LBT 10

NewOrder · **on:** November 12, 2006, 10:14:09 AM

I've recently bought it on DVD, and finally got around to watching it. It's pretty cool, but I didn't like most of the CGI in it. How do you feel about CGI in lbt?

Ratiasu · **Reply #1 on:** November 12, 2006, 01:05:30 PM

I don't like there being CGI in the Land Before Time series. It's so painfully obvious.

KingdomKey23 · **Reply #2 on:** November 12, 2006, 02:36:06 PM

I agree. Just solid animation was good enough. They try to take new technology and use at as advantage, but in the end I'd say it turned out to be a flaw.

Malte279 · **Reply #3 on:** November 12, 2006, 03:02:13 PM

I'm notorious for my low opinion of the sequel number 10 (here are the details) and I'm afraid I can't say I thought the CGI in LBT 10 something positive either. I'm not condemnning CGI in LBT in general. They did make some very good use of it in LBT 9 for example. In that case they somehow managed to make the photorealistic water look like it really was part of the picture. The CGI water in LBT 9 somehow looked in the right place.
In LBT 10 CGI effects were not integrated as well into the rest of the picture. The photorealistic tree branch Littlefoot is climbing up before spoting the crater for the first time is a particularly striking example. It really doesn't seem to fit to the rest of the picture. Neither did several CGI views we got from the crater as a whole.
They can do well with CGI in LBT; they didn't in case of LBT 10.

NewOrder · **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2006, 06:34:13 PM

They seemed obsessed with the matrix view. There were a lot of scenes where they went around the characters, showing a 360? view of them, with crater yeah sure, it kind of makes sense, but with the rest, it just seemed pointless

Lain_EX · **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2006, 01:11:11 PM

I agree wit all of you. As a matter of fact, CGI and LBT might not be used in da same sentence. -_-

Malte279 · **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2006, 01:23:55 PM

In that case we don't quite agree. I am not condemning the combination of LBT and CGI altogether. The did made good use of CGI technique in some cases. The photorealistic water in LBT 9 for example didn't seem out of place. Neither did some of the thunderstorm effects they presented in the same movie. In LBT 10 they mostly messed up.
Nevertheless I think that LBT 9 is the prove that, if done rightly, LBT and CGI can be combined for positive results.

pokeplayer984 · **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2006, 01:40:58 PM

Quote from: Malte279,Nov 13 2006 on 12:23 PM

In that case we don't quite agree. I am not condemning the combination of LBT and CGI altogether. The did made good use of CGI technique in some cases. The photorealistic water in LBT 9 for example didn't seem out of place. Neither did some of the thunderstorm effects they presented in the same movie. In LBT 10 they mostly messed up.
Nevertheless I think that LBT 9 is the prove that, if done rightly, LBT and CGI can be combined for positive results.

Indeed, they did quite well with LBT 9 with such graphics. Just goes to show that if you put your mind to it, you can do quite well with something new.

Who knows what kind of animated related stuff they'll use for LBT 12? :^.^:

(Oh, and Malte, did you know it's your turn at the Fact or Crap game?)

NewOrder · **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2006, 05:15:34 PM

I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this, but here it goes: Don't you think that since lbt 4 the maturity and over-all greatness of lbt dicreased a bit? I mean there's got to be a reason I stoped buying LBT VHS after no 7 =x

Petrie. · **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2006, 06:21:42 PM

For some reason or another the CGI used in both 9 and 10 was really sloppy in the fact the computer animation and cel animation did not blend together really at all. I don't remember LBT 11 very well but I don't remember it being as stark where it was easy to tell what the CG stuff was and cel stuff was. Maybe 12 will really have bridged that gap...who can tell? If those people over at Pokemon can do it decently, so can Universal.

Malte279 · **Reply #10 on:** November 13, 2006, 06:37:53 PM

Quote

For some reason or another the CGI used in both 9 and 10 was really sloppy in the fact the computer animation and cel animation did not blend together really at all.

I still don't think that the CGI in LBT 9 was the same as it was in LBT 10. The water with the many light reflections in LBT 9, the effects during the thunderstorm, the fairly realistic clouds, and computer generated rocks in LBT 9 seemed to blend a lot better than the effects in LBT 10 did. I know very little about CGI techniques, but to me it looked as if in case of LBT 10 they had put something extremely realistic in front of something clearly painted. In case of LBT 9 the contrasts didn't stand out as much.

Lain_EX · **Reply #11 on:** November 13, 2006, 11:26:04 PM

Totally right.

NewOrder · **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2006, 03:52:30 PM

I think LBT 9 was the best of the last 5 sequels. I completely agree with Malte, and not only was the CGI well-implemented, the plot was kind of cool. I also liked the plot in lbt 10, however it had two major flaws: Ali was nowhere to be found and Bron's explanation could've been better

DarkHououmon · **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:26:03 PM

I don't see Ali's absense as a flaw. I was disappointed that she wasn't in the movie, though. And I think Bron's explaination was just fine.

Lain_EX · **Reply #14 on:** November 14, 2006, 06:29:13 PM

Neither Ali nor Doc (6th movie) were there. Dat's a shame, 'cause I would like to see them "saving the world" too. Dat could made da movie more interesting. BTW, I also think that Bron's explanation was fine.

NewOrder · **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2006, 01:51:07 PM

Lol, we can't all agree on everything =p
As for Doc, I don't think he should re-appear, isn't he like a ghost or one of those heroes who show up only when they're really needed?

DarkHououmon · **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2006, 04:58:27 PM

That's what I thought. I thought that Doc was a ghost that came to the valley temporarily, and when he wasn't needed anymore he vanished. Though a friend of mine, Lexxy, thinks that he was just a very old longneck that just happened to look like the Lone Dinosaur.

Threehorn · **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2006, 07:08:25 PM

I believe he isn't a ghost, just a very old longneck like DarkHououmon said. if he was a ghost then he wouldn't eat leaves or the other things he did in LBT 6. So I gather that he just old and alone, maybe decended from that of the very lone dinosaur and had a encounter with a sharptooth that cut him in a very simliar location that of the story was told. He did stat he been in the valley before, showing he once came there before Littlefoot's time and before any of the ones we know of arrived in the Great Valley.

Maybe his old friends with Mr Thicknose lol

wonder if that is a possiblity...

NewOrder · **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2006, 07:24:20 PM

We could argue about the fact that he's a Diplodocus, however LBT isn't known for their correct positioning of dino species. I still find Doc's vanishing at the end of lbt 6 pretty wierd. But I dought he'll ever come back

Littlefoot1616 · **Reply #19 on:** November 15, 2006, 09:15:14 PM

I think the general idea for Doc's being was to remain mysterious. Was he really the lone dinosaur? Does he really exist? Was it all just over active imaginations? Who knows! The concept was to keep Doc shrouded with a mysterious aura and I think that was done well. As much as he was on our screens, there still was no definite answer as to WHO he really was and what his true purpose for returning to the Great Valley was.

As for the ACTUALLY topic title, can't argue with what's already bin said. The CGI in LBT 10 was painfully, blatently obvious. It didn't blend in with the animation very well at all. Some of the camera pannings were good but apart from that...can't really defend the slap-dash job the CGI seems to present in LBT 10. As Malte has already said, the CGI adaptations made to LBT 9 are far more discreet and look better crafted. CGI, if added to a movie, should look as inconspicuous as possible but LBT 10 definitely doesnt cut it. I still enjoy watching the film, but I found it harder to notice the CG animated features of #9 then I did in #10.

LBT 10 - CGI