Special effects these days suck

[kainedamo]

Why do special effects these days suck? Why does every film over use CGI?? CGI doesn't look that great, alot of the time it's needless, alot of the time some other technique would be much better suited. Look at that movie Poseidon coming out. In the trailer, you see a massive CGI tidal wave, and a huge CGI boat being rocked around by the tidal wave. The original movie relies heavily on drama. What I'm saying is, why in a movie where drama is key, is such massive amounts of crappy looking CGI being used?

I recently watched John Carpenter's The Thing. Great movie. I own it on DVD. The effects are incredible. "The Thing" always looks amazing, and totally believable. Great monster effects. I shudder to think what another remake would be like. You know that it would be CGI'd up the ass!

American Werewolf In London. The transformation sequence, one of the best things I've seen on the screen. Amazing. I couldn't really name you the movies, but recent movies along this line all use CGI instead of practical effects.

Bladerunner. How great does the city look in Bladerunner?? It looks totally believable. Every single recent sci fi movie involving the future uses CGI, whereas Bladerunner used models. What looks better? Bladerunner. Definately. Such massive amounts of the usage of CGI is destracting.

The thing that gets me is that the people in the movies lie. Producers, or directors, they say things can't be done without CGI. It's a lie.

I think more and more, people are seeing the overuse of CGI for what it is. If movies from the time of Bladerunner look better than 90%, if not all recent sci fi movies... something is terribly wrong in the movie industry.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Why do special effects these days suck? Why does every film over use CGI?? CGI doesn't look that great, alot of the time it's needless, alot of the time some other technique would be much better suited. Look at that movie Poseidon coming out. In the trailer, you see a massive CGI tidal wave, and a huge CGI boat being rocked around by the tidal wave. The original movie relies heavily on drama. What I'm saying is, why in a movie where drama is key, is such massive amounts of crappy looking CGI being used?

I recently watched John Carpenter's The Thing. Great movie. I own it on DVD. The effects are incredible. "The Thing" always looks amazing, and totally believable. Great monster effects. I shudder to think what another remake would be like. You know that it would be CGI'd up the ass!

American Werewolf In London. The transformation sequence, one of the best things I've seen on the screen. Amazing. I couldn't really name you the movies, but recent movies along this line all use CGI instead of practical effects.

Bladerunner. How great does the city look in Bladerunner?? It looks totally believable. Every single recent sci fi movie involving the future uses CGI, whereas Bladerunner used models. What looks better? Bladerunner. Definately. Such massive amounts of the usage of CGI is destracting.

The thing that gets me is that the people in the movies lie. Producers, or directors, they say things can't be done without CGI. It's a lie.

I think more and more, people are seeing the overuse of CGI for what it is. If movies from the time of Bladerunner look better than 90%, if not all recent sci fi movies... something is terribly wrong in the movie industry.

I my opinion, the problems with CGI are three-fold;

1. Everybody knows CGI when they see it. Previously movies used numerous different techniques for special effects - take Superman or Star Wars, they used everything there was and and invented new ones. The audience would know it was an effect, but not know how it was done. That adds to the magic. With CGI, everybody and his neighbour knows that the film was shot, then a hundred guys with computers added graphics and pasted them on top.

2. It's literally put over the actual film. It's like icing. The film is shot, the actors have nothing to interact with, and then the CGI is put in later. Compare it to, as you say, The Thing, where the actors can clearly react to the creature, fight it, be shocked by it, etc, etc. Whether it's a real creature or a fake creature, there is a weird creature on set that does horrible things and that's so much more beneficial.

3. More suspension of belief is required. Take Spider-Man for instance. A genuine shot of a stuntman swinging on a rope. The man is real, the costume is real, he's really swinging in New York - and as it's a stunt, there is an element of real danger. All the viewer has to do is believe it's Spider-Man. With CGI, there's no man, no costume, usually no New York, so the viewer has to convince himself everything on screen is real - and the hardest thing to do with CGI is believe in the danger.

Having said this, remember I am in no way opposed to CGI, just it's overuse and mis-use. I believe it should be used when needed, as a tool of the filmaker and not the tool of the filmaker.

 

[thealiasman2000]

I HATE CGI!

Movies that DEFINETLY didn't need CGI:

-Garfield

-Van Helsing

-Gothika (that CGI fire was sooooo fake)

-King Kong

-Hulk

-Scooby-Doo

-The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle

-the Star Wars prequels

 

[The Amazing Lee]

It's not that they suck it's just that some films rely on them. Like Kevin said. CGI should be a tool for films not THE tool.

 

[kainedamo]

Some of those movies did need CGI. Hulk and the Star Wars prequels. I think Hulk looked pretty damn sweet, and a man in the costume can't do the stuff CGI Hulk can do.

The Star Wars prequels most definately overused CGI.

 

[thealiasman2000]

1-Mr. Hyde in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" looked EXACTLY like The Hulk, and he was created with make-up and prosthethics.

And he looked way more real than the actual movie Hulk.

2-Maybe the prequels could use SOME CGI, but not having entire scenes of nothing but CGI, like Lucas did.

3-I hate the way lazy filmmakers rely on CGI instead of older, better-looking effects.

When I start making my movies, I will only use CGI when I have NO OTHER CHOICE.

 

[The Kid]

It's a two way street. Bad cgi sucks. Good cgi is great. end of story.

Look at transformers. That movie's impossible without cgi unless you want something like power rangers.

Lets list movies that have used cgi wisely:

HP prisoner of az and Goblet of fire. I can't point out much cgi that wasn't done to perfection. Was that dragon real? Oh no, there are really dragons. I'm scared, mommy.

Jurrasic Park movies (all of them)

Terminator 2. I'd have said 3 but there was this part during the fight with lady terminator where she kicks ahnulds head off and it looked very cgi.

um... what else... king kong was very well done.

Oh and Lotr is overall very well done but some shots are wonky who framed roger rabbit sort of stuff.

speaking of that film, I think that the toons in it are more real than most cgi I see in a lot of movies with bad cgi for some reason. Maybe it's how much they interacted with real stuff.

 

[DorkyFresh]

1-Mr. Hyde in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" looked EXACTLY like The Hulk, and he was created with make-up and prosthethics.

And he looked way more real than the actual movie Hulk.

that's totally your opinion...

...my opinion (from a person who studies special effects for a living) is that the more i look at Mr. Hyde, the more i see a costume. the more i look at the Hulk...the less I see CG. close scrutiny will show you the faults of Mr. Hyde's costume...but that same close scrutiny will show you how real the Hulk actually looks.

there's no other way the Hulk could've been done WITHOUT making it look ridiculous other than making him CGI.

 

[Golgo-13]

I'm really sick of CGI too. I am now refreshed everytime i see movies like the Bourne Indentity and think to myself that this is how a film should be made, with little to no CG. They really crossed the line when they used cgi in James Bond "Die Another day" as Bond para-sailed over that wave. That scene really killed my love for the Bond flicks.

Like's it's been stated, some films know how to use CGI sparingly. Batman Begins is a great example of this. The league of shadows temple, the shot where they show the whole thing as Bruce climbs up to it, is CGI but you can't tell. Some of the shots of Ducard and Bruce fighting on the ice have CG background, but you can't tell. And of course, Cranes view of 'Demon head Batman' after Crane's poisoned is CG but it still looks realistic in that context.

 

[The Kid]

Two things they usually get wrong and makes cgi look bad.

Lighting. The thing looks like what it is, a computer animation pasted onto film. A guy on another board took a shot from Attack of the clones and de-saturated it a bit and bam, it looked a lot more real. I think the lucases out there forget that the movie's not about their cgi so they should not make it pop out at you. It has to not be noticable for it to work.

Weight. It moves too fast. AS humans our brains know how something's supposed to move through space here on earth. We wouldn't be able to catch a ball or walk up a flight of stairs if we didn't know. That's why badly animated cg like the spider-man scenes of parker discovering his powers and the first chase look weird because they ignore the physics we have hard-coded into our memory... like I'm thinking that we notice little inconsitencies in body movement, that sort of thing. Oh I just remembered one of my past gripes. The eyes! Sometimes with cg, and this is true of puppets too, the eyes are not moving realistically and it kills the illusion.

that's just my theory though.

 

[Dr. Fate]

CGI sucks. Even the best CGI lacks the solidity of a model or a man in a well done prosthetic costume.

 

[LordSimen]

I recently watched John Carpenter's The Thing. Great movie. I own it on DVD. The effects are incredible. "The Thing" always looks amazing, and totally believable. Great monster effects. I shudder to think what another remake would be like. You know that it would be CGI'd up the ass!

American Werewolf In London. The transformation sequence, one of the best things I've seen on the screen. Amazing. I couldn't really name you the movies, but recent movies along this line all use CGI instead of practical effects.

Bladerunner. How great does the city look in Bladerunner?? It looks totally believable. Every single recent sci fi movie involving the future uses CGI, whereas Bladerunner used models. What looks better? Bladerunner. Definately. Such massive amounts of the usage of CGI is destracting.

While allt hree the movies you mentioned were great and wonderful when I watch them now I see how fake they look. Same thing happens with CGI.

CGI is a tool used just like puppets, minitures and set designers. Movies like King Kong, Lord of the Rings, Hulk and many others have used it greatly as a wonderful too to bring things to life. Just like there are many movies with really crappy stop motion, or really crappy puppets, or really bad costumes, there are also movies with bad CGI so I don't see anyone's point about hating CGI. It just seems like blind prejudice to me.

 

[SWAT]

The problem is that most filmmakers use it to make their job easier!

 

[DorkyFresh]

exactly....those are the filmmakers who half-ass their films instead of doing the job right.

 

[Darthphere]

Heres the answer, if you dont like it, dont watch movies with CGI. Seriously, these I hate CGI rants are really annoying.

 

[kainedamo]

While allt hree the movies you mentioned were great and wonderful when I watch them now I see how fake they look. Same thing happens with CGI.

Disagree. While the effects in the movies I mentioned are great, you will still say to yourself "that's a model" or "that's a prosthetic", but it still looks a million times better than CGI would in it's place.

Darthphere, why do you always make useless unhelpful comments?

 

[Mentok]

CGI is a tool to be used to tell a story... Too many people in hollywood forget this.

 

[huskerwebhead]

Disagree. While the effects in the movies I mentioned are great, you will still say to yourself "that's a model" or "that's a prosthetic", but it still looks a million times better than CGI would in it's place.

Darthphere, why do you always make useless unhelpful comments?

That's your opinion. I can't say that EVERY model/prosthetic is better than CGI. Sometimes CGI would look way better. Jurrasic Park for example...without going into specific scenes, the models were great...but the CGI was just amazing.

I agree with most of your first post. The Thing was mostly great...there were some scenes at the end that are dated...but for the most part it's a great movie. Alien/Aliens is another example of great monsters made with no CGI.

American Werewolf In London does have the best transformation scene. Always been my favorite.

Bladerunner is a classic example of how to use real sets instead of CGI backdrops...like the Star Wars PT did. I always hated that. Even the OT used real sets and it looked a ton better. But, there was alot of that city, in the flying shots, that was CGI. At least in the latest release of the DVD.

For all intents and purposes, I'm on the fence. Overuse of CGI or poorly done CGI is horrible...but so are bad puppets/prosthetics. But in either case, when they are done right...they look good.

 

[huskerwebhead]

As a side note, I also agree with Darthphere to an extent. I understand it's a forum and we are here to discuss things. But really, it's not going away. No matter how much you hate it...it's going to be here for some time. Might as well get used to it or just enjoy your DVD collection of older movies.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

IN-SANE!


Please go back and watch the Rancor in Return of the Jedi...you know, the HAND PUPPET...that has to remain in one place because his legs don't really walk and because they had to hide the mans ARM coming out of his ass?

Then watch the Cave Troll in Fellowship of the Ring

Go back and watch the frozen face of rubber E.T. and then watch Gollum whose acting surpasses many of the humans in the film.

Go back and look at the pathetic Demon Dogs in Ghostbusters that are either cheap looking, jerky animation that looks like it's literally pasted onto the film, and then, since a giant rubber puppet can't run, is trapped stationary on the floor when it's a practical effect, because a guy in a hole in the floor had to pupeteer it.

Go back and watch the Spider-Man live action show from the 70's, and then watch the very end scene from Spider-Man where he's whipping around New York and lands on the flagpole.

Go back and check out an 8 inch tall rubber puppet T.Rex from scores of dino-movies from the past and then watch freaking Jurassic Park

Look at the PATHETIC stop-motion TaunTaun in the opening scene of Empire Strikes Back that moves so hurky-jerkily that it makes C3PO look like graceful, seductive belly dancer and then check out the Gryphon from that Harry Potter movie.



it isn't a fight between CGI and old-school effects. It's a fight between GOOD effects and BAD effects. There's a TON of s***ty CGI, but when it's good, it's the best effects that man has ever known.

If they filmed the Perfect Storm in the 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's, it would've been with a model boat in a swimming pool full of blue colored water filmed in slow motion.
When I watched those rolling, colossal waves, I was in awe and terror.



The problem with the old school rubber effects is that everything has to remain stationary because it's all attached to a bunch of tubes and pneumatic devices, motors, etc.
It's completely unnatural how in American Werewolf, he's screaming in pain, but just sits there in the middle of the room all posed, and then you have these ridiculous close-ups on his hands where the hand is perfectly still in frame as if it's a hand model on QVC.


I suppose you all would've preferred that the evil Terminator in Terminator 2 was a guy wrapped in tin foil.

 

[Cinemaman]

I dont think so.

I saw SR trailer-promo, and it was amazing! Vissual effects looks awesome, flying shots are great!

KK had also great vissual style like LOTR had.

Also: Spidey, Narnia, Harry Potter, POTC and SW had awesome vissual effects.

 

[Super Flight]

what are you talking about?? special effects has been getting better and better, soon they'll look so real you wont be able to tell its fake

 

[DorkyFresh]

VERY well said, Wilhelm-Scream...

...i've come to the conclusion that it's not the CGI that's the problem. it's the viewer. it all depends on the viewer's perspective. obviously a little kid or an older person isn't going to notice the effects as much as us movie nerds pay attention to them. so....like i said, it's not that CGI is bad....it's that we choose to look at the CGI instead of paying attention to the story or what's REALLY important in the film.

 

[Cinemaman]

what are you talking about?? special effects has been getting better and better, soon they'll look so real you wont be able to tell its fake

Agreed. I can see in 2009 we will have movies with so real vissual effects, that you will think that you are not so real like they are.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Oh God, Hahahaha. I hadn't even thought about SUPERMAN. Please, be my guest, with a straight face tell me that effects today suck and the past was some "Golden Age" and then compare the flying scenes from Superman (old) and Superman (new), in the 70's movie...enjoy the thick matte line around Superman. Yeah, looks AWESOME!

LOL