5 Comic Characters That Need to Be CGI Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 11 - 20 of 36
<<  <  1 2 3 4 >  >>  
savagelee 9/30/2009 8:05:38 AM

I totally agree about The Thing – In the comics, he's a little bigger than a short bald guy in a rubber suit. I'd like to see a Thing which stands 7 feet tall and weighs 700lbs. You know, like in the comics. CG would be the best way to bring that guy to life, otherwise he just looks kinda pathetic.

Now, the Lizard is not the next villain I want to see Spidey go up against (ELECTRO!), but it's hard to think about the Lizard now, and not imagine the “prawns” from District 9. Fast, agile, and seemingly totally real. Pure CG with a few well-made leathery props by WETA for close-ups.

I could see Tarantino as M.O.D.O.K.; they've kinda got the same haircut. 

Matador 9/30/2009 8:20:19 AM

Woops looks like I opened a can of worms metioning Man-Thing and will be taking your advice will not watch Man-Thing even if its at Wal-mart for $5 bucks.

Wiseguy 9/30/2009 8:35:22 AM

I gotta secong Chad about Man-Thing, putrid. Maybe it isn't the worse thing SyFy has put on but I usually couldn't care less about their films but I had some hope for Man-Thing and the let down couldn't have been bigger

I agree with the list but I think Lizard could be done the old fashion way. He only needs to be cgi if he's doing some crazy stuff ala Spidey being cgi when swinging

thorin02 9/30/2009 9:16:24 AM

I'll continue what others have said.  CGI is an excellent tool but it is not the end-all-be-all of FX work.  Practical models have their place and in many cases can actually work better than than CGI. 

For one thing, actors tend to better with something real to look at and play off of.  Watch the Star Wars prequels again, you can see the actors focusing half their attention on hitting the correct sight lines.  Part of the problem with the acting is that they can't lose themselves in the characters when they are slaves to the CGI constructs around them.  The CGI Yoda was almost entirely unnecessary.  Other than the battles with Dooku and Palpatine every scene Yoda was in would have been better with the original puppet from The Empire Strikes Back (which I still maintain looks better than the CGI version). 

Again, CGI is a tool, not a replacement for practical effects.  As others said, Jackson made excellent use of combining practical models with CGI enhancements. 

The othe problem with CGI is that it makes cluttering the screen way too easy (I'm looking at you George Lucas).  Yes practical effects can be limiting, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It keeps directors honest, forces them to focus on what is important. 

SONYMANswallows 9/30/2009 9:47:21 AM

DARDOWSKI YOU ARE AN IDIOT IN THE REALM OF SARA PALIN.

 

None of these characters need to be CGI. Actually nothing needs to be be CGI. Before Hollywood got lazy when George Lucas built models there were limited computer options. All of these characters can be done perfectly through model/puppet design, lighting and camera angels.

Galactus could have been done and looked great. But they didnt take camera position and lighting and run with them. Its not that hard.

Swamp Thing was better then almost every Batman film including Bark Knight and a much better true to origin film as well. He does not need to be GCI when you can use camera tricks.

 

CGI is good for enhancement and detail but when it is raped like Michael Bay CGI its awful. If Bay had taken time to make models and not rushed into a GCI process there may have been actual watchable films. But instead it gave him more time to argue with Megan Fox about why he is taking credit for Steven Spielberg discovering her.

 

MODOK I love but that is a CGI douche bag waiting to happen. Although John McCain does have many resemblences to him or it or whatever. I dont see him in IM 3 or Avengers.

CoolHandSnoop 9/30/2009 10:02:46 AM

Screw a Fantastic Four reboot.  We need a Hulk vs. Thing spinoff movie.  That would be badass.  And I agree, the Thing should be CGI. 

ChadDerdowski 9/30/2009 10:56:46 AM

SONYMANswallows (or should I say "SANIMONswollaws"?) ... dude, you're entitled to your opinion but if you're going to call me an idiot and put me in a league with one of the biggest idiots of all time, please take the time to spell my name correctly

Derdowski.  It's right there at the top of the column.

NDorado 9/30/2009 11:22:19 AM

I think CGI is the death of realism in movies unless it's a totally animated movie. 

Practical effects, real actors in makeup, with SOME CGI touchups is the way to go if you want it to look believable.

superrichtheman 9/30/2009 11:43:56 AM

NDorado I think if done correctly, it works.  T2, District 9, The Host Iron Man all had great CGI. 

Directors just use it as a tool and not rely soley on it. (Transformers 2)

Chopsaki 9/30/2009 11:49:03 AM

I might be alone in this but I always thought Gorilla Grodd was ridiculous. I like his characteristics of highly intellegent and his mind control ability but a talking monkey just dosn't do it for me. I did like how his facial features were done in Public Enemies. Definetly his most evil looking incarnation yet, but I just can't get past the fact that its just silly.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.