Is CGI going to kill American Cinema (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Terrell, you'd be surprised what can be done with practical effects. I think you sell a lot of talented people short with statements like "it can't be done any other way".

 

[Terrell]

Okay Scott, if I may be so bold to ask you to answer those questions that I've asked Jack. Make a believer out of me. How do you do it, and keep the cost reasonable, believable, and on that kind of scale?

 

[Scott Calvert]

I agree with Robert. I doubt CGI is that much cheaper, but I'm sure it makes accounting a lot easier.

And on that note, I don't care about making things "easier" for filmmakers and studios. That's their problem. As a filmgoer, all I care about is quality.

 

[Terrell]

It's a heck of a lot cheaper than building an entire arena, and hiring 5000 extras, not to mention choreographing them.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Problem is, CGI are being used more as crutches at the expense of storytelling and believability. CGI are being used often for the sake of using them. Though improving from a technical and technological standpoint, they are undercutting whatever depth some of these films might otherwise have had.

there were bad moves pre-CGI. there have been (and there will continue to be) good movies in our post-CGI world. a film's depth exists independantly of whether a filmmaker decides to achieve a look using CGI or any other means. a film can be CGI-rich and deep just as easily as it can be CGI-free and shallow. i see no necessary connection between CGI usage and film quality. if a filmmaker is using CGI as a crutch, the fault for the depth of the final work lies with the filmmaker, not the CGI. CGI is a tool that can be used to either good or bad results, just like any other filmmaking tool or technique.

DJ

 

[Scott Calvert]

I guess that why films like Ben-Hur and Spartacus will live on for generations as awe-inspiring, spectacular filmmaking achievements when films like AOTC are long since forgotten.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I guess that why films like Ben-Hur and Spartacus will live on for generations as awe-inspiring, spectacular filmmaking achievements when films like AOTC are long since forgotten.

i always love baseless future predictions like these, as if making up some fact about how future generations will look upon a film can actually prove a point.

DJ

 

[Terrell]

I guess that why films like Ben-Hur and Spartacus will live on for generations as awe-inspiring, spectacular filmmaking achievements when films like AOTC are long since forgotten.

:rolleyes

 

[Scott Calvert]

Damin, can you honestly tell me that Ben-Hur and Spartacus would still be held in such high regard if the enormous scope and scale of their productions was reduced to something as cheap and painless as CGI?

 

[Scott Calvert]

Terrell, you can roll your eyes all you want, but that's how I feel, and I know many others who feel the same way.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Damin, can you honestly tell me that Ben-Hur and Spartacus would still be held in such high regard if the enormous scope and scale of their productions was reduced to something as cheap and painless as CGI?

i don't know. i didn't make any such statement, did i? i have no idea how the presence of CGI would've affected the reception of those films and, therefore, i wouldn't make such a baseless statement about it. you, however, did make a statement about the future. so can you honestly tell me that you know anything about how future generations will treat Attack of the Clones?

 

[Todd Phillips]

Actually, Jack, there WAS some CGI in Lost In Space.
Or did you mean Battle Beyond The Stars?

I think he was OBVIOUSLY refering to The Black Hole.
But he was wrong...the opening credits had CGI.
On the other hand, those goofy monkey suits ruined 2001 even before it got to outer space.

 

[Terrell]

Who cares? I could care less whether AOTC stands the test of time to you. All I care about is whether I like it and enjoy it. And your question is rhetorical. There's no way to tell since it didn't exist back then. So you can't say one way or the other. And it certainly doesn't prove your point.

Storytelling lies with the filmmaker. CGI is only a tool. It's not the story. And if a CGI film fails, it's not due to CGI. Its the filmmaker. Final Fantasy failed not because of CGI. It failed because the director and creators failed. Likewise, Monsters Inc. is all CGI. Does that mean it failed? Absolutely not. It succeeded not because of CGI, but because the filmmakers and director created a great story with a lot of heart.

You know, there were people that said Star Wars would be forgotten in a week. I guess Lucas had the last laugh.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Well, gee, forgive me for being brutally honest. If you want to get anal about semantics, then yeah I did make a statement about the future. But I thought it was a forgone conclusion that these are all opinions.

 

[Terrell]

I just don't know how we went from discussing CGI in films today, to how Ben-Hur stood the test of time, and AOTC won't. I've never cared whether a film stands the test of time, or whether it wins awards. Just my enjoyment of it is what matters.

 

[RobertR]

The only way ANY film truly stands the test of time is with good storytelling fundamentals. Films that try to substitute FX (of any kind) for the storytelling will fade into "old hat". The example I like to use most often is The Day The Earth Stood Still. It's a classic, and is NOT spoken in terms of dazzling FX, simply because what FX it has serve a great story. Twenty years from now, the films that try to "get by" with just CGI to spark interest will seem dull, dull, dull, because the FX will look dated, leaving nothing of substance to be interested in.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, gee, forgive me for being brutally honest. If you want to get anal about semantics, then yeah I did make a statement about the future. But I thought it was a forgone conclusion that these are all opinions.

to have some value for a discussion about the impact of CGI of filmmaking, an opinion should have some basis. simply saying that future generations won't like AOTC as much as they like Ben-Hur, with no reasoning other than that it's your opinion, adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
DJ

 

[andreasingo]

I agree CGI is overused these days but I don't agree with this:

"Sure CGI effects require the talent and artistic capabilities of the people creating them, but it's a cold, impersonal art. "

I want to ask a question: In which way is CGI a "cold, inpersonal art"? CGI is a tool, just like the camera.

Your imagination, skill and what you make of it is what matters.

 

[Terrell]

Again, Damin is right. Storytelling lies with the filmmaker, not CGI Robert. If a film fails, don't blame the CGI. Blame the filmmaker.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Yes, a bad film is a bad film no matter what FX technique is used. I don't dissagree with that.

My feeling is that practical effects and real location shooting enhances an already-good film, giving it an organic flavor of authenticity which CGI lacks. It pushes a good film into great, awe-inspiring territory. Large scale productions will always inspire (providing the film is good), but does anyone really think that any of the great epics would be half as good using CGI?

That's the heart of my concern, really. That the real world is being pushed aside because of quicker, cheaper, faster.