Are movie geeks (us) just too fussy these days? (1 Viewer)

[Chris Atkins]

Everytime I hear that "bad cgi" argument I immediately think of the water shooting out of the mine caves near the end of Temple of Doom.

Talk about "bad special effects"

 

[TommyT]

I don't think it's a question of a double standard. Sometimes the CGI is just plain bad & unconvincing (the character of Scooby Doo) or there's just way WAY too much of it, take for instance Attack of the Clones; the foundry scene was overkill. When I watched the documentary about the making of the film I found out why, it was a sequence introduced very late in the production: it's very poorly planned & executed & not terribly exciting. I know well that the animators worked long & hard on the scene but it still looked rushed & overdone.

A good example of CGI used well would be Minority Report. It didn't overwhelm the story because Spielberg knew when to back off & let the drama & plot carry the film.

 

[Chris Atkins]

the foundry scene was overkill.

This scene was overkill no matter how many effects shots were used to film it.

 

[George See]

neither is that guy in the puppet suit

That was a guy in a suit?

I think why people sometimes have an issue with cgi and claiming it doesn't look real is because it's not real. Look at the first star wars for example episode 4. All the ships were models. Models are real physical things, as opposed to cgi which is nothing but little 1's and 0's.
I think because of this cgi still feels less real than traditional special effects. Personally I have no problems with CGI, but I can see where people are coming from.

 

[Estevan Lapena]

I really have problems with CGI when what they are animating is a living being or when it’s taken to an absolute extreme (i.e AOTC). When characters are animated they look increadibly fake and plastic. AOTC is perfect example of overuse, there are characters that didn't have to be animated and would have looked much better had they used a model. Thing is, in most cases, CG is used for the wrong reasons and way too much.

 

[Chris Atkins]

AOTC is perfect example of overuse, there are characters that didn't have to be animated

While I agree that the clonetroopers didn't have to be animated, I thought they looked amazing in any case.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The old CGI fumblef***

CGI is a tool. Good directors use it well, bad directors don't. Just like every other tool at their disposal. When it's new and exciting, it has a tendency to get abused. But good directors have done brilliant things with it, so I am glad it's in the toolbox.

As for the question, I don't think we are too fussy. We're too spoiled, but that's a good thing

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Mike Graham]

Frankly, there is still many, many high quality films coming out in North America these days. Sometimes they're big budget studio pictures, other times they're independent films.

The main reason a lot of movies aren't very good these days is the fact that there's a HUGE amount of film being put out these days. I think Roger Ebert commented on his show a few years back that it was becoming increasingly difficult for him and other reviewers to constantly keep up with the new releases! If you start putting a lot more films, chances are more of them are going to suck

In truth, I thought this was a rather weak year for films, but only because I had the unfortunate luck of seeing bad ones in the theater. I know for sure there was a ton of stuff that came out since January that I didn't hear about, didn't come to my theater, or I just didn't have time for.

Frankly, the main reason I was frustrated with this year's crop was the weak showing of summer films. Reloaded blew me away, 28 Days Later kept me intrigued throughout, and the early spring release of Phone Booth kept me entertained. Yet, the other popcorn flicks just didn't entertain me as well. However, I'm sure this year's Oscar contenders will be more then enough to entertain me til the end of December.

 

[TommyT]

Very true! Studios only seem interested in churning out the product & making a quick buck rather than putting out something worthwhile. In many cases the films are predestined to fail, look at nearly every film Adam Sandler & Eddie Murphy have put out in the past few yrs. They're all moronic comedies & not many have made back their investment.

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't believe it will ever happen but if it did, Actors would only have themselves to blame. Their monumental egos and their even more monumental salary demands are pushing the "suits" into looking at any way to cut the cost of making movies. A "Synthespian" has several big advantages to a "bean counter". No salary, no benefits, no ego, and no ancillary costs: other than the initial costs of creating the character.

It will never happen though. People want to watch overpaid egotists strut their stuff.

 

[Max Leung]

I'm sure the tabloid magazines and newspapers would suffer greatly if digital actors ever took over...Headlines like "Digital Brad Pitt programmer found in bed with Digital Jennifer Lopez programmer" would hardly sell any papers!

 

[JonZ]

Im not fussy in thinking movies nowadays suck or that nothing good ever comes out - theres still lots of great films being made. The 90s were a great decade for films IMHO.Maybe the best ever. So many amazing films came out in that decade.

I think people are more fussy or spoiled concerning DVDs.Everyone wants a superduper deluxe extraordinary edition of everything.

Whoever thought of interactive menus should be killed.Slowly.

 

[TommyT]

Don't count on that, man! The American media's already obsessed with Paris Hilton & her fledgling porno career! Besides, look at all the sleazy shite on the E! channel: Celebrities Uncensored, 1-13, Paparazzos on Parade, Paparazzi Pics of Paris Posing Pornographically, Gwyneth Paltrow/JLo/Alyssa Milano/Britney Spears/Justin Timberlake/Christina Aguilera Love Chain, What did JLo/Paris Hilton/Britney Spears Buy THIS Week on Rodeo Drive?, etc, etc, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in the near future we hear about the Digital Brad Pitt suing the Digital JLo.

 

[Max Leung]

Good point Tommy. I'm scared now!

 

[Roland G]

I thought for a while that films can't impress me
the way they used to, but I have been proven wrong.

Lost in Translation made me float over the ground
beneath my feets on my way home.

The next film I am really looking forward to is

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind.

 

[George See]

What I hope never happens is what George Lucas is rumored to have talked about which is one day not having to use live actors at all.

That won't happen for the same reason video game football will never replace the real thing. I know in hollywood it's hard to see, but some people actually enjoy acting and they care more about acting just for the sake of doing it then they do the big paycheck. There are always going to be people out there who want to make movies with real people and there are always going to be real people who want to be in them, and us real people are going to watch them.

Now i'm not saying 10 years from now we won't see a movie that has animated actors 1000 times more real looking than Final Fantasy, but I don't think it will ever replace the real thing. Maybee one day far into the future it will be 50-50 but that's about it.

 

[Kevin M]

"Are movie geeks (us) just too fussy these days?"
.....hee...hee...hee....well...yeah I have to agree with the opinion that they/we (under whatever name they were called at the time..) have always been rather fussy about their passion. Just go back and read some older Starlog "letters to the Mag" for the sci-fi comparison and even older Time or Life magazines to see the similarities between their filmic complaints at the time and that of their modern counterparts...very similar.

 

[JamesDrake]

I am 31 now and I am in that part of my life where I go to the movies once every 2-3 weeks rather than 2-3 times a week like I used to when I was a teenager or in my early twenties.

Because, I am married and have to respect her movie going preferences, we sometimes have to see other films that otherwise wouldn't be on my list. However, she did surprise me with Love Actually. I left the theater with a feeling af bliss and excitement. It really sparked me.

I just think we know too much and expect too much about the movies we have a passion for. I was upset at the thpught that a human was not going to be the Hulk. I felt gipped because I longed for those innocent days of my childhood as I sat in my grandparent's living room on Sundays and watched The Incredible Hulk with Lou Ferigno and the Spider man and Wonder Woman TV shows.

When I saw some of the extended trailors for The Hulk, it bothered me less and less. Of course, I still have yet to see it.

I do have some friends that are true comic book geeks and they bicker about the smallest deatils, especially about the X-Men. I used to find it quite funny, until I realized that I also bicker about the smaller details like seeing 5.56mm casings fall out of a weapon that obviously is sporting a magazine that could not hold anything longer than a 9mm cartridge as seen in the Matrix. OK, breathe.

Like someone said earlier, we all walked around for nearly so long wondering about Star Wars and where the characters came from or where they might take us. We couldn't help but feel a sense of ownership or personal creativity about how it should work. This type of behavior happens most when there are books involved previous to the release of the film such as the Anne Rice series or J.O. Barr's The Crow.

Fussy? Maybe a little. However, I am usually entertained. To what extent is the real queston.

/rant