The Technodrome Forums - View Single Post - Do you think the 1990 film will ever be equalled (or surprassed) in the future?

sgtfbomb · 01-20-2017, 08:29 AM

CG is just a modern tool for special effects and is used for the same purposes that glass matte paintings and stop-motion animation were used for.

The issue is not with the f/x nor f/x artists, but with:

1) The designs. You used to hear that the key to a great design is whether or not it can be identified with just a black silhouette. There is a reason why I prefer Tim Burton's Batmobile over the Tumbler or any other contemporary Batmobile. It's simple, sleek, and easy to remember. The same goes for why I love the look of the 90s Turtles overs the PD Turtles. I understand the idea is to ground them, yet the 90s Turtles feel more grounded. It's because their designs are simple and realistic.

2) How the F/X are used. Going back to design, I think if a design as simple and recognizable as the 90s Turtles were CG, I can get behind that. However, it is not just the designs but what they are used for. There has to be laws of physics in motion for these guys. You have to feel gravity when they leap. But sometimes directors/producers/powers that be envision these impossible, incredible, unbelievable shots/stunts and it just becomes over the top.

CG can be a great tool for filmmakers though. There is this great shot in War of the Worlds where, as they are driving away in a stolen van, the shot goes into the van with the actors. out of the van, around the van, and into it again, seamlessly. It is an amazing shot that combines CG and different takes. It's an effective shot and far more powerful than the typical shaking the cam/quick cut/"Oh this is soooooo intense, too bad you can't see it" technique. They couldn't have done that shot before CG.

01-20-2017, 08:29 AM	#45
sgtfbomb Stone Warrior Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The Internet Posts: 830	CG is just a modern tool for special effects and is used for the same purposes that glass matte paintings and stop-motion animation were used for. The issue is not with the f/x nor f/x artists, but with: 1) The designs. You used to hear that the key to a great design is whether or not it can be identified with just a black silhouette. There is a reason why I prefer Tim Burton's Batmobile over the Tumbler or any other contemporary Batmobile. It's simple, sleek, and easy to remember. The same goes for why I love the look of the 90s Turtles overs the PD Turtles. I understand the idea is to ground them, yet the 90s Turtles feel more grounded. It's because their designs are simple and realistic. 2) How the F/X are used. Going back to design, I think if a design as simple and recognizable as the 90s Turtles were CG, I can get behind that. However, it is not just the designs but what they are used for. There has to be laws of physics in motion for these guys. You have to feel gravity when they leap. But sometimes directors/producers/powers that be envision these impossible, incredible, unbelievable shots/stunts and it just becomes over the top. CG can be a great tool for filmmakers though. There is this great shot in War of the Worlds where, as they are driving away in a stolen van, the shot goes into the van with the actors. out of the van, around the van, and into it again, seamlessly. It is an amazing shot that combines CG and different takes. It's an effective shot and far more powerful than the typical shaking the cam/quick cut/"Oh this is soooooo intense, too bad you can't see it" technique. They couldn't have done that shot before CG.