Over Use of CGI in Film?

Elmo · 05-08-2004 11:32PM #1

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 · 05-08-2004 11:51PM

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 · 05-08-2004 11:55PM

here we go again...

Rew · 05-08-2004 11:56PM

BlitzKrieg wrote:

here we go again...

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

pat kenny · 05-08-2004 11:59PM

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

Fuhrio · 06-08-2004 12:04AM

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 · 06-08-2004 01:03AM

watch the Thing !!!

RicardoSmith · 06-08-2004 01:06AM

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

Shrimp · 06-08-2004 01:13AM

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 · 06-08-2004 09:45AM

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 · 06-08-2004 11:03AM

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 · 06-08-2004 12:05PM

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 · 06-08-2004 12:16PM

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 · 06-08-2004 12:36PM

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 · 06-08-2004 12:40PM

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 · 06-08-2004 01:07PM

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 · 06-08-2004 02:26PM

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

mycroft · 06-08-2004 03:14PM

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 · 06-08-2004 03:47PM

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 · 06-08-2004 04:36PM

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 · 06-08-2004 04:48PM

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 · 06-08-2004 04:54PM

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

ObeyGiant · 06-08-2004 04:57PM

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 · 06-08-2004 04:59PM

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 · 06-08-2004 11:34PM

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 · 07-08-2004 12:56AM

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

mycroft · 08-08-2004 07:00PM

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 · 08-08-2004 08:56PM

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 · 08-08-2004 09:14PM

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 · 09-08-2004 12:59PM

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 · 09-08-2004 01:11PM

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....

Over Use of CGI in Film?

Comments