Is CGI ruining your movie going experience? (1 Viewer)

[Tyler Gagnon]

I think in a movie like Star Wars, When an actor has to act agianst something created out of cgi, It does not give the actor anything to interact with, So they look stiff, Like Liam Neeson with jar jar, A least with a puppet like yoda from empire, It was real..although a puppet, it was physical, Something the actor could react to, Makes the Actors more convincing some how, Imagine if Mark Hamill had to act agianst a cgi yoda in empire, it would not have been convincing, Or quint being swallowed by a cgi shark.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

CGI is a tool. It's one element of many that goes into making a film. If an element is used to best of capabilities to enhance the film or create something that is not physically possible then I have no problem.

The problem arises when CGI is used simply as window dressing to gloss over deficiencies inherent in the movie.

Too much of anything is not a good thing. Unfortunately CGI provides the biggest bang for the buck as it is a visual component of a film.

Short answer no CGI doesn't bother me if it used to help show the story.

 

[JamieD]

Adam_S

Summed up most of my thoughts exactly.

It is a tool to tell the story, just as models, stop-motion,etc was used in past. Sure people knew it was fake, and looked fake, but we didn't care.

Why? Because we knew it was fake, could get past it and get into the story.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think in a movie like Star Wars, When an actor has to act agianst something created out of cgi, It does not give the actor anything to interact with, So they look stiff, Like Liam Neeson with jar jar

Wasn't there a guy in a Jar-Jar suit standing in during the regular shooting? I think more or less it was bad direction from Lucas that led to some of the bad performances.

 

[david stark]

I dunno, that freeway scene in Reloaded used a LOT of CGI, but it looked amazing. Though I agree that they should use CGI only when they need to.

when it is cgi it just loses it a bit for me, but that freeway scene is superb and great use of cgi. I think part of the reason it works there is that you know they are not in the real world so all the rules don't apply, wheras in the fast and the furious it is laughable because it is supposed to be real.

 

[Scott_lb]

The only films that bother me with CGI are the new Star Wars films. I like the idea of CGI in general, however, I do not like the way that every scene seems like some way for Lucasfilm to say, "Look at all the neat stuff we can do." Instead, I wish they would focus more on the writing and character development. I do like the films, however, there are simply too many moments for me when CGI (especially characters) seemed to be used and implemented in scenes where they aren't necessary.

Contrast this with "The Two Towers". I thought Gollum was fantastic, looked great, and didn't detract from the story at all.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

I agree with the original poster on this one, CGI is ruining movies, or, in my view, low effort is ruining movies. What I mean is, I believe digital fakery is now being substituted for more strenuous kinds of film techniques, and I also believe that CGI itself has been cut in quality over the past few years.

I think Starship Troopers is about the best CGI I can think of. Great physics modeling, superb lighting effects, those bugs actually look like they are on screen. That was 1997, since then we've had dismal CGI in Spider man, Star Wars, Mummy 2 (famously), Matrix 2, pretty much everything actually. It doesn't surprise me though because Hollywood will try to increase margins (read: cut the budget) wherever they think the audience won't notice or care.

And, I have to say, you know Hollywood is correct in the assumption that they can get away with it when you see people in forums like these declaring "Ah, the bad CGI doesn't bother me at all, I just like to get past that into the great story." Folks, here's a news flash - saying you're into movies like Matrix 2 for the story is like saying you read Playboy for the articles. If you admit the movie cut corners on CGI, don't just excuse the movie out of some misplaced loyalty. Hold these studios accountable - movies now cost $12, we oughta get our money's worth.

 

[Dennis]

I agree with you Tyler, for the most part. The scene in the alley in Spiderman, the church in Daredevil, some scenes in the last two Star Wars films, are just some examples of unnecessary CGI. The specific scenes I mentioned above would have worked, probably to better effect, without.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

For me using car chases as an example the chases in ronin and the bourne identity were actually done without special effects and becasue of that are far better than any cgi offering.

I can't speak for Ronin, however there was quite a bit of CG used in the car chase for Bourne Identity. However because it was clunkier and because it was more realistic in design it didn't come across as CG. The problems arise when they use CG to do stuff that ISN'T possible rather than trying to make stuff that is possible that much easier and safer.

 

[david stark]

I can't speak for Ronin, however there was quite a bit of CG used in the car chase for Bourne Identity. However because it was clunkier and because it was more realistic in design it didn't come across as CG. The problems arise when they use CG to do stuff that ISN'T possible rather than trying to make stuff that is possible that much easier and safer.

to be honest i didn't notice it in the bourne identity so it must have been done well, or i'm not as observant as i like to think i am.

Another advantage of going there and doing it is much more interesting "making of" and audio commentaries on dvd's.

Also in fight scenes I think the best results can still be achieved using real actors + wires if the action is beyond human capabilities (crouching tiger/the matrix). Then again going back looking at some older jackie chan and bruce lee films some of the fighting/physical stunts in there are unbelievable.

The really hard thing to do CGI is people. The lord of the rings I thikn has done well because it has avoided doing cgi people as much as possible. the exceptions where it breaks this rule it looks bad, some scenes in moria in particular. the other films mentioned above that had good use of cgi (jurrasic park and starship troopers) generally didn't have cgi people in them.

 

[Joshua_Y]

No...it doesnt bother me...if anything its let people free their imaginations and can now do these things that we've always wanted to see...I'd hate to see what Gollum or the Clone War would look like 20 years ago...ugh! SW...LOTR...Matrix....etc...doesnt bother me a bit...

 

[Dome Vongvises]

CGI doesn't ruin my movie-going experience. However, I don't like it when filmmakers feel the need to use CGI when the real thing can be accomplished.

Two prime examples are Air Force One and Gone in 60 Seconds.

In Air Force One, they used CGI leaves and trees rather than go through the expense of actually getting an airline to brush up against a real tree with real leaves.

And the jump by the car (Shelby?) in Gone in 60 Seconds simply looks ridiculous.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Many people complain about CGI, btu in most cases, it couldn't have been done any better (or at all) with old-school effects.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

Dan, I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree. Where were you before 10 years ago? Case in point - in all honesty, A night to remember is more convincing to me than Cameron's Titanic. The digital effects in Titanic look terrible, no better than the matte paintings used in ANTR, and the work done tilting and flooding the sets was just as good in the late 50s as it was on Cameron's ridiculously overblown set. When you add in the infinitely superior dramatic quality of the first film, it is simply a much more convincing package to me. And, even if it isn't MORE convincing to you, it certainly shatters the myth that CGI is the only way to go.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

the other films mentioned above that had good use of cgi (jurrasic park and starship troopers) generally didn't have cgi people in them.

This is an excellent point. I remember reading an interview with the FX guy from Starship Troopers back at the time it came out. He said the main reason they threw away the armored suits that were so central to the book (thus alienating many fans) was that the CGI of the day could do insects but it couldn't convincingly do people, even people in armored suits. Since then, most FX people seem to have abandoned that high road.

 

[Adam_S]

to add to Stephen's point, I find the fact that so many people bring up Jurassic Park and STarship Troopers to be significant.

Yes they both have excellent effects, yes they're both quite 'old' (considering the movies I've been watching lately, they're new releases). But I also have to wonder how much their goodness is do to the perceptions we have of what is being rendered.

Almost everyone has a general idea of evil buglike aliens, they're practically a modern cultural archetype. Likewise about everyone has an idea what a dinosaur would really look like as well, big giant, dangerous lizards (simplifying here, think the unwashed masses perceptions as well as your own). However, no one has actually EVER seen or experienced anything remotely comparable to them. and certainly not on a mass cultural level. However, just about everyone has a pretty good idea about what a man, horse and scorpion (as well as monkeys) are supposed to look like, hence many peoples problems in Mummy Returns. likewise most people know how Spiderman is supposed to look, but they expect that the way he moves won't be realistic at all, so they don't notice the physics problems or lack of 'weight' in the CGI, while the sharp eyed and elite enlightened few will catch it. So in that case, it was more important that the look be accurate than the physics, or a reaction similar to Scorpion King may have been had. As for Star Wars, AOTC was simply stunning, I had no idea the clone troopers were CGI, and I'd be surprised if 00.0000001% of the people that saw it realized that they were on their own capabilities. I think its a heckuva a lot easier to create an illusion and convince people when you're working with something they've never seen before than when you're working with something they can immediately compare it to because they experience it in their day to day life.

That said, I wonder how many people saying they hate CGI would laugh out loud at the flying 'effect' in the technicolor Thief of Baghdad, which won the academy award for special effects in its day. Heck the 'explosion' of AGent SMith in the first matrix garners laughs already for how 'bad' the effect is.

Adam

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Cgi doesn't bother me when it's done right and used right. It also depends on the material, Spider-Man looked cartoonish because it's based on a comic book, it wouldn't have been possible to have Spidey swing through the city as great as he did without digital effects technology. I still marvel at that very last swinging sequence before the credits.

One of the things that I do tend to notice about cgi is that most of the time, creature creations tend to look like blobs of liquid with surface texture simply mapped onto them, this makes sense since they used silicon graphics to create them. Some of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park suffered from this, not all though. They improved thing much better in The Lost World though, the dino's really had mass to them and weight, the same for Jurassic Park III.

Let's not forget also that cgi is also used for things in films that we'll never even spot, but enhance the cinematography. Forrest Gump is a prime example of this, Zemeckis added clouds to the sky's, shade from trees falling artistically across the ground to add mood, removed Gary Sanise' legs convincingly, and turned a small football field into a raging super dome with thousands of people populating the stands.

Point is, your not looking at the issue deep enough, your talking about cgi like it's only used for creatures or spaceships etc, truth is it's an ivaluable filmmaking tool that opens the doors for filmmakers to realize what they envision, to create other world's, to create other times and yes, to create that delicate feather that lands on Forrest's shoe.

Stephen Dar,

regarding your stance on A Night to Remember and Titanic, your not a TITANIC buff are you?

The sets that Cameron created are so incredibly accurate to the real TITANIC's that it's insane. He used the actual blueprints of the ship, on loan to him by TITANIC's builders Harland & Wolff, the carpeting was from the same company that provided the carpeting for the real TITANIC, same for the life boat davits. ANTR was filmed on a ship that simply "stood in" for TITANIC, with sets (that ships interiors actually) that were "close enough"...Cameron rebulit TITANIC's interiors without compromise.

Sorry, ANTR cannot hold a candle to Titanic in terms of set accuracy or accuracy in general.

I didn't feel afraid during the sinking in ANTR, it wasn't real enough, not by a long shot. They failed to portray the physics of a sinking ship, the pressure differentials that bulit up, the ultimate destruction of the ship, the unimaginable terror that those left on board felt as this 66,000 ton machine ripped apart under their feet, rose into the air and plunged like a roller coaster ride from hell into the cold North Atlantic. The ship going down in ANTR looked like a model in a bathtub with water that wasn't scaled to proper proportions.

ANTR may have had the heart of the story of TITANIC, but it didn't have the realism needed to bring it accross and make you ACTUALLY feel it happening.

Simply put, cgi allowed Cameron to portray TITANIC's sinking as it was without compromise, ANTR simply did not. ANTR may be a classic, as a TITANIC buff since 86 i'm obligated to love any film about this subject, but it doesn't stand up to Cameron's creation. Your entitled to your opinion of course, but to say the effects in ANTR are better than what we see in Titanic is very curious indeed.

Go easy on me, please.

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't like TITANIC, but I will agree that the effects work and sets on that movie were vastly superior to ANTRs. Too bad all of that attention to detail was wasted on a sorry-assed soap opera. I'm still waiting for a definitive film about the Titanic.

 

[JakeMcM]

best use of CGI for me has to be LOTR/TTT, but I'm biased towards those films anyway. I am all for CGI in most cases. Films like Reloaded, Spiderman, LOTR/TTT etc are really stretching the limits of the current technology it seems. Sometimes I notice its CGI like in the 100 smiths scene of Reloaded but I would rather deal w/the CGI than not have that scene in the film.

The only CGI scene in LOTR that continues to bug me is after Gandalf falls and we see them from a distance exit the cave...they are running stiffly and then abrubtly stop into this walk...I don't know looks very unnatural but the only reason I notice that is probably because I've seen it so much.

You guys do have a point though that when a person is done in CGI it does take something away for that instant. But I think its worth it...if not now than in a few years.

 

[Andy Olivera]

I've enjoyed the current CGI trend. My favorite examples come from Robert Zemeckis and David Fincher. If someone can tell me how those camera moves at the end of What Lies Beneath(under the floor, under the dashboard, under the car) or the tracking shot at the beginning of Panic Room could be done without CGI I'd love to know.

My gripes come from the inevitable physics problems. I don't mind so much when something(even a character) doesn't look totally realistic, but when it moves it has to move in the exact same universal as everything else. Not many films manage that.