Practical Spectacle vs CGI Spectacle

johnny_ultimate

No point fooling ourselves: CGI is here to stay. Yes, it is something that should still be feared - excessive computer-generated effects have ruined many a production. Of course it has many benefits too: from subtle enhancements to providing directors with the chance to achieve things that just wouldn't be possible previously. Life of Pi shows that a digitally rendered film can still impress when a bit of imagination is married with the technological wizardry. And of course we wouldn't have Pixar, Gollum or the lush landscapes of Pandora (shame they forgot the script) if it wasn't for CGI.

And yet... I've watched a few Buster Keaton films over the last few months, and I'm constantly amazed at how impressive and stunning the films' hugely elaborate setpieces are today, ninety years later. Honestly, The General or Sherlock Jr. contain dozens more jaw-dropping moments than anything The Hobbit (in all its green-screened and extra frames per second glory) had to offer me. Keaton, limited technology, a camera, inspired stunt-work and hugely elaborate setpieces. It still wows.

Of course, there will never be another Buster Keaton due to those pesky new-fangled health & safety laws, but plenty of filmmakers are carrying on his legacy in their own way. Thinking back over the last few years, the 'spectacles' that impress most are the ones where the filmmakers went out of their way to craft something physically involving and convoluted despite the 'ease' offered by CGI (or using CGI cleverly to enhance the hard work elsewhere). The in-car ambush of Children of Men with its mind-boggling rigging logistics. Tom Cruise actually dangling off a Dubai skyscraper in all its vertigo inducing glory. The elaborate but thrilling choreography of The Raid. The rotating hallway of Inception, or the hundreds of extras that fill the streets of Gotham City. Long after the dull CGI-laden final acts of most summer spectacles have faded from memory (this year particularly most blockbusters suffered from that particular affliction), the memories of these staggering feats of physical filmmaking remain.

The 'classic' blockbusters - vintage Spielberg, Star Wars, LotR - remain immensely watchable due to their smart utilisation of practical and more technically elaborate effects. It's the sheer effort put into that opening shot of a New Hope or the insane miniatures of Peter Jackson's first trilogy. Without diminshing the hardwork of effects artists these days - who surely agonise themselves over every individual frame, and obviously are pretty magnificent technicians and artists in their own right - there's something that's lost when the 'shortcut' of CGI is taken, especially the more excessive the spectacle becomes - the less grounded the setpiece, the more bored I tend to grow. Instead, the scenes that continue to drop my jaw are the ones where it's clear the filmmakers went to great pains to achieve their goals with camera rigs, sets, stunt-people, smart editing / cinematography, locations and all manner of good old-fashioned cinematic trickery. CGI won't go away, and its benefits both subtle and obvious are immeasurable. But I for one think the truly great spectacle movies continue to be the ones that take the time and effort to achieve something 'real' (however meaningless that word is when it comes to film ).

Any thoughts on this, or are you fed up of the constant whinging about CGI? Any favourite examples of good old practical spectacle or indeed computer-generated 'jaw on floor' moments?

DrumSteve

Recently? The parkour chase scene from Casino Royale had my jaw on the floor. Amazing.

And pretty much any fight scene involving Donnie Yen.

Professey Chin

1st time seeing the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park put my jaw on the floor. Pretty sure the 1st brachiosaurs you see were CGI which was absolutely amazing and the animatronic ones for up close were beautifully made

mike65

CGI has no tactile quality, no soul, no charm - it casts no shadows.

Imagine how awful a CGI version of the skeleton sword fight in Jason and the Argonauts would be.

krudler

Practical effects will always win for me, be it real stunts, makeup, action sequences done on location etc. There are a few CGI exceptions, where subtley is used. something like LOTR simply couldn't have been made without computers, but it had tons of practical effects as well so they mixed well. As slated as they were the Pirates sequels had phenomenal CGI work, Davy Jones is up there with Gollum as a brilliant all CGI creation, I always thought Bill Nighy was wearing prosthetics and they added the tentacles in digitally but he's all CGI.

When it comes to digital effects there's a line in Jurassic Park I think of, when Jeff Goldblum (talking about cloning) says "You were so concerned about whether or not you could you didn't stop to think if you should".

Subtle CGI will always win over bombastic stuff exploding, like the opening scene of A.I. where the robot girl's face opens up, its absolutely flawless stuff. Or how David Fincher uses it in films like Panic Room or The Social Network, you don't even notice it half the time.

DMcL1971

Excellent post Jonny_Ultimate.

In the practical days, filmmakers were limited in what they could film by what effects technology could allow them to do. They therefore had to come up with fantastic practical workarounds to create images or just not make the films at all. Looking back, some of these effects seem obviously fake by todays standards but people still love them, because they can tell that an enormous amount of work went into them. Just look at any stop-motion animation, even today people marvel at it because they can understand and visualise just how incredibly difficult it is to do that work. You can say that you understand exactly how it is done but there is no way you would have the patience, concentration and dexterity to do it yourself. The same is true of practical stunt work. You know how it’s done but you know that you can’t do it, it takes a special breed of people.

Unfortunately that sense of wonder is lost today, because of CGI. Up until the nineties, whenever you saw something amazing you thought, 'Wow, how did they do that, it must have been really difficult, I'd never be able to do that.' But now when you see something amazing you just say 'Oh, they did it with a computer.' which makes it only as amazing as everything else today like getting money from an ATM or booking tickets online.

Of course what most people don't realise is that CGI is only a tool, albeit any enormously powerful and complicated tool. It is the artists that use these tools that make the magic. Just because you have a powerful PC and the latest software doesn't mean you can make people care about Gollum as a character rather than just some code. It takes the skill of artists and animators and the performance of actors to drive this image. In the same way that just because I have Microsoft Word and you only have a pencil and paper doesn't mean I can write a better novel than you can. Nobody says 'Oh, Stephen King uses a word processor, that’s cheating, it means the computer wrote most of the book for him.'

Though CGI is used in nearly every movie today, from low budget dramas to summer effects spectaculars. It is the use of CGI to add to practical effects that really blows people away. Some of the most impressive scenes in modern movies are actually shot practically and then CGI is used to remove safety and stunt rigging and camera equipment. It is really used to make the practical work look better.

Bullseye1

I agree completely with the OP. The one tool the original movies lacked which add hugely to a cinema goers experience is surround sound. For me it's just as important as what I'm seeing.

I love practical effects and am a fan of what Stan Winston did for cinema and how it's continued through Legacy Effects and Amalgamated Dynamics and of course Wetas practical effects division. I'm not against CGi when it's subtle, I'd go as far as to say subtle visual effects are every bit as important.

TheIrishGrover

I don't think you can realistically say one is better than the other: There are times where practical effects are better than CGI and times where CGI is better than practical effects. It's all to easy to say CGI has no soul or character or weight and will never convince. But tell me you weren't convinced by Gollum. I prefer practical effects myself but there is a place for CGI. Blade Runner is one of my favourite films and it's visual impact is still being felt today. And not a frame of CGI obviously. All miniatures and motion control and multiple exposures. Jaw dropping, even today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fu7jN2_2pE

And then along came Jar-Jar Binks which was the very definition of what people hate about CGI: soul-less, weightless, characterless and NEVER convinced that he was anything other than a superimposed animation. However a few years later we had the character of Gollum. I never looked at him as an effect, he was simply another character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_aziIIp8U8

However, the BIG issue I have with CGI/practical effects is the use of CGI where practical effects would be better: The abomination that was the end of The Scorpion King: 10-year outdated CGI where stop-motion would not only have been better but would have been more appropriate given the nature of the film. And especially the use of CGI creatures in Will Smith's I Am Legend where makeup would have been infinitely better and much cheaper surely.

Guillermo Del Torro has a fine eye (IMHO) regarding the use of practical and CGI. Where a guy in a suit will do they'll have a guy in a suit, where CGI is needed CGI is used. In other words he used CGI like it should be used: Another effects tool as opposed to THE ONLY effects tool. I really REALLY would have loved to have seen his version of The Hobbit.

mike65

I caught the opening scene of Final Destination 4 (?) on the tv the other night, it takes place at a NASCAR race and its the very summary of why CGI is the lazy ****ers tool of choice. Even the "simple" stuff is done with CGI (the close up shots of concrete falling) and it looks terrible as clearly no time was taken with it.

Mickeroo

In terms of acion stunts then there's no substitute imo. In terms of creature effects and such then I think the dislike of CGI is more a case of nostalgia than the method actually being inferior. As technology improves CG will get better and better and will continue to replace more practical methods, thats just the way of the world.

Not all CG is bad just as not all practical effects are good. I think in the last two decades CG has worked best when used in conjunction with practical FX. The best examples of this I can think of are Jurassic Park and the LOTR trilogy. The CG parts of the T-Rex attack in JP still hold up on the big screen today. When you look at the star wars movies of the same period the same cannot be said.

It's only now CG is starting to get to a level where its becoming good enough to be used on its own imo, I think Avatar was the first film to really pull it off and it will be interesting to see how or if the effects age in that film over the years.

I find the hatred of CG to be quite annoying and slightly irrational tbh. People write off movies as "a load of CG nonsense" before they've even watched them. To me it doesn't really matter if the CG isn't quite 100% realistic (just as it doesn't matter to me that practical effects don't look 100% realistic) if the film itself is good besides.

Another thing that grinds my gears is CG is often written off as if it there was no work or talent put into creating it, and that is just complete nonsense imo. Take the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts as mentioned above for example. Don't get me wrong, I admire that sequence as much as anyone but I don't agree the level of craftsmanship involved is anything less admirable than what went into Avatar (though there's no argument from me which film is superior as a whole!). The methods are different but the results are just as great imo.

CG can be rubbish a lot of the time but when its good it far outstrips the limits of the more practical methods imo. As it continues to improve practical effects will become more and more a thing of the past I think and though that is sad, it really doesn't bother me all that much.

CGI is perhaps the most important thing to happen to cinema since the introduction of sound and colour. Many of the complaints regarding CGI are based on an ignorant point of view and more often than not backed up with a ludicrous arguments that simply don’t hold up. Most people aren't aware that they are watching CGI and wouldn't be able to pick out a CGI shot if their life depended upon it. Sure they can find the obvious ones, that shot of Thor walking across the Rainbow Bridge in Thor or the Goblin King in The Hobbit. CGI is a tool and in the hands of a competent film maker it can impress but in the hands of a master it can leave us spellbound.

As much as I love practical FX work, and I do, there's a charm to stop motion and miniature work that CGI will always lack. But that said good CGI is streets ahead of even the best miniature or matte background. The problem with old school FX is that we are always aware that what we are watching is an effect. We accept that it's fake and there's a certain charm to watching an old western obviously shot on a soundstage.

What CGI did is that it changed how we view cinema. CGI can be used to create living breathing environments that is undetectable. Take a look at the Coen's True Grit, it's full of subtle CGI work. 30 years ago you would have had to built the entire set, these days you can build a small portion and employ CGI to fill it out and unlike the backdrops of old it's a living breathing environment that can be adapted to accommodate the shot, it's not a static background that looks the same from every angle. The use of CGI helped the Coen brothers keep costs down, 30 years ago if you wanted that town you had to build it in it's entireity at a cost of millions.

The only times people are aware they are watching CGI is when the image they are watching is obviously CGI. That can be really poor and cheap looking CGI or an image that they know is impossible, Gollum for example. Yes he looks fantastic but the audience is always aware that it's an FX shot.

krudler

The original Clash Of The Titans was just on channel 4 and even though the stop motion effects have dated in the 30 years since its release, they still have a charm to them that CGI simply doesn't. If anything CGI ages worse, there's some really dodgy stuff in the LOTR movies that has aged badly, and some exceptional stuff.
Good example earlier with Blade Runner, it hasnt aged a day effects wise, you know you're looking at models, but they're amazing ones, compare that to the soulless city vistas in something like Coruscant from the SW prequels. Which show everything bad CGI is used for, bored looking actors talking to tennis balls on a non existant set.

The Bond movies have always been a bastion of brilliant stuntwork, then in the digital age you had Pierce Brosnan windsurfing on a greenscreen from a CGI wave that looked horrendous on its release never mind 10 years later. Whereas something like the car fipping across the bridge in The Man With The Golden Gun or the truck driving on two wheels in Licence To Kill will hold up forever, because they're real and done practically.

The Indy movies, Raiders had a guy being really pulled under a truck, coming out the other side and climbing back in, Vic Armstrong at his best. Crystal Skull had CGI gophers and swordfights against CGI jungle backdrops, soulless.

Then you have something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lChJz2DSpsE

no CGI, no digital horses, no fake stunts, its all real and all in spectacular framing, pure cinema.

Fysh

I think what we've got here is a clear issue with cheap or rushed CGI rather than CGI as a whole. I like practical effects where they're done well, but that's by no means all of them.

Having seen some of the documentaries or making-of features about a number of films I've enjoyed, I get the feeling that expense (either of time or money) is the root of the problem. I've watched a few features and documentaries about CGI effects and, aside from the inevitable aging-badly aspect (unsurprising given how rapidly the relevant technology evolves), the key difference between the stuff that works well and the stuff that looks rubbish seems, to me, to be the amount of work put into integrating the effects on a practical basis.

I can give two examples to illustrate my point. Example 1 (bad) is that dreadful load of arse known as Mortal Kombat; specifically the scene in which Liu Kang pulls the animal Reptile from a wall, holds him up and shakes him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLMJmxoxmGg

I remember the actor playing Liu Kang saying that the scene was awkward because they didn't have any idea what Reptile would look like, or any kind of placeholder to usefully get a feel for the physicality of the creature. As a result, that scene looked bad when the film was released and hasn't aged well. (And let's not talk about the dreadful bit just after where animal Reptile gets dropped onto the stone statue and terrible CGI is used to show the morphing of the statue into a human fighter).

Example 2 (good) is Scott Pilgrim - having watched some of the documentary features on the 2nd disc, what impressed me with this film was just how much practical effects work went into it. For a film that had a lot of CGI already required (eg for the Demon Hipster Chicks in the first fight) it was heartening to see that a lot of stunts, in particular the part where Scott gets punched by Lucas Lee and bounces off the castle, they used a combination of CGI and practical effects, with the practical effects being more prominent for the closer shots to ensure that they looked natural.

MakeEmLaugh

Certain genres suffer more as a result of CGI. Take horror films, for example.

John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) has one of the best transformation sequences in film history, done entirely with practical effects and makeup.

Fast forward 29 years to Joe Johnston's The Wolfman (2010). Its climactic transformation scene is done entirely digitally.

Yet, is it an improvement on Landis' film? Certainly not.

Fysh

A lot of horror films have been victims of cheap/bad CGI because of cost, I think. It's quick and easy to get blood effects added via CGI, but not to do so well (it takes time to match the lighting and colour, to get the physics matching the rest of the on-screen movement, and so on). But the key is that when compared to eg the cost of having an on-set practical effects specialist who might insist on repeated re-shoots to get a scene right, there's no contest. I remember reading about a scene in Friday 13th where Tom Savini was doing the effects, and one particular victim gets stabbed while lying in bed from underneath, and blood gouts out from her neck - Savini had designed some sort of elaborate pump mechanism to use for this, but it failed and in the end he had to basically blow fake blood through the tube himself to get the shot done.

FlashD

CGI makes films look amazing and can realise every directors vision, but it takes away quite a bit of the magical film process from an audience.

There was a time in the 80's and 90's growing up when you would wonder 'Wow! how did they do that?' without using CGI as an explaination.

That's all gone now!

Mickeroo

FlashD wrote: »

CGI makes films look amazing and can realise every directors vision, but it takes away quite a bit of the magical film process from an audience.

There was a time in the 80's and 90's growing up when you would wonder 'Wow! how did they do that?' without using CGI as an explaination.

That's all gone now!

I don't think that's entirely the fault of cg(though certainly mostly).The Internet pretty much means people are a lot more clued in than they would gave been in the past when it comes to these things.

pixelburp

krudler wrote: »

The original Clash Of The Titans was just on channel 4 and even though the stop motion effects have dated in the 30 years since its release, they still have a charm to them that CGI simply doesn't. If anything CGI ages worse, there's some really dodgy stuff in the LOTR movies that has aged badly, and some exceptional stuff. [...]

Funny I caught a little of the original Clash myself & I kinda disagree on this point - I think rose-tinted glasses and nostalgia are making us forgive what are honestly pretty ropey effects, even by the high standards Ray Harryhausen brought to cinema. I doubt he was aiming for charm with his end results & was simply working with the tools he had at the time - and I'd say the 1981 Harryhausen would have snapped at the chance for some 2012 FX power.

Like a lot of things in life, it's how the tool is used that's the problem, not the tool itself. My biggest bugbear is that while the graphics can be convincing enough (bar the eternal uncanny valley issue), the camerawork often used in those CGI heavy scenes defies sense & gravity.

I dunno who's in charge of those 100% CGI scenes - is it the director, the 2nd unit director? I'm genuinely curious to know who okays these shots - but often the camera will perform stunts and tracking that simply couldn't have been done by any human being & that's the part that breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. Take the beautiful first scene of Blade Runner mentioned above: there's nothing in that scene that couldn't be done just as effectively & atmospherically in CGI, but where those kind of shots all fall down nowadays is that the artists would inevitably dive-bomb he camera through the cityscape, ruining the sense of wonder. It's as if the idea of the 'rollercoaster' movie is now taken literally.

I also have a problem that said-same artists tend to overstuff these sort of ambient shots with excessive detail - the adage that "Less is more" has been somewhat lost in the era of HD (home)cinema - but generally I've become less impatient with the CGI itself, and more with the overzealous framing that can accompany it.

Myrddin

When it comes to large scenes/bombastic stuff, CGI really has become so bland & generic it feels like your watching the same effect time & again. It can be very well used in closer more intimate settings like the car ambush in Children of Men as the OP mentioned {great example too}

I'd be of the ilk that CGI is a bland, soulless, generic tool which very unfortunately is a more attractive package to film makers given the cost of real life/practical effects.

Sure enough, some films just couldn't be made without CGI & it has a time & place. But miniatures, live action & on location stuff always hits the bullseye for me...CGI has seriously lost its novelty & has very little impact on me these days

Technocentral

The first example I seen of it was (and is ) fantastic: T2, mainly because its rationed, there was only one effective use of it (the T1000) in a film full of actors, sets, models, animatronics and real stunts, flash forward to the last one with Bale in it, its a pile of CG crap fighting another pile of CG crap, more is considered better with CG unfortunately, whereas the best examples of physical effects are timeless like Bladerunner and 2001 because they filmed things that ACTUALLY existed! (models) unlike CG things which never interact with the real world. A lot of older actors now are saying that the skill and joy of acting is disappearing when you're on your todd talking to light stands instead of other people (or even people in costumes, like original Planet of the Apes vs that last one with the stupid CG monkey), it is great when used subtlety though like extended versions of streets and skylines (ie you don't notice it) but horrible when its the whole film.

johnny_ultimate

EnterNow wrote: »

When it comes to large scenes/bombastic stuff, CGI really has become so bland & generic it feels like your watching the same effect time & again. It can be very well used in closer more intimate settings like the car ambush in Children of Men as the OP mentioned {great example too}

Actually that scene has very little CGI: some of the stuff on the road is, but even the flaming car is real-time - I feel sorry for the 1st AD on that shoot! I think that might be one of the single greatest setpieces of the last decade just because of the amount of sheer effort put into its creation, especially since there are strong artistic justifications for the decision to shoot in one take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNk-nxHjfM

I have to admit tracking shots and long takes may be amongst my favourite cinematic techniques point blank though. When I see older films that managed to pull such tricks off - with the unwieldy cameras they had back then - it never fails to impress. The planning and logistics of such such as the classic one in Weekend or the ludicrously elaborate setups of I Am Cuba are just remarkable. The swooping, weightless and almost omnipotent computer cameras just cannot impress to the same degree. The pretty much animated opening space battle sequence of Revenge of the Sith is a good example of how more can be much less, compared to the iconic effects of the original trilogy (even if some of those effects are now undoubtedly dated).

I have to admit its The Hobbit that's got me think most about this issue recently. I know a lot of people liked the film's effects overall, and my experience was undoubtedly damaged by the ultra-resolution of 48FPS showing up all the artificiality on display. But I honestly think the Lord of the Rings - with its accomplished mix of pretty much every major practical and CGI effect - emerges as the superior spectacle. Yes, some areas are improved - I don't think anyone could deny the Gollum model of 2012 is a significant improvement (Gollum generally I'd count as one of the most worthwhile CG creations), and some setpieces from LotR haven't made the transition to HD all that well - and logistically I understand the reasons why most stuff was shot in studio. But to me the Middle Earth of the early 2000s is more impressive than the one of 2012, and crossed the line where too much blatantly obvious and increasingly exaggerated CG became a distraction and pulled me right out of the film.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually that scene has very little CGI

That may be why its so effective...less is definitely more when it comes to CG effects for me. Agreed too that its an incredible set piece...I also loved the city/prison escape scenes in the same film too

mike65

Moon is on tonight at 10 pm on BBC2 followed by Blade Runner (Final Cut I presume) two films made 25 years apart but which share something in common when it comes to visuals.

Marty McFly

I think we can all appreciate CGI effects when used correctly the problem is some films are over reliant on it, or use it badly. One film that sticks out for me is Wolverine that film iritated me more than most because it was modern and big budget blockbuster but yet some parts of it were they use CGI looked atrocious and quite blatantly fake. I couldnt even tell you if I enjoyed the film because at the time of watching it the CGI ruined the experience for me.

A film that uses it with little subtle touches will always be more impressive than a film nearly all shot in CGI.

Scenes such as the corridor fight scene in Inception is much more impressive when you look at the effort and thought that went into it. Same way all of Christopher Nolans Batmans come alive on screen for me becaue he trys to use as little as possible, compared to say The Amazing Spiderman which just didnt sit right with me.

Zombienosh

This is something that always gets to me.

For example the latest moan about CGI I had is due to "The Hobbit". I've just re-watched the original LOTR trilogy and I don't know the exact budgets for The hobbit series VS the LOTR series.
But it seems the hobbit was cheaper? or just lazier?
There was so much more CGI in The Hobbit compared LOTR.

The orcs in LOTR were amazing, so many actors in make up and prosthetics, In the Hobbit I think I seen maybe one orc that was an actual actor?

I always love seeing actors with special effects make up over CGI.

At times the two can be used to compliment each other and this is amazing.
But movies where it's pretty much all CGI just comes across as lazy to me.

I've grown up admiring horror movies and monster movies and always valued the creativity of Make-up and special effects artists. Over the past few years CGI has become a cheap way of companies throwing out straight to TV films that are the worst rubbish ever....yes im talking about SYFY.

Bullseye1

Another thing about CGI, that is to date, is that it doesn't age well. I remember watching Blade at the Savoy and been blown away by the CGi. Recently watched in on Blu Ray and while its still one of my favourite comic book movie the special effects are looking decidedly dodgy.

Mark Hamill

Technocentral wrote: »

A lot of older actors now are saying that the skill and joy of acting is disappearing when you're on your todd talking to light stands instead of other people (or even people in costumes, like original Planet of the Apes vs that last one with the stupid CG monkey)

The last Planet of the Apes did have a guy in a suit, Andy Serkis was present in a mo-cap suit, in most of the scenes with the main Ape character:

Technocentral

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The last Planet of the Apes did have a guy in a suit, Andy Serkis was present in a mo-cap suit, in most of the scenes with the main Ape character:

I hate every ape I see, From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z.

corcaigh07

they can co-exist together to make some of the most amazing looking movies. The Matrix (original) and Inception are just 2 movies that couldnt have looked as good without CGI. CGI is incredibly important just like Darko said, it's just unfortunately too often seen as an easy way out for many filmmakers and/or studios.

I'm quite forgiving of lower budget films with ropey FX, especially creature features and low brow horror films. To film makers working with small budgets CGI is a godsend and can cut costs immensely. Yes, more often or not it can look terrible but at times it can add to the charm. most film makers use CGI as a shortcut such as Rob Zombie did in The Devil's Rejects. There are very few FX shots but early on he realised that given the small budget the cost of practically shooting some of the small shots could add hundreds of thousands of dollars tothe budget as well as take extra days to stage. For that reason a relatively simple enough shot of a knife being used was created digitally. The actor held the handle but the blade and blood FX was done digitally. Yes it stuck out a little but not in such a way that I was overly bothered by it.

People think that a simple thing like that would be easy to accomplish on set but most would be surprised by just how much time and planning goes into it and in aller films its just not worth it.

Anyone who thinks CGI is a bad thing or will ruin cinema should watch Zodiac or for that matter any Fincher film. His films have hundreds of FX shots and you'd never know from watching the films.

mike65

If CGI was only used for what are broadly classified as optical effects I'd not be worried, its when they are a substitute for physical movement and blowing up things (or heads) I get annoyed.

krudler

mike65 wrote: »

If CGI was only used for what are broadly classified as optical effects I'd not be worried, its when they are a substitute for physical movement and blowing up things (or heads) I get annoyed.

Or replacing blood and squibs, sob, Rambo was annoying for this, clearly CGI blood everywhere. Robocop squibs ftw :pac:

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm quite forgiving of lower budget films with ropey FX, especially creature features and low brow horror films. To film makers working with small budgets CGI is a godsend and can cut costs immensely. Yes, more often or not it can look terrible but at times it can add to the charm. most film makers use CGI as a shortcut such as Rob Zombie did in The Devil's Rejects. There are very few FX shots but early on he realised that given the small budget the cost of practically shooting some of the small shots could add hundreds of thousands of dollars tothe budget as well as take extra days to stage. For that reason a relatively simple enough shot of a knife being used was created digitally. The actor held the handle but the blade and blood FX was done digitally. Yes it stuck out a little but not in such a way that I was overly bothered by it.

People think that a simple thing like that would be easy to accomplish on set but most would be surprised by just how much time and planning goes into it and in aller films its just not worth it.

Anyone who thinks CGI is a bad thing or will ruin cinema should watch Zodiac or for that matter any Fincher film. His films have hundreds of FX shots and you'd never know from watching the films.

Didnt The Social Network have more CGI shots than Attack Of The Clones? and you'd barely notice any of them, the only thing that stood out as blatant effects were the actor's digital breath in the cold nighttime scenes.

jpm4

There is a lot of nostalgia in this thread, and comparisons of piss poor CGI laden movies to classic, practical effect driven films. Both are only tools.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

If CGI was only used for what are broadly classified as optical effects I'd not be worried, its when they are a substitute for physical movement and blowing up things (or heads) I get annoyed.

Nothing will come close to bloqing up an actual building, Bad Boys 2 demolishing the Coca Cola heirs mansion is one of the most visually fun things ever put on screen but the cost of doing it was immense. It cost a fortune to stage and weeks were spent setting it all up. Now a days you can do it all on a computer and any half decent FX company will create a realistic looking shot.

The only real CGI I despise is CGI blood. It looks fake, lacking the consistancy and texture of a real liquid and as such it just comes across as cheap. And worst of all is the manner in which we see gallons of blood squirt across the screen yet characters will have no blood spatter on them and the ground will be perfectly dry.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing will come close to bloqing up an actual building, Bad Boys 2 demolishing the Coca Cola heirs mansion is one of the most visually fun things ever put on screen but the cost of doing it was immense. It cost a fortune to stage and weeks were spent setting it all up. Now a days you can do it all on a computer and any half decent FX company will create a realistic looking shot.

The only real CGI I despise is CGI blood. It looks fake, lacking the consistancy and texture of a real liquid and as such it just comes across as cheap. And worst of all is the manner in which we see gallons of blood squirt across the screen yet characters will have no blood spatter on them and the ground will be perfectly dry.

+1, it'll never match real squibs. CGI muzzle flash too, smaller budget movies its fine but big blockbusters have no excuse, if they could do it in the 80's they can do it now.

Michael Bay does do a lot of stuff practically even given the amount of stuff thats CGI in his movies. The freeway chase in Bad Boys 2 is utter insanity. Car carrying truck dumping real and CGI cars into the path of chasing cops, a car flips upside down and blows up being towed like a flaming wrecking ball, there's even a boat in it :pac:

Mike Litoris

Right, I will always always prefere practical effects and pretty much detest CGI. For me, there is no contest. That said, the CGI Arnie in the last Terminator blew me away.

As said already, CGI aint got no soul and is lazily way overused. This makes me hate it but when its good I dont think about it.:)

roanoke

The main advantage of practical effect is ironically the the same reason they have become unfashionable and archaic. That is to say they are limited. The artist has to work within the realms of what is possible with them. This constraining factor often leads to more believable and interesting looking shots.

When it comes to CG the possibilities are almost limitless. But rather than being a bonus this is actually a hazard as it causes certain directors to got OTT and the result is stuff that looks at best unbelievable and at worst ridiculous.

I'm fine with CG in this era depending on how it's used. Keep it away from someone like Michael Bay or George Lucas for example and you've already won half the battle.

mike65

roanoke wrote: »

The main advantage of practical effect is ironically the the same reason they have become unfashionable and archaic. That is to say they are limited. The artist has to work within the realms of what is possible with them. This constraining factor often leads to more believable and interesting looking shots.

When it comes to CG the possibilities are almost limitless. But rather than being a bonus this is actually a hazard as it causes certain directors to got OTT and the result is stuff that looks at best unbelievable and at worst ridiculous.

I'm fine with CG in this era depending on how it's used. Keep it away from someone like Michael Bay or George Lucas for example and you've already won half the battle.

Pretty much what I wrote in a guardian blog article about Moon and its use of effects

I was raised on the films of the 60s and 70s (plus Starburst which I still have up to issue 57 I think) and have a deep and I admit possibly quite irrational hatred for CGI which, because it allows objects to be tweaked in any fashion that you like, promotes unreal stupidity in spades. Witness the Pearl Habour attack in the film of the almost same name (!) as we follow a released bomb as if on its shoulder. Sure someone thought that would be clever idea but it really just looks like showing off and far worse than that example has sadly become the norm.

The manipulation real objects, of whatever size, instils discipline in the film maker - result a more satisfying and believable experience.

The other reason to prefer miniatures and prosthetics is because even when they go wrong they still look better than bad CGI.

o1s1n

Lazy CGI being used when practical special effects would have worked better is a serious pet peeve of mine, I hate it.

Here's a prime example - the Deer attack scene in The Ring 2.

Apparantly deer are such hard to find animals these days they needed to use CGI for the whole scene. And terrible CGI at that. Absolutely baffling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjySfZziRlA

pixelburp

So I read about the following on a blog and thought of this thread, given its subject: 'C', a crowdfunded, sciFi shortfilm that's coming out at the end of the month - its main claim to fame being that all its FX will be created without the aid of CGI, or even greenscreen, instead utilising old techniques & tricks.

The first few minutes were released to give an idea of how their FX is shaping up. Being made on a shoestring it clearly lacks the polish of Moon, but it should make for an interesting experiment & talking point if nothing else!
http://vimeo.com/56660860

Technocentral

pixelburp wrote: »

So I read about the following on a blog and thought of this thread, given its subject: 'C', a crowdfunded, sciFi shortfilm that's coming out at the end of the month - its main claim to fame being that all its FX will be created without the aid of CGI, or even greenscreen, instead utilising old techniques & tricks.

The first few minutes were released to give an idea of how their FX is shaping up. Being made on a shoestring it clearly lacks the polish of Moon, but it should make for an interesting experiment & talking point if nothing else!
http://vimeo.com/56660860

Cheers, will give it a look. Surely, like in this case, making, positioning, lighting and photographing real objects has to be much more satisfying to any real film maker than doing it inside a computer? Btw its admirable that they're not using it but I wouldn't include green screening in itself as an example of excessive CGI as it's been used as a photochemical effect since the 1940's, just the likes of Lucas and Jackson's overuse of it to the detriment of real sets, props and even people!

nyarlothothep

CGI takes a lot of work to do right, or even wrong at the standard required in films. A bad CG shot (and I'm thinking bad as in what you might think looks a bit out of a place in Hollywood film) would be difficult to emulate for most people on technical and artistic levels, given that the kind of people who work in VFX are the very best and live and breathe CG. To accurately replicate the real world or convincingly modify it is in itself a hard task. I think with practical effects there was certainly more originality, perhaps because the limitations imposed encouraged invention.

JohnnyRyan99

CGI is fine for a lot reasons, it can create things that are otherwise unachievable on screen, wonderful for fantasty and adventure.

However, the most inexcusable of all the CGI?

C-G-I Boobs! More and more films are using this technique these days and it's heartbreaking. Soon no actress will have to get them out.

This is a crime against film.

charlie_says

A convincing use of both styles is best I think.

A previous poster mentioned Zodiac. The live action and CGI are used very effectively in this movie, very subtle and believable but allows the director to realize what he wants. Assuming that as said previously they don't go all crazy with their new godlike power.

Also I think cost/time has a big impact in this technical area of filming. With a CGI firm you subcontract out necessary scenes to just one firm who say we will deliver this by then, sign the contract and you are off. It used to take a long time (years) to do long CGI scenes/movies but I believe that now it is a much faster process due to greatly reduced rendering times and maturity of the industry.

On the other hand, with big live action scenes you would have to hire all kinds of specialists to work together and all the necessary infrastructure to accommodate/transport/feed them. Difficulties can arise with equipment, personnel and health and safety rules. So much more can go wrong with the older approach.

The old school stuff looks brilliant when properly done and incites a sense of wonder for the viewer on how it was made and a huge sense of achievement for the people involved making it happen. I think.

I have no experience or knowledge of film production though so I really am just making this up as I type :pac:

charlie_says

JohnnyRyan99 wrote: »

CGI is fine for a lot reasons, it can create things that are otherwise unachievable on screen, wonderful for fantasty and adventure.

However, the most inexcusable of all the CGI?

C-G-I Boobs! More and more films are using this technique these days and it's heartbreaking. Soon no actress will have to get them out.

This is a crime against film.

Christ! I didn't know that....gutted.

JohnnyRyan99

charlie_says wrote: »

Christ! I didn't know that....gutted.

Aye it's happened in a few cheaper comedies, probably the highest profile film(which isn't very high profile) was The Change Up with Leslie Mann's "nude scene" being all CGI!

The Bastards!

mike65

That explains some of the boobage in the 900s then!

krudler

JohnnyRyan99 wrote: »

Aye it's happened in a few cheaper comedies, probably the highest profile film(which isn't very high profile) was The Change Up with Leslie Mann's "nude scene" being all CGI!

The Bastards!

My hatred of Leslie Mann vanished for a few seconds upon seeing her spectacular rack in that movies, but they werent real, now I hate her even more