CG in movies is dumb unless its for something that cannot be otherwise done without CG. Good examples of bad ways to do CG would be the new Star Wars movies everything could have been kept puppets but no they went CG that pissed me off even when I was like 10 watching Phantom Menace I never liked it I always knew something just wasn’t right about it, I had grown up watching the puppet Yoda and the CG one just didn’t have the same effect for me. So saying CG is a requirement for movies is a bad statement as you can do much more without CG and have it look visually appealing and real. I think keeping CG to a complete minimum only using it for scenes where you cannot replicate the scene in real-life is what movie should do although its more expensive so it won’t happen.
That’s like saying that we should go ahead and equip all of our soldiers with armor and weapons from the 1700’s.
If armor and weapons from the 1700s worked better than computer generated stuff, then yes.
Small point, but Yoda WAS a puppet in ‘Phantom Menace’, they didn’t switch to the digital version until AotC. On top of that the digital version was actually closer in terms of look and performance to the old hand puppet than the newer one was. So possibly not the best example.
It is true that some filmmakers use CG as a crutch and the end result often suffers. However, when it comes to creature effects physical puppets, costumes and rigs will only take you so far. Do date I think the filmmaker that has demonstrated the optimum balance between the physical and the CG is Guillermo del Toro, the finest example of which is Hellboy II.
There are puppets, costumes, some with digital enhancements, some not and some that are completely CG, each instance depending on the individual creature, the shot and one assumes depending on a given budget.
In a nutshell, to completely shun a useful and oft-times invaluable tool in favour of another is just counter productive. You can do more with both, than you can with just the one.
I hate to keep tying this thread to District 9 (Which I actually think the design for the prawns did take elements of the Vortigaunts by the way), but that movie used CG imagery perfectly. Quillermo Del Toro should probably be more recognized for his great use of prosthetic as opposed to his use of CGI.
Things like the Vortigaunts would definitely need to be CGI. Scanners could be done as models, but it honestly wouldn’t be too hard to superimpose the game model into the footage using CG programs, but at the same time it would be just as easy to build small scale models for things like Hunters and Striders. But again, it would be just as easy to superimpose the game models.
It would be pretty stupid to superimpose CG soldiers wouldn’t it? Costumed actors are necessary for any film just as much as CGI, people.
Mabeye (this is a lot of work though) someone could make a mod specifically for making a halflife movie then make the movie machinima style? Might be vey impractical but i think its kinda cool…
You’re argument seems to thrive on misconceptions. CG isn’t “the new thing” It’s just ANOTHER way to get things done. It’s not meant to be a replacement, just an alternative. CG tech is about 40 years old. (I know! Holy shit!) And Practical effects have been around for THOUSANDS of years in ye olde plays and all that shit. In most cases, CG used for EVERY special effect looks fucking stupid. The effects are the ONLY thing done right in Doom.
Vorts could be guys in suits with CG legs/ faces.
Fuck, it worked beautifully in zathura.
I actually haven’t seen District 9 yet, but from what I have seen it looks very skillful.
I used Del Toro as an example not because of the amount of CG work he uses compared to costumes/make-up etc. but the quality. Oft-times it’s almost impossible to tell where one begins and another ends or if it was used at all or what you think might be very good CG is actually a puppet or appliance. Like with any skill or art-form, often the most skillful use of a given tool is demonstrated by it’s absence, i.e. when NOT to use it, like the way a good composer knows the use of silence in music.
As for the Vorts, I tend to agree with xalener that while they’d certainly require some digital work, I can see elements of costume and performance being physical, depending on the requirements of a given shot.
Same goes for most of the creatures; Bullsquids, Houndeyes and Barnacles for example I could see being 90% puppet work, the headcrabs and zombies could be done with a combination of costume, make-up, puppets with a little CG work, here and there, depending on what they’re doing.
Advisors I can see being totally animatronic puppets, switching to CG for wideshots of them flying, while on the other hand things like the Hunters, Tripods, Tripods and Gunships would most likely have to be all CG, given the mobility they’d require with prop pieces (a section of tripod leg or complete hunter corpse) being used when a close up is needed.
Oddly enough I think the G-Man might actually benefit from a combination of make-up and some VERY subtle digital work to give you an “off” feeling about the guy. Something along the lines of the feature distortion used in LotR for the Mouth of Sauron or that bug-eyed midwife in the new Star Trek. Not nearly that extreme, but just enough that there’s a vague, hard-to-pin-down sense of otherness about him.
i did enjoy the scape footage they made, yeah acting was not good, they weren’t good at speaking, but the action-acting was well done i thought.
Well, I wanna say that I’m a film student myself and have written a few spec scripts based on books, etc (The only one I’ve actually stuck through completion was based on 1984 by George Orwell) and I tried to write one based on Half-Life and couldn’t think of a means to tie everything together. Its hard spinning such a tale in that format!
But I still do have dreams of how I’d do it. And keep in mind these are just dreams, but this is how I personally would do G-Man:
First off, cast Hugh Laurie. His appearance and vocals are perfect if he studied the inflection and stuttering of the G-Man’s speech patterns.
Secondly, I totally agree with your suggestion of using light effects work on his face to justify the eeriness of the character. However, I don’t think CGI is really the way to do it, not 100% at least.
I’d use more practical make-up work. The G-man is obviously…
A: Abnormally pale.
B: Has glowing eyes, and in fact seems to glow himself whenever he is seen in his “Cutscenes” but never when seen in-game oddly enough.
C: His face is not at all symmetrical in the slightest. And I don’t just mean eyebrows/ears/nose/etc. like normal facial abnormalities. The G-man’s entire face seems to sag a bit on the left side.
I think that his facial animations and all that could be done by the actor if he’s good enough to scrutinize that level of detail in a part (WHICH HUGH LAURIE IS 
).
Anyways, I ave a bunch more ideas of how to execute a Half-Life screen adaption efficiently and effectively and in a way that is pleasing to fans, but haven’t actually been able to put it into words. YET.
I keep adding to the spec script bit by bit as time goes by, and If I ever get all the way through it, I’ll put it up here to be read/judged/whatever if people are interested. :awesome:
Ja, go ahead. I’m sure people here will be interested. And then they’ll rip it apart and criticize it. But you should post it nonetheless, you never know - you might get it right.
Can’t say I necessarily agree with you about Laurie though. He hasn’t got the voice.
His voice in House is pretty close, although I do admit he would need to work on pitching and inflection to get the subtle (and not so subtle) ticks and stutters right with the G-Man.
And yeah, I’m positive that the first draft will most likely be panned because of a few things:
First, Gordon does talk. I’m trying to make it so that his spoken lines are very few and far between, but he does talk nonetheless.
Second, I am having trouble tying together the little training room prologue I did (its the part that shows before the opening credits, called a “cold open”) to the rest of the script, but all in all I should be able to get it resolved with the help of the fans and my writer friends.
Third, I based the first few pages of it on THIS FAN-MADE NOVELIZATION OF HALF-LIFE, which has a similar “average day” prologue-esque opening chapter that I enjoy.
I may end up scrapping it though and starting with the tram ride like in the game. I don’t know. When I get to a part where I feel comfortable stopping, I will post it. :freeman:
Maybe one day, we’ll have a Half-Life movie where someone just plays through the game narrating it as if he was Gordon Freeman… oh wait…
IF gordon freeman is narrating it must be Morgan freeman doing the voice.
If I were you, I wouldn’t hinge the success or failure of the G-Man on the hope that Hugh Laurie will play the part. It’s fine to have a certain actor in mind but the script has to be sound to begin with or it’s not going to work.
As for the narrative…I don’t know, I’m not convinced there’s enough of a story in HL1 to sustain even a 90 minute action flick. Unless you essentially re-conceptualise the whole thing (not out of the question mind) Gordon is effectively alone for three quarters of the film, save the G-Man he never encounters the same character twice, there’s no antagonist (no, G-Man isn’t an antagonist) and the entire story is very linear.
Add to that all of the previously discussed pitfalls involved with characterising someone who is by design a vessel for the audience’s experience, I still think the better prospect for an adaption would be Half Life 2.
In a way, you could have your cake and eat it by making the basic jist of HL1 take place in a 10-20 minute pre-title cold opening. Since there’s very little in terms of story to tell, you can breeze through the essentials in a nice, tightly edited frenetic sequence followed by the standard “passage-of-time/newspaper-clippings” style title sequence to set the stage for HL2.
Whether or not Alyx of Freeman should be the centre of the film is debatable, personally I’d prefer the former while keeping Freeman as the centre of the plot (note the distinction between plot and narrative) if for no other reason than making sure Alyx doesn’t get pigeon-holed as just the attractive female sidekick/love interest.
Yeah I know exactly where you’re coming from. I ended up scrapping the whole “prologue” part of it because honestly it seemed a bit tacked on and I wasn’t comfortable with it.
I remain firm in my belief that Half-Life should be a T.V. Series, and that’s the format I’d written the spec script in. If I ever start up a second time I’ll probably keep it that way. Because, and not many people seem to know this, but a film only has 3 acts. A T.V. episode has 7 acts, each one separated by a commercial break. There’s more room to let things pan out without creating confusion. And honestly I think that’s what Half-Life needs, because in order to keep it likeable there is a need to add in some form of subplot to the “run and gun” segments of the original game.
However if they were done right those segments could end up REALLY intense and gratifying to the audience.
Also, if you’ve seen No Country For Old Men, the Josh Brolin character (Llewelyn I think his name was) really had little to offer as a main character other than a relateable “everyday guy” who is thrust into this extraordinary situation. Much like what Gordon does, he’s alone most of the film just trying to survive this titan thats after him. There is an effective way to make a character a window for the audience and make him a character you root for also.
you do fin, and the out what happend to barney, in half life blue shift he escapes with DR. Kleiner and the rest of the lamda team
If you were to make a Halo movie then there doesn’t need to be a Master Chief!
Not a fan of Halo but just tryin to make a point. 
Then what are you making a spinoff of a game, people would want to go see the main character not the side characters
. . . . . exactly. Troll harder.