MovieChat Forums > Planet Dinosaur (2011) Discussion > CGI'S better than Terra Nova.

CGI'S better than Terra Nova.


I'm quite impressed by the cgi in Planet Dinosaur. it's not perfect but it's much better than that new show Terra Nova. the dinosaurs look much more realistic in PD than that.

reply

Well, it's good seeing a positive opinion on the show's CGI for once. Almost everyone's all "Why does WWD still have better CGI than this crap, suck my dick you BBC cheapos!", so it's really refreshing.

reply

Well, it's good seeing a positive opinion on the show's CGI for once. Almost everyone's all "Why does WWD still have better CGI than this crap, suck my dick you BBC cheapos!", so it's really refreshing.










Guaranteed whenever there's a new show with cgi you'll get some people jumping on the cgi bashing bandwagon. what these people forget is that there's many areas in Walking with dinosaurs where the cgi looks a bit ropey. You can see through the Ornithochiarus when they're on the beach for a start.

some of them have rose tinted specs when it comes to Walking with dinosaurs and Jurassic Park.


last nights episode with the Argentinosaurs was amazing. some of the best dinosaur sequences i've ever seen.

reply

Yeah, it was the best animated episode by far. A few hiccups occurred here and there there (like no motion blur in a number of scenes, and one shot had a really low frame/second rate for just a moment), but I was generally awed.

Although some of the environments didn't look quite right, I still liked them because of the picturesque colors and lighting, which lent an almost surreal feel to it. As another poster said somewhere, it seems like a deliberate stylistic choice.


And I happen to be re-watching some of the Walking with... series, so it's a nice opportunity to compare them in therms of CGI. And though I believe the older BBC shows win when it comes to realistic, fluid movements, they do lack the intricate texture-work that Planet Dinosaur has. Apart from some Walking with Monsters critters, I can honestly say that none of the animals ever looked quite real to me after the first couple of viewings, when the CGI's faults started becoming apparent. Sadly, during this re-watch, I also found a good number of previously undiscovered, yet strikingly glaring errors that I have no idea how they failed to spot.

So when it comes to bare looks, I'd say PD definitely has an edge over its predecessor. And I naturally mean this only with regards to the CGI -- because the real-life scenery of the WW shows just tramples over PD's backgrounds, but as that's not CGI, I left it out of the equation. PD's animals, their movements aside, just feel more real than most of the WW's crew, even during closeups. And especially compared to the animals of WWD, which, being the oldest, had the crudest CGI renders of all their series.

EDIT: Well, I may take that last one back. I finished watching Beasts, and boy, some of those effects aged real bad! I just can't get over how plainly visibly those Leptictidium, Australopithecus and Smilodon deformed into these weird shapes as they moved.

reply

Yeah, it was the best animated episode by far. A few hiccups occurred here and there there (like no motion blur in a number of scenes, and one shot had a really low frame/second rate for just a moment), but I was generally awed.

Although some of the environments didn't look quite right, I still liked them because of the picturesque colors and lighting, which lent an almost surreal feel to it. As another poster said somewhere, it seems like a deliberate stylistic choice.


And I happen to be re-watching some of the Walking with... series, so it's a nice opportunity to compare them in therms of CGI. And though I believe the older BBC shows win when it comes to realistic, fluid movements, they do lack the intricate texture-work that Planet Dinosaur has. Apart from some Walking with Monsters critters, I can honestly say that none of the animals ever looked quite real to me after the first couple of viewings, when the CGI's faults started becoming apparent. Sadly, during this re-watch, I also found a good number of previously undiscovered, yet strikingly glaring errors that I have no idea how they failed to spot.

So when it comes to bare looks, I'd say PD definitely has an edge over its predecessor. And I naturally mean this only with regards to the CGI -- because the real-life scenery of the WW shows just tramples over PD's backgrounds, but as that's not CGI, I left it out of the equation. PD's animals, their movements aside, just feel more real than most of the WW's crew, even during closeups. And especially compared to the animals of WWD, which, being the oldest, had the crudest CGI renders of all their series.

EDIT: Well, I may take that last one back. I finished watching Beasts, and boy, some of those effects aged real bad! I just can't get over how plainly visibly those Leptictidium, Australopithecus and Smilodon deformed into these weird shapes es they moved.
Your Reply

Subject:




People always seem to loook back with rose tinted specs and they forget the faults.
And yes Beasts was good but because hair is harder to do than reptile skin some of the animals in that look a bit ropey.

reply