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

[Peter Apruzzese]

And honestly, the CGI in The Matrix looks more convincing then most of the special effects in the original holy trilogy (Star Wars) including the added stuff from the 90s.

Strange, I don't remember much outer space stuff in The Matrix.

They still haven't touched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the best outer space special effects.

 

[Steve K.H.]

Answer? No.

CGI has come a long way as have effects. It's obvious given the popularity of some of the creative films.

Watch Neo fly in Matrix 2. Now watch Superman. You decide if the special effects are causing the films to look better, or worse.

CGI is still developing. Compared to some of the old models of people flying out of vehicles, I really appreciate the new CGI and the new effects.

Now, if the question is "are some film makers relying too much on CGI?" then the answer is "perhaps".

 

[Joshua_Y]

Watch Neo fly in Matrix 2. Now watch Superman. You decide if the special effects are causing the films to look better, or worse.

I would call those equal...what they did in Superman still cant be touched IMO...because I really believe it...in TMR...they did an excellent job...but I would have rather seen them try to use a real person instead of CG for the flying scenes...they look stunning nonetheless...and I could definately see the Wachowski's makin a new Superman movie...

 

[Kevin M]

Odd that one of the grand-daddy CGI films, "Jurrasic Park" had some of the better effects, even by todays standards. That T-Rex really did look big and heavy.

I truly think this is in no small part due to Phil Tippet being involved, just look at Starship Troopers.
The problem in my opinion is similar to the influx of inexpensive Synthesizers in the 80's, everyone and their grandma began to grind out "music" without having any actual training in how to actually play.
Same with CGI, the technology and programmers are out there but they have no real training in motion or mime, something Phil Tippet gained from years of laborious stop motion animation. In fact he made the entire staff of CGI artists for both Jurassic and Troopers actually take Mime, Dance & Motion classes to help them understand the dynamics of "movement".

What John Dykstra and John Gaeta's excuses were for the CGI in Spiderman & Matrix Reloaded...I don't know but the "Movement" was just off in those films in my opinion.

 

[Gary Smith]

Hunter,

LOL although I've seen Shrek in real life so I'm pretty confident he's real.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Neo looked much better. Superman looked good for its day, but now it looks like a guy on wires with the wires matted out. The lighting on him never really matches the backgrounds and until it was recently retouched, there were highly visible matte lines.

 

[Kachi Khatri]

The CGI during the Neo/100 Smiths fight makes me laugh.

Especially the part where he jumps up with that pole and twirls down.


It screams "HELLO! I'M A CARTOON!"

 

[Paul McElligott]

Part of the problem with CGI these days is that it's gotten so cheap and easy that any idiot can do it. And with a lot of films like Spider-Man, it looks like just any idiot did do the CGI effects.

As some have said already, CGI is just a tool and, in the right hands, it can be seamless and look fantastic, as in Jurassic Park. The thing with JP is that they knew they were experimenting with a new technology and were deathly afraid of it looking fake. Thus they took extra care and made it work.

A lot of the problems with bad CGI is attributable to carelessness, the unwillingness to take the extra care to make it look real.

• Impossible camera moves - these sorts of the shots just screen CGI!
• Bad physics - Audiences know instinctively how people and things should move in the real world, so things like this just pull them out of their suspension of disbelief.
• No attempt to match CGI with the quality of the filmed material. This where a lot of bad CGI falls flat. The CGI artists forget that someone is off filming real actors on real sets or locations and they don't account for the limitations of the photographic medium: things like distance haze and depth of field.

 

[Andy Olivera]

Funny you should mention that, because it's my favorite benefit. They may "scream CGI"("hey, you couldn't fit a camera in there!"), but the whole point of special effects in general is to make the impossible possible. Just because something isn't possible doesn't mean it can't look realistic...

 

[Paul McElligott]

Funny you should mention that, because it's my favorite benefit. They may "scream CGI"("hey, you couldn't fit a camera in there!"), but the whole point of special effects in general is to make the impossible possible. Just because something isn't possible doesn't mean it can't look realistic...

True, true, but there is a point when it just calls attention to itself, when it doesn't match the rest of the movie, etc, etc.

 

[Kevin M]

Any FX veteran will tell you that a truly good Special Effect should not pull you out of the movie when it calls attention to itself saying "Hey LOOK! I'm A Special Effect!".
The effects should be there to serve the film not the other way around.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I think the tracking/pull-in shot of Morpheus and the agent on the tractor trailer is a good example of a good, impossible shot done with CGI, except that the CGI (it might be the matting or whatever) is a bit subpar to make it truly "real" without screaming "effect."

I have to agree that the Burly Brawl is quite possibly the worst quality CGI I have ever seen in a motion picture, from movement, to planning, to everything basically. That long section in the middle that is nothing but CGI doesn't look real at all, medium shots of the Keanu model that is so obviously a CGI actor are especially cringe worthy. In fact, I remember thinking the characters in the CGI "Final Flight of the Osiris" looked better than the Burly Brawl.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Watch Neo fly in Matrix 2. Now watch Superman. You decide if the special effects are causing the films to look better, or worse.

While Matrix 2 flying is certainly slicker, I find the flying scenes in Superman much more believeable. Especially the practical taking off and landing shots. The front projection scenes could certainly benefit from digital compositing, but it doesn't get around the basic fact that Christopher Reeve moves like someone flying... he holds himself aerodynamically. Keanu Reeves doesn't, and it throws the whole facade out.

 

[Joshua_Y]

That and its CGI Neo in all the flying shots...besides at the end when the camera is in front of him...but I bought the flying in Reloaded...I liked it...and I really got a kick out of the lil Superman homage when he explodes out of the building...

 

[Holadem]

CGI is the death of cinema. I watched Finding Nemo today, and to my horror, CGI had swallowed up the whole movie !

--
Holadem

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The problem is more or less the inclusion of too much CGI in live-action films. Yeah, Jurassic Park had CGI dinosaurs, but they were always shown from the same angles as CGI dinos or puppet dinos. There are few, if any, close up shots that AREN'T puppets, and absolutely no far away shots that AREN'T done with CGI. The reason? They use it when they need to, and using it a certain way can mask it.

For example, in Matrix 2, the Burly Brawl scene has some shots that are CGI that have very similar composition to shots that are live action. Doing this can throw the viewer off a little. In the Freeway scene, the shot of Morpheus, the Keymaker, and the Agent on the tractor trailer from far away is pulled back so far that you can't see if it's CGI or not and the audience isn't given a similar-looking shot that they can compare it to. This helps mask the CGI effects.

Overall, let Hollywood do what they want. If it's crap, it's crap. If it's great, then it's great. There are just as many crappy movies without CGI.

 

[Artur Meinild]

I guess the quality of special effects in general depends very much on the time period and what the norm is at that time, as was mentioned earlier. Look at older movies and the composition between actors in bluescreen, rear projection etc. - it looks exactly as fake as bad CGI, and yet nobody seems to complain.
Also, where you nowadays maybe would enhance an outdoor location with CGI, it was the norm to shoot outdoor scenes on sets with a cheesy painting in the background, and yet nobody seems to complain. My point is, if bad CG detracts from the movie experience, so does bad sets and bad composition in pre-CG movies.

 

[Stephen_L]

The problem I have with CGI occurs when the effect is created for its own sake and not in service of the story. I also dislike CGI when its used as an 'easy' substitute to more practical effects. Folks have been praising Peter Jackson and rightfully so; however,its important to note that he used practical effects whenever possible resorting to CGI when no other method would do. The stunning scenery of New Zealand is far superior to any CGI construct. The beautiful shot of Minas Tirith in LOTR was a large and detailed model as was much of Rivendell and the result is a greater sense of realism.
Much of the Matrix Reloaded seemed to be CGI muscle flexing (Look what I can do!) The Burly Brawl was cartoonish and unrealistic. I didn't fear for Neo or feel the impact of any of their blows. The only fights I really enjoyed were ones that primarily employed real actors or stunt men performing real choreographed martial arts moves.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

A question for you old timers. Back when it became obvious opticals were taking over and practical effects in many applications were a thing of the past, were there people bitching that optical effects were ruining movies?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

A question for you old timers. Back when it became obvious opticals were taking over and practical effects in many applications were a thing of the past, were there people bitching that optical effects were ruining movies?

Since there wasn't an internet back then, it wouldn't have been heard, anyway.

I don't know if I qualify for old-timer status, but optical effects have been around since the earliest days of filmaking (I count glass paintings, hanging miniatures, and the like, to be optical effects). The only complaint I have with CGI is when the movie is designed around it rather than it being used to help tell the story.