posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:34 PM
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by harrytuttle
They still used human actors for the Aliens, you know. They used an advanced form of motion capture that managed to grab every facial expression and
subtle movement of the actors playing the aliens. It wasn't "100% CGI" in the slightest.
To me, the story seems very bland and relies soley on the special effects to distract you from this, like many other "groundbreaking" films of the
past, such as ID4.
You put it out there, so I'll take a bite.
Actually, you are wrong and you need to understand that just because part of the motion (and I mean part - the artists had liberty to adjust motion)
was an input from human faces, it's the OUTPUT that is 100% Computer Generated Imagery. Not one single pixel you see on those alien masks is
directly output from the human actors. The underlying motion of the masks, sure, but not the skin textures, the colors, the lighting, the reflections,
the shadows, the highlights, the structures, none of that is photography of a human actor.
Another way to put it is you could take the same "motion inputs" used in Avatar, apply it to some crappy mask and it's still 100% CGI. The
difference with Avatar and that example is the final result looks as if it is real photography - it's so good you seem to be confusing the final
result as photography when it is in fact not photography at all.
Agree with you that the story was generic, but the way it was told was so refreshing the end result is it works, and it works well, judging by both
film goer reviews and professional critical reviews.
[edit on 21-12-2009 by harrytuttle]