Which 'older' CGI/ Visual FX still hold up really well today?

[Todd Tomorrow]

I don't think the CGI in T2 holds up that well, the practical effects work better.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by levcore

Of course Jurassic Park is the obvious one, and is always mentioned. Whilst the FX are great, watching it recently does reveal the CGI to be very much of its time. It's expertly employed but some of the shots do look a bit spotty now. It's rare to find 'older' CGI shots that look absolutely flawless. I watched Red Planet (2000) the other day and the AMEE robot looks absolutely superb in that and could easily hold its own with todays VFX. Any other good examples of excellent CG work from slightly older movies?

There are really no cgi effects being released now that are flawless. Practical effects just age better.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

There are really no cgi effects being released now that are flawless. Practical effects just age better.

There are many terrible practical effects even in big budget films. Just look at the 70s King Kong remake. We are at a point where many CG effects are pretty much flawless, the recent Gravity just being one case. I doubt that film will look terrible on ten years time and about 90% of that film is CGI. And CGI is still constantly evolving, where effects are possible that wouldn't have been even a couple of years ago.

The problem isn't that CGI is inherently flawed, the problem is that it lacks the magic of practical effects. You don't really wonder how something has been achieved anymore as everything has become reduced to one technique, though as the Making Off of Gravity shows, getting the effects even via CGI can still be extremely complicated.

[mastadge]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

The problem isn't that CGI is inherently flawed, the problem is that it lacks the magic of practical effects.

It also lacks the physics of practical effects, which is the other problem. If we all lived in zero-G, I bet we'd notice plenty of mistakes with Gravity's effects that we just don't notice now for lack of familiarity. Same with CG creature effects: to this day CG creatures tend to move and look a little wrong, to not quite fit with the physics of the environment, regardless of how painstakingly they're rendered.

Anyway. I'm all for whatever mix of practical and digital effects works best!

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by mastadge

It also lacks the physics of practical effects, which is the other problem. If we all lived in zero-G, I bet we'd notice plenty of mistakes with Gravity's effects that we just don't notice now for lack of familiarity. Same with CG creature effects: to this day CG creatures tend to move and look a little wrong, to not quite fit with the physics of the environment, regardless of how painstakingly they're rendered.

Anyway. I'm all for whatever mix of practical and digital effects works best!

Like with any type of effects the quality of CGI varies, depending on the production and I'm not saying there isn't shoddy CGI. However at its best, creatures should move right, including the illusion of weight.

Good animators know how to do weight, it's one of the main requirements of the job and in many cases like in Avatar and LOTR motion capture is used, which copies the movement and weight of a creature as is. In many cases it's a matter of perception, related to the uncanny valley effect. The only reason you know it's CGI is because it can't be real. I read complaints about the tiger in Life of Pi, but there are test shots where the animators copied a real tiger with the CG tiger and the shots are indistinguishable. The only thing that gives it away is that you know a tiger can't perform on cue.

And as to the whole "practical is always better" argument, most effects we see now would be impossible to achieve at all with practical effects. Charming as they are, are people really suggesting that stop motion dinosaurs are more convincing than those in Jurassic Park? And I know there were practical effects in that film, but even those couldn't give you a walking full body shot of a dinosaur.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Stan Winston has mostly worked in CGI for the last couple of decades, so not sure what your point is...

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

...
Good animators know how to do weight...

There is no weight in CGI. Never has been, never will be.

The only good CGI is when it enhances the look of a film - think Sky Captain or 300 - and not used as an effect.

[JMDiaz718]

In no particular order: T2, Jurassic Park 1-3, Lord of the Rings trilogy, Harry Potter series, The Fifth Element, Deep Impact, Twister, Starship Troopers, King Kong (2005), Cloverfield.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

There is no weight in CGI. Never has been, never will be..

If you are claiming that there is no sense of weight in motion capture than you don't know what you are talking about. It is direct copy of human movement, including the effect and speed of weight. There is no way that the illusion of weight goes away in transition to the CG creature. And a good animator knows how to achieve the feeling of weight too.

[NoFro]

It annoys me when people say that CGI is a bad thing when people don't even notice when a great deal of CG effects are happening. CGI isn't just used in showy shots.

As for me, I'm in the sensible camp: Check out practical, check out CG, use whatever works best (which is often a mixture of the two).

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I read complaints about the tiger in Life of Pi, but there are test shots where the animators copied a real tiger with the CG tiger and the shots are indistinguishable.

I saw that. It had footage of a real life tiger alongside footage of their CGI tiger, and if they weren't labeled, you wouldn't know which was which.

There's something like that on the special features for Finding Nemo. Before the animators got started, they took some real life water footage and replicated it in CG animation, and you'd swear it was real. Amazing what these artists can do.

As for the thread, most were mentioned, so I'll throw in Spider-Man 2. The CGI for the first can be a bit spotty at times, but Spidey 2 still looks good to me.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

...There is no way that the illusion of weight goes away in transition to the CG creature...

Agree to disagree.

[NYGiants Fan]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

Scanners - head explosion.

The Thing '82 holds up well, too!

Except for the fact that both of those were practical effects and NOT CGI, you are correct. Dick Smith - Scanners, Rob Bottin - The Thing.

[manunited1]

Well surprisingly it is the random movies that hold up best to me... Hellboy, Starship Troopers, Fight Club, Swordfish.

Obviously Avatar still looks good but a lot of big budget films show age fast. Harry potter being the worse as time goes on. Lotr is shôwing age too.

[The Dragon]

Blade I&II

[krazeyeyez]

Considering its from the 90s and made for TV Babylon 5 still blows me away. While the shots are clearly CGI... no realism here. They are absolutely amazing and still never fail to impress me. Fifth element also deserves some credit. Still holds up really well.

I gotta say quite a few of my favorites have failed to age so well in the CGI department. Makes me wish models were more prevalent as they seem to age better.

[ChainsawJedi]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

If you are claiming that there is no sense of weight in motion capture than you don't know what you are talking about. It is direct copy of human movement, including the effect and speed of weight. There is no way that the illusion of weight goes away in transition to the CG creature. And a good animator knows how to achieve the feeling of weight too.

Totally agree with you here, Todd.

I'm surprised to read, though, that some complained about the tiger in Life Of Pi.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Agree to disagree.

Weight has noticeable effects on the environment around it. Animators have been animating these effects for years.

[Jonno2009]

The moment i saw the title of this thread one movie came right up.

Starship Troopers! Those arachnid bugs still look damn good and i have no clue why after almost 20 years on a 'small' budget!

[jetjaguar4]

Minority Report