Practical Spectacle vs CGI Spectacle

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