Ultimately Off-Topic VII: The Miles Frontier

[Plawsky]

Ok, maybe you're trying to argue something different than what it's coming across as. Motion capture is great, green screens often aren't... these are things I agree with. And CGI is really, really good. BUT, unless you can show me an example of something that's fully CGI that looks 100% real, as if you couldn't tell the difference, then I'm not convinced. I'm not talking about something that looks incredible or something that is groundbreaking, but something that actually looks REAL. Whether you like Avatar or not, it's about as good as large scale CGI can look; the mocap in that movie is great, but still not perfect. And, for the record, the prequel trilogies DID use motion capture - both Grievous and Yoda (and probably more) were done with mocap.

As far as budgets, it's pretty clear that a lot of Benjamin Button's went towards the CGI for his face. Each of the SW prequels had a budget that was 20% smaller, and it had both a bigger cast and a hell of a lot more CGI. CGI that good is expensive, that's a fact. It's a whole lot cheaper to cast an actor than to pay hundreds of animators to do the animation.

Like I said, I have nothing against CGI. But it can't replace real people. If it's so easy or flabbergasting, then why aren't there any other movies doing it yet? Why are film studios still using real actors?

[Robbie_Jee]

Ok, maybe you're trying to argue something different than what it's coming across as.

Maybe. But I'm not sure how to articulate what I'm saying any better. Motion capture, facial rendering. You seem to know what I'm talking about. Is there anything you need help understanding, something I haven't said very clearly?

Motion capture is great, green screens often aren't... these are things I agree with. And CGI is really, really good. BUT, unless you can show me an example of something that's fully CGI that looks 100% real, as if you couldn't tell the difference, then I'm not convinced. I'm not talking about something that looks incredible or something that is groundbreaking, but something that actually looks REAL. Whether you like Avatar or not, it's about as good as large scale CGI can look; the mocap in that movie is great, but still not perfect. And, for the record, the prequel trilogies DID use motion capture - both Grievous and Yoda (and probably more) were done with mocap.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't arguing whether Star Wars used motion capture or not. I know they did. And I'm saying that the lightsaber battles with the human characters looked their best when they were motion captured. You choreograph the lightsaber battles and then motion capture the actors. And there's none of that awful transition that you get with the non-motion-captured character scenes. The prequels looked sick when they did that.

This might just be because of how dated the films are now, but to me, it seems like they used very little motion capture. For Yoda and Jar Jar Binks, I think, they are completely independently animated. It all looked too slow and floaty, like a Pixar or Dreamworks picture. Motion Capture doesn't look shit like that.

And I refuse to accept Avatar as the best CGI we have. Spirits Within looked better than that. Besides, Avatar is actually a good example of a full CGI film and is actually exactly what I'd like to see for Star Wars, just with a bit more added care to certain scenes. The best looking stuff in Avatar was the motion capture and how it transitioned with the the also motion captured environments. Most of what you were watching in Avatar was full CGI. And that's exactly what needs to be done for the next Star Wars Trilogy. That's what's needed for Star Wars to pull off the most realistic looking Star Wars movie. I watched Spirits Within eight years ago, and after a few minutes of watching it you literally see the actor underneath the character. It's like you're not watching CGI at all. And Avater was a film that basically did just that, for the majority of the film.

As far as budgets, it's pretty clear that a lot of Benjamin Button's went towards the CGI for his face. Each of the SW prequels had a budget that was 20% smaller, and it had both a bigger cast and a hell of a lot more CGI. CGI that good is expensive, that's a fact. It's a whole lot cheaper to cast an actor than to pay hundreds of animators to do the animation.

Like I said, I have nothing against CGI. But it can't replace real people. If it's so easy or flabbergasting, then why aren't there any other movies doing it yet? Why are film studios still using real actors?

I believe they will really soon. It is very much needed for high concept fantasy films like Star Wars and Avatar.

*But Avatar was really quite rushed with most of it's presentation. But that's a different argument entirely.

:)

[MarvelMaster616]

I agree. As someone who is used to the animated trickster Joker this evil Joker is so much more appealing. Don't get me wrong I like the Mark Hamil joker but sometiems it borders on the too funny line and then nothing becomes serious. Snyder's is a really goo mixd of the two. Every tricksterish action by the Joker always has this menacing aspect to it. I went to the Bat boards and there are a lot of haters. I wonder why because so far I am enjoying everything Snyder does. I think I said it before but he is the Hickman of the DC world. Hickman is very knowledgeable about science and snyder shows it here. He is awesome in my opinion.

I agree and prefer the evil Joker that is being used currently, but the Mark Hamil Joker still has his charm. Given how great this story has been thus far, I hope this is something else DC turns into one of their animated features. They're already working on Flashpoint. I think this would be a logical choice since Joker stories are often popular themes of Batman animated features. Although they would probably have to water down some parts, namely the Joker having a cut off his face.

[sage6paths]

I'm still watching that amine, Death Note too. I'll be on episode 12 next.

How do you like it so far?

[thecrimson]

So I'm watching Spice and Wolf.

[RockyBanks]

So I'm watching Spice and Wolf.

[Count Yoda]

So I'm watching Spice and Wolf.

Good choice, my man.

[Chaos_Alfa]

So I'm watching Spice and Wolf.

Good choice, my man.

I second this.

I'm currently reading the light novels which the anime is based on. I highly recommend them if you like reading.
http://www.yenpress.com/spice-and-wolf-novel/

[Robbie_Jee]

How do you like it so far?

It's really good. How many episodes are in each series?

I'm not back from work until late tonight. Then I'll watch more and PM you about them. I still haven't watched BSG B&C episodes 3 and 4 yet but I'm eager too.

[MarvelMaster616]

Anyone here ever watch the Witchblade anime? That remains one of my favorite animes of all time. It's completely different from the comics, but it works in its own unique way.

[sage6paths]

It's really good. How many episodes are in each series?

I'm not back from work until late tonight. Then I'll watch more and PM you about them. I still haven't watched BSG B&C episodes 3 and 4 yet but I'm eager too.

There are 37 episodes total I believe. But there is a point in the series that marks the the first season. You will know when because it really is one of the most pivotal scenes that you don't see coming.

[Jer]

IS THAT A PORNO!?

Spice and Wolf is the Suze Orman of anime.

[Time_to_Zap]

Just got the first two volumes of "Morning Glories," it's phenomenal.

[Jer]

Just got the first two volumes of "Morning Glories," it's phenomenal.

It's about damn time.

[thecrimson]

Someone recomened it a year ago and I'm just now getting to it. I have a 100+ list of anime that I've been watching. I watched Blue Exorcist, Oreimo, Dusk Maiden of Amnesia, Gurren Lagann, and Angel Beat.

Good choice, my man.

I second this.

I'm currently reading the light novels which the anime is based on. I highly recommend them if you like reading.
http://www.yenpress.com/spice-and-wolf-novel/

I'll definitely check them out.