Is CGI going to kill American Cinema (1 Viewer)

[Jeffrey Forner]

But films like Gladiator would simply force the filmmakers to use effects/techniques that were far more refined and understood. Thus the film might take different approaches (like matte paintings) but these approaches would be using those techs at their highest level rather than CGI at what will be seen in a few years as at a very raw level.

Forgive me for saying so, but those old methods look out-of-date when compared to the digital technology used today. Sure, those who created them and employed them in films refined the techniques as much as they could, but they're still limited in what they can do simply because computers are a better tool for building and compositing fantastic images that you could never film real to reel. At the same time, I would argue that CGI is far more refined than those old methods ever were for the simple fact that you can just do more with it. Yes, the use of computers in movies is still relatively new, but that doesn't mean that the people using them don't have a clue what they're doing.
Besides, if no one pushes the envelope with computers, their true potential may never be unleashed. Just imagine the amazing possiblities inherent in computers and the amazing images that have yet to be created using them. Couple that with the degree of freedom that they give to the filmmakers and I say its crazy to expect them to use anything but computers!

 

[RobertR]

what's to stop the film from being a showcase of those old techniques?

Because people don't showcase the tried and true. They showcase the "new and improved". How often do you see a commercial touting the "same product we've been offering you for years"?

The old techniques don't have the marketing "hook" that filmmakers think CGI does. No one says "oh boy, we'll try to dazzle 'em in the trailer with a nice matte painting". So they HAVE to focus on other things...like....an interesting story and characters.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Robert;

True, but that doesn't mean that the film would be any less of a special effects extravaganza. It would just be one that uses different techniques.

So they HAVE to focus on other things...like....an interesting story and characters.

You're missing my point. Just because you take away the glitz of computer effects doesn't mean that movies will suddenly get better. The bad film isn't a recent phenomenon. There have been many terrible movies in the history of the cinema. In fact, I would argue that there are as many bad films made today as there were 40 or 50 years ago, before the glitz of modern special effects came to be. We just don't remember them as well because they've faded away into mediocrity.

If studios and filmmakers could make so many bad movies without the help of CGI, how does getting rid of it improve the quality of films? How does its elimination "save" American cinema? The answer is, it doesn't, because the use of CGI is not the problem.

 

[Todd Phillips]

One things I have noticed with the newer movies with CGI, is that when they arrive on DVD, the extras always seem to focus on the computer graphics, and rarely on the more interesting aspects of the film (such as story development, production hurdles, casting, etc). It's a good sign that the movie has little depth if all the extras are about the effects. Even when there are other things to talk about, it seems to be an easy way to make a "special edition" dvd by slapping on a bunch on CGI how-to featurettes, which are almost always the same (here's the background, here's the wire-mesh model, here's the partially rendered model, here's the final scene....boorrring!).

The Phantom Menace DVD was mixed in this respect: the making of feature was wonderful, but it had a lot of CGI how-to's, and the deleted scenes added nothing really except to stand as additional CG demos. (I'm not picking on TPM, but, rather, it's a good example of both kinds of extras)

I think these extras seem to say "here's what we're most proud of"--and it's not the story or characters. We all agree that images should serve the story. Maybe if the producers weren't so quick to put the CG images on a pedestal, it wouldn't seem so much like the story exists to support the images.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

That said, Todd...I just spent an hour with my A.I. "Features" DVD. Very well-rounded itself, and it certainly is the exception to what you are saying. And it's SFX section is truly interesting.
That said, are you going to buy The Mummy for Oded Fehr's audition reel?
I am a proponent of the strengths of CGI, but the problem is really with the filmmakers, not the effects themselves. So, trust the right directors, and you won't go too wrong. Is Minority Report a CGI film??? No, it's a Spielberg film. He even beats out Lord Tom for billing
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Todd Phillips]

That said, are you going to buy The Mummy for Oded Fehr's audition reel?

I have the Mummy, and I actually like it (in spite of it being an "empty special effects driven spectacle"). I don't remember that audition reel though...what are you getting at? Besides, I don't think I've ever bought any DVD just for the extras (although SW:TPM comes close).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Forgive me for saying so, but those old methods look out-of-date when compared to the digital technology used today.

I disagree. Old films using these techniques often show them, but modern films use this stuff all the time invisibly.

Thing 81 is a great example of matte paintings or how about the awesome mattes for Escape from NY that are shown in the LD documentary. I don't mean the more obvious blue screen early on, I mean the false city done when the helicopters bring fly over the field near the end. They used an open field nowhere near NYC and then set mattes against it as a city backdrop. Very effective.

And Boorman's effective Camelot in Excaliber by using in-camera perspective techniques.

The reason films aren't made around those techinques is because they aren't easy to do nor SHOWY enough. The intent of those effects is to not make themselves known, whereas CGI spectacle stuff is done to make its presence highly recognized.

For some CGI is a tool, but for other filmmakers it is a toy. That's the problem. Older techniques are refined and long past being toys.

Just look at how sound was used in The Jazz Singer...all gimmick, which is why that film sucks. It's all about showing off the sound and not about having sound help tell the story. That's why M came along and was so much better, Lang used the sound to enhance the storytelling.

To me that's where CGI is right now, except that it's not just another new thing, its also being used to replace more effective techniques.

BTW, everyone talks about all the great extras and huge sets of Ben-Hur, but in the chariot scene half of what you see of that stadium is matte painting. Very effectively used. Or how about the fact that someone gets killed in the race, people swear it. I had a guy show me the moment. Then I showed him how an clever cut replaced the stuntman with a dummy and implied the real collision effectively enough for him to think a real person had been trampled.

With CGI we would just draw the whole thing with CGI and not use the cut, but it would never fool anyone into thinking it really happened. Subtle work is just that...subtle. CGI so far is not being used that way by many people.

Not to say that it couldn't. Take a look at Out of Sight when Clooney shows up at the bar (the love scene). Out the window are city lights and snowflakes...all done in CPU. CGI used smartly is good like any other tool, but until it stops being a toy to others this sort of work will be pushed aside for 1000 monsters rushing across a desert or vehicles that have more stuff popping out of them than their actual mass would allow.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

For some CGI is a tool, but for other filmmakers it is a toy. That's the problem. Older techniques are refined and long past being toys.

So, Seth, do believe that once the novelty of CGI wears off, filmmakers will cease to use them as "toys" and strive to better blend them in with the rest of the film? Or will CGI be forever showy?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'll try and answer that, J.Fo! Even though I am not Seth...I think it will be a very valuable tool in the years to come, especially for those directors who push it's capabilities...look at the subtle things Fincher did with Panic Room. The good (great?) directors already use it well, and the rest will ctach up or go away.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Scott Calvert]

David:

------------------------------------------------------------

I truly feel sorry for you Scott.

Yes I'm calling you a Luddite. Your own repeatedly stated position seems to label you this way extremely clearly however, so I don't feel I'm reaching.

------------------------------------------------------------

Are comments like this really necessary? We're just conversing here. Don't take my comments personally.

I'd also like to ask that you not read my statements and then project what you "think" I said onto them. I never said film is better or more artistic without sound or color. What I said was, I can see the value of the older methods.

Yes, I like many older films. I also like a lot of newer stuff. But I don't like the direction Hollywood is headed, in general, with the whole "computerize everything" philosophy. Your Driven example is a fine representation of a school of thought I just don't understand:

------------------------------------------------------------

I have to believe an actor I'm watching is a race car driver who is on the Formula-One circuit for Driven to work; effects, including CG, make it possible for me to believe I'm watching a real race....CG makes these types of visions possible. You can't put a real person in a race car and wreck it dramatically; not a sane person anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------

Why do we need CGI to create something I see live on TV all the time? Have you ever seen The Road Warrior? It has some of the most thrilling car chases and stunt work I've ever seen, without any CGI. Were the stunts dangerous? You bet! That's what we pay the stunt guys for.

Films aren't reality, but they used to represent reality as seen through the camera lens. Now they don't even represent that. We can never be sure if what we're seeing is a computer graphic or not. In the process, verisimilitude is lost.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I think Jack's example of synth in the early '80s is a perfect one.

You make solid points, but would you not say the trend has been to use CGI when needed as in T2 and other movies of that type, now it seemd like instead of a tool the CGI is a crutch to hold the movie up. Is it really a tool of filmaking if CGI is used to substitute a mountain, when there are a million mountains that could have been shot and used.

I'd call James Cameron a big offender like this for that shot at the opening of True Lies: couldn't they find a real house on a real lake and slap a blue filter on? At least it'd look real.

Also, the stuntman thing: I don't think Exit Wounds with Steven Segal would have been any worse had that stuntman not been killed rolling out of the truck, the shot having been achieved in another way.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Films aren't reality, but they used to represent reality as seen through the camera lens. Now they don't even represent that. We can never be sure if what we're seeing is a computer graphic or not. In the process, verisimilitude is lost.

Is this because it is harder to tell a computer composite from a regular bluescreen composite? Or are you actually just referring to trick photography in general?

 

[Terrell]

Whew! The arguments are going in circles here.

 

[William Ward]

CGI as a tool is good. If you plan on using it, make it look good or it can really screw up your movie. (Mummy Returns)
One TPM pod race possibility:
I think those who didn't like TPM's pod race didn't like it because it was primarily CG. Now, should they be mad at the tool??? Or the craftsman?? I mean, it was Lucas who decided to use a lightning fast pod race to display Anakin's piloting skills that Ol' Kenobi referred to in ANH("he was the best star pilot in the galaxy"). I guess in order to better display his talent Anakin should have been older and win a 10 on 1 dogfight with some alien fighters(which would have been done with models and stop motion ).....
So was it Lucas's or the CG's fault that it didn't meet their expectations or preminitions?????

 

[Edwin-S]

Films aren't reality, but they used to represent reality as seen through the camera lens. Now they don't even represent that.

------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? I don't think films exclusively represent reality as seen through a camera lense and never did. There have been movie processes to create fake realities through the camera lense since the birth of cinema. Green Screen, Blue screen, matte paintings, sets, backlot shooting, composites, models, artificial lighting, filters, etc. The reality,IMO, is that the view through the camera lense has always been fake. Every technique invented in filmmaking is designed to allow a filmmaker to create his/her vision of "reality". To me, the truth of it is that the view through the lense is a lie. The trick is to convince people that for the running time of the film, the lie is truth and the fake is real. CGI is just another tool in the filmmaker's kit of lies. Right now CGI is still in its technical infancy, so a lot of the time it spoils the "reality" for the fakery that it is.

 

[Scott Calvert]

I was mainly referring to things that can be shot live on the set. Stunt work that used to wow us in the past can now be reduced to post-production CGI tinkering.

 

[Max Knight]

This has been an interesting thread, a lot of emotions are worming their way out.

I believe that CGI can really take away from the "wow" factor in many cases. This weekend I saw Blade 2 (I loved Blade!), and it was awful. I don't just mean dialogue and plot awful (I have a special place in my heart for cheesy action movies), I mean "I can't believe I'm watching this" awful.

What made this movie so bad for me was the CGI fight scenes. In far too many scenes we were seeing a CGI Wesley Snipes fighting another CGI actor. Given, many of these action sequences were supposed to illustrate super-human vampire combat, but I felt that they really detracted from the film. Part of the joy of seeing an action movie (for me at least) is saying "wow! How'd they do that?". For this reason I love Jackie Chan, old Hong Kong cinema, wire-fu, the Matrix, and all that.

I hope that this all CGI fight scene technique dies a quick death. There is no wonder in it, no sense of amazement. We've all seen a video game character jump over an opponent and deliver a stunning attack, but it doesn't have the visceral quality that seeing a great stuntman do the same trick has.

 

[felix_suwarno]

Is CGI going to kill American Cinema ?

what does that mean? lots of people love to see CG because they are so cool to see. more people watching movies = good.

 

[Sean Oneil]

Interesting point Felix... anyone complaining about the death of 'American Cinema' has to define exactly what 'American Cinema' is.
I guarantee you that their definition will not be the only one. To me, American Cinema is the most cutting edge, groundbreaking, push the envelope cinema in the world. A synergy of mediums and techniques combined to create a moving /picture/. This may include the use of Computer Generated Imagery. If CGI can be used to make the picture more beautiful, or to create more impact, or can be used to show you something that just could not be shown otherwise, then why not use it if you can make it work?
There is great CGI work being done today that would roll right past most anyone as being the real thing. Of course, there is a lot of poorly done CGI as well, but in general, it is getting better all the time.
Luckily, artists do not fear change; rather, they encourage and fight for it. They do not fear new tools at their disposal; they embrace them and use them to make their work better (cause nothing is ever perfect in an artist's eyes). CGI is still in a very early stage, and something you have to understand about it, is that the CGI tools themselves are constantly changing and becoming more advanced. Almost monthly, something new becomes available for CGI artists to use, and the power available in these tools has a *very* strong influence on what CGI artists are able do with their work.
The more they work with these new tools, the more they learn about them, and consequently, the more they can do with them. Eventually, we will have CGI that is 100% indistinguishable from reality, or can project a look and feeling of 100% realism from a completely imaginary idea. No other medium but CGI has the potential to do that -But we will never get there if people are afraid to push the envelope and master these ever evolving CGI tools.
To me, learning and mastering new tools in order to make your films look better, sound better, and convey feelings and ideas that could not otherwise be conveyed through mere words is what 'American Cinema' is all about.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I find it very interesting that American cinema could be considered cutting edge. While it has the most money and technology, many would argue it has the least creativity. What has out CG boom given us? Event pictures...Dinos, Mummies, Morlocks, Apes, Aliens, and Godzilla...a whole host of evil creatures that want to eat or kill human heroes. Not a lot of creativity there.

When I think American Cinema, I think Hollywood. When I think Hollywood, I think money. Lots of good movies come out of American cinema, but so does much of the crap too. Hollywood often succeeds in spite of itself.

CGI is a great tool, but it's limited use will get old to the average viewer. Short-term prospects might seem nice, but the question is: are the stories suffering (hell, is the audience auffering)?

Take care,

Chuck