CGI Still Looks Pretty Bad

[Gamma Ray]

After all these years, they still can't make CGI look any good. There is just something lacking and it always stands out like a sore thumb. The last movie I saw that had really seamless CGI was District 9. Honestly, nothing has come close since.

I'm talking about placing CGI in a real world setting and not something like Avatar (which I consider to be a cartoon, BTW), even though Avatar still looks like CGI anyway.

I'd love to see some summer blockbusters that rely on practical models in the future, because honestly, has there been a more convincing ship on screen since the Millennium Falcon in 1977's Star Wars?

 

[Kurosawa]

That ship has long since sailed. CGI is just the way things are done nowadays.

 

[Project862006]

2012 had some great cgi imo

 

[scifiwolf]

There's a reason why people speak so highly of Jurassic Park's CGI. Not only is it about as perfect as I've seen, it's just sad that in almost 20 years, nothing still comes close. While some shots it's fairly obvious (but not bad in any way), most of that movie I cannot tell where the puppets end and the CGI begins. Especially with the T-Rex. Just superb quality.

 

[spider-neil]

the CGI in avatar was frigging INCREDIBLE, this is coming from someone who watched the movie THIS weekend.
I agree though, CGI usually looks rubbish.

 

[CWP]

CGI looks fake because it is fake. No use in denying it. Try as they may, they're not going to make something real, so it's going to be digital either way. Besides, honestly, considering what's given, there are plenty of movies that do a doggone good job I think. Namely, Disney has become quite masterful at it, with Aslan of The Chronicles of Narnia, Davy Jones of Pirates of the Caribbean, the colorful environments and seamless character enhancements of Alice in Wonderland, and the promising visuals of Tron Legacy in IMAX and Disney Digital 3-D. Not to mention their work with Pixar in animation. They're received excellent rep for their efforts as well, with Pirates of the Caribbean and Alice in Wonderland being in the top five highest-grossing movies worldwide, both making over a billion dollars. Star Wars and Transformers even nailed it with visuals. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's simply meant to be entertainment, and even at that, I'm impressed. Some people fail to credit the designers and expect far too much sometimes.

I'd love to see some summer blockbusters that rely on practical models in the future, because honestly, has there been a more convincing ship on screen since the Millennium Falcon in 1977's Star Wars?

Have you seen the enterprise in the new Star Trek?

 

[Ipodman]

Michael Bay's Transformers had some convincing CGI... the Transformers did not look fake at all.

And yea Jurassic Park still has convincing CGI despite its age.

 

[TNC9852002]

lol. No way is CGI "pretty bad" today.

and for the record, 85% of the CGI in Jurassic Park does NOT hold up, but still look fantastic for its time.

Basically, we've just trained our eyes over time to be aware of CGI at all times and almost to the point where we can't always tell the difference between CGI and a real effect. We will always be quick to detect a computer animated effect to the point where we are sucked in at the moment to take it in AS IS--the CGI that is of lesser quality is what detracts from us the viewer and often lingers in our heads for longer.

In general, CGI technology has been improving consistently, reaching huge benchmarks in quality every 3-4 years or so. The best CGI from 2007-2010 completely demolishes the best CGI from 2003-2006.

...and asking for total and believable CGI immersion, constantly like this is absurd. There are just some things that our eyes and our minds will never be able to accept as not being computer generated, but there are plenty of examples of how we've not been able to tell a CG graphic from the real thing. It just takes time....a lot more time than people are willing to give for some reason.

 

[bonoferox]

"Jurassic Park" still amazes me 17 years later. Just remarkable work for something so primitive. Same with the water tentacle in "The Abyss".

 

[Ghostvirus]

This mentality really pisses me off. I grew up in the age when things looked staged & cheesy. I remember being blown away by the cartoon movie of Transformers in the theatre. So when I see Optimus fighting in a real environment looking as real as can be. I was blown away! I could give a **** less whether his shadow is properly aligned with the building behind him.

I would like to say I wish was a kid in this era, & not some jaded adult. But if I was a kid in this era I would be one these spoiled brats complaining about how bad the CGI is.

Now I want is the art of storytelling back...

 

[jmc]

I don't think CG looks bad these days, but it is so overused to the point where it ironically still looks fake, even something like Avatar still screams CGI despite how good a quality it is. Practical effects will always have a certain gravity, texture and tactile quality to them that CGI just cannot replicate, look at Inception and that hallway fight sequence for instance, you couldn't replicate that in CG and get the same result, sometimes with practical effects unexpected things or 'happy accident' can happen, further adding to believability to the scene. CG if used subtly is a different thing though, most films don't try and be subtle with CGI, they want it to stand out, Children of Men is an rare example of CGI subtlety, I don't think I've ever scene a film where the CG is so unnoticeable.

 

[Laderlappen]

I see JP's CGI as the best ever.

I cant completely agree that CGI looks bad. When it does look bad, its because they havent used it right. And sure that happens every ones and a while. CGI is a great tool to create something that is impossible to film and make it look realistic.

 

[Ipodman]

The CGI in I Am Legend is bad... but the movie wasnt bad. So in the end its how you present the CGI. In Transformers, it worked well because the robots could not have been created any other way. But if you could have used an actual prop instead, then CGI becomes more of an "easy way out", which then makes it look fake. I cant think of an example now...

 

[MMMMM...Pancakes]

I agree that a lot of it looks pretty bad still these days, but a lot, if not all of ILM's stuff is top notch.

 

[Mister H.]

It's just overused. I think it's lazy filmmaking. Now you see these big budget Hollywood movies are even using CGI for establishing shots and city skylines. It's totally unnecessary and the action pieces in these big budget movies often feel like I'm watching someone play a video game. I hate it.

That was one of the things I admired so much about The Dark Knight. It may have been a blockbuster, but the buildings were real. Stunts were performed by stunt men. The tractor trailer was actually flipped. So many things that could have easily been done with CGI, but Nolan recognizes that real stunts and very subtle CGI enhancement makes for a much meatier film.

 

[MMMMM...Pancakes]

It's just overused. I think it's lazy filmmaking. Now you see these big budget Hollywood movies are even using CGI for establishing shots and city skylines. It's totally unnecessary and the action pieces in these big budget movies often feel like I'm watching someone play a video game. I hate it.

That was one of the things I admired so much about The Dark Knight. It may have been a blockbuster, but the buildings were real. Stunts were performed by stunt men. The tractor trailer was actually flipped. So many things that could have easily been done with CGI, but Nolan recognizes that real stunts and very subtle CGI enhancement makes for a much meatier film.

i agree, I definitely prefer practical effects in movies and wish filmmakers would use CGI only when it's a necessity and keep a good balance.

 

[Laderlappen]

Yeah if you can film it, you should film it. If CGI isnt necassary for the scene, its like you said lazy. Then its like the director dont even care.

 

[scifiwolf]

The one non-CGI thing I loved in TDK was putting Christian Bale on the edge of the skyscraper in Hong Kong.

 

[redhawk23]

its not cgi in general that is bad, it can be remarkably well done. its not that the tech isn't there, if you put forth the effort fantastic things can be done.

And here, we have Brad Pitt, still old, but back to his normal height. I always assumed that at this point they switched to conventional makeup since Pitts head didnt have to mapped on to a smaller body.

I was blown away that in these shots and in ones in which brad pitt is portrayed as being only slightly older that they were still implementing the cg head.

compare this to the absolutly horrid age make up on carla guino in watchmen.
CG has its uses, you just have put out the effort. Just as with practicle effects, if you don't put in the work, it will look like crap.

 

[redhawk23]

Also, while I admit not every shot is up to par with the one posted above, this shot and many others from Avatar are remarkably well crafted. This is one of my favorite images from any movie, though Avatar is in no way one of my favorite movies.

 

[Bunker]

Jurassic Park still looks really good because it wasn't just CGI. The animatronics they used contributed to the realism more than computers. Filmmakers are too lazy nowadays to use animatronics.

 

[Figs]

I see JP's CGI as the best ever.

I cant completely agree that CGI looks bad. When it does look bad, its because they havent used it right. And sure that happens every ones and a while. CGI is a great tool to create something that is impossible to film and make it look realistic.

I can't wait for them to get off their asses and finally release it on Blu-ray. Hopefully they're just spending the extra time to make the transfer that much better.

I don't think CGI is as bad as some make it out to be. As TNC already said, we've trained our eyes to always be on the lookout for it. Once you see it that's when a lot of people purposefully look at it on an extreme level just to knock it. Much like when the trailer for Avatar hit and so many people were saying they've seen better looking video games. What happened to most of those people when the movie came out, oh yeah...most of them shut up.

 

[Gamma Ray]

Maybe we wouldn't see it so quickly if it wasn't so overdone! It works best as matte backgrounds.

 

[wattabrownsound]

I was watching JP a couple of days ago and was constantly wondering everytime the t-rex showed up if it was real or not.
Did Sattler, Ian and that hunter guy really get chased by a huge robotic t-rex or not? Did Tim and Lex have a robotic t-rex face inches away from their own in that car scene?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

and for the record, 85% of the CGI in Jurassic Park does NOT hold up, but still look fantastic for its time.

According to whose record? Because if the mark of good CGI is how many people are convinced by it, then you only need read this board to see how effective the Jurassic Park CGI was.