattes and models as it displays more artistry and ingenuity. I can appreciate the technical work that went into CGI-laden movies like Avatar or Jurassic Park, but they do not have the artistic depth of Blade Runner or 2001. Ditto with animation: Pixar films apear only superficially beautiful until you compare them to most hand-drawn animation, especially to the animated work of independent auteurs. Whether CGI looks real or fake doesn't make a difference. Oh well the thread is hijacked anyways, so here goes. Good CGI isn't just about technical proficiency or math. There is a lot of art that goes into animating and distilling a design into a memorable 3D character. For example, Woody from the Toy Story movies. A lot of thought and care was put into the design of Woody; then animators had to animate him in a certain way that gave him a distinct personality etc from the other Toy Story characters. A lot of the same skill and care that needs to be applied to scale models, claymation etc applies to CGI as well. And guess what...many 3D characters start out as 2D pencil sketches and models made with "traditional" means. Also, because nearly anything is possible in a CGI world, it's impressive when a CGI design, character, or world is well done because what could have been a total chaos of unruly infinite digital possibilities were tempered by a certain direction/sensibility to produce something that is artful and blends with the narrative. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 05:05 PM	#37
echocassidyde Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	Isn't Prometheus said to be the prequel to Alien? Or just a seperate movie related to the Alien franchise? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28film%29 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 05:33 PM	#38
AdobebePhoto Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	Thanks for bringing this up! Did you know that Batman Begins uses scale models? Hahaha. Thanks for backing up my point. No problem, I've been studying film making for a long time. From working at Malone Pictures film studio here in Dallas known for the films Undocumented and Hurry up and Wait to working on my own Machinima project. I love movies, and I love Film. I thought Batman Begins limited use of CGI did enhance the movie. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 05:53 PM	#39
Leczyslaw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 647 Senior Member	Horrific use of CGI! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emiua3X4p4 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-20-2011, 06:53 PM	#40
gortusbig Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 476 Senior Member	Horrific use of CGI! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emiua3X4p4 Horrible. Neil Patrick Harris doesn't even come close to looking real. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote