Over Use of CGI in Film?

Elmo

I just think CGI has gone into over load, And there not getting away with it. It's currently not at the stage that it should be to be used so much.

IMO film like Spiderman, I Robot and the last two matrics films will date because of it.

Rew

Elmo wrote:

I just think CGI has gone into over load, And there not getting away with it. It's currently not at the stage that it should be to be used so much.

IMO film like Spiderman, I Robot and the last two matrics films will date because of it.

You have a problem when the CG is more important then the plot. CG is terrible in spiderman and very good in I, Robot. Makes you wonder how long till they replace the actors all together...

BlitzKrieg

here we go again...

Rew

BlitzKrieg wrote:

here we go again...

You say that like im supposed to know what your talking about...

pat kenny

He means this topic has been done to death , but feel free to discuss it at your leisure.

Fuhrio

I think the Cg has to be done with balance.

The matrix needed all the CG it had.

I robot looks like theres a little too much, but it still looks good, i havent seen it.



But think of it this way, with no CG we woulnt have Gollum.

Tusky

watch the Thing !!!

RicardoSmith

Personally I think Spiderman looked terrible. The Hulk was also v.bad. Mind you it was chronic regardless of the CGI.

Shrimp

CG is needed, it opens more possibilities to the director. It lets the director take impossible shots, do dangerous scenes that even a stunt man couldn't. It's a good thing, but I can acknowledge that it may take away from the good old acting, The Great Escape.... etc.

mycroft

the last two matrics (sic) films will date because of it.

I spent the whole of the finale of Matrix revolutions (the robot attack on the dock) just staring at the screen going "there is nothing on screen that isn't computer generated, how on eath am I supposed to care about this"

RicardoSmith

mycroft wrote:

I spent the whole of the finale of Matrix revolutions (the robot attack on the dock) just staring at the screen going "there is nothing on screen that isn't computer generated, how on eath am I supposed to care about this"

In fairness that movie went a bit OTT towards the end. I thought the dock sequence was ok myself.

lodgepole

mycroft wrote:

I spent the whole of the finale of Matrix revolutions (the robot attack on the dock) just staring at the screen going "there is nothing on screen that isn't computer generated, how on eath am I supposed to care about this"

Does that go for all special effects or just computer generated ones? Does it count for animation? I don't see why something being artificial should make you care less for it.

Twistedlilkitty

CGI it makes you miss those dinosaur films where it was either a bloke in a suit, or someones pet iguana painted running through a miniture set....

ixoy

Lodgepole wrote:

Does that go for all special effects or just computer generated ones? Does it count for animation? I don't see why something being artificial should make you care less for it.

Fair point. CG isn't to blame for us not caring often about the Matrix sequels - it was the fact that the Wachowskis delivered a woeful, poncy script. However, CG seems to be used as an excuse not to bother with the script - take a look at Van Helsing. They tried to wow people over with all their computer generated fare and hope they'd be obivious to the fact that nothing else was there.
On a lesser note, CG can detract from being immersed in the reality of a movie. If everything looks real and suddenly this cartoonishly animated person/alien appears, your eye instinctively notes that it's out of place. Certainly we're clue in, on a natural level, about how humans are supposed to move. The Green Goblin, spinning about the place, doesn't match any of this. We're alerted and kicked out of the movie momentarily. We can't fully get into the flow, believe in the world created, if it's suddenly being rammed home just how artifical it is. That's one of the big problems with CG in non-animated fare: it's removing us from the movie experience.

RicardoSmith

People have to remember that movies like The Thin Red Line, Enemy at the Gate, and the series Band of Brothers also use CGI heavily. Then you have stuff like the first Matrix movie, Terminator 2, ToyStory, Shriek etc. Basically CGI on its own doesn't tell a story. You need characters, plot, decent dialog etc. Only when everything comes together is it successful.

mycroft

People have to remember that movies like The Thin Red Line, Enemy at the Gate, and the series Band of Brothers also use CGI heavily.

I got a tour of goldcrest where they generated all the CGI for Band of Brothers brillantly subtle CGI, such as y'know adding the odd alp to a scene supposely in Austria but shot in Suffolk, or "this shot is action filled enough" okay add a spray of bullets and the odd explosion. Subtle intelligent CGI.

Does that go for all special effects or just computer generated ones? Does it count for animation? I don't see why something being artificial should make you care less for it.

Well everything's artifical in cinema.And I'm not some weird gore hound pausing Ben Hur's chariot race to see where the dude died. But there's an element of OTT, where you're just looking at the screen and going, nothing being projected did not start life on a computer.

Does this mean I didn't like shrek. Nope. Love it.

It's just I'm supposed to cowed and wowed by epic special effects, and my opinion is "look just cause you're throwing money at the screen doesn't mean that I'm going to care"

Stark

I'm amazed people are talking about overuse of CGI and not mentioning the Star Wars prequels

mycroft

I'm amazed people are talking about overuse of CGI and not mentioning the Star Wars prequels

Someo should have just dragged Lucas out of the room in Lucas film "just because you can do it George doesn't mean you should do it"

"George step away from the graphics suite, someone could get hurt, just give me the mouse George, be cool"

RicardoSmith

mycroft wrote:

Someo should have just dragged Lucas out of the room in Lucas film "just because you can do it George doesn't mean you should do it"

"George step away from the graphics suite, someone could get hurt, just give me the mouse George, be cool"

LOL. Definately.

projectmayhem

i think part of the point of the matrix films and cgi was to show people how it should be done. they wont date as fast as other films will because their budget was extrodinarily huge and their work will stand up against most others for a good few years now.

as for i,robot.. it was a bit over-used, but they couldn't do it any other way really. i agree with the spiderman comments though... toby maguire could have easily swung around on a green screen set and then be pasted into a real shot of NY. the first spiderman looks dated already because the cgi is so obvious. someone mentioned the hulk.. that looked dated when they released the teaser trailers.

as for star wars... well, lucas really doesn't know when to stop.

ObeyGiant

ixoy wrote:

Fair point. CG isn't to blame for us not caring often about the Matrix sequels - it was the fact that the Wachowskis delivered a woeful, poncy script.

For real. Watching some guys shoot a roof for an hour isn't going to make you care too much, regardless of whether it's CG or real-life.

smoke.me.a.kipper

cgi is only good when you dont know it was there.

ObeyGiant

smoke-me-a-kipper wrote:

cgi is only good when you dont know it was there.

But that's true of all special effects, not just CGI.

mycroft

cgi is only good when you dont know it was there.

Or the story/plot/action is so engrossing that you just don't notice.

Thats true of most technical departments, if you're watching a film thinking "oh nice lighting" "or interesting camera work" or "that was well edited", "or oh cool set" then you're not paying attention to the story.

Elmo

i think part of the point of the matrix films and cgi was to show people how it should be done. they wont date as fast as other films will because their budget was extrodinarily huge and their work will stand up against most others for a good few years now.

I don't know, the First Matrix Movie was well written, it even allowed you think Keanu Reeves was a good a for 2hrs or so.

But the next Matrix movie was just CGI fight scene after CGI fight scene.

Take a look at Blade 2 nice use of CGI with out allowing it take over the whole movie.

I am not saying CGI shouldn't be used, I just think perhaps if CGI hasn't reached the point (yet)where you cann't guess whats real and whats not real. use it effectively to touch up certain scenes where you can get away with it.

Q. How much of the first Matrix was CGI?

Sorry if I have brought up this topic again, I hadn't realised it was discussed before.

nadir

bad quality cgi or crap films != cgi being a bad thing

mycroft

I am not saying CGI shouldn't be used, I just think perhaps if CGI hasn't reached the point (yet)where you cann't guess whats real and whats not real.

Oh no it so has.

Some classic pieces of CGI.

Zorro. Digitally adding a tear to KZJ from an alternate take, onto her face in the final scene.

Two from TV

Band of brothers. Final ep the moose is in a park in england, and digitally added to the forest.

ER. They no longer film the helicopter pad scenes. Actor is in LA, Helicopter is burbank, and the roof is Chicago. All three are composited in a graphics suite.

Q. How much of the first Matrix was CGI?

Okay for starts whats your definition of CGI? CGI means literally Computer generated Image. Thats an image that was created completely on computer.

Theres other pieces of visual effects, compositing which is melding two or more images together, see ER example. Matting (removing the wires in the matrix and crouching tiger fight scenes) So whats your definition of CGI?

Elmo

So whats your definition of CGI?

Yeah, my definion of CGI would be

Rather then creating a Set, creating using CGI. ie Star Wars 1,2,3

Rather then using an Actor or Puppet, ie Lord of the Rings, iRobot, Matrix 2 and 3.

Zorro. Digitally adding a tear to KZJ from an alternate take, onto her face in the final scene.

Indeed as I said small things work, I can image that a tear coming down someones face is easy enough to do and effective.

So really I am talk about CGI where an Actor or Set is replaced by Graphics.

Pigman II

As long as the film itself is interesting/enjoyable then I find I can let a LOT of less than perfect or over-the-top CGI slide. It's only when the film itself is crap that the quantity and quality of the accompanying CGI become a major irk for me.

eg I enjoyed Spidey 1+2 purely on a story level so I wasn't not too bothered that all the aerobatic sequences were IMHO weak. On the other hand I didn't enjoy SwEp2 or Matrix2+3 so I couldn't invest enough suspension of disbelief to go with the CGI sequences they contained.

I guess the moral is these blockbuster makers should invest more energies getting the story righ ... and THEN worry about special effects.

mycroft

I can image that a tear coming down someones face is easy enough to do and effective.

Thats actually harder. The brain can process an image and tell you it looks fake, without you understanding why exactly an image looks dodgy.

Creating an army of orc is easy enough because hey you've never seen an arny of orcs, so your mind doesn't have anything to compare it to.

Digitally adding a tear is difficult and challenging.

So really I am talk about CGI where an Actor or Set is replaced by Graphics.

Um the two towers? Gollum was bleeding fantastic, and brilliantly done. Digitially shrinking the hobbits?

and THEN worry about special effects.

Well yeah, I'll forgive a low budget film for cheap locations, sets, bad sound, if the story is engrossing. Most CGI fests are just "lob enough money at the screen and the yolkles will lap it up"

pebble

CGI is no more or less important than script, story or direction.

A film is the sum of its parts, which is why films such as Van Helsing, the last two matrix films, and in my opinion the last Lord Of the Rings movie were rubbish.
Hey, the CGI as excellent in LOTR, it was over the top in Van Helsing, and i thught it plain sucked in the Matrix movies.
At the same time, the story was weak in the Matrix, the script was awful in Van Helsing, and the ending of LOTR just seemed tacked on and hurredly finished. There was plenty of CGI in there, but I dont think it was the worst part of any of those films.

Quintin Tarrantino recently complained about CGI in movies and claimed there wasnt a single CGI part to his movie. Well, I would call it special effects, and I'm sorry Qunitan, but I thought the Manga chapter of Kill Bill Vol.1 sucked. Although, I thought the whole film was crap. Because contacnt sword fights and contrived tarrantino-esque conversations dont work for me anymore. It was great in Pulp Fiction, and Res. Dogs, but get over it. Try a new way to wow the audience. try something new...

So, I don't blame CGI, although I do think there is a lot of CGI for CGI sake, I dont neccessarily think it takes from a film. Many things take from a film, and like a carp plot, bad CGI will make you cringe too....



by the way, i noticed no one mentioned the Final Fantasy film. I mean, 2 hours of pure CGI. No actors. i thought that was a good film. Fantastic grpahics, just let down by bad scripting
Sum of the parts....

Elmo

by the way, i noticed no one mentioned the Final Fantasy film. I mean, 2 hours of pure CGI. No actors. i thought that was a good film. Fantastic grpahics, just let down by bad scripting

I rented this out, perhaps I don't find faceless expressions appealing and that is why I turn it of after the first 15 mins. The voice overs where also a major problem with that movie.

I agree that the graphic where fantastic but that doesn't make a good film.

As far a Quintin T. is concerned, I enjoyed the fight scenes in Kill Bill 1 and 2, but found the Matrix fight scenes boring. Again the first Matrix films fight scene where far superior, perhaps why I found them more appealing as films.

Perhaps I just like to see people get the **** kicked out of them rather then an animation.

RicardoSmith

Final Fantasy started out great and then degenerated into drivel.

CuLT

You're probably not all that overjoyed that another Final Fantasy film is coming out this year then.

RicardoSmith

CuLT wrote:

You're probably not all that overjoyed that another Final Fantasy film is coming out this year then.

I'd hope that they might try to rise above the previous one. But then I thought that of Starship Troopers II but all the reviews said it was dire. But I suppose according to you, Cult, I guess I shouldn't believe the reviews unless I watch it myself.

CuLT

Starship Troopers 2 WAS dire, but then again, I'd be surprised if you've actually seen any of the films your commenting on.

ObeyGiant

Keep it civil, girls.

RicardoSmith

CuLT wrote:

Starship Troopers 2 WAS dire, but then again, I'd be surprised if you've actually seen any of the films your commenting on.

Whats a film? LOL

ObeyGiant - name calling, very manly...

Actually Final Fantasy had some of the best graphics I've seen. I'd watch a second just for that. Oddly I don't feel the same about the 2nd and 3rd matrix films.

ObeyGiant

RicardoSmith wrote:

ObeyGiant - name calling, very manly...

Oh, so you picked up on that? You're not as dumb as you look.

ps - bonus points if you pick up on this as well.

leeroybrown

Quite a few films feature 'technically poor' CGI which just shouldn't happen given the budgets they throw at it and the quality that can be reached now. Some of the very subtle stuff they do is excellent and is generally unnoticable.

I only have a problem with CGI when it is used poorly by a director. If you're watching a huge battle scene in the middle of a well scripted and paced film then the fact that you know it's CGI immaterial. If you're beginning to yawn and wish that you'd checked the running time of the film before buying a ticket then it'll wear thin very quickly. 'Suspension of Disbelief' is what I like to call it and it only lasts as long as you are engrossed, interested or even slightly entertained by a storyline. Once that is gone then the best CGI ever won't save a film from irritating you with it's fake feel.

One thing that does irritate me is Directors resorting to CGI in situations where it may not be 100% convincing and there is a conventional solution that could do the job as well or better.

lodgepole

leeroybrown wrote:

One thing that does irritate me is Directors resorting to CGI in situations where it may not be 100% convincing and there is a conventional solution that could do the job as well or better.

The helicopters at the start of Buffalo Soldiers is an example of that as far as i'm concerned. There is no way I would have allowed a shot as poor as that into a film.

Zoton

Prime examples of shítty CGI usage:
The Mummy Returns; when the scorpion king emerges as an incredibly crap looking cgi beastie.

Matrix Reloaded; The fight between neo and the many agent smiths, features some fantastic and some woeful cgi together.

Dreamcatcher; the climactic battle of the alien and duddits; appalling cgi.

As for Hulk, for teh most part the CGI is pretty spot on; the reason for some of being poor is to do with the loss of definition with the colour green, and your own brain telling you that a 15ft tall green guy isn't plausible.

RicardoSmith

Zoton wrote:

Prime examples of shítty CGI usage:
The Mummy Returns; when the scorpion king emerges as an incredibly crap looking cgi beastie.

Matrix Reloaded; The fight between neo and the many agent smiths, features some fantastic and some woeful cgi together.

Dreamcatcher; the climactic battle of the alien and duddits; appalling cgi.

As for Hulk, for teh most part the CGI is pretty spot on; the reason for some of being poor is to do with the loss of definition with the colour green, and your own brain telling you that a 15ft tall green guy isn't plausible.

I agree with all that but the hulk. It varies in quality enormously. For me any actions scenes where he moves very fast or jumps, he seems out of sync with the live footage, and so looks unbelieveable. In the slower moving scenes he looks a lot better. Not sure if the problem is in the compositing or somewhere else but he moves wierd. Kinda like Spidy1.

Trip Hazard

Zoton wrote:

Matrix Reloaded; The fight between neo and the many agent smiths, features some fantastic and some woeful cgi together.

CGI is getting pretty woeful in some films,personally i prefer not to see it, but in alot of cases its really good, Example in the multi smith fight in matrix reloaded the whole thing is CGI but only some parts or it are bad,

As for Van Helsing that an example of too much BAD CGI

For the record i love the whole of the matrix trilogy and nothing will cahnge that.