Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kkoie" data-source="post: 880078" data-attributes="member: 1160">Its not poor work.  Thats my point.  The problem is, too many people who do not understand how CGI works or how its put together are comparing it to real life.Films like Blade II's CGI succeed because there isn't that much of it compared to movies like Star Wars.  They probably kept their CGI to an absolute minimum, both for effectiveness, and cost.  I would think mainly cost.   CGI is more expensive than any other part of film.I think that CGI was the best way to go, to create the HULK they were looking for.  I suppose they could've used other techniques, but some of the things that have been done in just the trailers, would still require a full CGI character.  I think it's best to have only the CGI character, rather than a mix of that and some painted man.  Otherwise the differnse between the real actor, and the full CGI character, would be too obvious.  This way, its seemless all the way through the film.OF all the film discussions I've been in, I've yet to participate in one where somebody doesn't whines that the CGI is lousy.  Time and again I believe its due to ignorance of the medium, and expectations that it look as good as real life.  A 100% CGI character has a way to go before it mimics real life to the point where people can no longer tell the differnse.</blockquote>