CGI and Practical Aliens, and Which Alien are You Looking Forward to Most?

The Protomorph. And that thing with a goblinshark-head that we have not seen yet... I want a man in a suit! Not the CGI thing. I would not be surprised if we have to wait another movie for the the big chap...

Practical,no if's ands or buts.

What I'm hoping for from ALIEN: Covenant is something that I know, for a fact, I'm not going to get.

Regarding the use of CGI in films; I would prefer if it wasn't used at all. CGI in film should only ever be used in concepting an idea.

CGI in fan art, just for fun or in video games is great, but for an Hollywood blockbuster, NO.

I could maybe accept it being used in grandiose backgrounds where it's impossible to find in reality. But close-up shots, be it vehicles or creatures should never be CGI; Atleast until it has become more advanced.

You totally nailed it, Necronom IV.

I agree with you nin practical butts are much better than CGI....LOL

The CGI vs. practical effects is one of the more dumb arguments in filmmaking.

There's good CGI and bad CGI just as how there's good practical and bad practical.  Just look at many people moan about the non-existant "CG" Alien in Alien3...

What am I looking forward to? Not being able to tell the difference.

I want CGI if it is able or needed to provide something extra.

I agree with S.M.

Love to have seen what Hitchcock/Welles/Kubrick/Capra/ETC... Would have done with the tech! Fritz Lang would have done something amazing!

Kubrick's 2001's moon surface scenes are perfect - this is the other (no CGI) extreme.

The Dawn of Man scenes however don't really stand up to the clarity of blu-ray, and give away the background projection screen.  The still image cutouts for the spaceships are also more obvious.

The model stuff still stands up.

I pretty much agree with SM. I don't care as long as it looks good.

The CGI vs. practical effects is one of the more dumb arguments in filmmaking.

Yeah the xenos in AR with PS2 game cutscene quality CG shouldn't be compared to the practical suit-versions at all...

Deep Blue Sea unrealistically twitchy polygons vs the puppet sharks.

There's good CGI and bad CGI just as how there's good practical and bad practical.  Just look at many people moan about the non-existant "CG" Alien in Alien3...

Absolutely

What am I looking forward to? Not being able to tell the difference.

Of course, not sure if there's any person who likes to tell the difference.

Imo, I'd prefer to see as little CGI as possible overall, especially when it comes to creatures and humans (use stunt doubles as much as possible), and particularly in close-up shots (hello CG Leia, T: Salvation Arnold Schwarzenegger, also that red-lit corridor jumping alien from the latest AC trailer looked like a teaser for Alien Isolation 2)

Instead, I hope to see a lot of the CG effort put into:

- "merely" enhancing and adding or deleting environments, objects. 

- Spaceships if and when necessary (easier to make realistic as opposed to animated creatures.) However, Nolan (among a few others) proved with Interstellar that ship models still work amazingly well when done right. 

As for which Alien I'm mostly looking forward to see, none in particular just how they are presented and how they intend to show us that Ridley Scott's aliens are the baddest, scariest, most vicious and evil creatures in cinema history. 

If it looks good, they can use as little or as much CGI as they like.

"Yeah the xenos in AR with PS2 game cutscene quality CG shouldn't be compared to the practical suit-versions at all...

Deep Blue Sea unrealistically twitchy polygons vs the puppet sharks."

Fairly pointless - not to mention hyperbolic - comment given the context.

Neomorph  Yeah- This forum is mostly about our opinions lol!

Yeah dk, but maybe I should request permission from S.M to have my own opinion, because how dare I have another opinion than his! Apparently. 

#sarcasm (just in case lol) 

Aren't you all just precious delicate little petals when someone disagrees with your desperately important "opinions".

Adorable.

lol

Wait was that a joke S.M? Please tell me that was at least a hint at a joke? 

Ok... let me just step out of the McDonald's ball pit here....

....and chat with you like an android without the humor files installed.

I respect people who disagree with my comments (like you've disagreed with me on more than one occasion). In fact, I expect people to disagree with a lot of the controversial and often blunt things I write (often wrapped in a humoristic fashion), but I truly like to discuss and debate lots of things here and also shed some positive energy.  

Regarding practical effects vs CGI, I believe I answered your comment pretty well because I can't see how this supposed "context" works with your rather general statement about CGI vs practical effects. Did I misunderstand what you meant? Then it would certainly be helpful if you replied in a more elaborate manner.

I promise that I will never joke with you again S.M 

*gets back to the ball pit* 

Good CGI for me. I still cringe when I see Kane's baby zoom across that table.

BUT, (Possible Spoiler) I'm interested in seeing the effect of a guy in a suit on a pair of running blades... if it's been done really well.

I'm cool with cgi as long as it's not Skimpt on.

I'm looking forward to seeing the alien that we have not seen yet. ( I hope lol ) or know about.

"I promise that I will never joke with you again S.M "

Jokes are fine.

Cherry picking things out of context, misrepresenting, snide sneering; not much fun in that.

You still won't explain what I "took out of context"

Also, explain what you considered "misrepresenting" and "snide sneering" 

Take your time

EDIT.  I posted a response but removed it.  PM me if you want to pursue the drama.

EDIT: Why did you remove it S.M? 

You certainly give me the impression of being upset.

I honestly initially interpreted your first paragraph as more of a standalone general statement, then I provided my opinion on practical vs CG effects in Alien and Deep Blue Sea which crossed my mind. Is it possible for you to believe that? The first thing that crossed my mind was my own comparison, can we put it into consideration? 

It is beyond me how you believe that I'm trying to undermine your opinions. To be crystal clear; that is not my intention as I see no value or joy in that whatsoever. Wouldn't me also agreeing with your second paragraph (and several times before) be a sign of that? I think you've made a lot of good points here in the forum. 

As for "juvenile" S.M, please, don't stay too close to the mirror when you reply. I didn't call your statements "dumb" or "desperately important opinions" and I'm sure not calling you a "precious little petal" 

He removed it because he had to concentrate on how to attack my topic in the other thread.

I removed it because it's pointless drama that will achieve nothing.

2001's sfx was pretty outstanding for 1968 i watch it now and i still say wow! "this was made the year before man walking on the moon".

I reckon mixture of both cg and practical in a balanced way, over use of cg tends to spoil a film, thats my opinion anyway.

A drama queen. :)

airshaft, 2001 - the same here

I do prefer practical. However, CGI when it's done right is excellent! I gotta say that shot in the trailer with the protomorph at the very end of it looked great! If they all look like that I'll be A OK with it!

Some people have had issues with that shot.  I tried to find fault with it and couldn't.

Practical effects over CGI for close-ups but for more aereal shots, CG and for any enhancements such as movements which might be stiff with puppets. But blood effects and any time the Alien is on screen with actors, I would prefer a physical rig to CG. 

Side note: Cut the senseless arguing folks. I've noticed this crop up in a few topics now. I understand when two people have strong opinions it can get heated when challenging the other's points, but please stop taking responses so personally. This is an Alien forum, not a Facebook comment section. We're all here to geek out about the same stuff so enjoy the experience and appreciate differing opinions. Discuss, don't argue.

I can't recall good CG blood effects.  Which would mean there's probably some out there and it's been convincing enough not to notice.  Shaun of the Dead had some from memory that fooled me.  But then you look at something like Expendables or the unrated version of AvP and they're laughably bad.

Usually the overuse of gore always results in an unrealistic effect of blood. I would say more often than not however practical blood effects and old school injury effects seem far more realistic than the CGI alternatives, on average.

The case for using digital blood makes sense.  Squibs are time-consuming to rig up, then might not fire properly and you need multiple costumes/ suits for multiple takes.

However I think there's a random element to squibs that's hard to replicate digitally.

I work in a field of seeing and dealing with injuries and blood. Movies usually over do it especially when the casualty is trying to be heroic and speaks coherently (blood loss on the ground is not in the brain thus a cascade of  events incompatible with talking or shooting accurately). I couldn't give two craps about how much fake blood a movie claims to use.

Yeah, but Braindead was ace.

I was watching the TV series The Fall not long ago and a cop in that got shot in the arm, and rather than carrying on as if nothing happened, his arm was in a sling for a long time after and they were talking about he might not regain full use of it.  Seemed to be one of the more realistic portrayals.

SM- exactly. I never saw that show but it is nice to know some pay attention to details like that.

We have about 6 liters of blood. It is comical to see a victim crawling in a pool of his own blood that easily looks like a gallon with good thinking skills, good fine motor dexterity etc. Medical types can really poop a party!

Awesome responses everyone! I agree with Chris. Debating is fine (dare I say encouraged) but the second it turns personal, you guys should take it to the DMs or shut it down. Neomorph and SM, your guy's opinions are some of the ones on here that I respect the most. 

But anyway, many of you haven't answered the second part of my question. What monsters are you hoping to see??

OP- I want to see mutations leading up to the Xeno more than the Xeno for this film.