Rockzilla wrote:Well, most cgi has been really shitty. So can you really blame people like me who hate it? Sure the cgi in Jurrasic Park was pretty good, but it is really sad that it looks better than most cgi today. I admit that robots and Iron Man's armor can be done in cgi and look great, but organic beings just don't fare as well IMO. I still stand by that if Aliens and Predators can still be accepted in costumes then so can Godzilla.
Yeah, but for Aliens and Predators, you don't have to build miniature cities to make them look like giant monsters. Godzilla is a giant monster, and that technology is outdated over here for that type of thing.
To answer that question, everybody has their own preferences. What I was going to say is that when people have a reason for liking or disliking a certain method of SFX, it's ok; I have no problem with that at all; but statements like "CGI sucks ass!" are just ridiculous. Why does it suck? At least say you prefer practical effects. At least that's a reason. And I don't buy all that jazz that most CGI is shit stuff. The examples that HeiseiGodzilla gave above are great ones, and there are plenty more, and there will be even more as long as movies are being produced.
Here's another thing: When Clash of the Titans was remade, I never heard anybody going around saying "Man, the Kraken better be stop-motion, or it's going to suck!" It's the same frickin' thing as what's being said about Godzilla, and I don't see how the argument can be made otherwise; besides the fact that stop-motion is very outdated and time-consuming. But both Godzilla and the Kraken were practical effects, were they not? Why is Godzilla not being given that same consideration? Just because he was always a man in a suit? That doesn't make sense to me; I would love to see Godzilla portrayed by a suit again, but it's not going to happen for a long time. I'm going to accept the fact and go into this with an open mind, instead of spouting out empty statements about my preferences.