THe franchises' position on fully CGI characters.

[Odin's Lapdog]

It's come to my attention that there is a unrivalled high proportion of action scenes that don't use CGI for character generation, bits and bobs for claws and smaller stuff but out of the three films only a few short clips of angel flying have been the only cgi completely generated characters on the screen.

in comparison to spidey,spidey 2, hulk, daredevil, fantasic four, which have all used cgi on a much larger scale for their character's pursuits, how do you feel it compares?

Is it a better move, or does it perhaps hold back the imagination of some of the characters

should modern superhero films be following closely in its footsteps by showing it can make sucessful films without having cgi characters?

 

[eXperiment]

I like that they don't use that much CGI.

 

[Jan Irisi]

I am not a fan of CGI. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it is needed and it is a great technology, but in recent years, I think it has increasingly overused. If let's say a stunt can be done practically, without any CG, then by all means do it practically. If for some reason a stunt is simply to dangerous or just impossible to do practically (like Spider-man's webslinging for example) then CG would have to be used.

I just am afraid that in a few years movies will end up looking like a video game. Like I said sometimes it is necessary to used CGI, but I would hate for Hollywood to become dependent on the technology simply because it is readily available.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

thats what i like about about x-men

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

I like that they don't use that much CGI.

do you now feel it may have constrained some of the abilities of that characters or perhaps limited the range of mutants that could have been brought to the big screen?

 

[eXperiment]

do you know feel it may have constrained some of the abilities of that characters or perhaps limited the range of mutants that could have been brought to the big screen?

yes I do

 

[Jan Irisi]

do you know feel it may have constrained some of the abilities of that characters or perhaps limited the range of mutants that could have been brought to the big screen?

I don't think it constrained anything, at least as far as this movie was concerned. What I am appreciative of is that they didn't go overboard simply because they could. I believe they could have used just about any mutant and any power they wanted to, because the technology is there to use if they needed it. They just chose not to.

There is always a fine line between "just enough" and "too much". Sure it wouold have been cool to see power displays all over the place, but in the end, as I said above, it starts to drift into video game territory.

For me at least practical FX have a far more visceral effect on me. CGI, for me, takes away the visceral effect while I watch a film.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

but the thing is that i feel action wise, x-men films kinda lag behind other mainstream marvel ones for the quality of action produced.

I mean spidey swinging at the end of the first film is one of my all time favourite scenes and it's 99% cgi.

i didn't think the x-men delivered visually anything near that throughout it's whole three showings,

i felt longer scenes with a fully cgi iceman doing his thing or even colossus throwing wolverine so it looks like he's travelling through the air faster and tighter could have improved already existing scenes.

for large parts it seems they are being purposely restrictive with what they show, especially with character cgi which only came into it for fully iced up bobby and also waren who were in these states for minimal times in the films...

i also can't belive that colossus was a man in a shiny suit, props

 

[thegameq]

CGI/SFX arguably absorb most of a films budget, especially action or fantasy films. The biggest reason most studios probably shy away from CGI is because of the cost, then comes the "actor in a suit is better" excuse. In some cases this is true, but for comicbook films there really is not much to debate. CGI is needed period or you end up with a film that looks like it clearly needed more funding for SFX (see X-franchise, DD, FF, etc.). Underfunding probably played the biggest role in the X-franchise.

I shudder to think how some of Marvel's other properties are going to turn out when Fox tries to do them on the cheap. SFX and comicbook films go hand in glove. There's no way to downplay the connection without looking cheap. When I say cheap, I mean cheap in comparison to the "big boys" of the fantasy film genre. No need to mention them, unless you've been living under a rock the past couple of years.

Will we see the liquid metal fx rehashed for the Silver Surfer? Don't be surprised if you do. Probably wouldn't matter if they didn't use it on Colossus in X3. Then there's the Avengers; how the hell do you do the Avengers on the cheap? Silly me. You simply use the realism angle all over again to save money on FX. God, how the hell do you make the Avengers realistic?

Meantime, I wonder what approach WB is taking with DC's properties; JL, GL, Flash, WW?

 

[lordofthenerds]

I'm glad that they don't use CGI that much. Spider-Man and Hulk used it way too much imo.

 

[GoldGoblin]

I like that they don't use that much CGI.

^Me 2

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I like the way the X-Men movies did it better, it makes it look more real.

A more real look = more believable

More believable = more emotional (you can better relate to the characters)

More emotional = more involvement in what's happening

More involvement = better movie

 

[thegameq]

I'm glad that they don't use CGI that much. Spider-Man and Hulk used it way too much imo.

How would you have done Spiderman without the use of "too much" CGI? Same for the Hulk? Please don't say a man in a latex suit ala the Thing in FF. This is the Hulk afterall.

 

[The Kid]

The cgi in spidey 1 was definitely overused and cartoony... I haven't seen the second film in years but yeah there was a shot or two that looked too unreal. The cgi on the statue of liberty in x1 needs to be updated for a special edition, it's so ridiculously bad by any standard.

I'm glad they avoided what I hate about cgi stunt doubles in the new movie. Sometimes they don't move like the real thing, and you can just sense inately someone was at their computer day after day animating them. Hulk and gollum, king kong, are the best examples I can think of when the cgi worked very well for the characters...

So my thoughts are that when it's done well, the cgi creatures seem to occupy real space and have weight to them that's believable and not cartoony, no problem. CGI as much as you want.

 

[ProfeZZor X]

do you now feel it may have constrained some of the abilities of that characters or perhaps limited the range of mutants that could have been brought to the big screen?

I agree. It should have been used a lot more in the films. Whether or not the budget had anything to do with it, is anyone's guess. However, I will say that based on the success of some of the other superhero movies you mentioned, CGI enhancement, or full-on CGI characters do make a difference in the performance, and conveyance of how that character is interpreted and represented onscreen.

Spiderman was a perfect example of how the creators knew when to use CGI, when to use a Spiderman stunt man, and when to play off of Peter Parker. In X-Men, it seemed as though they were relying on the performances of the actors to carry the believeability of the character, and using physical stunts/props/make-up, rather than relying on CGI to show their mutant abilities. Which is corny and cheap, but I guess with the number of characters in one movie, you gotta cut corners somehow.

 

[ABC]

I feel that CgI should only be used when absolutely necessary. I think that you should use the least amount of CGI possible, it gives the movie a more real feel to it.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

I like the way the X-Men movies did it better, it makes it look more real.

A more real look = more believable

More believable = more emotional (you can better relate to the characters)

More emotional = more involvement in what's happening

More involvement = better movie

but one can aruge that a more realistic look can be gained from high quality cgi work...

i mean consider the ock drowning scene in spidey 2, that's a completely cgi scene and it works.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

I'm glad that they don't use CGI that much. Spider-Man and Hulk used it way too much imo.

but aren't the action scenes in these films better than the ones in x-men?

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I like the way the X-Men movies did it better, it makes it look more real.

A more real look = more believable

More believable = more emotional (you can better relate to the characters)

More emotional = more involvement in what's happening

More involvement = better movie

I completely agree

 

[High Voltage]

I like the fact that they're going to use stunt men instead of CGI characters in Indiana Jones 4

 

[logansoldcigar]

Isnt it down to the quality, not quantity of CG used? If its top notch, then its all good, IMO.

 

[Celestio]

A prime example of too much CGI are the Matrix films. It's so blatantly obvious that it just takes away from the realism.

CGI is awesome, but in small doses I think. I like how the X-Men films go for a more realistic look.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

there are hardly aren't any cgi people fighting in the first film and it's just really the burly brawl that uses them...

i mean realistically if you are going to create 40 odd characters that are supposed to look the same, there is only a limit as to how far you can go without creating humans figures with cgi, personally i think they did pretty well with the live action considering.

and i'm not yet convinced about people flying yet, i will have to wait and see superman this summer but i don't think they can do it to look right without the whole character being in cgi or unless it's filmed from some very clever angles...