Legion1979 wrote: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.