CG Bashers - How do you stand watching old movies? (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

I have no problem putting WETA in the top bracket...The Frighteners has very UNappreciated work in it...especially for 1996. They also appear to be one of the most creative outfits in the biz, lagging a bit technically, but they came much farther than anyone expected MUCH faster. MAD props to WETA!!!!!!!

Just my $0.02,

Chuck

P.S. I thought Spidey's effects were great...not 'technically' perfect, but special nonetheless.

 

[Terrell]

WETA deserves mad props for FOTR, no doubt. And they'll only get better. But at this point, I'd still put those two quite a bit ahead of WETA based on their body of work. Sony ImageWorks is hit and miss, in my opinion.

 

[chris winters]

So how does eveyone feel about Sony Imageworks effects for Stuart Little, as well as the upcoming Stuart Little 2? Also Curious why so high on digital domain?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Digital Domain did great work on The 5th Element, True Lies, Apollo 13, Titanic, the one or two good shots in Armageddon (The Eastern catastrophe), the River Horses in FOTR, and some other things I don't remember. They have a very reputable filmography.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Terrell]

Digital Domain has done fantastic work. All effects house have done some crappy work here and there. But DD and ILM normally churn out fantastic stuff. Chuck just mentioned a few of the films they worked on. And WETA did great work on The Frighteners and FOTR. They'll get even better with TTT and ROTK.

As for Stuart Little, I've only seen bits and pieces of that film chris. So I can't give a definitive statement on that film. What I have seen looked quite good.

By the way, what was the European company that did Gladiator? I think it was a European effects house. I thought they did pretty convincing work, aside from a few shots. Although I know most disagree with me. But I can't remember their name.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Damn, but you guys impress me! In my opinion, this is the best discussion going on in "Movies" right now. You've made me think. Thanks.

 

[Darcy Hunter]

The company that did Gladiator was Mill Film. They also worked on Black Hawk Down. This is a great discussion BTW!

 

[Terrell]

Thanks Darcy.

 

[David Echo]

Hey All,

Well it should come as no surprise to some of you on this thread that I have an opinion on this subject. I've read all of the preceeding posts and while some of you have touched on some of the ideas I offer below, I don't think anyone has hit upon the central point that I feel is the center of this debate.

Simply put, what we talking about essentially has nothing to do with the "look" of Classic SFX VS. CGI SFX so much as the Philosophy behind each technique.

It seems to me that in the pre-Jurassic Park era of filmaking SFX artists were treated with a great deal of respect in Hollywood. These were the guys that after the principal photgraphy was finished would retire to their own slighty mysterious studios and work for weeks on end until all of the films effects were complete. These shots would be combined with the rest of the footage and on premeire night the stars would emerge from the theater and say they never imagined that the movie they had worked on would turn out to be so wonderful. They were respected professional craftsmen, as neccessary to some films as the actors and the crafts service truck.

And then Jurassic Park came along and ruined everthing with a single word - "Realistic." This movie, we all heard, will have the most REALISTIC dinosaurs ever put on film. And do you know what? It really did. There they were running, eating, dumping, all before our very wide eyes.

Until this point in movie history effects had never had to stand up to the "Realism" test. In fact, in a lot of cases realism wasn't even the point or intent of a visual effect. Classic SFX artists always tried to create the best SPECIAL EFFECT LOOKING effect they could that would match with what had been shot already in an effort to "enhance it." Classic Effects never pretended to be anything other than effects.

But after Jurassic Park "Realism" became the standard by which to judge all special effects work, and if computers (or CGI) did such a good job on JP then why not on other films? What can be more Realistic than a computer generated effect. As I argued in another thread, this also came about because CGI turned out to be more cost effective than Traditional or Classic techniques.

My point is that Classic Effects never attempted to pass themselves off as anything more than what they were: skillfully done SPX. CGI Effects do.

I would argue that Classic Effects engage the imagination more dynamically than CGI Effects which strive not to visualize a fantastical enviroment AS A FANTASTICAL ENVIROMENT but to pass for a close aproximation of FANTASTICAL REALISM.

Beacuse those who create CGI Effects often arrogantly try to pass them off as being "as good as real" that is the standard we should judge them by, and by that standard most fail miserably.

I'm one of those that believes that less is more in a film but it takes tremendous skill to pull it off. Think of the sub battles in The Hunt For Red October. Pretty tense stuff right? Subs firing torpedoes back and forth, crash dives, subs playing chicken with one another. But how much of that took place in your own imagination? Oh sure, there are a few underwater SPX shots inserted at the approriate time to reinforce the enviroment but for the most part the battles take place on the bridge sets of these subs. The director, John McTiernan uses he great skill to give you the impression that you are seeing more than you actually are.

Less is more, but it takes great skill to pull it off. Today's filmakers have a tendancy to show rather than imply more often than they should simply because it is cost effective to do so nowadays.

Even Spielberg can have a hard time deciding what to show and what not to - In the trailor scene in The Lost World, out heros are meneaced by 2 T-Rex's outside the trailor who eventually push it over a nearby cliff and yet not once do we see an establishing shot of the T-Rex's. We only ever see these big animatronic heads in the window. I feel it is a big mistake not to show the T-Rex's in this case. But Speilberg is going for less is more, possibly because a few minutes later in this scene a few CGI T-Rex's will be seen and it simply cheaper to show them then.

Until the CGI Effects commuinity comes clean and admits that CGI is not the end all and be all of effects technology and leaves the "Realism" BS by the roadside and the studio bean counters let art come before profits and let some future Harryhausen do things their own way you can expect me to be there championing the cause of the Classic Effects Underdog.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Dave

P.S. BTW I think my sig quote does a great job of summing up how I feel about CGI.

 

[Terrell]

I'd pretty much agree on the JP and realism argument. But herein lies the problem. We don't know what the hell a dinosaur looks like. Nobody's ever seen one. So it's much easier to create what seems to be a real dinosaur, than it is to create a Spider-Man, with an actual person. I also think it's far more difficult to try and recreate real life object with CGI, because we know how these things look and move. We have a barometer in which to judge the CGI with the real. That's one reason it is difficult to create totally convincing people riding on the backs of CGI animals. It's not because of the animal. It's because we have a real life reference as to how people actually move. And creating that in a computer is incredibly difficult.

However, I'd have to disagree that the effects industry thinks they're the be all and end all. But in this day and age, I think it's fair of them to think of themselves as extremely important to the filmmaking process. Let's use this as an example.

What do you think would happen if CGI disappeared tomorrow? Well, here's what I think.

The big event films, and films told on a large scale would disappear. Films like Harry Potter, LOTR and Star Wars, and even a Spider-Man or Batman, would not be made. To bring those films to fruition without CGI would cost an insane amount of money. Maybe you could do it, but no studio would even bother with such a huge financial risk. A film would automatically take at least twice as long to create. Production costs would skyrocket. So say bye-bye to the event films we love.

As a result of that, traffic into movie theaters would instantly decrease. These are the kinds of films that bring customers into the theaters. These are the kinds of films that populate the summer and holiday seasons. So the theaters would suffer severly.

So CGI is an extremely important tool. More important than many people will give it credit for being. Today's audiences are far more demanding in this respect, than were audiences a decade or more ago. CGI is largely responsible for this. Yesterday's technique is not suitable for a lot of what's created today. Yes, it can still be a viable tool in the process. But it can't replace CGI. And to a certain extent, vice versa.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Terrell,
As far as taking you out of context, that was simply not my intent. Cutting and pasting individual parts to rebut is simply effective and readable. If any of those parts were smaller than appropriate, I either didn't understand your intent, or you didn't make it clear, or some combination of the two.
That said...
As far as films needing CGI to get made, I strongly disagree. To do Episode II, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter without CGI, you don't spend billions of dollars. You don't need to because you don't try to exactly replicate every item and character in every single shot using other means. You use whatever tools you have at your disposal and your skill as a filmmaker to tell the same story, but setting up the shots and editing in such a manner to give the necessary feel of the scope and details of the situation. You use a third party to help make this happen; that third party is the imagination of the viewer.
Large scale fantasy film would be with us today without CGI. And it would be damned impressive. And it would get funded; the price of losing viewers is the price that the studios will not pay.
But there is no reason to discard CGI. It can be a very effective tool. And as time passes, in the hands of the right people, it will be an increasingly more effective tool.
In the meantime, while the craftsmen and artists continue learning how to make us fully suspend disbelief, and while the studios use CGI as a cheap shortcut to crank out effects shortage, there is no reason not to be critical of how effectively or ineffectively CGI is used.

 

[Terrell]

The only thing with that is Michael, is by doing that it seems you're essentially saying they have to limit their vision to do it that way. Correct me if I'm wrong. My point has always been that a director shouldn't have to limit his vision, or not include things in the film, if he can put those in the film.

Think what the Mines of Moria, or the Balrog would like without CGI. Think of what the arena battle in Star Wars would look like. CGI at the very least, allows the directors to expand their imagination. I personally don't think those films could be made on the scale they are without CGI. How could you make AOTC, exactly as it is, without CGI?

 

[Mark Schmitt]

I don't agree with the point about Jurassic Park being the beginning of this "strive for realism" that seems to be presented here. I have never personally worked for a "classic SFX" house, but I would think that some of the people dreaming up these effects back then might have been elated to have the technology and know-how we have today. The assumption that these guys didn't strive for realism before JP is, IMHO, inaccurate. Are you saying that if you were an SFX artist back then, you wouldn't care if your effect looked real or not?
I have, on the other hand, worked at a CGI SFX house (but am not an animator). And I believe that just like the guys who were building models and puppets back then, these animators are artists and craftsmen. They are just working with a newer, different tool . Just think about the work that goes into these effects, the artistry of the sets, buildings and creatures. The strive to duplicate human (or non-human) form and motion. The need to make these effects blend in with their surroundings as much as possible. Do any of you know how much it takes to get a CGI shot to look like it is lit in the same way as the surroundings? These guys work their asses off!
I'm not saying that the end result is perfect. The art form is young and has a long, long way to go. The effects weren't perfect then, and they aren't yet perfect now. However, they're closer to real now than before. Of course the films with the best artists and technology look better than the others, although some smaller houses find a way to do a good believeable job.
I believe that if a shot cannot possibly be done without FX done in-camera (including miniatures), it should be regulated to CGI. A director, as Terrell stated, should not have to limit his vision. On the other hand, he should not remake that vision to include CGI shots because they want to "show off".
Spiderman moves like nothing we've ever seen before. I think what looks most odd about the CGI can be attributed to that fact. The only thing I may have wished for more is just a little bit more attention to the effect of gravity on some of the things he was doing. Comparing Spiderman to CTHD doesn't make a valid point. They move in different ways. In CTHD, the characters "float", while Spiderman moves with a greater quickness. Overall, I was happy with the CGI, although it was noticeable in some cases. Big deal. I loved the movie and that matters most.
Are they planning an all-CGI Hulk? That guy is supposed to be humongous. It would not look right at all making up some bodybuilder if they want to make it like the comic. The excellent facial animation in Shrek leads me to believe this can be done for a CGI Hulk. My point is how could the Hulk be done without CGI? We'd be seriously missing out on some cool films without CGI.

 

[Terrell]

Yes, ILM is doing The Hulk. Legendary effects pioneer Dennis Muren is the effects supervisor for the film. The comic book character is far too massive to be played by an actor. I've read there will be a couple of stages of the hulk. One stage where he's not fully enraged and hulked out, and another full blown hulk which will stand 9 feet tall.

 

[Bjorn Olav Nyberg]

Personally I think I am in the camp that does not care how they do the effects as long as I like the movie itself. Both sides provide good arguments, and personally I more or less agree with both, except that I do not really have a preference.

I had to comment about the event movies though. It was claimed that without CGI, event movies would disappear. Personally I think it is more the other way around. CGI has helped kill the event movies, because big scale scenes is so much more likely to be CGI than "real". CGI can be impressive, but when it is used instead of almost any other effect, it automatically does become less impressive.

A good example would be Lawrence of Arabia. It blew my mind when I found of the city by the bay (can't remember the name) that are attacked was actually in Spain, and they built the entire city, and brought over a lot of extras with camels to film the attack in Spain, simply because they liked the location by the bay. They only lacked the city, so they built it themselves. Same thing with Dr Zhivago, where they rebuilt a Moscow street in Spain. That would never happen today, and certainly not on the same scale. Just look at Gladiator for example, for which scenery of Rome, and a lot of the Collosseum was done with CGI. It looked great in Gladiator, but in no way is it anywhere near as impressive.

CGI has made big scale event movies more common. They are not as far inbetween, and while a whole lot of people are indeed working very hard to accomplish it, it has not got the same glory to it as traditional effects work. This is why I both feel that CGI has not really helped the big event films at all but rather cheapened them in a way, and also help to explain why many people are more opposed to CGI I suppose.

 

[Terrell]

CGI has helped kill the event movies, because big scale scenes is so much more likely to be CGI than "real".

True, from the standpoint of them being CGI. But you mentioned Lawrence of Arabia. Could you even begin to fathom how much films like Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Ten Commandments, and Spartacus would cost today if you used real sets and thousands of extras. Nobody seems to take that into account, or they just say that's not true. It is true.

You do make some good points though Bjorn, many of which I'd agree with. But Star Wars, Harry Potter, LOTR, and Spider-Man aren't event films because of CGI or the huge scale. They're event films because of their name, and what the films about.

 

[Bjorn Olav Nyberg]

Of course they were expensive to make back then. They would also be incredibly expensive if they were being done the same way today. My point was that CGI is cheaper (but not better) for these things, therefore CGI automatically seems to substitute the real thing, which was what I think was sad.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The synthesizer analogy used earlier was great. CGI is a magnificent tool that all too many lesser skilled directors have access to. It's first real, live action use (Tron and The Last Strafighter primarily used CG in it's own realm) was in Young Sherlock Holmes, followed by The Abyss...both scenes that could be excised if necessary. It's first REAL test was T2 (Dennis Muren, more on him in a bit) because there was NO OTHER WAY. Who did it? Cameron. The next major breakthrough was JP...Spielberg. That broke the gates, made the mad cash, and started the lesser skilled down the road.

I really like CGI...it's a great tool for a creative director. I like it because I can see new things with it. When it's used creatively, something we've never seen can be shown (Spidey, the T-1000, some of Fincher's camera moves, etc). Which brings me to The Hulk. Hiring ILM is honestly like hiring the very best Law Firm in town...getting Dennis Muren is like hiring that firm, and getting the most brilliant, thoughtful, and analytical lawyer they have as your man. I fully expect the work on the Hulk to be what CGI is best at...giving us something we HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. As opposed to tripe like we got all last summer.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Jason Moreland]

I don't think there are too many people that are strictly "anti-CGI," there are just those that don't think it's appropriate for all cases. I think it's a bad sign when you start eliminating humans in favor of CGI people, that is something that will not likely look real any time in the near future.

We have pro-CGI arguements of "How else could they have made (insert movie here)?" With the thousands of movies released per year, can one plausibly justify some of the awful CGI work by singling out a handful of movies that may be a little to ambitious? If you can use CGI and make it look "real-enough," good deal. If not, just leave it alone.

I'm in the boat where if it can't be done well, find another way. I don't see much of a plus in having a movie poorly made over not having the movie made at all. At times, it doesn't seem like CGI is being used to better films, it's like it's being used for laziness or lack of creativity. I don't mean to insult anyone, but I just look in disbelief as to how some directors give the OK for some of these terrible effects.

As for budgets being to big for better, non-CGI effects, it doesn't seem to add up. Spidey is in at $140 M, Episode 2 at $120 M, and LOTR at $110 M. Spidey doesn't seem to have nearly as much effects work going on as the other two, why was that film so expensive?

With Spidey, there's no sense of awe or anxiety of a man swinging around the city because it's painfully obvious that it's merely an avatar darting around the screen.

What is the reason that a person in a suit can't swing from a giant swing? We've seen more ambitious stunts than in Spidey, I don't see why it has to drag along the "No one can move like he does" excuse to abandon live actors and throw in CGI. Matte work seems to have almost been perfected, it would have been better to see them combining that with wires or bungees for some of the stunts.

 

[mark_d]

I'm late

Terrell:

Starship Troopers had decent effects, and tremendous bug effects. But their ship and space battles has no sense of scale to them. Their ships looked like small models. Where as ILM did an amazing job of showing the huge mass and size of the ships in the Star Wars films. That was my one major complaint about Starship Troopers. The bug effects were terrific though.

I disagree. Both the space scenes and the bugs were, imo, phenomenal. To be honest the only areas that looked weak were the physical effects - that escape pod, the dude getting his brains sucked out...

I think there's an irony in complaining about CG, then citing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon an an example of how things should be done.

I don't know, but I'm guessing that many people here are working on pure speculation when it comes to stating how things are so much easier in CG than with "traditional" fx. Very much comes across as "it's all done by computers" which, of course, is cack. Garbage in, garbage out.

In fact, wasn't there an Attack of the Clones making of which concentrated on model construction? I was stunned by how much of what appears on screen is model work augmented by CG. Apparently, it's a lot cheaper to do it that way...

I'm pretty sure that if any artists who use these CG tools wandered into this thread they'd feel, to quote John M: "Pretty f*ckin unappreciated".

Anyway, I don't give a monkey's how the imagery on screen is originated. When it comes to Spectacular, Spectacular, I just wanna be entertained...

Mark