I would agree it is visually amazing. But, where's the story? It's a bunch of robots/aliens attacking earth, looks very cool but is there anything else for me to grab onto? For me personally there isn't. I can certainly appreciate great specially effects, sound design, and great cinematography as much as the next person. But I still need some kind of a story.
I do think that for what it was it was executed almost perfectly. I believed those were real robots. I believed the explosions actually happened. And I really hope this can be used to further that guys career. Am I jealous of it? Yes. Do I see incredible amounts of potential and money in the directors future? Yes. Is it a great piece of work? Absolutely. Do I think there was no story and just a bunch of pretty shots? Yes.
Absolutely...there is no story. There is only a snippet of a movie...a piece of a larger pie. It wasn't about story or character development, it's simply showing a piece of--what could be--a larger story.
I think if you sliced this out of a film, as the moment the robots arrived, it's near perfect.
Do I want to see more of what the director can do in terms of story and character development? Hell yes.
But for what it is...the moment the robots arrive and start terrorizing...it is fantastic. Definitely on the level with even one of my favorites ID4 (substitute robots for ships).
Not bad, the worst part is the color temperature of the robots. More blue than the warm tones of the image. If you look at 1:41 they perfectly blended it there, that's the most realistic shot. After that, blue robots again.
Like CDCosta, I see bad CGI too. The stomping near the beginning is pretty bad (1:08).
Overall though a lot of work went into it and it just needs a little more to rival Hollywood. With CGI if you see just one tiny thing that makes it look fake, unfortunately, that hurts its overall believability. The good news is this is very close.
I hear ya Costa, I just don't agree (other than the blood splatter).
I thought the whole thing was immersive. And let's be real here...remember less than 10 years ago, when the CG sucked hardcore? We still enjoyed what we saw, for what it was. Why now, when we see something less than completely photo-real, we mark a negative strike against it?
I see worse CG than this in the theater and on television...I'm not about to pick the little not perfect bits about PANIC ATTACK apart. I think overall it's a super solid execution.
Is it on the level with Weta or ILM? Not quite...but almost. I don't need perfect to enjoy what I see. Heck, I know without a shadow of a doubt that those robots are fake...why do I need to be completely and utterly fooled by the eye? I don't. Do I admire what companies like Weta do? Hell ya...I'm a CG geek...but I also admire solid work, and don't require photo-real to be in the moment.
And let's face it...even Weta isn't at the level of photo real yet. So what are we complaining about?
I can only speak for myself, but I know when I see really good CGI and then a bad shot or two of CGI thrown in, it screams fake. Having all bad CGI is one thing, we see it and we can either chose to look passed it or we can chose not to watch anymore. Watching really great CGI and then seeing a bad shot thrown in seems to just really suck me out of the mood. For this particular short I was able to look past it (However I couldn't look past the lack of a story). But I can understand the point that indietalk and CDCosta are making here. You did such great work for the rest of the piece why not either 1) Get rid of the few bad shots or 2) Take the extra time to make them just as good.
Oh I know what you mean. You're saying consistency greatly influences your immersion. Understood.
I am a CGI artist myself...not nearly at this level, but I've been tooling around with Maya and Max for nearly a decade. And personally...there wasn't a single shot in this short film that I disliked (other than the blood splatter). Could a few have been polished or mulled over a bit more? Sure. But there are shots in Lord of the Rings that I could say the same thing about...so again...I can't complain.
It's hard to pull off even if everything looks real... the flames and smoke look good, but do they look like they belong where they are? Sometimes not... due to focus, perspective, movement, etc. Just like if you took real fire and superimposed it over your real footage, it would take a lot for it to look like it belonged there. That's what always makes CGI look video-gamey even if it's superior looking. It may not necessarily be the quality or likeness, but instead, the perspective/focus/movement etc.
Linear Mode
