CGI or rubber suits?

[therealmccoy]

Nobody is saying suitmation is too old to be considered. What people are saying is that with the current technology available here it's not logical. There's a difference between the two. And your comment "And before people rattle off how inferior this method of effects is" is kind of taking this a little too serious. Nobody ever said this method was inferior. It never has been. You're viciously defending something no one here has attacked. I say again: suitmation isn't "not effective enough" here. It's just not logical. Not with the resources available.

You people act like if the special effects are bad, the movie will be ruined. There's a lot more to a good movie than stellar special effects. If the movie has a good story and likable characters, I'm game. You can post examples of poor CG in films till the cows come home and it won't change my opinion; I'd rather have a good movie with crappy effects than a crap film with awesome effects.

[CatfaceFourtoes]

I'm merely stating why some view CGI is an inefficient method to do Godzilla. How the technology can provide inferior spectacle by being unable to consistently make something appear as though it is really there and still be viewed as a logical alternative is beyond me. Also, I'm not the one who said that I was not going to "piss my pants" over the effects being bad. I have just seen enough films to know when the CGI does and does not do its job of making something that is not there look like it is.

As far as viciously defending the use of suitmation in a series that has nearly exclusively used the method for about five decades now, if that were the case I would not be acknowledging and mentioning movies where the CGI was 100% believable and stating that I am okay with Godzilla being done in CGI.

My last post was to demonstrate how realistic the original method could look by Citing the miniaturization and insertion of soldiers into shots among exploding model vehicles, and how mainstream film used the same method in LOTR to make the hobbits smaller than the humans. If that is viciously defending a method of film making on a site with the same name as the company that pioneered it, then so be it. I'm not the one saying that CGI always fails or is irrevocably flawed and should not be used to depict Godzilla any more in this "modern day and age." I say yay for a Godzilla that looks like the original 1954 version and not hindered by the limitations of a human action a suit. But if deviates from the look or the animation looks like Shrek and not like Avatar like it should, I'll be one of the first to condemn it. done

[Living Corpse]

Nobody is saying suitmation is too old to be considered.

Yeah they still use suits for the Predators film and that came out like only a few years ago.

[Godzilla 2000]

Nobody is saying suitmation is too old to be considered.

Yeah they still use suits for the Predators film and that came out like only a few years ago.

But this isnt Predator. This is Godzilla. They need to convey a real sense of massive scale.

Predator is different because its about human-sized aliens that are designed to look scary and vicious. Godzilla is just a mutant dinosaur, and if you twist it too far into that kind of territory, it stops being Godzilla and just looks bad.

[therealmccoy]

I've asked this question several times in debates like this: Why would they build miniatures and use suitmation in a time period in which the technology is much more advanced? It doesn't make sense to me. The argument that it has always worked for Toho is almost invalid, because you just have to think about it: these films were released nearly every year, and on much smaller budgets. Plus, that technology wasn't available back then. Yeah, the Millennium films used it a little, but i'm willing to bet that their budget didn't allow them to use CG properly. In my opinion, the "CG for Godzilla" hate stems from the '98 film and nothing more. If someone can provide me with a logical explanation why the traditional method would be the best course of action, I'm all ears. The method that CatFace described is interesting, but why would they do it?

[Living Corpse]

In my opinion, the "CG for Godzilla" hate stems from the '98 film and nothing more.

Show them this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEEXydQc9KE

It's not a question of can Godzilla be done well in CGI, since that proves it can be done, it's a question of will the LP do it well.

[Tyler]

Yeah they still use suits for the Predators film and that came out like only a few years ago.

I think better examples would be the Hellboy films and Where the Wild Things Are. And as for physical effects in general I'd throw in the Nolan Batman films and even Inception.

I thought the Preds in Predators were big rubbery dumbasses. I don't think they looked half as good as the ones in the AVP flicks.

[Godzilla 2000]

In my opinion, the "CG for Godzilla" hate stems from the '98 film and nothing more.

Show them this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEEXydQc9KE

It's not a question of can Godzilla be done well in CGI, since that proves it can be done, it's a question of will the LP do it well.

LOL@you comparing Japanese CGI to American CGI.

Lets be honest, Godzilla in G98 looked better than the ALWAYS 2 one. Not design wise, but it was just well animated and incredibly detailed for its time. We can only get better at this. I hardly think LP is just gonna let "Reptilian" level CGI fly.

If we can at least get TRANSFORMERS level CGI, we're good to go.

[Living Corpse]

Yeah they still use suits for the Predators film and that came out like only a few years ago.

I think better examples would be the Hellboy films and Where the Wild Things Are. And as for physical effects in general I'd throw in the Nolan Batman films and even Inception.

I thought the Preds in Predators were big rubbery dumbasses. I don't think they looked half as good as the ones in the AVP flicks.

Really? I thought they looked fine.

[CatfaceFourtoes]

In my opinion, the "CG for Godzilla" hate stems from the '98 film and nothing more.

Show them this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEEXydQc9KE

It's not a question of can Godzilla be done well in CGI, since that proves it can be done, it's a question of will the LP do it well.

That is how I would want the creature to act and look, without the flickery animation in the tail of course, and the "hovering car" as well, which is a good example of poor physics in CG!. GINO had one moment where the foot flickers like that tail did, when it comes up from "stepping on" Animal. Its minor, but it sticks out in that movie like a sore thumb when compared to other foot sequences. Quite possibly the most surprising animation in JP, in terms of realism was the falling car that Dr. Grant and Lex just barely miss. I could not tell that that was an effect any more than I could tell the T-Rex was.

I cannot speak for others here, but GINO pissed me off mostly because what I was seeing was in no way shape or form like the Godzilla I grew up watching, but they tried to sell it that way. The fact that the animation was comparable to JP only made me angrier as folks touted this new creature as the real deal and whenever compared to the very image of the original, folks would say that GINO is what Godzilla should have been all along, that all other incarnations were "just a guy in rubber suit." A few years after seeing GINO I was able to see the later Heisei films on digital cable That made me feel much better about my defense of the original shape of my favorite giant monster. Now it had a defined shape, even exaggerated musculature in the leggs to remind the viewer that it was indeed not human. The costume quality reminded me of work done by Jim Henson's creature shop, with this Godzilla even able to make expressions. Still, it did not suspend disbelief as often as GINO did, with people seemingly in danger of being trampled by giant monster feet.

But then Godzilla 2000 came out and the effects felt like they were trying to match the immersion of illusion that GINO had pulled off. I remember thinking "wow!" when I saw the people running through the alley, only to watch the wall of the ally crumble mere yards in the background as huge feet stepped through. From here on, when Godzilla would crash into a model warehouse building, it actually looked like something big crashing into a warehouse. All of the Millennium films seem to have stepped up their game in response to GINO's excellent effects. GMK is possibly the best, though Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla did awesome with making the Mazer tanks appear full size in the opening scene. Heck, even Final Wars did good with the final batte, with possibly the best footage of a Godzilla suit impacting with buildings.

[kaiju_wars]

Nobody is saying suitmation is too old to be considered.

Yeah they still use suits for the Predators film and that came out like only a few years ago.

Are you talking about the movie Predators, if so, that came out either earlier this year or last year.

[Tohosaurus]

I've asked this question several times in debates like this: Why would they build miniatures and use suitmation in a time period in which the technology is much more advanced? It doesn't make sense to me. The argument that it has always worked for Toho is almost invalid, because you just have to think about it: these films were released nearly every year, and on much smaller budgets. Plus, that technology wasn't available back then. Yeah, the Millennium films used it a little, but i'm willing to bet that their budget didn't allow them to use CG properly. In my opinion, the "CG for Godzilla" hate stems from the '98 film and nothing more. If someone can provide me with a logical explanation why the traditional method would be the best course of action, I'm all ears. The method that CatFace described is interesting, but why would they do it?

Because Godzilla has always used models and suitmation at Toho. It is therefore classic and so we should always do things the old, inferior way because it's classic. Also, bring on the black and white and water used for his atomic ray.

Anyway, you could say it worked for Toho I suppose, but they were low budget movies with low budget returns, so it's relative.

[Cimmerian Dragon]

Also, bring on the black and white and water used for his atomic ray.

Not sure about the water, but I prefer black and white cinematography. Go for it, Legendary.

[Tyler]

Really? I thought they looked fine.

They looked like guys in fan made costumes to me. Their actual faces looked like rubber masks with no facial expression.

[Bentley]

Probably a mix between CGI and rubber suits would be the most interesting to see.

[CatfaceFourtoes]

I've asked this question several times in debates like this: Why would they build miniatures and use suitmation in a time period in which the technology is much more advanced? It doesn't make sense to me. The argument that it has always worked for Toho is almost invalid, because you just have to think about it: these films were released nearly every year, and on much smaller budgets. Plus, that technology wasn't available back then. Yeah, the Millennium films used it a little, but i'm willing to bet that their budget didn't allow them to use CG properly. In my opinion, the "CG for Godzilla" hate stems from the '98 film and nothing more. If someone can provide me with a logical explanation why the traditional method would be the best course of action, I'm all ears. The method that CatFace described is interesting, but why would they do it?

Because Godzilla has always used models and suitmation at Toho. It is therefore classic and so we should always do things the old, inferior way because it's classic. Also, bring on the black and white and water used for his atomic ray.

Anyway, you could say it worked for Toho I suppose, but they were low budget movies with low budget returns, so it's relative.

Old? sure. As for inferior, LOTR showed which mode of effects could look inferior.

The digitally inserted live action actors were shrunken down realistically enough to suspend disbelief that the hobbits were tiny people when compared to onscreen human characters. They looked real 100% of the time in that film, while the otherwise excellent and state of the art CGI epic-failed
with the fully CGI Legolas attacking the cave troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpssk85XTQQ

The human actors and their makeup were practical effects, with their environments digitally enhanced around them to give the illusion of scale, and it totally suspended disbelief. CGI Legolas on the other hand did not. So much for the superiority of CGI over practical effects.

LOTR shows that it is possible to digitally manipulate a background environment to give the illusion of scale to a practical effect, and GMK did the same thing with Godzilla strafing the soldiers with his breath weapon.

LOTR also shows how bad CGI can mess up. If we were unable to forgive the jerkiness in stopmotion animation for breaking the illusion of realism (which ironically enough could probably be digitally fixed now adays), why should CGI get a free pass when it scews up too?
And low budget movies Like LionsGate's Minotaur show that budget is not an issue with the realism of CGI effects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpP7wSw9nww

I'm sure Anaconda and Deep Blue Sea had bigger budgets than Minotaur, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AsrkE_VpgA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMwmqp3GLMc

And the age of the technolology is irrelevent, because Jurassic Park 2 came out the same year as Anaconda and looked nowhere near as bad. Deep blue sea came out the year after GINO and Deep Rising, so its bad effects have no real excuse.

[Legion1979]

This whole topic is idiotic.

CGI vs rubber suits? In a 21st century Hollywood film that's going to feature a giant reptile smashing things? This is an absolute no-brainer.

What are some of you smoking? Do any of you even watch modern American films?

[Lord Gappa]

This whole topic is idiotic.

CGI vs rubber suits? In a 21st century Hollywood film that's going to feature a giant reptile smashing things? This is an absolute no-brainer.

What are some of you smoking? Do any of you even watch modern American films?

If you're just going to post in this thread for the sake of being a dick, then why even post in the first place?

[Godzilla 2000]

This whole topic is idiotic.

CGI vs rubber suits? In a 21st century Hollywood film that's going to feature a giant reptile smashing things? This is an absolute no-brainer.

What are some of you smoking? Do any of you even watch modern American films?

If you're just going to post in this thread for the sake of being a dick, then why even post in the first place?

He's not being a dick, he's being realistic.

How can anyone honestly think LP will give us a rubber suited Godzilla just because its "tradition?" The LOTR example doesnt work because LOTR wasnt all about a giant atomic skreeonk dinosaur. Using a suit and miniatures limits what they can do. CGI is a completely blank slate; they can do ANYTHING.

Think about that. They can make Godzilla move and react in ways a traditional monster suit couldnt replicate. They can film him from angles that'd be otherwise impossible on a miniture set. The possibilities are endless.

[CatfaceFourtoes]

This whole topic is idiotic.

CGI vs rubber suits? In a 21st century Hollywood film that's going to feature a giant reptile smashing things? This is an absolute no-brainer.

What are some of you smoking? Do any of you even watch modern American films?

In case you have not noticed, 21 century Hollywood film has kind of been a huge let down, with mostly inferior remakes and Cash-ins on classics from bygone eras in film, and even botched interpretations of comic book superheroes, (Spiderman3 and the entire X-men series).

Take the Hulk movies that have come out. Most did not like the first one, but I was happy to see a realized Hulk doing what it doing what it did in the comics, and looking real a little more than half the time. The CGI was a mixed bag, going from believable to terrible and then back again.
All of Banner's mutations into the hulk looked obvious, save for when he was in the fluid tank having a nightmare. By contrast though, I definitely got what I paid for in the scene where the Hulk mutates back into Banner. Then I god lucky when the Edward Norton remake came out. The CGI did not look any worse than the first film, but there was a distinct lack of feats though. How do you go from throwing tanks to just knocking over humvees?

Oh well, at least both Hulk movies were not as poorly handled as the X-men franchise with their dissolving human nonsense and over all interpretation of most of the cast.

The ironic thing was that James Cameron's Avatar was demonized as being derivative and "all seen before" or at laughable worst, Pochahontas in Space, lol.

As far as I'm concerned, Cameron finally got to make his own alien movie, with creatures of original design, as opposed to having to make a film off of other folks (Ridley Scott and H.R. Giger) monsters.

And then you have AVP2, which was an all around poor sequel to AVP, but at least most of the effects were done well. Surely not better done than the first though.


As for using miniatures limiting what can be done, it seemed to work well enough throughout the whole LOTR series. And digital effects can make the angles look believable enough, Especially when the creature, actor or thing the environment is built around has a definite and consistent structure. If the effect for the creature is concrete, then the battle is already half way won, and when it comes down to it, I'd much rather a crumbling building stand out as an obvious CGI effect than Godzilla. The same goes for the people he steps on or vaporizes. CGI's main justification is that it can make the creature do things like be realistically wounded or move with a speed and ease that a suit actor would have difficulty pulling off, like in running or jumping, possibly twisting around to bite an opponent. That is all fine with me as long as the animation quality does not look like Shrek. Otherwise, you can get the same result by digitally enhancing the background and the environment around the actor to give the illusion of feats of speed and agility. And wounds can be computer generated and digitally grafted on realistically.
They did that in Hellboy and Helllboy2.
Think of Andy's head exploding in the Dawn of The Dead remake,among other feats that blended practical and CGI effects.