A new Hellboy movie trailer. This time David Harbour replaces Ron Perlmen.

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Well I am sorry but I do think CGI/Mo-capped has proven itself to be far superior to Make-Up. Especially make up for someone like Hellboy.

Davy Jones alone proves it and he was the best character in the movie.

So I have no idea what is this obsession with "physicalness" when it clearly looks cheap and inferior to the making something look literally alive through CGI.

Succesful CG characters are the exception rather than the rule. Davy Jones looked great because that movie had money -- this Hellboy movie is likely to have a budget of at best 80 to 100 million. Also, Davy Jones wasn't the main character, meaning he had much less screen time than Hellboy will likely have in the new movie.

Took words from my mouth.
Full CG is sometimes the best option, for example, when it comes to non-antropomorphic characters, in dynamic action scenes. But when you have a main character, that is constantly followed by the camera, it's better to have something physical there.
It also helps the actors on set, because they don't need to play-pretend on top of acting.

I'm not saying that "always going practical" is the way to go, sometimes it can return diminishing effects(vide: "Dunkirk" imho), rather that the best is achieved by knowing strengths and weaknesses of special effects and using them accordingly.

Ron Perlman's Hellboy was done with makeup and prosthetics, The Faun and Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth were done with makeup. Killer Croc from Suicide Squad was done with makeup.
Done well, makeup goes a very long way and can create some amazing characters and visuals just as good if not better than CGI. Poorly done make up, like Hellboy in the trailer, can look cheap and fake just like poorly done, slapped on CGI.

Don't forget Abe Sapien. Doug Jones is the Andy Serkis of practical effects(pardon this clumsy comparison).

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Well I am sorry but I do think CGI/Mo-capped has proven itself to be far superior to Make-Up. Especially make up for someone like Hellboy.

Davy Jones alone proves it and he was the best character in the movie.

So I have no idea what is this obsession with "physicalness" when it clearly looks cheap and inferior to the making something look literally alive through CGI.

Succesful CG characters are the exception rather than the rule. Davy Jones looked great because that movie had money -- this Hellboy movie is likely to have a budget of at best 80 to 100 million. Also, Davy Jones wasn't the main character, meaning he had much less screen time than Hellboy will likely have in the new movie.


And even when a movie has a large (by today's standards) budget it can still go horribly wrong. Just look at the orcs in the Hobbit trilogy.

AZOG DID NOT LOOK POOR CGI AT ALL!!!

Yes he did. He was so unmemorable looking. You know who was memorable looking? Lurtz from Fellowship who had like 3 minutes of screentime because he looked GOOD

The fact that I know what he looks like and remember his name says otherwise.

And Lurtz was generic Uruk Hai number 1. I remember Ugluk the "Look's like meat's back on the menu boys" Orc more then Lurtz. And Ugluk is generic Uruk Hai number 2.

 

[Casual Shinji]

AZOG DID NOT LOOK POOR CGI AT ALL!!!

I'll go even further.. Azog (and the other orcs) looked worse than the random NPC orcs in the Shadow of Mordor game, who at least had some personality in their faces. The Hobbit orcs looked like if they took the uruks from LotR and drained them of all colour, texture, and facial features.


Whether Lurtz was generic uruk #1, as a generic muscle he did his job nicely. He had a physical presence because he's actually physically there; he was bloody, slimey and interacting with the scenery. Azog on the other hand looks like he stepped out of an FMV. But then pretty much all the CGI in the Hobbit movies (especially the first one) looked really fake and shiney, like everything was made out of marzipane, even Gollum. The only thing I can remember looking good was Smaug.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

AZOG DID NOT LOOK POOR CGI AT ALL!!!

I'll go even further.. Azog (and the other orcs) looked worse than the random NPC orcs in the Shadow of Mordor game, who at least had some personality in their faces. The Hobbit orcs looked like if they took the uruks from LotR and drained them of all colour, texture, and facial features.


Whether Lurtz was generic uruk #1, as a generic muscle he did his job nicely. He had a physical presence because he's actually physically there; he was bloody, slimey and interacting with the scenery. Azog on the other hand looks like he stepped out of an FMV. But then pretty much all the CGI in the Hobbit movies (especially the first one) looked really fake and shiney, like everything was made out of marzipane, even Gollum. The only thing I can remember looking good was Smaug.

Bah CGI is superior to make-up and practical effects.

When CGI gives me things that are impossible for practical effects to do it is superior.

I grew up in an era where CGI was becoming dominant and I look at older movies that have practical effects and it all feels cheap.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I actually don't mind the recast as much as I mind the word 'reboot'. What was wrong with a sequel? Building on the previous films rather than scrapping them and starting again? *sigh*

 

[Casual Shinji]

Bah CGI is superior to make-up and practical effects.

When CGI gives me things that are impossible for practical effects to do it is superior.

I grew up in an era where CGI was becoming dominant and I look at older movies that have practical effects and it all feels cheap.

So everytime a character gets injured you'd rather they just CG it in stead of applying some simple fake blood? Or whenever someone fires a gun they need to CG the muzzle flashes and bullet impacts? What if someone just has some clown make-up on?

And no, when CGI does things that are impossible for practical effects it doesn't mean it's superior, it means it's more appropriate to produce that particular effect. Ian McKellen wore a fake nose, fake beard, and a wig for LotR, and all the actors who played hobbits wore wigs and giant feet as well. Guess why they used practical make-up for that in stead of CGI?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Bah CGI is superior to make-up and practical effects.

When CGI gives me things that are impossible for practical effects to do it is superior.

I grew up in an era where CGI was becoming dominant and I look at older movies that have practical effects and it all feels cheap.

So everytime a character gets injured you'd rather they just CG it in stead of applying some simple fake blood? Or whenever someone fires a gun they need to CG the muzzle flashes and bullet impacts? What if someone just has some clown make-up on?

And no, when CGI does things that are impossible for practical effects it doesn't mean it's superior, it means it's more appropriate to produce that particular effect. Ian McKellen wore a fake nose, fake beard, and a wig for LotR, and all the actors who played hobbits wore wigs and giant feet as well. Guess why they used practical make-up for that in stead of CGI?

I go above and beyond.

Why are we still using Live action actors in heavily CGI movies like Aquaman, Infinity War, etc?

I prefer if we just straight up make all movies CGI with a relatively realistic look.

I grew up with video games, and naturally I ended up being blown away by the CGI cinematics of games like Final Fantasy and Blizzard's games.

I'd give anything for a Lord of the Rings Animated Film Adapation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJr3dXZfcg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7CW6xDbL8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew_x_4IW7UI

 

[Casual Shinji]

I go above and beyond.

Why are we still using Live action actors in heavily CGI movies like Aquaman, Infinity War, etc?

I prefer if we just straight up make all movies CGI with a relatively realistic look.

I grew up with video games, and naturally I ended up being blown away by the CGI cinematics of games like Final Fantasy and Blizzard's games.

I'd give anything for a Lord of the Rings Animated Film Adapation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJr3dXZfcg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7CW6xDbL8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew_x_4IW7UI

Well, primarily because those movies totally flop at the box office, probably because going full realistic CGI means a movie is going to look extremely fake and uncanny. *cough* Image Movers *cough cough*

You wanna know why a movie like Infinity War doesn't go full CGI? Because then Thanos would look 6 times less convincing at least. His four minions already looked a bit shoddy as it was, because they couldn't receive as much work. All that effort that would go into making EVERYTHING look somewhat presentable -- and as a result make it look rubbery and fake -- can now be spent on making one character look extremely good.


That's not even going into how much work it would take to translate the acting performance of every character. Which would be impossible and as a result would make many of the faces look fake. Why would you do that? Why would you spend so much time and money modelling and rendering faces, skin, hair, sweat when you can just.. put an actor in front of the camera?


Like seriously, I get that you REALLY like those Blizzard FMVs, but you do realize how fake they look compared to your average romantic comedy, right?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I go above and beyond.

Why are we still using Live action actors in heavily CGI movies like Aquaman, Infinity War, etc?

I prefer if we just straight up make all movies CGI with a relatively realistic look.

I grew up with video games, and naturally I ended up being blown away by the CGI cinematics of games like Final Fantasy and Blizzard's games.

I'd give anything for a Lord of the Rings Animated Film Adapation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJr3dXZfcg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs7CW6xDbL8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew_x_4IW7UI

Well, primarily because those movies totally flop at the box office, probably because going full realistic CGI means a movie is going to look extremely fake and uncanny. *cough* Image Movers *cough cough*

You wanna know why a movie like Infinity War doesn't go full CGI? Because then Thanos would look 6 times less convincing at least. His four minions already looked a bit shoddy as it was, because they couldn't receive as much work. All that effort that would go into making EVERYTHING look somewhat presentable -- and as a result make it look rubbery and fake -- can now be spent on making one character look extremely good.


That's not even going into how much work it would take to translate the acting performance of every character. Which would be impossible and as a result would make many of the faces look fake. Why would you do that? Why would you spend so much time and money modelling and rendering faces, skin, hair, sweat when you can just.. put an actor in front of the camera?


Like seriously, I get that you REALLY like those Blizzard FMVs, but you do realize how fake they look compared to your average romantic comedy, right?

Only Mars Needs Moms is the shithouse of Images Movers Digital. A Christmas Carol and Beowulf on thier own terms were actually good movies and proof it can be done. And I am sad they got shut down.

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

Its only the obnoxious people that prefer cartoony over realism and physical effects vs digital effects that appropriated that word to apply to CGI animation because they are all a bunch of old farts that are stuck in the 20th century and cannot accept this new thing.

And the hypocrisy of this is they let Disney/Pixar a pass when they get away with making enviornments photo-realistic and having cartoonishly designed characters have realistic features like Hair and Skin.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Also why put an live action actor when they are gonna stick out like a sorethumb when they are surrounded by CGI?

 

[twistedmic]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

Funny because Watchmojo said the anamatronic used for that scene in Terminator 1 is one of their "worse practical effects" list.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Only Mars Needs Moms is the shithouse of Images Movers Digital. A Christmas Carol and Beowulf on thier own terms were actually good movies and proof it can be done. And I am sad they got shut down.

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

Its only the obnoxious people that prefer cartoony over realism and physical effects vs digital effects that appropriated that word to apply to CGI animation because they are all a bunch of old farts that are stuck in the 20th century and cannot accept this new thing.

And the hypocrisy of this is they let Disney/Pixar a pass when they get away with making enviornments photo-realistic and having cartoonishly designed characters have realistic features like Hair and Skin.

Yeah, sure thing pal.

You go be you.

 

[twistedmic]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

Funny because Watchmojo said the anamatronic used for that scene in Terminator 1 is one of their "worse practical effects" list.

And I was talking about how the shaved eyebrows and vaseline coated face made Schwarzenegger look off or not right. Before he was revealed as a cyborg the T-800 just gave off a vibe of being not normal.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

Funny because Watchmojo said the anamatronic used for that scene in Terminator 1 is one of their "worse practical effects" list.

Well Watchmojo can go jump in the fucking lake because Stan Winston probably forgot more about anamatronic effects and engineering than they could ever hope to know.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

Funny because Watchmojo said the anamatronic used for that scene in Terminator 1 is one of their "worse practical effects" list.

And we all know if it was said on youtube it must be true.

Anyway here's why we don't use CGI all the time. It really isn't as good as the real deal.

Do you honestly believe that the image on the right is as convincing as the image on the left?

CGI is great, it's better in a lot of places than practical effects are but not everywhere. Both are needed.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

Funny because Watchmojo said the anamatronic used for that scene in Terminator 1 is one of their "worse practical effects" list.

And we all know if it was said on youtube it must be true.

Anyway here's why we don't use CGI all the time. It really isn't as good as the real deal.

Do you honestly believe that the image on the right is as convincing as the image on the left?

CGI is great, it's better in a lot of places than practical effects are but not everywhere. Both are needed.

The former is a guy in make-up. The latter looks like an actual Orc. And funny you choose that picture too purposely make him look bad when I can play that game and use these picture of Azog:

Heck here's the making of his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2GXUooP7RA

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

I think the Uncanny Valley is bullshit and I never found it weird and creepy. The Uncanny Valley was only applied to Real Dolls that Japanese people like to make for some reason.

That's your opinion, not fact. I've seen movies with the Uncanny Valley effect going on and it's ranged from immersion breaking, to creepy as hell to vaguely unsettling. And techniques have been used to achieve that effect long before the realistic robots/dolls were a thing. It was deliberately used in The Terminator to make the T-800 look subtly off.

Funny because Watchmojo said the anamatronic used for that scene in Terminator 1 is one of their "worse practical effects" list.

And we all know if it was said on youtube it must be true.

Anyway here's why we don't use CGI all the time. It really isn't as good as the real deal.

Do you honestly believe that the image on the right is as convincing as the image on the left?

CGI is great, it's better in a lot of places than practical effects are but not everywhere. Both are needed.

The former is a guy in make-up. The latter looks like an actual Orc. And funny you choose that picture too purposely make him look bad when I can play that game and use these picture of Azog:

Heck here's the making of his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2GXUooP7RA

No. The latter looks like a cartoon of an orc. Neither of those images look better than the first. And yes, how dare I choose a still from the movie to show how the character in the movie looks bad...

Also I'm not saying it can't be done. Gollum looks fantastic. What I'm saying is the more CGI added the worse it looks. CGI is expensive, time consuming and imperfect. Combining CGI with practical effects is better. Also you're ignoring the fact that actual human faces look really bad in CGI.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

@CheetoDust Not as Cartoony as Smaug looked in the movie.

And that's the only issue I had with the Hobbit how they designed Smaug. They were gonna make him look like this:

But decided to make Smaug look like a Wyvern because Game of Thrones and Skyrim made Dragons popularly look like this: