what are your thoughts of CGI?

CyberGhost · 28-10-2003 07:31AM #1

do you like it?

i personally think that it made movies look like 3D cartoons, and i don't really like it much, like in Die another day, when Bond is surfing on the waves with a parachute, you can clearly see that it's a CGI and it makes movie look bad! in T3 the terminators are CGI and they look bad!

smiaras · 28-10-2003 11:24AM

This post has been deleted.

jonno · 28-10-2003 01:36PM

Seen as how alot of film are now been shot on DV rather than celluloid it's going to be hard for film makers to get away from CGI. It's cheaper to shoot a scene using CG rather than building up a whole studio. It seems the industry is pushing towards DV now with most if the film courses in Ireland using such equipment

dangerman · 28-10-2003 01:37PM

its a bit of a non-starter to ask 'do u like cgi' ...as that lumps a huge creative field into one category - some CGI still stands out as brilliant - the X-Files was on tv there last week, i'm stunned again how brilliant some things were in that - namely the office building explosion at the start.

There's gollum in LOTR, (Weta Digital) who i think represents the best application of CGI seen yet. I think i read somewhere that ILM were approached for LOTR, but wanted too much money, so they went with Weta. Good job. Look at Jar Jar compared to gollum...)

CGI is like ANY film technique, used correctly it adds (Fight Club), used badly it takes away (Spawn).

El Marco · 28-10-2003 02:52PM

I hate cg in movies, I think it's ruining modern cinema. The second I notice cg in a movie it instantly brings it down to a lower level.

I recently saw bad boys 2 and I loved it, couldn't get enough of it and I realised the reason for this was the fact that 90% of all the stunts were real with very little cg.

That said, when done right, it can have a fantastic effect i.e Gollum in lotr. He was just brilliant.

ixoy · 28-10-2003 02:58PM

There was an interview with a special effects guy talking about "The X-Files" and he said the best CGI is when you don't *know* it's CGI. An example was a bike driving along a cliff road - when there had been no such cliff road. You'd never have known otherwise. They are good examples of inobtrusive CGI. The extreme is the new Star Wars episode which are saturated in it and where it LOOKS like CGI - too cartoony, and not any real feel to it. There's an over emphasis on it but its understandable when your whining actors demand a huge chunk of your budget.

weemcd · 28-10-2003 09:43PM

tbh i dont think cgi is up to scratch yet, its still clear that a spacechip is cgi or a model, and i fear it will be some time before we can tell the difference. however i have high hopes for lotr, since the last two were so spectacular.

Sauron · 29-10-2003 01:25PM

I think cgi is great....if it is used in the right place with the right quantity...sometimes movies overdo it with cgi..eg The Matrix Reloaded...where almost all the big agent smith fight consisted of it and it just didn't look all that great..you would know immediatley when it changed to cgi....LOTR made great use of it...The only really good completley cgi movies are the pixar ones..

CGI in films is at its best when you can't tell that its there...

CyberGhost · 30-10-2003 02:31AM

"The only really good completley cgi movies are the pixar ones"

erm... have you ever heard of Industrial Light & Magic? IMO they are the best at CGI, they are so good that in many movies you won't even notice their work... The Rock for example

daveirl · 30-10-2003 09:52AM

This post has been deleted.

spooiirt!! · 30-10-2003 10:46AM

they should stop using cgi for spaceships. Spaceships looked better when they were models. much better. CGI looks awful.

dangerman · 30-10-2003 01:54PM

lol, yeah, the rock was completely CGI. Nicholas Cage's facial animation wasn't up to scratch though... OH NO WAIT THATS JUST HIS FACE...

ILM have done such varying work it's hard to judge them as a whole.

All CGI films like toy story are completely different affairs - there's no attempt to make the characters look real in any of them.

One of my fav films for CGI is Fight Club - photogrammetry flying round the buildings with the bombs, the flying through the apartment etc. And the sex scene was CGI! And when Norton gets his face blown up! Incredible.

ObeyGiant · 30-10-2003 02:10PM

Originally posted by dangerman
ILM have done such varying work it's hard to judge them as a whole.

Agreed.. I'm a huge fan of ILM's work on the whole, but there are a couple of occasions when
they've really let the side down - one notable example being the Scorpion King at the end of the Mummy Returns.

ILM have a short CGI film for download on their site (http://www.ilm.com/insideilm.html). It's pretty fancy, but certainly nothing near Pixar's quality. But this is okay, I guess, since ILM aren't trying to create an entire CGI movie.

(One thing to note: ILM didn't do the effects on The Rock, that was Dream Quest Images.)

CyberGhost · 30-10-2003 02:34PM

no the rock wasn't all cgi but planes and most of the explosions were, and who made Terminator 2 in 1992? wasn't it ILM? even for todays standards T2 effects are one of the best

Beëlzebooze · 30-10-2003 04:46PM

Basically it comes down to what Ioxy said, it is best when you don't notice it (battle scene in the two towers, upcoming battle scene in return of the King )

Sauron · 30-10-2003 06:25PM

no the rock wasn't all cgi

exactly it wasn't so therefore it has nothing to do with what I said...I was talking about completley.. cgi films..
eg "Toy Story" "Monsters inc." "Finding Nemo"....Pixar have made gr8 ones I have to say..... :rolleyes: ........

originally posted by Dangerman
CGI is like ANY film technique, used correctly it adds (Fight Club), used badly it takes away (Spawn).

I have to agree, I think that sums it up..CGI was really well used in LOTR ....it really looks spectacular..i just shows how good CGI can be if used correctly

Karl Hungus · 30-10-2003 08:54PM

I'm not as aversed to CGI as many of my film-nerd counterparts are, but I absolutely hate when it's used in a film, simply for the sake of having CGI in it. Nothing grates more than an obvious CG Shot popping up and saying "HEY! LOOK AT ME! WHOA! AREN'T I THE BOMB!?"

One thing I like in a film is when you dont notice the effects, and it all blends seamlessly into the film world. LOTR is a perfect example of this, and looking at some of the special features on the Fellowship Extended Edition, I was shocked how much of it WASN'T CGI, and some shots in it that were, and I hadn't even noticed. It's perfect.

I just think it's whores like Lucas that ruin a perfectly legitimate film technique.

sceptre · 30-10-2003 11:22PM

Originally posted by ixoy
and he said the best CGI is when you don't *know* it's CGI.

Absolutely. Like AngelWhore I can't stand it when part of a movie seems to be there for no other reason than as a CGI showcase.

Serbian · 31-10-2003 12:50PM

Originally posted by spooiirt!!
they should stop using cgi for spaceships. Spaceships looked better when they were models. much better. CGI looks awful.

Take a look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. The space station and space ships look great in that film, even now, almost 40 years on.

On a personal note, CG is very hit and miss with me. I'm probably not even aware of the best CGI I have ever seen as it was done so well, but the worst example for me has to be Deep Blue Sea (especially when a shark 'jumps' out of the water to eat one of the characters)

Terminator · 31-10-2003 05:35PM

ILM delivers the goods when they have a techno-savvy director like Cameron or Finch busting their balls.

But if its someone like Ang Lee who apparently went to ILM with bits of wood he found on the beach and told the engineers that was the essence of spirit he was looking for in The Hulk then you're gonna have problems

Weta at the moment have had something like six years to concentrate on the LOTR movies. They did an amazing job but I don't think they'd be comparable to ILM if they were working on many projects at once.

lodgepole · 01-11-2003 06:13AM

Anything WETA have done, they've learnt from ILM. Yes, they've been very creative with their tools, but those tools only exist because of George Lucas and ILM.

Oswald Osbourne · 01-11-2003 02:43PM

CGI is good AND bad. It just depends on who gets their hands on it!

CGI in the hands of James Cameron or Robert Zemeckis = GOOD, because they seemlessly integrate their effects into
their stories and half the time as you watch it you proably wouldn't realise you'd just watched a CG or partial CG shot.

CGI in the hands of G.Lucas or the Wankowski brothers = BAD, because they just use it as a licence to go completly crazy and overboard and create wholy unconvincing creatures, technology and enviornments just for the sake of doing so. I know the usual arguement is THATS OK COS ITS SCIFI - but if you viewer is completely unconvinced by what they are watching then they will be more unwilling to suspend their disbelief and go with a story.

dangerman · 01-11-2003 03:32PM

it's a given that the effects in reloaded kinda sucked, or at least didn't look real, but saying that the wachowskis are idiots for trying is pointless.

You couldn't have gollum without jar jar, and u can't have a film in a couple of years with 500 of one actor in a scene fighting someone else and it all looking completely real without the burly brawl.

the problem with cgi is it's evolutionary, so people have to get it almost right before they can get it completely right.

the burly brawl in particular is a great achievement, and should be seen as so.

That said, i'm not making excuses for reloaded, the film was weak in many areas, but it could be semi-redeemed this coming wednesday.

lodgepole · 01-11-2003 04:40PM

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
CGI in the hands of G.Lucas

Look up some information on CGI and it's development in the 80s and then come back and say that about George Lucas. Without him, Rick McCallum and the Young Indiana Jones chronicles, special effects and CGI would be years behind what they are now.

Watch the documentaries on episode 1 and 2 and you'll see just how good the CG in the films is. Just because there are few bad shots out of 100s, doesn't mean the CG sucks.

Creature · 02-11-2003 12:01AM

CGI has is place in todays films, obviously, and I'm totally in favour of it. However I'm a massive fan of old style phsyical effects - the more extreme and outlandish the better. I challenge any CGI whizz to 'TRY' to do a better werewolf transformation than Rick Baker's American Werewolf In London one.

And then there's also the cream of the crop in The Thing which...well...if you haven't seen it watch it on Sky1 on tuesday. You'll point and laugh at any CG effects you see afterwards.

ixoy · 02-11-2003 01:13AM

Originally posted by Lodgepole
Look up some information on CGI and it's development in the 80s and then come back and say that about George Lucas. Without him, Rick McCallum and the Young Indiana Jones chronicles, special effects and CGI would be years behind what they are now.

Watch the documentaries on episode 1 and 2 and you'll see just how good the CG in the films is. Just because there are few bad shots out of 100s, doesn't mean the CG sucks.

No, the point about G. Lucas is the fact that he completely OVERDOES CGI and, as a result, the movies look cartoonish. We've all seen the movies and we all know that in many a place it looked poor (and Matrix: Reloaded as well). He may have developed it initially but that's a crap excuse for misusing it nowadays. And films like "The Thing" point out that traditional SFX still very much have their place.

ObeyGiant · 02-11-2003 03:11AM

CGI simply allows directors a lot more scope than traditional, practical effects. This means that they're no longer confined to brief glimpses of effects, and they no longer have to cut away to hide the 'seams'. For example, if they were to do The Thing today, we would be able to see 'The Thing' in all its glory, instead of hints. If they were to do 'American Werewolf in London' today, we would have one continuous take of a man turning into a werewolf.

The problem with this, and a lot of directors don't realise it, is that what made these things so scary was not the marvelous things the effects guys were able to create with latex and fake blood, but what was hinted at. A perfect example of this would be the original Alien movie.. Ridley Scott rightly figured he had a **** looking guy in a rubber suit for a monster, and chose not to show it. Another perfect example of this is Jaws - the movie he had envisioned was very different to the one he delivered.. he had planned to see the shark do everything (probably even jump out of the water and snack on someone, a la Deep Blue Sea). Unfortunately, his anamatronic shark rarely worked, so he was forced to work around it, to the benefit of the suspence and terror in the film.

In the case of George Lucas and the Wachowskis, it's very easy to point and laugh at them, since they're still pioneers in the field of CG effects, and so they're still making mistakes. This is like giggling at Melies in the 1900s and saying "Give it up, Georges".

There is no way Lucas could make these films without saturating them in computer effects, unless he wanted to compromise the breadth of the story he was trying to tell. And he's powerful enough not to have to do that, so more power to him. Can you imagine trying to create a Jar Jar character without CGI? Or a pod-racing scene? Or a clone war? If so, I'm sure Stan Winston would love to hear from you - he's been nervous ever since Jurassic Park.

As for the Wachowskis.. well, those guys know where the line is drawn. They're not needlessly using CG effects in their movies. I was impressed by the car crash at the end of Reloaded, doubly so when I found out that was a practical effect, done with real cars.

I think directors are finally learning that when it comes to effects, they should just use the right tool for the job.

lodgepole · 02-11-2003 05:45AM

Originally posted by ixoy
And films like "The Thing" point out that traditional SFX still very much have their place.

Well it's 21 years old so it doesn't really point that out...

But the effects in it are amazing... Carpenter has always made good use of physical effects. Gore in general doesn't work in CG. Films like Resident Evil really show that...

Oswald Osbourne · 02-11-2003 12:03PM

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
In the case of George Lucas and the Wachowskis, it's very easy to point and laugh at them, since they're still pioneers in the field of CG effects, and so they're still making mistakes. This is like giggling at Melies in the 1900s and saying "Give it up, Georges".

Difference is Melies was pioneering something that actually impressed people when they first saw it. Whereas as can clearly be seen from this thread a lot of people are ALREADY so unimpressed with the current standard of CG that they are actually wishing model making, animatronics and puppetry would make a return to cinema! That's not a good sign and if we're not even 'wowing' now at what we see in these current blockbusters then what are these films going to look like 5 or 10 years from now - never mind 100?

I'm all for technological progress in cinema but if Lucas et al want to develop CG then let them do it on their own time and stop making us pay (literally and metaphorically) for his 'experimental' filmmaking. If it doesn't look even remotely real then don't have it in the film. And bear in mind this may only account for 10 effects out of 1,000 in a film but it's enough to sink it completely IMHO.

//

And since I brought Wackowski/Lucas up, for clarification If you want 3 sequences from Matrix / Star Wars movies that really exemplify what I'm talking about when I say 'bad CGI' then here they are :

1) The battle between the droids and the gungans in Ep1
2) The whole insects / jedis / clones battle in ep 2
3) The arrival at Zion in Matrix reloaded.

Coincidentally, these three are all meant to be 'real world' environments but look more like something out of an X-box game not even the biggest CGI fan here could deny that. When you can't even get an environment to look real then you've really lost the battle (pardon the pun) before even fighting the war

On the other hand and btw I'd like to point out that I AM a fan of the Burly Battle sequence and Jar Jar characters. Reasons being - the Burly Battle is set 'inside the matrix' so because of the writing and context it's already given a bit of leeway to go overboard.

JarJar is an impressive character too and gets away with it because we've never seen a gungan character done with puppets previously so we are willing to go with what we see in him as well. Compare it to the Jabba CGI character in the same movie (who we've already formed a mental image of from seeing in ROTJ) who might have looked equally good as JarJar and Watto - but because we had a mental image decided that he looked fake.

Bottom line is CG can get away with creating most things that a human has NEVER seen (eg new aliens, technology etc) but it can't currently reproduce complex things from our own physical world or things we've seen before or have a mental image of (eg Grass, Caves, or even JABBA THE HUTT

) and the sooner directors realise this and deal with it one way or another (either by not including such elements digitally or by improving the tech on their own time until it's good enough) the better.

ObeyGiant · 02-11-2003 01:49PM

Originally posted by Oswald Osbourne
Difference is Melies was pioneering something that actually impressed people when they first saw it. Whereas as can clearly be seen from this thread a lot of people are ALREADY so unimpressed with the current standard of CG that they are actually wishing model making, animatronics and puppetry would make a return to cinema!

Just two things about what you're saying here..
1. Animatronics and puppetry still has its place in modern cinema, albeit in different usages (such as for modelling the movement of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park). Actually, Jurassic Park is a good example of a movie that both pioneered CG effects without losing sight of when is best to use practical effects - a lot of the shots of the t-rex were done using a giant puppet. So it's never quite gone away. I think most people on here are just disappointed that it's taken directors so long to learn restraint when dealing with CG effects, leaving us with shoddy, movie-spoiling pieces of trash in the meantime.

2. People are still being amazed by the things that are being done with CG - I also love the Burly Brawl sequence of the Matrix, and I'm still impressed with some of the effects in the original Jurassic Park movie. And maybe I'm just impressed very easily, but I love some of the effects in Episode 2 (and 1), especially the clone war and Yoda's fight at the end. I'd like to think my opinions aren't that far removed from those of the general public, so I'd say you're downright wrong to say that noone is impressed with some of the things Lucas is pioneering.

And as someone has mentioned already, even when he makes a mistake, it's built on and improved by others (Jar Jar - Gollum).

Pioneers don't get it right all the time.

Oswald Osbourne · 02-11-2003 04:05PM

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Just two things about what you're saying here..
1. Animatronics and puppetry still has its place in modern cinema, albeit in different usages (such as for modelling the movement of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park). Actually, Jurassic Park is a good example of a movie that both pioneered CG effects without losing sight of when is best to use practical effects - a lot of the shots of the t-rex were done using a giant puppet. So it's never quite gone away. I think most people on here are just disappointed that it's taken directors so long to learn restraint when dealing with CG effects, leaving us with shoddy, movie-spoiling pieces of trash in the meantime.

I agree, and that is my point. I'm all for new technology in cinema - but if the technology is not up to scratch at the point in time then DON'T USE IT in your film! If the year is 1993 and you can still make a T-Rex's head look more realistic with a fibreglass puppet than you can with CGI ... then USE THE PUPPET. Similarily of it's 1999 and you can't can't make grass look real with CGI ... then use REAL GRASS. That's all I'm saying.

If Lucas wants to spend the next decade getting the look of a grassy field or a desert cavern right then let him do it in private. He didn't have to go ruin two potentially good looking film sequences in his quest to be a pioneer.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I'd say you're downright wrong to say that noone is impressed with some of the things Lucas is pioneering.

Yes, It WOULD have been wrong of me to say that - which is why I never said it. I said a LOT of people were unimpressed - not everyone. And besides I wasn't saying they were unimpressed with the EFFORT - merely with the RESULTS.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
And as someone has mentioned already, even when he makes a mistake, it's built on and improved by others (Jar Jar - Gollum).

So by that we should put up with inferior looking cartoonish movies for the next decade until they eventually get it right? I guess as far as George Lucas is concerned the answer is a resounding YES!

what are your thoughts of CGI?

Comments