CGI in movies : Good thing or a Bad Thing

[primemover]

That's because the good films that use CGI do it so well, that it doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Same thing with bad acting, but nobody is calling for less acting.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Sometimes i do wonder whether movie makers use CGI for the sake of using CGI and justifying that by working that into the movies storyline.

I mean take the character of Davey Jones. Looks like a aquatic creature and whatnot and also if one of the best CG creations ever. But at the same time m you're just wondering whether he was created to serve the story ( for all we know he could've just looked like a human wizard) or as a show off for VFX.

These days alot of the stuff seems to be the story as a result of CGI as opposed to the CGI as a result of the story.

 

[matrix_ghost]

CGI should be used to enhance the action not replace it.

1 Know that a scene really can't be filmed in real life (360 degreee moves in burly brawl) and/or really too expensive to shoot in real life despite the fact that it can be done .

- 360 scenes in the Burly Brawl were unnecessary and looked incredibly fake once it went totally CG.

Explain how they were unnecessary ?
IMO they were just a logical continuiation of the bullet time effects of first time , only to tak them to a higher level. SOmething that sequels always do is to be better then the first movie. Bullet Time was no different , only this time they couldn't film the scenes in a traditional way.

2 Know that you can insert emotions within that CGI ( T-1000 being a true menace , whereas the CGI animals in then Episode 2 arena just weren't menacing)

- All the menace from the T-1000 came from Robert Patrick (and the other actor's playing the character's) acting, not the CG. All the Star Wars prequels had too much CG and not enough direction.

~sigh~
That's the whole point of what i was saying. Bringing a CG creation to life is something very difficult.
It seems the only way to do that is by using an actor beneath the CGI ( Gollem , Davey Jones , T-1000)

3 Achieve a realism that is coherent with your story ( the noirish look of SKy Captain fitted the story perfectly)

- Didn't like Sky Captain, the creators were too busy thinking if they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

What do you mean by that ?

 

[primemover]

Sometimes i do wonder whether movie makers use CGI for the sake of using CGI and justifying that by working that into the movies storyline.

I mean take the character of Davey Jones. Looks like a aquatic creature and whatnot and also if one of the best CG creations ever. But at the same time m you're just wondering whether he was created to serve the story ( for all we know he could've just looked like a human wizard) or as a show off for VFX.

These days alot of the stuff seems to be the story as a result of CGI as opposed to the CGI as a result of the story.

New lore created for film should be just as fantastic and out of this world as lore created for books, wouldn't you be pissed if the cave troll from the first Lord of the Rings movie was just some musclebound dude with a club, or the Balrog just some actor with horns lit on fire?

In the POTC case with Davey Jones, they alread did a human 'looking'(though zombies too) pirate bad guy, they needed to up the ante and Jones and his crew were created.

I'd hate to see new lore created for the cinema be ******ed due to a perceived lack of reality in it's creations, especially when they're getting to the point where it's as good or better than any practical effects from the supposed 'golden era' some twenty five years ago.

 

[primemover]

That's the whole point of what i was saying. Bringing a CG creation to life is something very difficult.
It seems the only way to do that is by using an actor beneath the CGI ( Gollem , Davey Jones , T-1000)

Well, there are plenty of completely living and breathing synthetic actors in cinema already, look to all the classic hand drawn cartoons from Disney and lately in the 3d animation realm with Pixar. We'll start seeing them in real films soon enough as technology advances as does the understanding of the technology.

Yoda in the last two prequels was damn good I thought, in movement and emotions, but I agree it's still lacking compared to Gollum, but I think that is more Georges fault than ILM's, even the real actors look unrealistic at times.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Aaah thanks for reminding me about that. I forgot about the little green fella.
IMO he was the best thing that came out of the prequels really and CG Yoda does rock.

 

[November Rain]

are we talking about CGI in general or CGI special effects in real life films?


either way, it depends on the studio, timeframe and budget available.

as with anything there is nothing wrong with its use if used well. Saying this, as the technology filters down and it becomes easier for people to get their hands on the technology to shoot these shots, the quality is likely to be affected since it looks dated...



CGI is not the real crime here, the real crime is the use of too many western actors being thrown on wires and having fight scenes cheapened...



it's all the matrix's fault.

 

[matrix_ghost]

New lore created for film should be just as fantastic and out of this world as lore created for books, wouldn't you be pissed if the cave troll from the first Lord of the Rings movie was just some musclebound dude with a club, or the Balrog just some actor with horns lit on fire?

In the POTC case with Davey Jones, they alread did a human 'looking'(though zombies too) pirate bad guy, they needed to up the ante and Jones and his crew were created.

I'd hate to see new lore created for the cinema be ******ed due to a perceived lack of reality in it's creations, especially when they're getting to the point where it's as good or better than any practical effects from the supposed 'golden era' some twenty five years ago.

Good point , something i do agree with.
Like what i said about someone else earlier saying the movements in the burly brawl were unnecessary.
It's just merely a way of creating something that just can't be done in a practical way and at the same time being a fantastical creation.

Yet at the same time i do find it somewhat distracting to the story.
You're left wondering whether it's the story that should dominate or the CGI that should dominate.

"Small movies" like The Matrix , or Constantine or Jurassic Park and Gladiator are perfect examples of movies where the CGI serves the story.
It doesn't become a dominating effect.

And "large movies " with an enormous VFX sequences it just becomes more and more dominating , no matter how much the CGI does "serve" the story or how great thet look.
Matrix Revolutions ( Zion Siege and the Superbrawl) , Superman Returns ( the plane rescue) , Return Of The King ( attack of the pelennor fields) , Attack OF the Clones ( the final battle at the end with the clones).
It does serve the story in all cases yet they are the things that stand out.

And i think it's just an unavoidable thing .

 

[matrix_ghost]

are we talking about CGI in general or CGI special effects in real life films?
either way, it depends on the studio, timeframe and budget available.

as with anything there is nothing wrong with its use if used well. Saying this, as the technology filters down and it becomes easier for people to get their hands on the technology to shoot these shots, the quality is likely to be affected since it looks dated...



CGI is not the real crime here, the real crime is the use of too many western actors being thrown on wires and having fight scenes cheapened...



it's all the matrix's fault.

Both

 

[November Rain]

well final Fantasy advent children is a pretty good example of how CGI can work completely...

same goes for a few disney and pixar films....

 

[matrix_ghost]

Haven't seen that FF movie , although i have seen The Spirits within.
GReat work there IMO and realistic movement as well. I know they mo capped the actors there , but even so there are movies where even with Mo Cap the animation isn't moving fluid.

 

[The Kid]

It's a tool. CGI's nothing more special than standard animatronics or puppetry or animation or optical fx, or even makeup.

It's like with magic. If you can clearly see the magician is trying to fool you, the trick no longer seems magical. Same with cgi. If it looks like CGI, it looses its magic, or the concept anwyay, and you're out of the illusion. If it looks real, but you know it's cgi just like you know a magician IS doing some stuff to create an illusion and isn't really doing magic, your brain will still interpret it as something amazing and fantastic because you can't clearly figure out how it was done.

So it's all the same to me. Good CGI is the kind that doesn't look like cgi, but even though I know it is, if I have to think twice about whether it is then it's definitely good cgi.

I guess it all depends on how it's done. Some filmmakers use cgi like the tool it is only to enhance the story, others use the tool to excessively show off some stuff that looks fake.

 

[matrix_ghost]

It's a tool. CGI's nothing more special than standard animatronics or puppetry or animation or optical fx, or even makeup.

It's like with magic. If you can clearly see the magician is trying to fool you, the trick no longer seems magical. Same with cgi. If it looks like CGI, it looses its magic, or the concept anwyay, and you're out of the illusion. If it looks real, but you know it's cgi just like you know a magician IS doing some stuff to create an illusion and isn't really doing magic, your brain will still interpret it as something amazing and fantastic because you can't clearly figure out how it was done.

So it's all the same to me. Good CGI is the kind that doesn't look like cgi, but even though I know it is, if I have to think twice about whether it is then it's definitely good cgi.

I guess it all depends on how it's done. Some filmmakers use cgi like the tool it is only to enhance the story, others use the tool to excessively show off some stuff that looks fake.

That is an excellent way of putting it t:
Congrats , you get my vote of the day

I agree. You know that it's CGI because it's just impossible to do , but that shouldn't stop you from the fact that you can't enjoy it.

But then again , i think people are judging things harshly sometimes. I mean Gollum looks great , even tough he's a CG character.
You go with CG humans and people start to complain about alot of things.
There are obvious limitations to what you can do with CGI but IMO you really have to suspend you're belief sometimes and just watch something unfold before you're eyes without looking at every thing with a critical eye

 

[Lantern Venom]

There is no need to use all this CGI, look at blade 2, there is a hwole scene almost exclusively CGI and it looks obviously fake. Same goes for episode 3. CGI has ruined a lot of films, Hellboy used it well though, But generally it's unnecessarily used. A lot of really good fight scenes are done without the aid of CGI, so why bother with it? It's just being lazy!

Are you talking about Blade's fight w/ Nyssa & Asad? I remember Snipes & Goyer talking about how much they hated the CGI Blade in front of the flood lights because he was so cartoonish.

 

[XwolverineX]

Obviously depends on the movie..

 

[terry78]

If it came down to a character being a puppet or animatronic or being CG, I'd go with CG just for the fact that their emotions and movement aren't limited. They may move slightly stilted, but at least they can move. There are movies out now that could never have been done years ago had CG not been involved in the process, so I do think it's a good thing. You can use "practical" f/x if you want, but just know that you'll have to use a lot of camera edits to get the effect you want.

 

[Cinemaman]

CGI helps vissual effects in the movie to look more realistic. But sometimes it doesn't work, because of the difference between "quality" and "quantity".

Some directors prefer 1st, some - 2nd.

As for me, CGI should have better quality than quantity in blockbusters.

Quality:
King-Kong
Lord of the Rings
The Matrix

Quantity:
The Matrix Sequels
Star Wars Prequels

 

[primemover]

CGI helps vissual effects in the movie to look more realistic. But sometimes it doesn't work, because of the difference between "quality" and "quantity".

Some directors prefer 1st, some - 2nd.

As for me, CGI should have better quality than quantity in blockbusters.

Quality:
King-Kong
Lord of the Rings
The Matrix

Quantity:
The Matrix Sequels
Star Wars Prequels

Each one of those movies listed are equal in Quality and Quantity, or are you selectively ignoring the quality effects in Star Wars and the bad and superflous effects in LOTR and especially King Kong?

 

[Cinemaman]

Each one of those movies listed are equal in Quality and Quantity, or are you selectively ignoring the quality effects in Star Wars and the bad and superflous effects in LOTR and especially King Kong?

I didn't say that quantity meant "bad" or quality meant "good".

I said that sometimes quality worked much better than quantity.

And I meant Star Wars PREQUELS, in which there wasn't so good CGI. Lucas just went with quantity way. Even Classic trilogy looked more realistic than another new.

LOTR and KK both had quantity and quality in almost all good aspects. As we know, LOTR trilogy was made in 2001-2003, for that time it showed something new in vissual effects technology. CGI was enough realistic and amazing.

The same goes to KK, which wined Oscar Award last year.

 

[terry78]

One movie where I felt the CG was a neccessary was the 1995 live action Casper movie(a very underrated flick in my opinion). They were able to capture the look of the original Casper and Ghostly Trio, and maintain the humor as well as the somber tone of Casper's frustration of being dead as well.