Is CGI ruining your movie going experience?

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Tyler Gagnon, May 22, 2003.

  1. Tyler Gagnon

    Tyler Gagnon Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if this is the right place for this, if not please move it.

    In the last few years i have become more reluctant to go to the movies for fear that cgi will ruin it for me, Well it has..Spiderman could have been a better movie imo me if cgi were not used, It made the fighting scenes look fake and cartoonish, Same for The last 2 Star Wars films, And i afriad that the hulk will suffer the same fate, I just looks really cheesey when someting that big and heavy moves like it is weightless, Although i must say that lord of the rings is the best use of cgi i have seen yet.Imagine if Superman were made today how much cgi they would have used to make superman fly ect. Or jaws for that matter.

    Just wondering what the rest of you think?
     
  2. Matt Stone

    Matt Stone Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2000
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In Spiderman, the CG was bad but didn't get to me. The last time I remember being really pissed about the CG was Blade 2. I've since loosened up to it after watching a few more times...but that video game CG drives me nuts.

     
  3. Edwin Pereyra

    Edwin Pereyra Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1998
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. Tyler Gagnon

    Tyler Gagnon Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said the same thing about a scene i saw for The Matrix reloaded, It looks like a video game.
     
  5. Stephen Orr

    Stephen Orr Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    Naw, doesn't bother me.

    It took me a while to get over sound and color, though...[​IMG]
     
  6. Adam_S

    Adam_S Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    116
    Real Name:
    Adam_S
    NO

    Honestly, I don't care, and I rarely notice. I saw SpiderMan twice, and I never noticed any problems with the CGI, maybe I"m just not sophisticated enough, but it looked fine to me and the 80 million other people that seemed to enjoy it (just guessing on number of people that saw it). I suppose if I set the dvd on slomo I could pick out effects problems, but then my movie going experience would be ruined because I WOULDNT BE WATCHING THE MOVIE, just the effects.

    That's not in an antagonizing tone btw, I'm not trying to be mean. :b

    Seriously, from the thirties (maybe earlier, someone will correct me :b) onward animation has been used as special effects in films. I don't let the metamorphosis of the snakes in _The Ten Commandments_ bother me, why should computer animation bother me? Is the movie going experience of hundreds (probably thousands when you count stop motion and other special effects) of classic films ruined for you because they use animation? Why is CGI so special that it is signaled out as an inferior tool that somehow destroys your very enjoyment of a movie just by its presence and nature?

    and I don't get the comment about Jaws and Superman, those were done with the best effects at the time, puppetry and special camera rigs. Today films still use those tools to achieve the same effects but use a mixture of CGI and 'real' effects (just like the staff to snake in Ten Commandments), Lord of the Rings is a prime example, but the new STar Wars is the perfect counter example, though. Spiderman was a mixture of reallife stuntmen, actors, and CGI, Matrix Reloaded, has a man who can fly, and I'm sure there's a healthy combination of 'real' footage and CGI in the flying elements. And is the choreography of the Burly Brawl meaningless because some obvious CGI is used in the 360 shot of dogpile explosion or the bo-staff section of the fight? Should we ignore the half dozen steady cam shots where Neo does some thirty or more moves in very quick (very real) succession?

    Adam
     
  7. Scott McGillivray

    Scott McGillivray Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 1999
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am one who also thinks that a large majority of the current CGI effects are just not of a high enough quality. I think that most CGI characters do indeed look weightless. Odd that one of the grand-daddy CGI films, "Jurrasic Park" had some of the better effects, even by todays standards. That T-Rex really did look big and heavy. This, compared to the poor, lifeless and weightless animations of many charcters in Star Wars, The Matrix:Reloaded and others. I really miss the old days of "real" special effects. Movies like "The Thing" or "An American Werewolf in London" would not have the same impact if they were made today with CGI.

    Could the use of props/gunk/puppets etc. as an effect be fast becoming a lost art?
     
  8. Galvin

    Galvin Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    When they use CGI say for fight scenes are they even using a physics engine or doing the physics by hand?
     
  9. Troy_M

    Troy_M Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must say....I am tired of people complaining about CG ruining movies for them. There are some movies where the CG is integrated seamlessly and others where the CG is obvious as day. How many hi-tech,CG-filled movies are out there that don't have some obvious CG work? Even the amazing Jurassic Parks have some CG that is plain as day. Here is my take....We all know that we are almost at the point where CG will blend seamlessly into our movies(big budget movies for now).Would you rather that the writers and directors just limit their imagination and vision and sacrifice vision for realism? Be patient, the time is almost upon us when visual effects will blend seamlessly.

    People seem to be so focused on CG that they forget about the story in the movies. Take the Matrix Reloaded for example, I can't remember the last time a big movie like this came out and 75% of the complaints about it were about the CG. Gimme a break! Did any of these complainers actually go into the movie for the continuing epic, or did they go in to see how bad the special effects were? I can understand complaints when a movie is made and a story is slapped on top of a special effects smorgasbord, that is bad film making and story telling in my opinion; but when the inverse is true...just sit back and appreciate the special effects effort. It is obvious that in our big budget Hollywood epics, the best of the best are hired to do the special effects. Do you CG complainers think that these guys are not giving these special effects their best work? I believe they are giving it all they have and getting paid big bucks to make it look as 'real' as possible. I tell you what, all those who complain about these movies...just go watch the National Geographic channel or either make us some better special effects.
     
  10. JeffLl

    JeffLl Agent

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    17,327
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Yes and know. I find pure CG fight scenes to be boring compared to far less complex practicals.

    That said, I don't see how you could say that Spider-Man would have been a better film without CG... it couldn't have existed without CG.
     
  12. derek

    derek Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1998
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that I'm planning to see it...but have you seen the crappy CGI in the '2 Fast 2 Furious' commerical? I cannot believe they'd use garbage like that in a released film or why its even necessary within this genre type (except of a few specific scenes.)
     
  13. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Executive Producer

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. Greg_C_T

    Greg_C_T Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    0
    CG isn't ruining my experience, but I am sad that I can't just assume things I see on the screen are actual locations or sets anymore.

    "Oh, we need a mountain/building/waterfall/highway here? We'll just add it in later!"

    It's hard to say "what a beautiful location/setup" when you don't know if what you're seeing is real of CG.
     
  15. Marvin Richardson

    Marvin Richardson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 1999
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CGI in The Matrix Reloaded did not detract from the movie at all for me. Yes, it was cartoonish. Yes, it was "unrealistic" (whatever the heck that means). The thing is, I didn't give a damn. I was too busy enjoying a fun, thought-provoking movie to care about that. Same deal with Spider-Man. In both cases, I don't think that the perceived poor quality of the CGI is due in any way to lack of talent, skill, motivation or desire, but rather taking on a little too much. CGI with people, whether you place a real person on a CGI object, or create a CGI person, does not and cannot look real with current technology, at least not in a well lit dynamic scene involving lots of movement.
    Some movies on the other hand, when all they have going for them is CGI (like the last two Star Wars movies...just my opinion) I do care what the CGI looks like, and the bad CGI gets on my nerves then.
     
  16. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,957
    Likes Received:
    513
     
  18. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm on the fence with this one.

    someone mentioned the effects in the thing and an american werewolf in london? now THAT'S some cool effects. there's just something really "nifty" about old-school effects. maybe it's the sweat that goes into making those types of effects work. even simple things like car chase scenes or explosions just look better when you know it's real stuff that's getting crunched or blown up.

    i sorta feel that current cgi is "cold". especially when it's not well done it really does distract me. i can certainly get over it and move on, but it does make me blip-out for a second.

    but i admit cgi is getting better all the time. cgi characters like gollum, gimby (or whatever that thing was called from harry potter)are good examples. and i agree that the dinosaurs from jp are just awesome - to this day i am still amazed everytime i watch the raptor scene when they're in the kitchen.

    so, clearly it still requires strong talent to pull off cgi.
     
  19. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,644
    Likes Received:
    105
    The trick to getting around problems with watching extraneous CGI use in films is to either realize that there's probably a LOT more CGI than you notice (and there really is) or to think "well would it really have been better if they used another method?" Looking back at films like Jaws and even the first Matrix, a lot of things just look fake. Even in the first Star Wars trilogy. I'd rather have CGI characters that have physics that look realistic (such as the punches in Matrix Reloaded at some points) than have extraneous use of puppets, robots, machines, and strings that look too much like what they actually are.

    In The Matrix Reloaded, I looked at the one scene with the 100 Agent Smiths as "a very cool idea, regardless of the amount of CGI" and that made it easier to watch. Then again, I could care less about the existence or absence of CGI.
     
  20. david stark

    david stark Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    well yes and no. I do think that cgi should be a last resort for film makers because it doesn't fully integrate yet (by this I mean cgi characters and scenes, not just removing wires from scenes). I have been a bit dissapointed with a few films (Spiderman, matrix reloaded as a couple of examples) that I have really enjoyed, but I do think could have been done better with a little less CGI. Not no CGI, but using a bit more live action.

    The one recent film that I thought really suffered was blade 2, one scene (with the 2 ninjas fighting blade near the beginning) looked like it was taken straight from street fighter. Possibly the worst use of cgi was the fast and the furious, I couldn't stop laughing during the car chases.

    For me using car chases as an example the chases in ronin and the bourne identity were actually done without special effects and becasue of that are far better than any cgi offering.
     

Share This Page