Is CGI going to kill American Cinema (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

First of all, let's get a little more civil here.

"As for space based science fiction, Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's sci-fantasy."

Thank you. I think I already know that. In fact, I may have posted a time or two to that effect during my tenure here.

The references to Spartacus and Ben-Hur are valid: Those are epic films in which the grandeur and "cast-of-thousands" approach were taken to new heights, leaving film lovers enrichened as a result. The sheer pageantry of production dazzles.

Whereas the CGI-rendered robot armies of that last Star Wars thing looked like the digital detritus they are. Some of the effects are impressive, but the noise, the nonstop video game-like money shots (pod race anyone?), and the sheer computer-generated chutzpah of it all simply do not amount to great--or even good--cinema.

It's special effects for the sake of special effects (and profits).

As RobertR so eloquently said, if CGI tastefully enhance the story--or if CGI are required for it to exist in the first place--then use the technology.

Otherwise, there's still a lot to be said for optical effects, models, and sheer painstaking work.

Finally, standing the test of time is the hallmark of good art.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Damin, there is a basis for my opinion, that can be plainly seen in this very thread. I don't mean to speak for everyone but, clearly, lots of people don't like CGI.

Ben-Hur is an iconic representation of the Hollywood epic. It has ingrained itself into our culture. I think the scope of the production has a LOT to do with that. OTOH, I don't think the CGI monstrosities of today are going to have that staying power, because they simply aren't good. And CGI has a lot to do with that.*

*In my opinion

 

[Terrell]

Finally, standing the test of time is the hallmark of good art.

I agree! But that doesn't have a thing to do with CGI, which is a tool to make that art.

 

[Terrell]

OTOH, I don't think the CGI monstrosities of today are going to have that staying power, because they simply aren't good.

How can you say this when you haven't seen many of these films? I've seen many more suck films that didn't have a lick of CGI in them. CGI doesn't make a film bad. I guess I should skip AOTC, Spiderman, and many other films this summer because they can't possibly be any good because they have CGI in them.

 

[Todd Phillips]

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.

I have to agree with this, but I think it may change if CGI gets to the point where it is indistiguishable from real things. CGI currently gets in the way of my suspension of disbelief. It doesn't happen in an all-CGI film though, because there aren't the seams between real stuff and the graphics. And I don't always mean visible seams, but stuff like characters not moving with believable physics, or actors not responding to animated characters like I feel they should. (Qui-Gon always had a bit of a glassy look when talking to Jar Jar and Watto, like he didn't know where to focus his eyes).

When I look at the Clone Troopers clip, they really don't look real (even though the shot is a great one). I know in the back of my mind that they aren't real, and I am not stimulated in the way I would be if there had been thousands of extras running around a huge set.

Not that you could really do it that way. Perhaps CGI will improve in the future, that we will be unable to tell animation apart from real things. Perhaps, when we see the final film, it won't matter.

I love the look of Spartcus, LoA, Dr. Zhivago, etc., precisely because I know it's real and that I am seeing something special that took real effort to create. I love that the bridge in River Kwai was really built and really blown up! Now that is spectacle.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

CGI won't kill Hollywood.

Bad films will kill Hollywood.

The question is, does CGI automatically make a movie bad? I think not.

 

[Terrell]

What's funny Todd is I can post some pics, and most people here wouldn't be able to pic out some of the CGI in the scenes blended with with real things. I can't tell you how many people have misidentified CGI in some pics from the real thing, or perhaps a model.

The question is, does CGI automatically make a movie bad? I think not.

Scott seems to think so.
Ok, I'm done. All I can say is that those of you that don't like CGI are gonna have have a dull summer at the movies.

 

[Jack Briggs]

No, of course not, Jeffrey. But when they are used as a substitute for all the other things required for making good art, then they get in the way.

Again, the Spartacus and Ben-Hur comparisons work. Why? Because those two films look so good and so rich--and there's nary a byte in them. Quite frankly, Gladiator was not entirely convincing.

Now, let's get these points across without being so argumentative.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Terrell, it's seems like you think only in terms of good/bad. Yeah, it's possible for a film made with CGI to be good. I'm looking at the bigger picture, however; that CGI is lessening the impact these films have on us. I'm talking about the impact films have on us in a visceral, almost primal level. People can tell the difference, even if it's on a subconcious level.

 

[Todd Phillips]

Hey Terrell,
Don't get me wrong. I am very much looking forward to AOTC. I was just trying to express the advantages of "real things". There are some great shots in the AOTC trailers that are computer generated...Coruscant at night for example. Even the obviously animated things are still necessary to tell the story.
The technical flaws in a movie are easy to overlook if the story is told well (look at the legion of Dr. Who fans). Here's to a well told story, come May.

 

[Scott Calvert]

I'm gonna make an extreme example, if only to get my point across.

Schindler's List. What if Spielberg wanted to go the cheaper-faster-easier route, and decided to make the Jewish ghetto a CG set, complete with thousands of CG extras. What if he didn't really want to go to locations in Poland and Germany to film in real death camps? It would be easier to create CGI sets and film extras against a blue screen.

If you think these are horrible ideas, then you are admitting that real, physical locations and actors give you something that CGI never can: authenticity.

 

[Edwin-S]

Quite frankly, Gladiator was not entirely convincing.

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

I'm curious do you think it would have been possible to show the scope that "Gladiator" did without CGI....using regular FX techniques? I don't but say it could be done, what would it have cost in relation to using CG generated backgrounds? For that matter, if "Ben Hur" was being made today exactly as it was made in the fifties, just how much would it cost given today's stars astronomical salaries....$200,000,000 or 3 or what. I do not believe if "Ben Hur" was being filmed today that any studio could afford to make it the way it was done in the fifties.

And regardless of just how well the FX team did the Roman Galley battle scenes...they still looked fake, no better than some CG effects do now.

 

[RobertR]

do not believe if "Ben Hur" was being filmed today that any studio could afford to make it the way it was done in the fifties.

If money really is an issue (quite honestly, I still question this, given the success of Titanic and the overinflated salaries of major stars), then perhaps people need to adopt the philosophy that a friend of mine who is a classical music lover expressed when I talked to her about why no one writes symphonies in the style of Beethoven anymore: Because the pinnacle of such a work of art was already reached. It CANNOT be surpassed. Neither can the historical epic. Here's an idea that most of Hollywood seems loathe or unable to do: Come up with something creative and innovative, instead of trying to mimic the past.

 

[Chad R]

You know, it's funny. At one time, a great deal of people thought that matching sound to a movie would be the death of film. The art of film would go away because you no longer had to tell the story with just images, you could just ome out and say what you meant.

And not too long after that color would ruin movies.

Surround sound was just a gimmick.

And although I've never read anything to its effect, I'm sure there were people that were terrified by Snow White, why pay for an actor when you can draw them?

CGI is a tool. As has been said it's the creativity that goes into it tha tcounts. Ben Hur and Spartacus endure because they're good stories, excellently presented.

And another thing that bugs me is people saying that CGI looks fake, and that the old way of doing it was just fine. I have always been able to spot a matte shot, a miniature, etc. CGI just does it differently. Both ways look like effects to me.

CGI just looks different than what you are used to, its not necessarily worse (or better) just because a computer did it.

 

[ozar]

Another good comparison would be that of the 1963 version of Cleopatra (with 'Liz Taylor) vs. Gladiator.

The set in the older movie simply blows away that of Gladiator. I do believe, however, that CGI will improve to a point that we can all live with it.

 

[Calgary Goldsmith]

I remember in an interview Steven Spielberg saying that if Lawrence of Arabia was made today, it would cost $200 million. I'm not sure if he ment with cgi or not. Could you imagine making Lawrence of Arabia with cgi Arabs and camels? It sure would take away from the magic of those long shots like the taking of Aqaba.

 

[Ash Williams]

I am all for CGI in films, if the technology is there, then use it. I am almost positive that if the filmakers of classic films like Ben-Hur and Spartacus had access to computer technoloy of today, they would have used it. Mainly to cut production costs and to do things that are just not possible to make real looking without it. It all boils down to how entertaining the film is when it's all said and done. I'm not the type of person that watches movies based on thier artistic merit, if I did I wouldn't get near as much fun out of it. I do feel though that movies like Ben-Hur probably have more of the filmakers passion in them then the movies of today, simply because they were a lot harder to make. As for films like Attack of the Clones not standing the test of time, well, Star Wars has been around for more than 20 years and has HUGE and ever growing fanbase, so yeah, I think it is a safe bet to say it will stand the test of time.

 

[RobertR]

And the blowing up of the train and the attack on Aqabba were not matte shots or miniatures. They were real, full size objects and real people.

 

[Chad R]

And the blowing up of the train and the attack on Aqabba were not matte shots or miniatures. They were real, full size objects and real people.

And expensive and dangerous, emphasis on dangerous.

Here's a nice example of good CGI. In T2 when Arnie drives the bike off the overhang into the canal. That bike had lots of safety cables attached to it which were erased. This technique allowed a real person to do the stunt with minimal danger.

 

[Richard Kim]

Funny, then, that the most realistic-looking space-based film is still one that was made long before the era of CGI.

And funny then, that the director of that film delayed production of another sci-fi film, specifically so that CGI technology was advanced enough to allow him to put his vision on the screen. (Okay, so he died and ended being directed by someone else. )