Post by Dr.Death on Aug 13, 2012 7:37:09 GMT -12
With the news of a new Chucky film undoubtedly the argument about, what role if any should CGI play. In this day and age it's just too hard to get away from, no matter how unnecessary some may find it. I've always been an aspiring FX artist myself and, while I am partial to CGI, when done effectively, and which has in certain respects played a small role in the child's Play films all along "any full body walking shot of Chucky, uses CGI to erase the rig controlling Chucky". My argument always was, why would they waste the time and money of forcing the medium when it just wasn't warranted. AKA, CG1 is expensive, the movie studios while loving the money these films make I believe are not willing to give the budget it would cost to make a slasher movie where the lead antagonist is completely computer generated.
And not to mention how impractical it would be to use CGI for a character who interacts with the actors regularly when they've done it fine with animatronics. It just would not make sense to have actors reacting to nothing on the sets as well as the time and effort it would take animators to render Chucky in every scene that calls for him to get physical with cast. Any interaction with an actor would have to be perfectly choreographed effort between motion capture, lighting, camera work and the animators efforts. Not to mention the time it would take to produce. It takes 3 to 4 years for these CGI laden films to finish production. You thought it took long for the film to get green-lighted ? just wait till it went in production.
But when you see Movies like Ted, using exactly that, a completely computer generated character whom is partial inanimate object and calls for lots of physicality, where as not that long ago, back in 01, more practical methods, an animatronic rigged, puppet, much like Chucky, were used for the similar character "Teddy" in the film "artificial intelligence".
It just becomes a lot more conceivable, what do you guys think ?
And not to mention how impractical it would be to use CGI for a character who interacts with the actors regularly when they've done it fine with animatronics. It just would not make sense to have actors reacting to nothing on the sets as well as the time and effort it would take animators to render Chucky in every scene that calls for him to get physical with cast. Any interaction with an actor would have to be perfectly choreographed effort between motion capture, lighting, camera work and the animators efforts. Not to mention the time it would take to produce. It takes 3 to 4 years for these CGI laden films to finish production. You thought it took long for the film to get green-lighted ? just wait till it went in production.
But when you see Movies like Ted, using exactly that, a completely computer generated character whom is partial inanimate object and calls for lots of physicality, where as not that long ago, back in 01, more practical methods, an animatronic rigged, puppet, much like Chucky, were used for the similar character "Teddy" in the film "artificial intelligence".
It just becomes a lot more conceivable, what do you guys think ?