Comments on: THE CGI EFFECT UNCANNY VALLEY

By: aussiegirl625

aussiegirl625 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:04:14 +0000

by that standard, Beowulf should be the point that creates the valley.

By: Daddy87

Daddy87 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:41:05 +0000

This includes newspapers and paper packaging, reputedly highly biodegradable yet one can find nearly whole copies of newspapers from decades past in landfills. ,

By: Arnold73

Arnold73 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:44:14 +0000

Teleporting is a balancing act for us. ,

By: blahblah

blahblah — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:54:49 +0000

This isn’t saying that the Matrix was better than Star Wars. It’s saying that the CGI use in the Matrix was more impressive. Which it should be- well executed CGI today is supposed to be much better than well-executed CGI from 30 years ago.

By: 42

42 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:15:07 +0000

i think that jurrasic park should be higher than the martix. ’nuff said.

By: CGI? Really?!?!

CGI? Really?!?! — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:10:33 +0000

Anyone who judges a movie based on the “ground-breaking-ness” of the CGI is a nerd. If the CGI helps you ENJOY a movie, then it was good. If it detracts from a movie, then it was bad.

By: Kittymouth

Kittymouth — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:19:44 +0000

But they were only in the movie for all of 30 SECONDS! how could you be so pissed off about them?

By: ???

??? — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:51:09 +0000

indiana jones and lotr needs to swap

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:31:33 +0000

What about something like FF:TSW? It was a completely CG animated film that had some scenes that looked real. Granted, it bombed, but it definitely touched upon the uncanny at times.

By: Zachary

Zachary — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:19:15 +0000

Additionally, 30 Rock talked about the CGI Uncanny Valley. The one in the 70s refers to puppets, corpses, etc.

By: Zachary

Zachary — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:17:57 +0000

Yeah, well, nobody’s seen/payed that much attention to those shitty movies.

By: Zachary

Zachary — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:16:58 +0000

But 30 Rock touched down on it recently, making it the most recent pop culture reference.

I’m pretty sure this was directly influenced by 30 rock, not the 70s. Part of it makes sense, the rest is just opinion. Like, Indiana Jones isn’t really being judged by its CGI alone, it’s being judged here as a film overall. Some of the CGI there was excellent.

Smartie-pants.

By: Zachary

Zachary — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:06:35 +0000

So, LOTR was totally loathsome. Jurassic Park = OMFG, especially at the time.

By: MissKittie

MissKittie — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:52:02 +0000

Ummm… you forgot The Hulk.

By: OrionRed

OrionRed — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:11:13 +0000

Thank goodness someone else said this, now I don’t have to look like a total nerd and point that out.

By: pgtips

pgtips — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:33:50 +0000

CGI in the original Star Wars? You’ve got to be kidding if you think Domenic Iaia’s CGI display of the Death Star was better than LOTR, Jursassic Park and T2. Ever seen Star Wars: A New Hope?

By: limez0r

limez0r — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:42:13 +0000

the non fictional matrix not the matrix movies
shit is dope

By: LOTRinger

LOTRinger — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:57:28 +0000

Ermm, I am a girl.

By: LOTRinger

LOTRinger — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:50:55 +0000

Yeah, they originally wanted to have Smeagol/Gollum be a completely animated character, then they morphed Serkis into Gollum with the help of CGI. Has that been done before? And the character was a main character, to have a CGI character interact with other REAL actors, and still stand up for that much of the film, that is very impressive!

By: 3ntropy

3ntropy — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:56:41 +0000

my dad shat himself during the raptor surprise in JP. that qualifies it for OMFG in my book.

By: 3ntropy

3ntropy — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:55:09 +0000

anthony hopkins’s ass.

By: 3ntropy

3ntropy — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:51:24 +0000

balrog of morgoth. nuff said.

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:14:19 +0000

It’s not from 30 Rock, it’s from a robotics expert in the 70’s.

By: vervain

vervain — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:01:48 +0000

I’m surprised Beowulf isn’t on here…and rather low on the curve. What about the Harry Potter films? I agree with those who said LotR’s position should be switched with the Matrix, and Star Wars (though awesome) shouldn’t count (no CGI). Transformers could be a bit higher; the CGI was pretty good, it was the rest of the movie that sucked.

By: Boter

Boter — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:36:45 +0000

1977 = very little CGI in the original Star Wars. Incredibly little. it was all done with physical models and in-camera moves.

By: Argentum

Argentum — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:17:47 +0000

I concur with Mark, who commented above that the original Star Wars films shouldn’t be on this graph, unless it’s in reference to the reworked versions that had CGI enhancment added in. They were good old-fashioned model & bluescreen effects, splicing four separate reels of film together by machine. And of course the puppetry/animatronics is an artform in itself.

And hey, if we’re going to go back as far as 1977, where the hell are TRON and The Last Starfighter? Those two films were the first to use CGI almost exclusively. Or am I the only one who is old enough to remember them?

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:00:00 +0000

Indeed – despite having changed his character model from the first to second films (he wasn’t going to be so nice and playful, but Serkis really wanted to bring that out, so they made a character model that reflected these attributes (you can really tell in the eyes from the first one, when he’s looking through the ladder in Moria).

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:56:46 +0000

It’s called MASSIVE, and it took millions to develop of it’s own right. It can control literally tens of thousands of on-screen ‘minds’ and their interactions, as well as many more thousands of off-screen minds (without having to render them).

Pretty impressive, considering that nothing like that’s EVER been done before.

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:53:59 +0000

Actually, I would lower The Matrix, raise LOTR, Raise T2, and lower Transformers, as far as the ACTUAL effect the CG in the movies had on the audiences at the time (and the amount of innovation and new creation gone into the making of the effects – LOTR should almost be at the OMFG line, what with MASSIVE and all…

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:51:41 +0000

It looks so real!! – because by then, it is…

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:50:05 +0000

The original Star Wars was pretty amazing, nay, groundbreaking, at the time.

By: g-money

g-money — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:11:26 +0000

the first pirates of the caribbean should have a nod. the moon-light fight scenes where the skeleton pirates change from “skinned” to “skeletoned” as they move into and out of the moon light is slightly awesome.

By: Cait

Cait — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:56:44 +0000

Nice 30 Rock reference!

By: solo

solo — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:59:54 +0000

This would be funnier if the original poster and the commentors actually UNDERSTOOD what the uncanny valley was. It’s not about how bad the CGI is or how much, it’s about how close it comes to representing something real…it’s so real it looks unreal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

By: google

google — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:50:17 +0000

this is incorrect LOTR is better then matrix by a lonngggggg shot!

By: boom

boom — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:35:53 +0000

looks photoshopped to me.

By: boom

boom — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:35:15 +0000

have to disagree there – smeagol was great (and still is).

By: boom

boom — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:33:23 +0000

hear hear, my fine Fish!

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:26:09 +0000

Outside? Where’s that? Is it past the big blue room with all the bright lights?

By: LMAOman

LMAOman — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:11:25 +0000

glasses don’t help much, either.

By: commander cool

commander cool — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:44:29 +0000

what about the toyota matrix?

By: sebero

sebero — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:19:04 +0000

just one response to the dude who thinks lotr cg didn’t ruin the movie: smeagol.

By: Athanar

Athanar — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:07:43 +0000

Transformers should be higher than that. I remember when I saw that in theaters last summer… When I first saw one of them transform… That was so awesome…

I liked Indy…

By: durr

durr — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:17:12 +0000

i went outside once. the graphics weren’t that good.

By: Fish

Fish — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:32:34 +0000

Clearly, they couldn’t because the news Star Wars movies are so far beyond loathsome it wouldn’t fit.

By: ClickClickNow

ClickClickNow — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:46:15 +0000

Stars Wars rocks. It rocks the world.

By: captain shannon!

captain shannon! — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:15:05 +0000

BOSS.
Not only is that true, but
Star Wars should be rated higher.
I grew up on that. It’s priceless.

By: captain shannon!

captain shannon! — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:12:59 +0000

REFER TO JAMES’ COMMENT RIGHT ABOVE YOURS.

OBSERVATION FAIL.

By: LOTRinger

LOTRinger — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:54:23 +0000

Hey! They created Fire CGI! LOTR rocks, I mean, the whole Cave Troll scene was CGI, except for the close-ups, and they even created skeleton and muscle structures for every digital creature. And they created a whole system where each individual (CGI) soldier thought on their own, some even ran away from battle!!! (As in the opening battle scene)

By: aLiTa

aLiTa — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:42:14 +0000

then please tell me, what effects they tought of / perfectionised for the LOTR movie. Don’t forget the matrix gave us the “bullet time effect” (if not invented, then definately perfected with this movie), which by today’s standards (almost 10y later) is still pretty impressive.