CGI. Movies are gone to pot

Seve OB

Just seen a trailer there for Murder on the Orient Express. Now I'm sure it is probably a very good flick, but from the trailer it looks like it is all filmed against green screens or blue screens it whatever colour they are these days.

Have to say there is a place for it, but it is way overused nowadays and they would be much better off strapping an actual camera on to a few trains or going up a real mountain or whatever and doing some actual filming rather than playing on their computers.

Outlaw Pete

Agreed, best to try and just ignore that crap...

Seen Breathe tonight and it was excellent.

Ipso

I t depends on how it is used. Take Fury Road as an example, it had a lot of CGI but it was used to compliment practical effects.

spacetweek

Most CGI movies are unwatchable nowadays unless you're under 18. It's been like that for a long time now.

Harry Palmr

This thought struck me the other day watching A Bridge Too Far a massive war film and practically every action is staged using real military hardware (some of it incorrect it should be said) but when the gliders are launched and the paratroopers jump each one is happening for real, now all those shots would be CGI plus close ups. It's just not the same and i find bad CGI is like an elbow - it takes the viewer out of the action.

Rumpy Pumpy

Murder on the Orient Express was shot using a real train, and filmed on location in a place with snow and mountains. Could be a case of the post-CGI blues?

moonlighting

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Murder on the Orient Express was shot using a real train, and filmed on location in a place with snow and mountains. Could be a case of the post-CGI blues?

just watched the trailer there. they used awful text cgi over each characters name. it completely takes you out of the theme of the movie.

one minute into the trailer

Skyfloater

There does seem to be a rule in Hollywood that the more you spend on CGI, the less you spend on good scriptwriters.

Hande hoche!

Dunkirk was a decent exception to the CGI fests.

Donald Trump

Couldn't agree more. I've been complaining about this crap ever since I saw that abomination that is Steamboat Willie

bloodless_coup

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Dunkirk was a decent exception to the CGI fests.

Except it completely failed to portray the scale of what happened. A handful of boats and two spitfires vs about 3 German planes.

Pwindedd

I will happily devote 2 hours of my life to anything with Judi Dench in it - CGI or not. If the story is good, the effects are secondary, and can easily be ignored. Agatha Christie is all about the characters and the cast looks great in this. But I'm easily pleased.

bodhrandude

Yeah, all these XMen films, just a blur of action and no story line.

B.A._Baracus

Wasn't it one of the star wars prequels that just set a standard for green screening everything?

Something like 90% was green screen. Insane.

Harry Palmr

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Wasn't it one of the star wars prequels that just set a standard for green screening everything?

Something like 90% was green screen. Insane.

and everyone hates that second trilogy!

Grayson

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This thought struck me the other day watching A Bridge Too Far a massive war film and practically every action is staged using real military hardware (some of it incorrect it should be said) but when the gliders are launched and the paratroopers jump each one is happening for real, now all those shots would be CGI plus close ups. It's just not the same and i find bad CGI is like an elbow - it takes the viewer out of the action.

You mean all the paratroopers parachuting to the ground? there were tiny dummies. It was cheaper than having hundreds of men parachuting.

bazz26

This is how it should be done:

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

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

ardinn

Seve OB wrote: »

Just seen a trailer there for Murder on the Orient Express. Now I'm sure it is probably a very good flick, but from the trailer it looks like it is all filmed against green screens or blue screens it whatever colour they are these days.

This looks very good to be fair!

Pwindedd wrote: »

I will happily devote 2 hours of my life to anything with Judi Dench in it - CGI or not. If the story is good, the effects are secondary, and can easily be ignored. Agatha Christie is all about the characters and the cast looks great in this. But I'm easily pleased.

Cast looks really good - Im not gone on Judy though - dont get it!

bodhrandude wrote: »

Yeah, all these XMen films, just a blur of action and no story line.

I would have agreed until X-Men apocalypse - it was stunning in my opinion!

AllGunsBlazing

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Wasn't it one of the star wars prequels that just set a standard for green screening everything?

Something like 90% was green screen. Insane.

Episode III. Worse again Lucas used a prototype digital camera which gave everything a straight to video look. The making of dvd is a hoot. Everyone on set looks bored rigid - including George.

Riddle101

Some movies have managed to balance the CGI just right I think, like Lord of the Rings and Terminator 2 did a great job. But nowadays it seems like CGI is being used wrong. The Hobbit and the new Terminator movies weren't as good as their predecessors.

McDermotX

The recent Planet of the Apes films are probably the standout in recent blockbuster terms to near perfectly marry visual effects, story and spectacle.
Of course, there are some films that can only rely on them these days, but they are a case where the latest cutting edge technique was used to actually benefit the storyline and elicit emotion from the audience.

Irish Guitarist

They use it on pretty much everything. You wouldn't think something like Ugly Betty would need CGI.

Maybe that's why actors have become so wooden and crap. There's so such thing as method acting anymore because the actors are constantly reminded that they're in a studio in front of a green screen.

This is a fantastic video detailing the use of CGI in modern movies..

Basically, CGI doesn't ruin movies. It's used far more than people realise. Bad CGI ruins movies, or bad movies make us have no sympathy for the CGI.

There's a lot of nice before and after so it's really worth the watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

Harry Palmr

Grayson wrote: »

You mean all the paratroopers parachuting to the ground? there were tiny dummies. It was cheaper than having hundreds of men parachuting.

Well they dropped 1000 men for real, some dummies may have filled out the background for all I know, but even they would need to have an automatic parachute deployment system

Capt'n Midnight

Pwindedd wrote: »

I will happily devote 2 hours of my life to anything with Judi Dench in it - CGI or not. If the story is good, the effects are secondary, and can easily be ignored.

Chronicles of Riddick ?

Most important thing is the script. Too many recent block busters where I just didn't care what happened.

CGI on autopilot is just horrible, unnatural movement, physics that's wrong.

One thing I just hate is when they have the military get up close so they can get stomped even though the whole point about today's military is to have distance weapons. A standard 1960's minigun can deliver a 100 bullets a second from 1Km away.

Having artillery drop two barrages at the same time on an over the horizon target is a WWII tactic. Forget the films it's not like some shouting "incoming" as the shells start to land, it's twice as many shells as there are guns landing without warning. It's over before you know it's happened.