are the graphics good?
-
Black_PuddleT5 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 10:22 PM)
I kept thinking they digitally remastered the dragon's CG for today's standards and only now find out that they didn't change a thing I'm amazed that they were able to make that dragon in 1996.
_
I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself -
dracotharpian2002 — 17 years ago(February 10, 2009 01:11 PM)
I have never seen a more alive CG chartaer even to this day. I say hes on par with Gollum from LOTR. Did you guys know that the director even hired a editor to make a collection of sean connery close ups with all his different expressions and emotions and emulated them in Dracos face! Now THAT is dedication! I still say that Drac is the greatest CG character ever!
"Once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen"
Im a film editor! please hire me! -
JazukaiX — 15 years ago(April 21, 2010 02:04 AM)
All you had to do was look at pictures.
The graphics are amazing for the time, and still better than some of the things we have these days.
Basically, i'd say its way better than Godzilla.
I hope in the two years since posting, you watched it and saw -
Cereborn — 15 years ago(May 01, 2010 04:58 PM)
The effects are still impressive today. Obviously, it's not as awe-inspiring as it was 14 years ago, and we've seen much better CGI since then, but we've also seen much worse CGI since then too.
He still looks a bit cartoony because the technology for blending him into the environment was still a ways away from Avatar. But Drago looks awesome. All the texture and colour on him is meticulously detailed. Even if the CGI is obvious, he looks really natural, and not at all like an artificial creation. -
smitty1941 — 15 years ago(September 09, 2010 09:13 PM)
Wow, what the heck is your problem? This thread is over 2 years old, for one thing For another, who cares whether it's "graphics" or "special effects"? If that really matters that much to you, then I really don't care what your opinion is anyway. And to be completely honest, any interest I may have had in this film 2 years ago was very short-lived. I still haven't seen it, and I don't feel that I'm any the worse for it. So if you are seriously such a loser that you have to haunt virtually dead message boards to pick on people's word choices and give yourself an emotional high, go ahead. Your comment is of no interest to me.
-
Rena_Mahone — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 04:46 AM)
Godzilla had horrible graphics? wtf. Jurassic Park, Dragonheart, and Godzilla all had much better, more realistic effects than the modern, fake-looking CGI.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too) -
leyenda61 — 11 years ago(September 22, 2014 12:18 PM)
i remember when i first saw it iwas blown away with how great i thought the cgi looked. i tried to rewatch it a year or two ago and i was laughing to myself how dated and unconvincing the effects look now. That's technology for you.
Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop -
millerdsplaydzign — 12 years ago(June 15, 2013 07:14 PM)
This thing was on tv last night and I caught it as I was flipping through channels.
The effects don't look any better today than they did when the movie was released. But, because it was new and shiny, and came from (cue deep bass voice and echo machine)
a computer
(oooooooo!! Just like a
video game!
) everybody got a boner for it and decided it was to be the future of cinema.
It's hard to look at this movie and understand why computer effects were given a second chance after it, considering that practical effects of the day still surpassed the obviously computer generated character images in
Dragonheart
which were deemed, somehow, to pass muster.
They did a good job of matching color in the effects to the color in the live action footage, to which it was composited, but that's about it.
All I could think of was how the "eyes" and "mouth" moved around on the fake dragon thing looked like they were some sort of computer distorted shapes which were being projected onto a featureless object. And that the "skin" looked as insubstantial as an empty mylar balloon - printed with tons of color and detail on a thin, flimsy, polyester film surface which goes less than .005" deep, and completely hollow and empty on the other side.
And coming from Phil Tippett, too.that poor guy. He used to build tauntauns and AT-ATs and cantina aliens, for gods sakes.
Before anyone pipes up here with, "Well, maybe they didn't look that good, but they were still developing", I'd say to them "Well, then, if your magic tricks ain't ready to go before an audience, better keep 'em in your hat, and let somebody else back on stage".
Instead, people thought with their boners instead of their heads and threw lots of money at badly executed "magic", thus ensuring its future place in the firmament.
Considering the "great strides" apologists like to point to regarding CGI ("see, it doesn't suck nearly as bad as it used to, just keep spending money on movies that rely on it heavily, and someday, it probably won't suck."), I'd say "in your hat" is still the correct response. -
winston_blade — 12 years ago(June 17, 2013 10:20 AM)
I think they are pretty solid considering that it came out almost 20 years ago.
http://kosmofilm.com/kosmo-film-blog/2013/6/13/dragonheart-1996
www.twitter.com/kosmofilm