The downfall of special effects.

[Johnny Unusual]

Yeah, the spaceships were models, but I could not "believe a shapeship could fly". Now don't get me wrong, the initial arrival of the ships is mostly impressive, but the dogfights looked ugly as well.  Of course, it didn't help that Will Smith was talking in those scenes.

[Just Some Guy]

Yeah, the spaceships were models, but I could not "believe a shapeship could fly". Now don't get me wrong, the initial arrival of the ships is mostly impressive, but the dogfights looked ugly as well.  Of course, it didn't help that Will Smith was talking in those scenes.

I won't disagree with you on that.  The design completely failed to take into account the scale of things.  Because they were so obsessed with making sure the audience was "awed" by the effects they overlooked the subtle things like atmospheric haze that would have given the visuals more depth.

[Phantom of Krankor]

ID4 may be a very stupid movie, but some of the special effects get to me every time. Especially the scenes where the large space crafts arrive over New York and all of the other cities. Its just so beautiful looking. But the dog fights, like someone else said, are bad CGI looking. Especially when the alien ship explodes, the "fire" looks like orange smoke ( but let's face it, back in the 90s these SFX were as good as somthing you'd see in LOTR at the time ).

As for stop motion puppets, I've always been split on those. They look realistic enough, but when it comes to movement, its choppy and not fluid. That's where CGI improves on where motion capture gives their movements extreme realism, however when it comes to "looking" realistic and blending it with the real enviroment, that's where it gets tricky. However, some advancements on CGI have changed this like the photo-realism of Gollum, and Davy Jones ( who was so  realistic, many people took  him as an actor wearing make-up ).

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

As for stop motion puppets, I've always been split on those. They look realistic enough, but when it comes to movement, its choppy and not fluid. That's where CGI improves on where motion capture gives their movements extreme realism, however when it comes to "looking" realistic and blending it with the real enviroment, that's where it gets tricky.

I know my opinions aren't popular here but I'll put the stop-motion parts of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms or 20 Million Miles to Earth - that happen in full sunlight - against all these movies using CGI that have to have the "effect" shown in the dead of night in the middle of a rainstorm or fire sprinkler malfunction (The Relic) or keeping the point of view of the camera constantly in motion (Van Helsing, I, Robot) to hide the flaws.

What's more, until the CGI Yoda in Revenge of the Sith, CGI's can't act (and that might have been by default).   Even the rod puppet Rancor in RotJ gave a performance because it was an organic extension of a human being.

[Just Some Guy]

However, some advancements on CGI have changed this like the photo-realism of Gollum, and Davy Jones ( who was so  realistic, many people took  him as an actor wearing make-up ).

I had no idea the Monkees were pioneers of CGI.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

However, some advancements on CGI have changed this like the photo-realism of Gollum, and Davy Jones ( who was so  realistic, many people took  him as an actor wearing make-up ).

I had no idea the Monkees were pioneers of CGI.

Well, give Papa Nez a chance and he'll say he had a hand in inventing everything....   

[ChrisHanel]

Phantom saved me the trouble of pointing out Pirates 2, which I study like crazy these days. John Knoll and the ILM did an amazing job and totally redeemed themselves in the area of visual effects. After the sterile, lifeless Star Wars prequels, they nailed the crew of the Flying Dutchman, no contest. They finally had the response to Gollum that they were looking for (and knew they were capable of).

In terms of the advancements of CG, you may complain about the dozens of shots you notice, but I point you to the thousands upon thousands of shots that you've watched in the last ten years that you didn't even know *were* visual effects. So much is done nowadays in subtle nuance that the audience completely misses, and this is where the real art of visual effects lies, I believe. Directors like Fincher, Gondry, Spike Jonze, and others have a habit of using visual effects to effect the nuances of the tone of the shot, or to help tell the story, rather than to try and blow shit up and astound the viewer with scale. This is where some of the best visual effects work is being done right now, and I love getting my issue of Cinefex in the mail and poking through the articles to see what I might have missed in the latest release.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

Phantom saved me the trouble of pointing out Pirates 2, which I study like crazy these days. John Knoll and the ILM did an amazing job and totally redeemed themselves in the area of visual effects. After the sterile, lifeless Star Wars prequels, they nailed the crew of the Flying Dutchman, no contest. They finally had the response to Gollum that they were looking for (and knew they were capable of).

That makes it sound (and appear) as though they can get this stuff right when it truly matters to them....but other than that it's all just a toss off.

Don't get me wrong.  I think CGI has it's place and can do some very entertaining stuff.....

But it's not the answer to everything Hollywood is trying to make it out to be.

[Cosmic Muse]

For the most part I've always favored a combination of CGI and practical effects gelling together in a movie. Can anyone tell the difference between Doctor Octopus'  CGI arms and the practical arms controled by offscreen puppeteers? I think that indescrimination between the practical and CGi has everything to do with the fact it's easier to convincingly pull off inorganic subjects than organic ones because at this stage in FX while still impressive, you can still see some plasticity in the overall skintones and whatnot.

[Behonkiss]

After watching this movie, I have to say that the CGI has gotten very dated.  A lot of it looks like any bad greenscreen from an 80s movie.

Oh, and CGI can be used wonderfully.  The original Jurassic Park was one of the biggest things to push it into the public eye, and that still looks awesome (Though it was mixed with animatronics as well).