How do you feel about CGI and why?

[HLS]

How do you feel on this subject. I am just curious.

[Danny]

not a fan at all, it just means the work of great effects guys in the film industry like the henson studios and the like are haveing there dreams being dashed and left to waste since its cheaper and faster to make a less convinging creature that looks like its been laminated.:rolleyes:

[axlish]

CGI is great, but should never be used as a crutch.

Oh, Hellsing...

"What're ya buyin'? What're ya sellin'?"

[EvilNed]

Depends on what it's used for. For instance, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars film are prime examples of how to ruin a film and make it look like one big CGI fest.

Troy, a film in similar vein as LOTR, used CGI much less and it looks a hell of alot better.

Starship Troopers used as many practical effects as possible and it looks a hell of alot better than the new Star Wars films.

CGI actually looks damn good when used right and when used sparingly. When it is overused it looks cheap, flat and cartoony.

That's not saying I'm totally against all cgi films such as Sky Captain, Sin City and 300. With CGI you can create all new styles. But these experiments will only remain visually cool if they are few and far between.

[Danny]

Oh, Hellsing...

"What're ya buyin'? What're ya sellin'?"


...things.... some are rare...

[MinionZombie]

CGI is great, it's been a massively useful tool, but it mustn't be overused, or used if you can't afford good CGI (*ahem* Deep Rising, as much as I love that movie, the monster looks like a complete load of bollocks rolling around in a dodgy CGI sack *ahem*).

As a LOTR fan, CGI was used exactly right in those films - you could never do those films practically, not in a million years, and make it look good.

Land of the Dead - while the odd bit of CGI (e.g. the blood) is either unnecessary or a bit dodgy (but understandable considering the budget and shooting time constraints) - the use of CGI in that flick is surprisingly extensive, and for the most part used spot on - filling in the gaps and so on, the shot of Riley and Charlie exiting the subway is superb - and all CGI (except for the actors).

While the coming of CGI has brought hindrences, it's brought more good than bad, and interestingly, it's inspired a backlash of people wanting to do as much as practically as possible (e.g. (among many others) Casino Royale).

[HLS]

CGI is great, it's been a massively useful tool, but it mustn't be overused, or used if you can't afford good CGI (*ahem* Deep Rising, as much as I love that movie, the monster looks like a complete load of bollocks rolling around in a dodgy CGI sack *ahem*).

As a LOTR fan, CGI was used exactly right in those films - you could never do those films practically, not in a million years, and make it look good.

Land of the Dead - while the odd bit of CGI (e.g. the blood) is either unnecessary or a bit dodgy (but understandable considering the budget and shooting time constraints) - the use of CGI in that flick is surprisingly extensive, and for the most part used spot on - filling in the gaps and so on, the shot of Riley and Charlie exiting the subway is superb - and all CGI (except for the actors).

While the coming of CGI has brought hindrences, it's brought more good than bad, and interestingly, it's inspired a backlash of people wanting to do as much as practically as possible (e.g. (among many others) Casino Royale).

I agree with lord of the rings. I do not think it could have been pulled off without CGI

[MinionZombie]

And that's the key - validity of use - as well as "can we pull it off properly?" ... ... mind you, there's some rather dodgy special effects that aren't CGI, just look at the Matte work on Escape From L.A. ... rather ropey. :rockbrow:

It's whatever effect suits the subject matter best, in the case of horror films, a practical effect is what's best. You can tell if it's really there, the effect has physical presence, it appears to have weight, density, even an odour. The actors react to exactly what they're seeing, the light falls on it exactly right, the gore drips on/off it exactly right - the random nature of life itself, you can tell a computer to show a curtain blowing in the wind, but it'll never look as real as a real curtain blowing in real wind, it looks pre-planned in CGI, but in real life it looks randomly determined.

[HLS]

And that's the key - validity of use - as well as "can we pull it off properly?" ... ... mind you, there's some rather dodgy special effects that aren't CGI, just look at the Matte work on Escape From L.A. ... rather ropey. :rockbrow:

It's whatever effect suits the subject matter best, in the case of horror films, a practical effect is what's best. You can tell if it's really there, the effect has physical presence, it appears to have weight, density, even an odour. The actors react to exactly what they're seeing, the light falls on it exactly right, the gore drips on/off it exactly right - the random nature of life itself, you can tell a computer to show a curtain blowing in the wind, but it'll never look as real as a real curtain blowing in real wind, it looks pre-planned in CGI, but in real life it looks randomly determined.

I agree with you buddy. It should be used where its pratical. Too much cgi ruins the movie. Like your curtain example. You want a movie to look real and convincing. Too much cgi adds obvious fakeness to a movie.

[Tricky]

When its done well it can be very good (like lord of the rings,or "we were soldiers" during the broken arrow sequence,i honestly thought they'd used real planes for that until i watched the extras,thats how good it was :cool: )
But what you see in about 80% of films its used in is that unnatural looking cartoon like stuff which i cant stand,and the camera always has to fly all over at mad angles during those CGI bits which does my nut in!It certainly has its purpose but it has to be done well and be so convincing you really cant tell that its CGI,its the only way :)

[axlish]

I think the CGI used on zombies in Land was mostly atrocious, with the exception being the zombie multiplying in the water shots, and the overhead shots showing mass zombies. The CGI used on the landscapes was very well done.

As awesome as the CGI was in the LOTR Trilogy, some scenes still bothered me, such as the Wargs, and some scenes involving black dragons.

[HLS]

they could have done better with the dragons. they looked more like snakes wirth wings than a dragon. the flight looked simulated

Have you seen Dragonslayer? Awesome dragon and i do not think they even had cgi when it was made.

[Terran]

Dragon Slayer OWNS!

[axlish]

I saw Dragon Slayer in the theatre and it totally went over my head (I was very young)

[capncnut]

This old chesnut again. I voted for the 'depends' option. Works well in some, works crap in others, it's all good I guess. I do get annoyed with it's overuse though.

[Danny]

^ cas eni point the phantom menace:rolleyes:

[capncnut]

And Lord of the Ringpieces. :D

[MinionZombie]

The problem with the new Star Wars is that it's all too flashy, it's like an ADD-sufferers wet dream, it's too busy and over the top and 99% of it is friggin' blue screened, even half the actors aren't real!

And add to the fact that the new ones don't have the original's heart or souls, then you've got a pretty hollow set of films...

[capncnut]

Not to mention that the storyline was deeply conflicted with the original three and just bollocks in general.

[MinionZombie]

Not to mention that the storyline was deeply conflicted with the original three and just bollocks in general.
Yes indeedy-do.

And it ended up changing the originals to match the new ones - like sliding in that Hayden bloke instead of the original geezer at the end of ROTJ, now surely that's massive disrespect to the original actor who did a far better job.

Also, in this media savvy world where kids are incredibly "up" on all things media, surely they'd be able to tell the originals are just that, the originals - they came first, therefore they're going to be different, ARGH!

[bassman]

Works in some, not so much in others. Depends on how it's used. Two examples from each side....

"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" - great

"Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" - WTF?

[MinionZombie]

Speaking of T2, I still maintain that the CGI used in that is epic, some has gotten a bit rusty now, but it's still astonishingly good - perfect use of CGI, I certainly look forward to seeing what The Cam-Man does with it in Avatar.

[bassman]

Speaking of T2, I still maintain that the CGI used in that is epic, some has gotten a bit rusty now, but it's still astonishingly good - perfect use of CGI, I certainly look forward to seeing what The Cam-Man does with it in Avatar.

I always wondered how pissed off the people at ILM must have been with Cameron. I've never seen any documentaries on "T2", but I've heard that he's an asshole to work with and being that the CGI is so perfect in "T2", I'm sure he bugged the sh*t out of those guys until it was EXACTLY what he wanted.

[Cykotic]

When it comes to projects like Sin City and 300, I think that CGI can make a good film great... however, the CGI needs to be balanced out with good acting, writing and directing.

It would explain why Final Fantasy: The spirits Within sucks so very much

[EvilNed]

The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing. I'd like to add those to my LOTRSTARWARS suckbag of CGI overuse.

If you've ever seen any of them, you'll know why. Especially Van Helsing. There's so much CGI in there that when you see something real you get shocked and think it looks out of place.

[axlish]

I thought that the CGI was weak in Star Wars episodes II and III until I saw them in HD. To be fair, see it in the format that it was shot in before you make your final opinion. I couldn't believe how much better it looked than the DVD.

[MinionZombie]

Ah but with Star Wars it's not just the look, it's the use of the CGI and a load of blah blah blah, stuff that's already been mentioned in this thread previously. :D

Yes, I'm lazy now today, struggling against the chuff-faced arrogance and hypocrisy of a friend's insistence that mankind has doomed itself from CO2, linking me to a video which (after he called The Great Global Warming Swindle "propaganda" by the oil companies - therefore ignoring what those involved said themselves, that they are not affiliated with them) basically says naysayers are Republican, Fox News watching lunatics with vastly sweeping statements like "it's been proven", "everyone believes it" as well as trusting so-called research the Labour gubment conducted - the same gubment who couldn't commit to their own targets concerning the issue.

Anyway, that got me all pissed off and tired out, so I'm lazy ... but I guess that's kinda ironic considering my long-winded explanation...

[Minerva_Zombi]

A good example of how CGI pisses me off and bugs the **** out of me is The Devil's Rejects. Its a great movie, but the blood is so CGI'd, that its kind of destracting. Now, I know Rob Zombie could dish out a few bucks for some decent make up effects for the things like the the knife in the heart. Plus, the CGI in Land was realy annoying. Especially the obvious CGI blood that shot out with every bullet hit.

Plus, anyone see some of the CGI in the ****ty Sci-Fi original movies? lol. Its freaking hilarious.

But, CGI is good when used correctly (Forrest Gump, T2, etc). I can go on forever about my anger towards CGI, it really ruins perfectly good movies when used WAY TOO MUCH!!!

[bassman]

I thought the CGI used in "The Devil's Rejects" was quite effective. It didn't seem to stand out all that much. With "Land"....yeah...there are some bad uses of CGI. The CG in "TDR" never bothered me, though....

Something that just occured to me....sometimes it's okay for CGI to really stand out in live action films. For instance, Bill Nighy as a CG Davey Jones in "Dead Man's Chest" was friggin awesome. You know it's CG, but it's so impressive that you really don't mind.

[Tricky]

I forgot T2,CGI was in its infancy then,yet on the whole it looks so much better than todays efforts despite todays technology being light years ahead of T2!The only dodgy bit that stands out for me is when the T-1000 is in the walking shiny shop dummy form,and he's walking like he's shat himself :lol:

[bassman]

The only dodgy bit that stands out for me is when the T-1000 is in the walking shiny shop dummy form,and he's walking like he's shat himself :lol:


I thought the CG T-1000 walked exactly like Robert Patrick.:confused:

(Hrmm.....after checking IMDB for that dude's name, I found out that he's the brother of Richard Patrick, the former NIN guitarist, singer of Filter, and singer of Army of Anyone. Imdb sure does teach ya useless sh*t, doesn't it?)

[coma]

I thought the CG T-1000 walked exactly like Robert Patrick.:confused:

He did, probably because they rotoscoped it.


I forgot T2,CGI was in its infancy then,yet on the whole it looks so much better than todays efforts despite todays technology being light years ahead of T2!
There may have been earlier examples but that was the first one I was aware of. I think it's pretty much perfect.
All SFX have moments of imperfection, if you can only pick a couple of small things they did a good job.

Also CGI allows one to make films that just would never get made without it. LOTR wouldn't have been made without CGI.

Star Wars sucks not because of CGI but because od truly bad writing and truly bad taste. If the writing was at the level of the original trilogy and the same good taste no one would be complaining.

Movies like 300 bother me because every single thing is generated and artificial. The colors, shadow, everything is totally fake and I find that extremely distracting. Its not a space movie, its about Earth. And being I am familiar with Earth I know what it's supposed to look like.

Blood CGI is lame. You can always tell the difference . I think it's just laziness. Alot of CGI use is anal retentive geeks using it when they can like a kid with a new toy, they dont care if it's appropriate becasue they lack taste.

[MinionZombie]

The Abyss - that had a CGI water thingy in it, not sure if there was any CGI prior to that...

[EvilNed]

Tron.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Didn't ghostbusters use a little CGI for some stuff. I mean nothing like we have today, but some of that was CG. Also lets not forget even in 1977 Star Wars was shot against Green Screens.

[bassman]

Nah, I think "Ghostbusters" was all done the old school way. At least, I don't remember seeing anything about them using CGI and I've read through "Making Ghostbusters" several times.(by the way, see if you can find that book on Ebay. It covers just about every aspect of the creation of the film. It's also a valuable collector's item. Cool stuff.)

[7feet]

Deej- Star Wars was blue screen, worked better on film, as that was all strictly old choll optical printing. No computers whatsoever. The only computers used in the FX were the old first of the line PCs, probably running at about 4 MHz, on the motion control cameras. Green screen was just for TV news backgrounds and such at the time, and even that was an analog video process. Pretty much the same deal for Ghostbusters.

I'm really torn about CGI. It can look great in the right hands, under the right circumstances. But a lot of films are going to age really badly.

I bloody hate it for the fact that it's killed vast swaths of my possibilities for doing cool work. In the 80's and early 90's I got to do a lot of pretty cool makeup FX and animatronic work for films, TV, commercials. These days, 99% of the potential work is automatically CGI. At least in NY, there isn't really any major FX shops. What's left is almost all in LA, and since I can't tolerate that town, from my own selfish little POV I think it sucks a big sloppy knob. It's progress, I know, everything changes. But it seems to be the lazy solution for most producers, and mad cheap too. Why pay someone who spent years honing their skills when you can hire an intern with 6 months of experience on their bootleg copy of 3DS Max to bust it out for a pittance. Yeah sure, theres a wee bit o' bitterness there, but whatever, theres no going back.

That said, computers are a straight up boon to a lot of areas of makin' movies. Never again having to use a badly maintained Steenbeck to edit is fine by me. Same for digital compositing, you can do stuff in 5 minutes that would take you weeks on an optical printer. It's just the massive, gratuitous use of CGI that sticks in my craw.

[DVW5150]

I couldnt tell there was CGI blood in Land , only after hearing the commentary by GAR . I thought the blood spatters were a good addition myself . They added a wound to Darios daughter after she had gotten scathed . But I appreciate 7feets POV ... Jabba the Donut looked sooo bloody lousy talking to Han in the (re)damaging of Star Wars . Also , Lucas released a new version of THX-1138 , added some GCI and ruined it ! MY God there is nothing sacred ... BTW , I love rotoscope ... Scanner Darkly . They might as well GCI "Logans Run" ... my God , whats happened to practical effects?

[DjfunkmasterG]

like 7 feet said why should they pay him $10K when they could get it for $1K.

However, 7 feet, you know you will always have a job in the cheapo indie community. Those of us prefer the real thing. We only use CG for small stuff like muzzle flash.

[coma]

We only use CG for small stuff like muzzle flash.
which is awesome cause you can go Guerilla style with Fake guns and no premits/Insurance. Just dont get shot by cops who are unaware:)

[Danny]

now i dont know about you but the yoda puppet form empire looks way more realistic than that modly haggis in a bathrobe from episode 2:barf:

[coma]

now i dont know about you but the yoda puppet form empire looks way more realistic than that modly haggis in a bathrobe from episode 2:barf:
I Loves me a puppet!
I say throw the prequels in the goddamn toilet and just pretend they dont exist.

[capncnut]

God wasn't Attack of the Clones just the most mindnumbingly boring load of old pigs bollocks that you've ever seen? Who the hell gave Haydn Christensen the job man?

"Lousy acting is ruining saga." :lol:

[7feet]

Hehe, he said 10 grand... Yeah, if it wasn't for indies I probably wouldn't get my fix of blowin' sh*t up real good. And in a lot of cases (like if I think the project would actually turn out good and be seen), I'd probably go for what some of the CGI folks would charge, and give 'em something with 8 pounds of solid brass balls just to get my fix. Then I have to go back to whorin', but as long as I get to do some mad cool stuff on occasion, I'm all right with it.

With Yoda, it wasn't just the puppet (which was well done), it was the puppeteer. Frank Oz is great, and there's a big difference between a master puppeteer behind the gear and a mathematical transformations on a motion captured human form.

An example of using old school techniques to give CGI some life is Phil Tippet. He did the stop motion on Star Wars and Empire. When he started doing CGI, one of their primary ways of getting the characters to move was to build the equivalent of stop motion armatures with digital encoders at all the joints, and have really good stop motion animators come in and animate the movement they gave to the CGI. Killed the sterility you can often find in computer animated movement.

[MinionZombie]

Aye I don't remember hearing anything about GB being CG, all old school style. :cool:

And while the effects are dated today (while some are still pretty nifty), it's the spirit, acting, story and over all greatness of the film that brings that now-a-bit-dodgy special effects to life and allow you to still believe in them.

Mind you, some cretinous young'uns would probably just call it "gay" and piss off to play a game wildly too violent for their single digit age range...