The Problem with Godzilla Minus 1's CGI

[@storyrant]

Eric's Links: I'm in Grimdark Magazine #39! GdM's catalogue page for the issue is here: www.grimdarkmagazine.com/product/grimdark-magazine-39/ Subscriptions available here: www.patreon.com/GrimdarkMagazine Free cosmic horror ebook: dl.bookfunnel.com/1cw07o2uyb Links to Books and Socials: linktr.ee/EricMalikyte OEI analog horror experiment: www.youtube.com/@@officeofextradimensionalint Karl's Links: Fact Fiend: www.youtube.com/@FactFiend Wiki-weekends: www.youtube.com/@wikiweekends

[@RhettThompsonFilm]

2:13 Godzilla minus one always feels cgi - many people including filmmakers thought that a few shots of Godzilla in the water was a prop before it was revealed to be 100% CGI. Also there’s dozens of more shots of invisible CGI in the film but yea the giant lizard is cgi. I think everyone gets that. You can’t really get past that imo but overall it looks fantastic and serves the film and on the same point doesn’t need to be “scarier” than shin. If it was it would be totally out of place in this film. Using a suit and enhancing it was the idea in Shin and at the end of the day…the suit was never used and barely even used for reference. In reality this wouldn’t benefit the film in any way shape or form. Audiences don’t really care at the end of the day about practical effects and there’s over 50 years of dwindling interest in Japanese Godzilla movies to prove it despite how incredible the integration got by movies like GMK and none of those lead to a academy award.

[@storyrant]

My mind always goes back to the original Jurassic Park as the standard for mixing practical and CGI effects seamlessly. I know Toho scrapped this side of their studio, so when I say it would be "cheaper" I'm really saying that would be the case in the long run, since some of this stuff can be reused. I disagree thaat audiences don't care about practical effects. Maybe that's the case in Japan, but most of the random people in Richmond (where I live) I talk to about this sort of thing end up wishing things would look more "real." This used to be the goal in Hollywood, even as Photoshop and 3D programs were first being introduced in the late 80s and 90s. The goal was to make it look as real as possible. I think that's a good goal to have. Maybe classic Godzilla's shape is too far from what would be possible in nature for that to be realized, and that's okay, but I'm not 100% convinced that's the case since Shin had shots I had no idea were fully CGI. They looked like a mix for some reason. Maybe I need to rewatch it.

[@Sandeep-ry2qq]

You are saying that when this movie literally won an Oscar for best visual effects

[@storyrant]

It doesn't matter what it won if it doesn't fool the eye. THAT'S WHAT THE VIDEO IS ABOUT!

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

One second people will use the Oscars as validation when something they like wins, and then turn around and call it a sham when it doesn’t go the way they want. There’s no way you’re consistent about this.

[@storyrant]

I mean, I get why. But that doesn't immunize anything from criticism. That's kind of what's fun about analyzing shit like this, there's always a way to improve art. People get butt-hurt and lash out defending the thing they love. That part's natural. But it's pretty fucken funny that so many people latched onto my suggestion of using someone in a suit, as if there isn't any other practical way to bring Godzilla to life and mix it with CGI. Sure, suitmation might not work, but animatronics are pretty fucken good to blend with CGI. It worked in Jurassic Park, so why not here?

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

@@storyrant The problem I imagine with using a practical approach to create Godzilla these days is getting the scale right. ”Bigatures” are a whole challenge in and of itself, but a moving bigature? Forced perspective for example might work in Bag End, but there’s a reason why blockbuster films don’t ever seem to use practical effects to create giant monsters these days. Your eyes virtually have a built-in scale detector, they can tell when something isn’t behaving like it should at a certain size. And I agree with the criticism thing. The shitty CGI in Black Panther was a result of time constraints and yet we can still call it the abomination of a scene that it is.

[@shaon317]

Just means that theirs was the best, doesn’t mean that there’s no room for improvement or opinion. 🙄

[@noahyoung9651]

I agree with 99% of this video, but as a die hard The Thing fan, I would have to vehemently disagree with the take at 15:31. Part of the mystery and intrigue of the first film was not knowing what happened at the Norwegian base. What happened there that resulted in the helicopter chase? Why did they find a dude with his wrists slit? They found something buried in the ice, but how did they excavate all this with any reasonable amount of TNT? These questions only fuel the mystery and intrigue of the first film. No amount of practical effects could make up for demystifying what is supposed to be mystic and dreadful.

[@spinosaurusstriker]

*It seems like a no-brainer* bro an entire suit with good quality would have cost more than the use of cgi , this Godzilla has more direct interaction than a suitmation godzilla ever did and when those needed to interact with real people they needed to do camera tricks who can be noticed immediately , a suit tears down constantly and add the cost of rebuilding the studios they had for the miniatures and the pool.

[@storyrant]

It would cost more in the short term, maybe. But long term, I feel it'd be an investment for more Toho films. It also depends on their approach. There are many kinds of practical effects. You could use mo-cap in some places, but have certain aspects of Godzilla be realized practically to mix it up and confuse the eye. Here in the states practical is almost always going to be cheaper. I'm not saying that's what Toho or Japan should do. There are plenty of ways to make CGI look real, as I mentioned in the video, but it's something we should be doing here, especially as VFX studios are stretched razor thin to the point of bankruptcy.

[@johnduval760]

I'd recommend watching the behind the scenes videos showing the way they merged practical and cgi effects. It was a monumental feat of ingenuity how they brought this movie together.

[@storyrant]

I'll probably end up doing that at some point.

[@fday1964]

​@@storyrant... maybe should've done that before this post.

[@storyrant]

Umm, no. Because the video isn't about technical shit. There are plenty of channels that do that. It's about aesthetic and the philosophy when approaching VFX work and how that serves the story. Because this is a storytelling channel first.

[@fday1964]

@@storyrant ... yawn...I didn't even finish reading your rebuttal. Pass. And I thought based on your Alien theory, you had ideas worth my time. Nope.

[@storyrant]

If you can't bother to read then you don't belong here.

[@FitzyCify]

It's the weightless, mechanical post-mutation walk cycle that sticks out the most to me.

[@MrCameronson]

Have you watched the movie they made using the rejected Thing (2011) props, Harbinger Down? If so, what'd you think. I vaguely remember it being ok.

[@storyrant]

I haven't seen it yet.

[@Evil.Totoro]

I don’t quite follow. Which shot in particular would you say would be better with a guy in a suit? The mainland Ginza attack had him lumbering around pretty slowly, and because of the use CGI you can get the scale of destruction done pretty well. But at the same time, you are not gonna get the initial island attack done with suitmation. Like you said the stuff in the water was done really well, and again if that was done with a suit they would have to put lots of effort into the CGI to get the water to scale properly. Lots of annoying composting work to be done there , so it makes sense they used CG. The CGI for the boat scene was so well done that I remember it was stumping some VFX artists regarding if that was a practical shot or not.

[@storyrant]

Yeah, the boat sequence was fantastic. Pretty much everything above ground stands out, so I wonder if it's a problem with the movement and textures they used. Frankly, I'm not a visual effects artist so I'm not sure what those sequences would need to fool the eye properly.

[@Romir0s]

"the problem" It cost, like, $12mil and the director had to do some renders on his own PC. Shin was made of fumes of the budget either, because when Anno took over, the most of the funds were spent already. That's why they have some shots made literally on iPhone. And you can see cheap textures in transformation scene, just like a few composing and animations mistake in "Who will know" scene. Minus One is polished to the most possible level that the budget allowed. So, next time when you want to make a video about some movie have a problem, DO YOUR GOD DAMN RESEARCH FIRST.

[@storyrant]

I never mentioned their budgets. This video wasn't about budget. It was about aesthetic.

[@AncientGonzo]

Storyrant does not, in fact, suck. It was cool to see you and Karl do stuff on each other’s channels; especially since Godzilla and Xenomorphs are like the two things I nerd out about the most.

[@storyrant]

Well, strap in, cause I've got a lot to say about Xenomorphs. Got probably two or three more alien videos on the way.

[@deirre]

$16M for those grahics....any company would love to make a CGI monster movie... the fans will always forgive lackluster CGI over story and entertainment. Graphics is supposed to support the story not drag it across the finish line...

[@storyrant]

Yeah, I'm not saying the CGI is bad. Godzilla looks very cool, and the VFX team is clearly capable of doing some incredible work considering the boat scene looks freaking real. What I'm saying is it didn't feel to me like Godzilla was really there in the scene during the land sequences, and I want to know why that is. Is it just cause we're seeing more of Godzilla? Is it his stoic stature? What makes a giant Kaiju look and feel real on film? I'd love to know the answers to these questions.

[@deirre]

@@storyrant gotcha

[@Stevewebstermusic]

I was one of a dozen people that saw it on a Thursday in my town. I went alone and smoked a joint on the walk to the mall (I’ve smoked pot for a long time but I rarely smoke in the way to a place where I will have to be around a lot of people) Godzilla minus 1 is a theater experience I will never forget. I was genuinely terrified of Godzilla showing up every time he wasn’t on screen, and when he did show up holy fuck I was not ready

[@storyrant]

That sounds like an incredible experience. I rarely go into a new movie high, but it's a very relaxing experience when I have. I wish I'd been scared of Godzilla in this film. Some of the scale shots were cool, though, and I think they could have been pushed harder to make him feel even more imposing.

[@jyaafi8158]

For the tone of the film, the cgi is great! And tho if they do practical effect it Could be better, for the budget that they have, i do think that doing good cgi is better for this movie

[@storyrant]

Yeah, the budget being so small makes it impressive. This is more of a "how could we do this better in future films" type thing. Though, that wasn't communicated super well, because I'm not a VFX expert, my wheelhouse is storytelling.

[@EmlynBoyle]

What are you talking about? This movie literally won an Oscar for Visual FX (though it deserved more), and they still made it look like a guy in a suit. Move on, seriously, the suit days are done.

[@storyrant]

Just because the movie wins an Oscar, doesn't mean the VFX fool the eye. That's what I'm talking about. That's what the goal should be. It should fool the eye on a first viewing, at the very least.

[@edpirrie5139]

Seems like you have a lot of people reading your title and looking at the run time without actually playing the video? Ah, well... The pre-nuked version of Godzilla in Minus One moved and emoted so much more than the final one. To the degree in fact that I suspect that they gave certain deliberate restrictions to the final form specifically to make it look more like a suit version (the eyes are always fixed ahead, and I don't think they ever blink) and I kind of respect that... unfortunately the physicality of the entire monster's movement was so clearly artificial that I also have to take points away (as an example, when Godzilla walks he puts his entire foot down and there is a split second where he stops moving entirely before lifting his next step. Even the most restrictive suit had a better flow of movement, because it was an actual living being doing so). For context here: I adore Minus One; I *think* I prefer Shin; EVERY Japanese Godzilla film is superior to the western ones, but they are still fun too.

[@storyrant]

Yeah, they can't help it I guess. This was meant to be a more constructive discussion than it ended up being, but oh well. Yeah, I agree with what you said. Godzilla doesn't seem to emote much at all now that I think about it. Making Godzilla feel more alive would have gone a long way toward making the effects feel more lifelike. The new Planet of the Apes films do a great job of this. While you can tell they're CGI for the most part, the characters are blended with the environments and lighting so well your brain can't always tell what doesn't belong. That, I feel, should be the goal 9/10 times.

[@BastrdGod]

This was my issue aswell. G-1 is in my top 3 G films, BUT, G's movement once full size was just so... I guess mathematic? It's not even robotic, it's programmed. The last long shot with G walking back out to sea rips me out of the film for about 10 seconds, it's kinda jarring. Swapping even just those distance shots for suit would have been ideal.

[@storyrant]

Yeah, all told, they did a great job with the tools and budget they had available, but I'm looking forward to the next one to see what they can do to improve those visuals.

[@BooboosANDBloodshed_95]

Karl and my love for Kaiju sent me here.

[@TheGoodFightTV]

lol if you had to make a boring 17min vid to try to convince everyone how bad something is, then you have failed before you even started

[@storyrant]

You don't like nuance, got it. I said both Shin and -1 were good.

[@Web_2567]

I'd forgive Minus One's CGI because Japan definitely isn't known for its CGI. However, the hype generated from everyone talking about how good it was really caused me to be disappointed. The movement is chunky, the tanks are downright horrendous, you could probably get a better shot just playing warthunder. And I'll forgive the entire water scene because god damn all the city destruction shots looked like they were rendered by a youtuber.

[@Martinmd12-zt7vu]

That’s interesting because I actually really liked the way Godzilla moved. For some reason, it looked more realistic to me than how the American movies animated him. I will agree that Shin looked better in terms of movement, but I thought both were great. There were still some shots that blew me away, like the boat sequence and the atomic breath. I think Shin and Minus One both have their pros and cons. I also have met people who think the cgi in Jurassic Park is laughable, which goes to show that what does or doesn’t take you out of a film is very subjective. I also don’t like the practical vs digital debate because both have their strengths and weaknesses. Lord of the Rings is probably the best example of how it utilized the two. When I saw both Shin and Minus One, I got the impression that Japan just seems to know how to incorporate CGI better than most Hollywood movies these days. While the CGI in Hollywood may be technically more detailed, the way they use Godzilla is really creative and cool. They work around their limitations, which is really inspiring to me. Apologies for the long tangent.

[@storyrant]

You're good. Rant away, friend. Art is subjective. :)

[@BastrdGod]

I'm sure I'll catch hell, but I agree, I wish it had been a suit. G-1 is possibly my fav G movie, it's definitely top 3. But, that more comes down to the story, acting, actors, characters and cinematography were soooo good. The reality is, G-1 would be a great film without G, period. It just would. G was A star in the film, but not necessarily THE star. As far as G being digital vs physical, every scene that was a distance shot of G moving was clunky. To me it was very noticeable that it was cgi, the movement was very stiff and robotic, but not in a fun MechaG way. The scene where G is walking back out to sea away from the dam near the end fully broke the immersion, but the film recovered it mere seconds later. The film is amazing, but that scene gives a quick slap every time. Even if just those longer shots were suits, it would have elevated the film higher. Personally, I think much higher, but how much is realistically debatable. That might be why G-1-C was better, it felt less... uncanny valley?? Not sure that's the right word, but it gets my point.

[@storyrant]

You're allowed to have an opinion, my dude. The guy who painted Robocop commented here. Though we disagree on a couple points, he made some really good points about how our eyes detect scale that I didn't really think about when writing this. Basically, he doesn't think it's possible to "fool the eye" with a guy in a suit and that's why CGI is basically a requirement. I don't know if I fully agree with that, but I'm not a VFX master. As an artist, I wonder if it comes down to treating the Kaiju in question more like a moving landmass than an organic creature. Would that communicate scale better? I don't know. But it'd be interesting to experiment with different textures to see what works.

[@BastrdGod]

@storyrant yeah, I read that and I can't agree with that either. There's just too many movies where scale was a mess with cgi, and too many G movies where scale was fine with a suit. Also, suitmation and cgi both have to be overlayed in a similar way. You still have to track and rotate everything you're adding into the shot, so... that doesn't math to me.

[@peppermintracc8979]

the problem with Minus 1's CGI are the people like you that need to huff out a 17 minute long breath of copium to convince yourself its not good

[@storyrant]

I said it's good. In fact, I said it's really good.

[@antonionunez3759]

Personally, I think that your take on CGI is somewhat unfair. Since CGI wasn't the main reason that big blockbuster movies are tanking. The main reason is that the stories that these movies are putting out are what fans aren't getting into at the moment. Godzilla Minus One success was done largely because of this. It focuses on the human element and the quality of storytelling over CGI and the special effects. Even though it did win the Visual Effects award.

[@storyrant]

Yeah, I could have made my point better. But the point wasn't to say that CGI is always bad, but that often mixing practical and CGI yields a better result.

[@antonionunez3759]

I realized that you're not saying that CGI is entirely bad. I'll even grant you that there are moments with CGI, in some movies, that wasn't delivered very well. Having saying that mixing in with practical effects does work if delivered right. My only point was that CGI is not entirely the main reason why movies are failing that's all.

[@storyrant]

Yeah, and this is something I dig pretty deep into in my other videos on this channel. This was meant to be a shorter video in between my longer storytelling deep dives.

[@alexb882]

I find myself disagreeing on minor points, which I only find interesting because yall are basically my age (Karl has 5 months on me, not sure about Eric but given some of the refs you make you ain't too far ahead) I do think Mr. E is looking back on certain things with rose colored glasses (you would have had to have seen the B&W version much later, at a point where you could appreciate it fully) 🤔 But I must agree with the - very much oversimplified - concept of practical FX wins over CGI Like Karl has mentioned on many-a-factfiend, I think it was one of the Evil Dead movies, where they chucked actual skeletons for His Royal Campbellness to f*** up instead of doing crap CGI, and the movie was better for it =>

[@storyrant]

I definitely could have made this video longer and more nuanced. I don't do short content as well as long form stuff. The same is true of my fiction. But I'll get better at it.

[@VerisimilitudeFilms1]

This is the best Godzilla has EVER looked. I don't understand the complaint.

[@storyrant]

I mean, to be fair, it's a very minor complaint.

[@punchatz]

A guy in a suit looks, like a guy in a suit… it does not fool the eye. You may the look of a guy in a suit, but do not fool yourself, it is not convincing as a 300 foot tall monster. There are absolutely examples of practical effects being a better approach for a given effect, but Godzilla is not one of them. Unlike you, I am an expert on both practical and visual effects and this just seems like another nonsensical “CGI is bad hot take” Godzilla minus one effects are very good, especially for the budget that it was accomplished with. Are there some things they could improve, sure. But that would take more time and money than they had. That being said, it still is the best Godzilla ever.

[@storyrant]

Billy Bryan would disagree with you on the suit thing. It does not always look like a guy in a suit. The xenomorph in Alien certainly didn't. If you're an expert in this shit then you should know the value of a real, physical performance. The difference comes down to knowing your craft and knowing how to represent scale accurately on the camera. I'm both an illustrator and a published author. I have a critical eye. And many of the effects shots of Godzilla look obviously like CGI in Minus 1. They're still good. I'm not complaining that the film is CGI. I love practical effects, but the goal should always be to make something that fools the eye. That's what the video is about, which I'm pretty fucken sure I stated in the video.

[@punchatz]

@@storyrant Are you talking about Bill Bryan the staypuff marshmallow man? Good friend of mine.. I’m talking about 300 foot tall monsters being represented by a guy in a rubber suit … it ain’t gonna work for today’s audiences. And yeah an expert in this shit ..… i’ve worked in both practical and visual effects throughout my 40 year career. I painted RoboCop for fuck sake, I know a little about what works with guys in suits and what does not. I’m just so sick of these anti-CGI threads, nothing but fanboys who no little or no knowledge about visual effects spending their time belittling other peoples magnificent work. Obviously, based on your name you like to rant, and that’s all this was. You obviously have your right to your own opinion, But with hot takes like this, you gotta expect some kickback.

[@storyrant]

Yes, that's who I'm talking about. I've heard him speak out against the total replacement of practical VFX work in the past, going so far as to call CGI "cartoons." And hell yeah, Robocop is a classic. I just watched a four hour documentary on that process. I'm not discounting your experience, but it seems kind of strange to say it can't be done and look good when there are countless visual tricks that can be used, or to discount what a human performance brings to that. Horror films, and especially modern ones, have been using skilled acrobats for this kind of shit. Hell, I've seen some crazy miniature work that basically looks real when shot with the right lens, and with new tech like the Volume, who knows what we might be able to do by combining VFX methods. I expect a certain amount of pushback, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to defend my position and respond in kind. ;) This is primarily a storytelling analysis channel, because that is my wheelhouse.

[@punchatz]

@@storyrant I guess you watched Robodoc? I’m featured quite a bit in that as well as the Netflix show “the movies that made us” about Robo. I never rule out practical effects on my shows, but I know when they are not the right choice, an in the case of Godzilla it has not been the best choice to “fool the eye” since the early 90s. There are times when practical effects are just not practical… Case in point Oppenheimer… that nuclear explosion was 100 not convincing as a nuclear explosion… it looked smaller than the gas station we blew up on RoboCop.

[@storyrant]

Yep, I believe that was the one. I still haven't seen Oppenheimer, but it's been on my list for a while. So, you're probably right about all that, unless someone comes up with some wild new technique for doing Kaiju shit. The point with this video was not to shit on CGI as a whole, but to argue for a balance and to highlight incredible physical performancss of certain suit actors like Bojali Badejo. There's some nuance there. When I listen to filmmakers talk about their approach to VFX work, it seemed like the approach from people like James Cameron and Ridley Scott was to make it look as real as possible, but it feels to me like that isn't really the case anymore. Especially when it comes to portraying scenes in space. Most of that shit doesn't look anything like how images are captured in space, favoring a more video gamey aesthetic.

[@leonwoodley99]

Good grief. No more people in suits.

[@storyrant]

It all comes down to execution, my dude. Lots of things you've probably enjoyed have had people in suits without you realizing it, because the performance there is what matters.

[@Nostalgic80s-nd3qb]

@leonwoodley99 Ok why exactly?

[@androyus]

The problem with "just do it with a guy in a Suit & lace it with CGI"-aporoach is that molding an entirely new suit of Godzilla (a good one at that) is pretty expensive for Toho. Especially now that their miniature & big pool division got scrapped since 2004 to the point where Toho had to borrow the Ultraman miniature set from Tsuburaya to make their own short Godzilla anniversary movies. Believe it or not but their total CGI budget during those land-walking scene is actually cheaper than making a new Godzilla suit. And yes, budget was a constant shackle in Minus One.

[@storyrant]

That is unfortunate. And mind you, I'm not saying Godzilla Minus 1 isn't impressive or good, just that my eye isn't fooled by the VFX the way some were claiming with the black and white version. You're right that it'd cost Toho to build out their infrastructure again, but the kicker here is that a lot of that stuff can be reused again once it's built. If they plan on making more Godzilla films, then it might be worth it.

[@spinosaurusstriker]

@@storyrant The thing that is reuse is the empty space , the rest is always re made , the miniatures , the pool needs to be repaired and also refilled and the suit .

[@BAZlNGAess]

there's no problem with g -1.0's cgi. they won best cgi. you're old maybe your're just used to old practical effecs

[@storyrant]

The problem is it doesn't fool the eye. You can always tell. The movie's fantastic, though.

[@MacStyran]

Sorry, I cannot trust anyone who even LIKES the Shin design.

[@storyrant]

That's really silly. It's a great design. It sits pretty nicely in the uncanny valley, and that's why it's unsettling to people.

[@MacStyran]

@@storyrant The googly eyes prevented the whole film to have any kind of impact on me. Seriously, I couldn't concentrate on anything else. Switch them with the GMK eyes and we might have had something. A full on rotting zombie. Trust me, I was surprised myself - I wanted to like the film and I usually can ignore details that rub me the wrong way, but ... Shin defeated me. Also, though I REALLY like the evolutionary aspect and the creepy people tail at the end, it felt like a film from another franchise. Godzilla had no character here. Even when he is a merciless force of nature, like in the original, Minus 1 or the aforementioned GMK, it FELT like Godzilla to me. This bleeding worm thing turned into something that I expected to be a villain in a Godzilla movie, not the big G himself. Tweak the design, sure, but those quasi mandibles and laser beams emitting from pretty much anywhere but his butthole felt just wrong. Sorry, I think I worded my first comment a little harsh, but I am so disappointed whenever Shin comes up, I get a little angry.

[@OctalLord]

​@@MacStyran That's quite the opinion! Thank you for sharing the fun read. I agree with you where I didn't feel like I understood Shin Godzillas character in the film, I found it to look fairly reactionary to the attacks on him but i also found myself asking the question of "What is Gojirra doing?" Several times throughout his rampages that he initiated. (Speaking in broad terms to not spoil the film.) I think it's an interesting comparison to the Godzilla of Minus One who seemed to revel in violence and it was told pretty explicitly that Japan was just part of its patrolled territory. Something to think about when it comes to how films communicate to their viewers. But that's just my #storyrant

[@storyrant]

@@MacStyran I'd actually argue the eyes are one of the things people find most unsettling about Shin Godzilla. And that makes sense, considering it was meant to be a horror film like the original was. If all you want is Godzilla fighting other monsters, that's fine, but understanding why design choices were made is also part of media literacy. The co-director was a collaborator on Neon Genesis: Evangelian, and it's pretty clear that the Lovecraftian Angels in that anime were a direct influence on Godzilla in this film. I'd say if we're going to have multiple versions of the same character, why not have a bit of variety? Especially now, considering Shin Godzilla isn't getting a sequel.

[@MacStyran]

@@storyrant I do understand the reasoning behind the design and I am very well aware of the Neon Genesis Evangelion influences (up to the use of actual music from it in Shin), but a.) I haven't met anyone that didn't think the eyes looked incredibly goofy, lifeless and devoid of expression (blank stares do have purpose, especially in horror, but THAT wasn't it either) and b.) for all that thought and intention, I actually think that they didn't go far enough with the monsterous design. Look at the Minus 1 spine for example - that detail makes him feel fierce and somewhat unpredictable. Shin looked messy. On purpose, sure, but it didn't work for me. There is a pretty good continuation of Shin on KZbin btw. that adds another evolutionary steps and makes his design more traditional. I kinda like the films where he doesn't fight other monsters a bit more, I must say. That's also a factor in my dislike of all the King Kong (feat. Godzilla cameos). As for variety - I'm all for it. I consider Emmerich's GINO a valid entry of the franchise (although it rather resembled Beast From 20000 fathoms). A great film? No. The Shere Khan chin? Horrible choice. But at least the subsequent animated series felt Godzilla-ry. Anyway - I stand by my point that Shin should have had better eyes. And maybe slimmer hips. I would've loved a more extreme approach that was only teased by the tail end bit. Godzilla people. That'd be something new. Although ... if we do NOT get Biollante in the Minus 1 sequel, maybe Noriko will evolve into something interesting like that. 😄

[@dragonfire1760]

You know something? If you get Godzilla minus one on DVD just in the color version, why would you have to get the black and white version when you can turn the TV black and white??

[@storyrant]

They actually did a lot of color balancing on it to get it to look right.

[@VerisimilitudeFilms1]

Because they did more than just saturate the color dude. They went frame by frame to color correct the entire movie for certain things to pop out more.

[@storyrant]

^ what he said.

[@LeroyMustang]

I must disagree. The reality is that very few films have extended fantasy elements with flawless or unnoticeable sfx practical or digital. Only when careful attention to realism by a skilled artist is executed flawlessly is any particular scene successfully flawlessly realistic. Your examples of Nolan and perhaps other non-fantastical directors come to mind. I can count NO creature/horror film whose zippers don’t show at some point. There are definitely films with incredible lengths of realism or astounding shots but none is flawless, practical, cgi, or combo. Not even 88’s The Blob, or The Creature from the Black Lagoon achieve this. The best all have moments of perfect fidelity but all fall short in some part to casual observation at some point. The solution to realism is always acute observation and integration, it’s an artistic/skill problem not a tool problem. This reminds me of all the tattoo artists in my field who squabble about whether or not old coil machines, or new inks are best. The types of tools matter but in the end the skill of the artist is still 90% of it. Nosferatu, or Jurassic Park which had the most convincing moment? 70+ years apart cgi or practical, the debated scenes would be decided by the skills of the artists not the tools they had at hand.

[@storyrant]

I actually agree with you for the most part. Sure, every movie shows the "seams" at some point, but I think the intention and goal in making those effects is important. If the goal was to be perfect, then every film would fail. I think most studios don't really care if the effects look real anymore, whereas in the past the goal was to make everything look as real as possible, to fool the eye on, at the very least, the first viewing. And I think fooling you on the first viewing is a good goal to have in that regard. I don't really care how this is done, despite my love for practical effects. And while I agree that the tools and intention behind the VFX work is what matters, some tools make it inherently more difficult to achieve a high degree of believability for the simple fact that they're not being captured in camera. Practical has the advantage that you don't have to match lighting to the scene, since the prop or costume or whatever is already lit by the scene, and details have to be real textures...because they're real.

[@LeroyMustang]

@@storyrant I gotcha, and really I do understand the value of practical FX. I think at the very least it gives a highly valuable reference for lighting textures and physics. In my estimation the best SFX heavy films combine practical and cgi, which I believe you might have also mentioned. What I’m generally cautioning against are blanket statements about artistic mediums when apart from all of that it is the artists attention that matters most. Which brings to mind your point about production companies. But let’s be honest, the past always looks better in retrospect, the amount of cheap crap pushed out in 1976, 96, or 2016 is, was, and will always be the vast majority of production films. Now, there are new things pay attention to, Ai color, lighting, and texture grading. Uniformity and realism Will become much more easy in the future. This will solve many of the current cgi problems. But like anything this still won’t help bad artistic choices or observations. Also perhaps worse than this is the consolidation of production companies. That’s not going to help with the executives making bad choices 😭

[@DanielS2001]

I agree with you. When it comes to practical effects, they hold up better than most CG. When it comes to John Carpenter's The Thing, every creature effect still holds up today than any of the CG work from the prequel. People I've discussed this with have said, "But Jurassic Park had CG in it." And I have to explain that out of the 15 minutes of dinosaur footage featured, only less than 4 minutes of it are CG while the rest involve practical effects. And the intercutting of the two is what makes it work.

[@storyrant]

Yeah, it's essentially common knowledge that this is the best way to fool the eye, and yet...

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

It really was my main problem with Minus One (and I mean overall, the fact that it’s a CGI gripe that’s my main criticism of the film speaks volumes), it was that Godzilla walks around too much like a rubber suit performer, it just doesn’t mesh with the surrounding quality of the effects, it’s missing the kinds of minor animation details that bring CG creatures to life as they move. No number of polygons in the CG model can hide animation that doesn’t work. And so in walking shots, the creature doesn’t look convincing enough to hold that terror factor like it does in the opening island scene.

[@storyrant]

I didn't really see it as mimicking the suit actor in Minus 1, but the movements don't feel right to me for some reason. My wife basically laughed at it. I thought her reaction was too extreme, but it goes to show you not everyone was blown away by the VFX. It feels more like it's the best they could do with the budget, and that they prioritized Godzilla looking cool, rather than Godzilla feeling like he's really there, smashing the hell out of the city. A VFX master came in to this video and commented that he doesn't think it's possible to do that with a guy in a suit (he might be right) and while I'm not 100% convinced, I know it's possible to make things in CGI not look like video game graphics. And I wonder why the scenes in the water look like they were done practically, versus what makes Godzilla look fake on land.

[@The_Story_Of_Us]

@@storyrant it’s simple. In water he is obscured and doesn’t have to move in a way that’s very complex to animate. Tons of factors go into a walk cycle, such as wobbling soft tissue, flow, intertia, balance and so on to make the creature look real, all while the whole thing is visible. A walk cycle is quite possibly one of the hardest things to animate on a cg creature like this. If you go to the VFX reel for Godzilla 2014, you will of course see a perfectly executed walk cycle that’s totally convincing, but they had 10 times the budget and so they should have.

[@storyrant]

I've done animation myself, and you're right, the walk cycle is a massive pain in the dick to get right.

[@JimHoltslander]

I hated the cgi when he was on land. Loved the movie!! He looked like he was a video game character with move sets. Not natural, and his walking was stiff af.