The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The idea of using computer generated images in movies was squashed and then resurrected in the late '70s. Feature films were introduced using computer animations by many big movie companies. Many discoveries were later made, but the biggest problem was their equipment wasn't powerful enough to create a complex feature film. The whole project of feature filming seemed doomed until one George Lucas began a research company, researching the application of digital technology.
It wasn't until 1982 that the first motion picture to feature computer generated graphics that approached a degree of photo-realism appeared. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan featured animation of a missile hitting a planet and turning it from desolate wasteland to a flourished Eden. Although the movie contained a deadly earwig and some knock-off actors from Dynasty, it was this entirely computer generated, sixty second effect by Mr Lucas that made the big impression. The sequence had such an impact on audiences that they used it again in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
The computer generated film graphics industry started with a bang in the '80s and the most fondly remembered films were linked to the emerging home console scene. Movies such as Tron and The Last Starfighter both contained computer imagery and had a storyline influenced by gaming, and although the effects were good at the time they were let down by crap storylines. This is something that is still important today, the technology might 'wow' the masses, but if the plot's crap, the plot's crap. the greatest effect the eighties had was that many advances in computer technology helped create faster and cheaper computers.
Up until 1990, computer generated images were easy to spot. They didn't blend well with their surroundings and they looked like a computer had drawn them. The Abyss changed that perception with its organic looking and highly believable water-creature that proved to be one of the turning points for computer imagery in film. James Cameron has always been a pioneer and now he used effects that stood out because it didn't look like computer imagery. From that point the nineties movie industry became awash with computer generated effects and imagery, some of which was convincing, made the movie possible and impressed, and some that was quite simply an exercise in flash graphics. Terminator 2:Judgement Day and Jurassic Park will forever be associated with spectacular computer imagery, while movies such as Twister and Stargate were nothing more than a flash in the pan.
The advantages of using computer generated imagery in making movies are obviously huge. Not only can environments and creatures be generated completely from the imagination, but realistic and life-like environments can look convincing as well. It's not all about dinosaurs and spaceships. Again, James Cameron proved this with the sinking of the Titanic. That disaster was recreated with alarming accuracy, with computer generated imagery used for the sequence where bodies fell from the back of a ship split in two. The Perfect Storm had the same impact with its incredible water effects that pushed the artificial creation of reality to the edge, although it never pushed too far to cause disbelief when I was watching.
Subtiety is something that isn't overlooked either, film makers are able to totally reposition objects and lightning that doen'st look right on the original shoot often without people watching knowing it's been done. Another favourite technique for more fantastical movies is filming the cast and location separately and then digitally blending the two elements. This makes the layout of expensive film sets irrelevant and without this technique some movies wouldn't be visually possible at all.
Computer generated imagery isn't the answer to every problem and it carries plenty of it's own troublesome elements. Close up work is still a problem with faces and features difficult to replicate convincingly. Spielberg knew this and used animatronic dinosaurs for the Jurassic Park movies and Renny Harlin built robotic sharks for Deep Blue Sea. At a distance computer generated imagery is close to being utterly convincing, but under scrutiny it shows a little too much make-up. Although it's something that isn't immediately noticeable by evry filmgoer, lighting is very difficult to get right especially when you take into account reflected light and situations where many light sources are used. Although anyone who's watching might not know what the problem is they'll know that something doesn't look right, which can spoil the illusion of the most well-crafted effects. Bad CGI effects can be created just as easily as any other bad effects, models or environments. Movies like The Lawnmower Man have dated terribly and the effects weren't that good to begin with anyway. the main problem with CGI though is the cost. It was predicted that computer generated images in movies would save money, but this hasn't been the case. It seems if you want good quality you're going to have to pay a good quantity.
So how do completely generated movies stand? Well, when Toy Story hit the screens in 1995 it looked good and went down as the first fully computer generated feature film. Because it was aimed at children and it's cast consisted of toys there was no need to place much importance on realism. So close-ups were fine because no one was trying to replicate a living creature's face or actions. This gave Pixar the chance to show off good graphics and effects and not have to worry about believability. The same can be said for this year's big Hollywood CGI movie, Shrek. Set in a magical kingdom with a cast of fairy tale characters the animators could concentrate on great graphics without worrying about realism. Even the human characters don't have to be that convincing when you live in a kingdom of fairies and gingerbread men!
Which brings me to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It seems the old age 'great animation, crap storyline' still holds firm almost twenty years after Tron hit the screens. Four years in the making has produced some of the most mind blowing visuals to ever grace the screen. HyperReal is Square's phrase to describe photo-realistic characters. Hair, skin tone, muscle movement and cloth simulation techniques have been taken to the pinnacle of what can be achieved right now and many of the movie's scenes are stunning. For so long computer graphic artists have sought to create the superior computer generated human and with Final Fantasy the people at Square have come closer than anyone before them. By using state of the art techniques to create skin tones and wrinkles, freckles and detail in hair, the characters in Final Fantasy are so close to being human it's incredible. Some scenes in the movie make you think whether you're watching real footage (why not use real footage?). It's fitting that a movie based on a videogame should be computer generated and the artists have certainly succeeded in their goal. In fact you could say that this is the most successful conversion of a game to movie, right down to the embarrassing dialogue and poor script.
Another completely computer generated feature is the anime release, Blood:The Last Vampire. Again this has some incredible images and atmosphere with genuinely frightening scenes, but instead of having poor plot it just isn't long enough, it's more of a first episode if anything else. So again the art stuns us and some of it does indeed look real, but as soon as we begin to settle into the storyline try to figure out what is going on, it ends! Okay the acting and dialogue in this one aren't so bad, but it doesn't have time to go anywhere. Why can't film makers get the balance right? Is it the cost and the amount of time used in making a feature that leaves the computer imagery as the only main priority? Do film makers think we'd just forget to listen when our eyes are being dazzled? Whatever the case, the graphics, effects and environments just seem to be getting better all the time.
Computer imagery when used correctly can be a stunning addition to a great film, but just as much of the is knowing when, and when not to use it.
I leave you with my list of things we would miss if all movies were computer generated:
Spontaniety -
Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. No smashing yourself up against a mirror while drunk on Bourbon. Powerful, improvised scenes would have no chance of evolving.
Death & Tragedy -
No actors means no on-set accidents such as Brandon Lee losing his face in The Crow. No one went to the pictures to see it 'cos they thought it might be a good film. They wanted to see a dead man acting.
Hollywood Risks -
Hollywood doesn't take many risks as it is. With events movies and effects movies racking themselves up on the shelves will we just see more of film making of The Mummy Returns and Twister style? Nice effects - stinker movie.
Stunts that make us go 'WOAH!'
When you know it's done by a glorified animated stick-man it's nowhere near as impressive. We want Jackie Chan! And we want broken ribs!
Hope you enjoyed reading my informative and expressive post...Cheers
It wasn't until 1982 that the first motion picture to feature computer generated graphics that approached a degree of photo-realism appeared. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan featured animation of a missile hitting a planet and turning it from desolate wasteland to a flourished Eden. Although the movie contained a deadly earwig and some knock-off actors from Dynasty, it was this entirely computer generated, sixty second effect by Mr Lucas that made the big impression. The sequence had such an impact on audiences that they used it again in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
The computer generated film graphics industry started with a bang in the '80s and the most fondly remembered films were linked to the emerging home console scene. Movies such as Tron and The Last Starfighter both contained computer imagery and had a storyline influenced by gaming, and although the effects were good at the time they were let down by crap storylines. This is something that is still important today, the technology might 'wow' the masses, but if the plot's crap, the plot's crap. the greatest effect the eighties had was that many advances in computer technology helped create faster and cheaper computers.
Up until 1990, computer generated images were easy to spot. They didn't blend well with their surroundings and they looked like a computer had drawn them. The Abyss changed that perception with its organic looking and highly believable water-creature that proved to be one of the turning points for computer imagery in film. James Cameron has always been a pioneer and now he used effects that stood out because it didn't look like computer imagery. From that point the nineties movie industry became awash with computer generated effects and imagery, some of which was convincing, made the movie possible and impressed, and some that was quite simply an exercise in flash graphics. Terminator 2:Judgement Day and Jurassic Park will forever be associated with spectacular computer imagery, while movies such as Twister and Stargate were nothing more than a flash in the pan.
The advantages of using computer generated imagery in making movies are obviously huge. Not only can environments and creatures be generated completely from the imagination, but realistic and life-like environments can look convincing as well. It's not all about dinosaurs and spaceships. Again, James Cameron proved this with the sinking of the Titanic. That disaster was recreated with alarming accuracy, with computer generated imagery used for the sequence where bodies fell from the back of a ship split in two. The Perfect Storm had the same impact with its incredible water effects that pushed the artificial creation of reality to the edge, although it never pushed too far to cause disbelief when I was watching.
Subtiety is something that isn't overlooked either, film makers are able to totally reposition objects and lightning that doen'st look right on the original shoot often without people watching knowing it's been done. Another favourite technique for more fantastical movies is filming the cast and location separately and then digitally blending the two elements. This makes the layout of expensive film sets irrelevant and without this technique some movies wouldn't be visually possible at all.
Computer generated imagery isn't the answer to every problem and it carries plenty of it's own troublesome elements. Close up work is still a problem with faces and features difficult to replicate convincingly. Spielberg knew this and used animatronic dinosaurs for the Jurassic Park movies and Renny Harlin built robotic sharks for Deep Blue Sea. At a distance computer generated imagery is close to being utterly convincing, but under scrutiny it shows a little too much make-up. Although it's something that isn't immediately noticeable by evry filmgoer, lighting is very difficult to get right especially when you take into account reflected light and situations where many light sources are used. Although anyone who's watching might not know what the problem is they'll know that something doesn't look right, which can spoil the illusion of the most well-crafted effects. Bad CGI effects can be created just as easily as any other bad effects, models or environments. Movies like The Lawnmower Man have dated terribly and the effects weren't that good to begin with anyway. the main problem with CGI though is the cost. It was predicted that computer generated images in movies would save money, but this hasn't been the case. It seems if you want good quality you're going to have to pay a good quantity.
So how do completely generated movies stand? Well, when Toy Story hit the screens in 1995 it looked good and went down as the first fully computer generated feature film. Because it was aimed at children and it's cast consisted of toys there was no need to place much importance on realism. So close-ups were fine because no one was trying to replicate a living creature's face or actions. This gave Pixar the chance to show off good graphics and effects and not have to worry about believability. The same can be said for this year's big Hollywood CGI movie, Shrek. Set in a magical kingdom with a cast of fairy tale characters the animators could concentrate on great graphics without worrying about realism. Even the human characters don't have to be that convincing when you live in a kingdom of fairies and gingerbread men!
Which brings me to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It seems the old age 'great animation, crap storyline' still holds firm almost twenty years after Tron hit the screens. Four years in the making has produced some of the most mind blowing visuals to ever grace the screen. HyperReal is Square's phrase to describe photo-realistic characters. Hair, skin tone, muscle movement and cloth simulation techniques have been taken to the pinnacle of what can be achieved right now and many of the movie's scenes are stunning. For so long computer graphic artists have sought to create the superior computer generated human and with Final Fantasy the people at Square have come closer than anyone before them. By using state of the art techniques to create skin tones and wrinkles, freckles and detail in hair, the characters in Final Fantasy are so close to being human it's incredible. Some scenes in the movie make you think whether you're watching real footage (why not use real footage?). It's fitting that a movie based on a videogame should be computer generated and the artists have certainly succeeded in their goal. In fact you could say that this is the most successful conversion of a game to movie, right down to the embarrassing dialogue and poor script.
Another completely computer generated feature is the anime release, Blood:The Last Vampire. Again this has some incredible images and atmosphere with genuinely frightening scenes, but instead of having poor plot it just isn't long enough, it's more of a first episode if anything else. So again the art stuns us and some of it does indeed look real, but as soon as we begin to settle into the storyline try to figure out what is going on, it ends! Okay the acting and dialogue in this one aren't so bad, but it doesn't have time to go anywhere. Why can't film makers get the balance right? Is it the cost and the amount of time used in making a feature that leaves the computer imagery as the only main priority? Do film makers think we'd just forget to listen when our eyes are being dazzled? Whatever the case, the graphics, effects and environments just seem to be getting better all the time.
Computer imagery when used correctly can be a stunning addition to a great film, but just as much of the is knowing when, and when not to use it.
I leave you with my list of things we would miss if all movies were computer generated:
Spontaniety -
Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. No smashing yourself up against a mirror while drunk on Bourbon. Powerful, improvised scenes would have no chance of evolving.
Death & Tragedy -
No actors means no on-set accidents such as Brandon Lee losing his face in The Crow. No one went to the pictures to see it 'cos they thought it might be a good film. They wanted to see a dead man acting.
Hollywood Risks -
Hollywood doesn't take many risks as it is. With events movies and effects movies racking themselves up on the shelves will we just see more of film making of The Mummy Returns and Twister style? Nice effects - stinker movie.
Stunts that make us go 'WOAH!'
When you know it's done by a glorified animated stick-man it's nowhere near as impressive. We want Jackie Chan! And we want broken ribs!
Hope you enjoyed reading my informative and expressive post...Cheers
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
The idea of using computer generated images in movies was squashed and then resurrected in the late '70s. Feature films were introduced using computer animations by many big movie companies. Many discoveries were later made, but the biggest problem was their equipment wasn't powerful enough to create a complex feature film. The whole project of feature filming seemed doomed until one George Lucas began a research company, researching the application of digital technology.
It wasn't until 1982 that the first motion picture to feature computer generated graphics that approached a degree of photo-realism appeared. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan featured animation of a missile hitting a planet and turning it from desolate wasteland to a flourished Eden. Although the movie contained a deadly earwig and some knock-off actors from Dynasty, it was this entirely computer generated, sixty second effect by Mr Lucas that made the big impression. The sequence had such an impact on audiences that they used it again in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
The computer generated film graphics industry started with a bang in the '80s and the most fondly remembered films were linked to the emerging home console scene. Movies such as Tron and The Last Starfighter both contained computer imagery and had a storyline influenced by gaming, and although the effects were good at the time they were let down by crap storylines. This is something that is still important today, the technology might 'wow' the masses, but if the plot's crap, the plot's crap. the greatest effect the eighties had was that many advances in computer technology helped create faster and cheaper computers.
Up until 1990, computer generated images were easy to spot. They didn't blend well with their surroundings and they looked like a computer had drawn them. The Abyss changed that perception with its organic looking and highly believable water-creature that proved to be one of the turning points for computer imagery in film. James Cameron has always been a pioneer and now he used effects that stood out because it didn't look like computer imagery. From that point the nineties movie industry became awash with computer generated effects and imagery, some of which was convincing, made the movie possible and impressed, and some that was quite simply an exercise in flash graphics. Terminator 2:Judgement Day and Jurassic Park will forever be associated with spectacular computer imagery, while movies such as Twister and Stargate were nothing more than a flash in the pan.
The advantages of using computer generated imagery in making movies are obviously huge. Not only can environments and creatures be generated completely from the imagination, but realistic and life-like environments can look convincing as well. It's not all about dinosaurs and spaceships. Again, James Cameron proved this with the sinking of the Titanic. That disaster was recreated with alarming accuracy, with computer generated imagery used for the sequence where bodies fell from the back of a ship split in two. The Perfect Storm had the same impact with its incredible water effects that pushed the artificial creation of reality to the edge, although it never pushed too far to cause disbelief when I was watching.
Subtiety is something that isn't overlooked either, film makers are able to totally reposition objects and lightning that doen'st look right on the original shoot often without people watching knowing it's been done. Another favourite technique for more fantastical movies is filming the cast and location separately and then digitally blending the two elements. This makes the layout of expensive film sets irrelevant and without this technique some movies wouldn't be visually possible at all.
Computer generated imagery isn't the answer to every problem and it carries plenty of it's own troublesome elements. Close up work is still a problem with faces and features difficult to replicate convincingly. Spielberg knew this and used animatronic dinosaurs for the Jurassic Park movies and Renny Harlin built robotic sharks for Deep Blue Sea. At a distance computer generated imagery is close to being utterly convincing, but under scrutiny it shows a little too much make-up. Although it's something that isn't immediately noticeable by evry filmgoer, lighting is very difficult to get right especially when you take into account reflected light and situations where many light sources are used. Although anyone who's watching might not know what the problem is they'll know that something doesn't look right, which can spoil the illusion of the most well-crafted effects. Bad CGI effects can be created just as easily as any other bad effects, models or environments. Movies like The Lawnmower Man have dated terribly and the effects weren't that good to begin with anyway. the main problem with CGI though is the cost. It was predicted that computer generated images in movies would save money, but this hasn't been the case. It seems if you want good quality you're going to have to pay a good quantity.
So how do completely generated movies stand? Well, when Toy Story hit the screens in 1995 it looked good and went down as the first fully computer generated feature film. Because it was aimed at children and it's cast consisted of toys there was no need to place much importance on realism. So close-ups were fine because no one was trying to replicate a living creature's face or actions. This gave Pixar the chance to show off good graphics and effects and not have to worry about believability. The same can be said for this year's big Hollywood CGI movie, Shrek. Set in a magical kingdom with a cast of fairy tale characters the animators could concentrate on great graphics without worrying about realism. Even the human characters don't have to be that convincing when you live in a kingdom of fairies and gingerbread men!
Which brings me to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It seems the old age 'great animation, crap storyline' still holds firm almost twenty years after Tron hit the screens. Four years in the making has produced some of the most mind blowing visuals to ever grace the screen. HyperReal is Square's phrase to describe photo-realistic characters. Hair, skin tone, muscle movement and cloth simulation techniques have been taken to the pinnacle of what can be achieved right now and many of the movie's scenes are stunning. For so long computer graphic artists have sought to create the superior computer generated human and with Final Fantasy the people at Square have come closer than anyone before them. By using state of the art techniques to create skin tones and wrinkles, freckles and detail in hair, the characters in Final Fantasy are so close to being human it's incredible. Some scenes in the movie make you think whether you're watching real footage (why not use real footage?). It's fitting that a movie based on a videogame should be computer generated and the artists have certainly succeeded in their goal. In fact you could say that this is the most successful conversion of a game to movie, right down to the embarrassing dialogue and poor script.
Another completely computer generated feature is the anime release, Blood:The Last Vampire. Again this has some incredible images and atmosphere with genuinely frightening scenes, but instead of having poor plot it just isn't long enough, it's more of a first episode if anything else. So again the art stuns us and some of it does indeed look real, but as soon as we begin to settle into the storyline try to figure out what is going on, it ends! Okay the acting and dialogue in this one aren't so bad, but it doesn't have time to go anywhere. Why can't film makers get the balance right? Is it the cost and the amount of time used in making a feature that leaves the computer imagery as the only main priority? Do film makers think we'd just forget to listen when our eyes are being dazzled? Whatever the case, the graphics, effects and environments just seem to be getting better all the time.
Computer imagery when used correctly can be a stunning addition to a great film, but just as much of the is knowing when, and when not to use it.
I leave you with my list of things we would miss if all movies were computer generated:
Spontaniety -
Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. No smashing yourself up against a mirror while drunk on Bourbon. Powerful, improvised scenes would have no chance of evolving.
Death & Tragedy -
No actors means no on-set accidents such as Brandon Lee losing his face in The Crow. No one went to the pictures to see it 'cos they thought it might be a good film. They wanted to see a dead man acting.
Hollywood Risks -
Hollywood doesn't take many risks as it is. With events movies and effects movies racking themselves up on the shelves will we just see more of film making of The Mummy Returns and Twister style? Nice effects - stinker movie.
Stunts that make us go 'WOAH!'
When you know it's done by a glorified animated stick-man it's nowhere near as impressive. We want Jackie Chan! And we want broken ribs!
Hope you enjoyed reading my informative and expressive post...Cheers
It wasn't until 1982 that the first motion picture to feature computer generated graphics that approached a degree of photo-realism appeared. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan featured animation of a missile hitting a planet and turning it from desolate wasteland to a flourished Eden. Although the movie contained a deadly earwig and some knock-off actors from Dynasty, it was this entirely computer generated, sixty second effect by Mr Lucas that made the big impression. The sequence had such an impact on audiences that they used it again in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
The computer generated film graphics industry started with a bang in the '80s and the most fondly remembered films were linked to the emerging home console scene. Movies such as Tron and The Last Starfighter both contained computer imagery and had a storyline influenced by gaming, and although the effects were good at the time they were let down by crap storylines. This is something that is still important today, the technology might 'wow' the masses, but if the plot's crap, the plot's crap. the greatest effect the eighties had was that many advances in computer technology helped create faster and cheaper computers.
Up until 1990, computer generated images were easy to spot. They didn't blend well with their surroundings and they looked like a computer had drawn them. The Abyss changed that perception with its organic looking and highly believable water-creature that proved to be one of the turning points for computer imagery in film. James Cameron has always been a pioneer and now he used effects that stood out because it didn't look like computer imagery. From that point the nineties movie industry became awash with computer generated effects and imagery, some of which was convincing, made the movie possible and impressed, and some that was quite simply an exercise in flash graphics. Terminator 2:Judgement Day and Jurassic Park will forever be associated with spectacular computer imagery, while movies such as Twister and Stargate were nothing more than a flash in the pan.
The advantages of using computer generated imagery in making movies are obviously huge. Not only can environments and creatures be generated completely from the imagination, but realistic and life-like environments can look convincing as well. It's not all about dinosaurs and spaceships. Again, James Cameron proved this with the sinking of the Titanic. That disaster was recreated with alarming accuracy, with computer generated imagery used for the sequence where bodies fell from the back of a ship split in two. The Perfect Storm had the same impact with its incredible water effects that pushed the artificial creation of reality to the edge, although it never pushed too far to cause disbelief when I was watching.
Subtiety is something that isn't overlooked either, film makers are able to totally reposition objects and lightning that doen'st look right on the original shoot often without people watching knowing it's been done. Another favourite technique for more fantastical movies is filming the cast and location separately and then digitally blending the two elements. This makes the layout of expensive film sets irrelevant and without this technique some movies wouldn't be visually possible at all.
Computer generated imagery isn't the answer to every problem and it carries plenty of it's own troublesome elements. Close up work is still a problem with faces and features difficult to replicate convincingly. Spielberg knew this and used animatronic dinosaurs for the Jurassic Park movies and Renny Harlin built robotic sharks for Deep Blue Sea. At a distance computer generated imagery is close to being utterly convincing, but under scrutiny it shows a little too much make-up. Although it's something that isn't immediately noticeable by evry filmgoer, lighting is very difficult to get right especially when you take into account reflected light and situations where many light sources are used. Although anyone who's watching might not know what the problem is they'll know that something doesn't look right, which can spoil the illusion of the most well-crafted effects. Bad CGI effects can be created just as easily as any other bad effects, models or environments. Movies like The Lawnmower Man have dated terribly and the effects weren't that good to begin with anyway. the main problem with CGI though is the cost. It was predicted that computer generated images in movies would save money, but this hasn't been the case. It seems if you want good quality you're going to have to pay a good quantity.
So how do completely generated movies stand? Well, when Toy Story hit the screens in 1995 it looked good and went down as the first fully computer generated feature film. Because it was aimed at children and it's cast consisted of toys there was no need to place much importance on realism. So close-ups were fine because no one was trying to replicate a living creature's face or actions. This gave Pixar the chance to show off good graphics and effects and not have to worry about believability. The same can be said for this year's big Hollywood CGI movie, Shrek. Set in a magical kingdom with a cast of fairy tale characters the animators could concentrate on great graphics without worrying about realism. Even the human characters don't have to be that convincing when you live in a kingdom of fairies and gingerbread men!
Which brings me to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It seems the old age 'great animation, crap storyline' still holds firm almost twenty years after Tron hit the screens. Four years in the making has produced some of the most mind blowing visuals to ever grace the screen. HyperReal is Square's phrase to describe photo-realistic characters. Hair, skin tone, muscle movement and cloth simulation techniques have been taken to the pinnacle of what can be achieved right now and many of the movie's scenes are stunning. For so long computer graphic artists have sought to create the superior computer generated human and with Final Fantasy the people at Square have come closer than anyone before them. By using state of the art techniques to create skin tones and wrinkles, freckles and detail in hair, the characters in Final Fantasy are so close to being human it's incredible. Some scenes in the movie make you think whether you're watching real footage (why not use real footage?). It's fitting that a movie based on a videogame should be computer generated and the artists have certainly succeeded in their goal. In fact you could say that this is the most successful conversion of a game to movie, right down to the embarrassing dialogue and poor script.
Another completely computer generated feature is the anime release, Blood:The Last Vampire. Again this has some incredible images and atmosphere with genuinely frightening scenes, but instead of having poor plot it just isn't long enough, it's more of a first episode if anything else. So again the art stuns us and some of it does indeed look real, but as soon as we begin to settle into the storyline try to figure out what is going on, it ends! Okay the acting and dialogue in this one aren't so bad, but it doesn't have time to go anywhere. Why can't film makers get the balance right? Is it the cost and the amount of time used in making a feature that leaves the computer imagery as the only main priority? Do film makers think we'd just forget to listen when our eyes are being dazzled? Whatever the case, the graphics, effects and environments just seem to be getting better all the time.
Computer imagery when used correctly can be a stunning addition to a great film, but just as much of the is knowing when, and when not to use it.
I leave you with my list of things we would miss if all movies were computer generated:
Spontaniety -
Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. No smashing yourself up against a mirror while drunk on Bourbon. Powerful, improvised scenes would have no chance of evolving.
Death & Tragedy -
No actors means no on-set accidents such as Brandon Lee losing his face in The Crow. No one went to the pictures to see it 'cos they thought it might be a good film. They wanted to see a dead man acting.
Hollywood Risks -
Hollywood doesn't take many risks as it is. With events movies and effects movies racking themselves up on the shelves will we just see more of film making of The Mummy Returns and Twister style? Nice effects - stinker movie.
Stunts that make us go 'WOAH!'
When you know it's done by a glorified animated stick-man it's nowhere near as impressive. We want Jackie Chan! And we want broken ribs!
Hope you enjoyed reading my informative and expressive post...Cheers