Computer graphics in movies - Your take.

[Domino]

One movie mistake that really bugs me is when it is raining and you can tell that it is sunny outside.  I have seen this in countless movies.

I know they use those rain machines, but c'mon..make the sky dark.

[InCreator]

I prefer nice realistic 3D modelling instead of fat actors in stupid costumes anytime.

[zabnat]

Main problem seem to be that they always exhibit their detailed cgi monsters a lot, when they tried to hide their crappy puppets in the shadows
But I like the cgi that you don't know is cgi until you read about it on some computer graphics magazine. I also liked the cgi's in Fight Club for example.

[Buckethead]

One movie mistake that really bugs me is when it is raining and you can tell that it is sunny outside.  I have seen this in countless movies.

yeah like in Stephen King's IT. One scene where a boy in yellow rain coat walks through the streets. It's suppose to be rainy hard but you can clearly see that it's actually sunny. And you can see that alot parts on the street are dry.

I think using 3d models in movies ok but only if they absolutely have to. I hate it when film makers are lazy and use 3d models because it's easier.

[space boy]

Jurassic park, a movie made in 1993, has more convincig CGI than most newer movies. It's actually some of the best CGI in movie history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGO7EHOuTwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9SUZ8Mg2c4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmKJdQ9Era8

[Becky]

Jurassic Park is mostly animatronics, btw

[Andail]

Yeah, Space Boy, those close-ups of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were hardly CGI...

I concur with most speakers here...CGI most often just screws up the effects and makes them look plastic and fake.

The following issues annoy me the most...they should be simple but apparently they're unavoidable:
1. Too many creatures. Matrix 3, I am legend, even Lord of the Rings...they just cram in millions and millions of 3D creatures and rely on sheer quantity. Remember when they just poured in flying robots in Matrix 3? What an eyesore...
2. They move too freaking fast. The monsters bounce around like rubber balls, shake and leap all across the screen. It's just stressful to watch.
3. Gravity. In Starwars II...young Anakin is standing on some sort of monster...on its side? Completely imbalanced. Same with Legolas in Lord of the rings, he rides all sorts of trolls and monsters, but he appears to be glued to their backs. If you stand on top of a large body that moves very quickly, you don't move with them, you fall off. Basic physics.

Nothing breaks immersion so much as when stuff don't make sense.

[Andorxor]

Immortal shows a realy nice use of the difference between CGI and real.

[space boy]

Yeah, Space Boy, those close-ups of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were hardly CGI...

Yep, I'm aware of that.

[BOYD1981]

yeh but Andail, Legolas was an elf. He also walks on top of the snow whereas everyone else just goes through it (which I didn't actually notice until watching the extras on the dvd), elves are magic like that, but if you want to get into realistic physics then you should really start with the mamakil, a creature that large would require HUGE legs, but that's why it's fantasy and not real life.
but, LoTR is actually a good example of using models whenever you can rather than relying on CGI for everything.

[Snake]

Heh, I forgot about Jurassic Park - I used to love that movie.

Before seeing the video of the T-REX eating Gallimimus, I thought the CG would pop out like a sore thumb, especially not seeing it since I was a kid - but it didn't, they did a great job with the CG in that movie. They did a job where you don't even think about it.
It's too distracting for me when I can't help thinking how shitty it looks and wonder why they didn't use something else. Money? Resources? AH SHIT! I've missed the past 8 minutes thinking about it!!1

Their best idea in the first place, in Jurassic Park, was definately using animatronics for the most part and CG for parts they couldn't do without.

Andail - I agree with your statements about CG. They bounce! This is what I meant in the my first post about it being too animated. It's not a goddamn cartoon, be serious about it.

Another thing that made me say, "Oh, for the love of God..." years ago was when they came out with the special version of E.T. (two disc set - the original and the new one).
E.T. was all CG - yet again, too animated. I didn't watch the whole thing, I was too disappointed that they would even THINK to do that to E.T. (I loved E.T. as a kid, btw ).
Let it be known that I of course didn't even touch the new version until I watched the original.


--Snake

[LUniqueDan]

Space Boy is *not* dense. 

[Ultra Magnus]

The thing about real actors and some of the better puppeteers (like the Henson guys, for example), is that they almost subconsciously put subtle little movements and twitches into their performance, but because it's being filmed in real-time these are very much a spur-of-the-moment thing and they're usually gone in half a second or less.

With CG, every half-second takes (total guesswork here, but let's say...) 15 minutes to put together, plus there's always the opportunity to backtrack and revisit/redo that half-second countless times.
Usually, what seems to happen, is that the CG guys think that they need to cram in as much movement as possible to over-compensate the innate stiffness of CG models, and it just ends up looking rubbery and OTT*, as many people in this thread have already said.



And while it may be true that Legolas is an elf that doesn't conform to the conventional laws of gravity, he still has muscles and bones, right? You can instantly spot a digi-elf because they act like they have neither.

It's the same with Spider-Man and (at least) the first couple of Harry Potters.
They had huge budgets for their films yet still look like complete weightless, boneless, muscle-less rag dolls at times.

TransFormers kinda worked, but that's because they were a bunch of moving plates.
They looked stiff, but the were supposed to look stiff, you dig?



Also, I agree that the problem is maybe with the film-makers' pride/ego.
They seem to want to thrust the CG into the spotlight to show-off all the good parts, but inevitably draw as much attention to the bad parts in doing so.

Going back to Alien (and Jaws) - the reason they worked so well because you couldn't see them.
If they were made today with CG, Mr Scott and (especially) Mr. Spielberg would probably want to get as many long, lingering shots of their beautiful monster as they could fit into 2 hours.
I mean, just look at the recent versions of the original Star Wars trilogy. 'Nuff said.


* No, this does not stand for "Of The Tentacle".

[LimpingFish]

Um...the close up work in Jurassic Park (non-CGI) was pretty unconvincing. The raptor feet in the kitchen? The T-Rex's jaw? That moronic brontosaur head eating the leaves? The raptor head-on-a-stick poking up through the vent (with Pez Dispenser-like action)?

Jurassic Park rates as one of the only movies where the CGI creatures looked more lifelike.

And I'm not even a fan of CGI!

The CGI inserts in the original Star Wars trilogy are appalling, though. Probably because it still takes a damn good animator to make creatures move in a lifelike manner.

Phil Tippet's work on Jurassic Park is outstanding. Probably because he'd already animated most of the movies key scenes in Go Motion, his advanced Stop-Motion technique, before some nerd rendered a running T-Rex in CGI. He adapted his Go-Motion system to a computer-controlled armature, which was then animated in the same way an old metal armature would be.

And probably why it still hasn't been surpassed.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

And Beowulf is awful shite. I really don't see the point of digitizing actual actors, and having them mime their performances in a suit covered in ping pong balls within the confines of an empty room.

I believe the rationale was that by making everything CGI, none of the effects would look out of place next to the actors.

Also, I thought the alien suits in Aliens were fucking awesome, and I would easily rate the Queen higher than Gollum any second of the day.

[Domino]

One of the best movies in my opinion with CGI is TITANIC.

I watched a short documentary about the making of it and there were scenes that i thought looked very realistic, only to find out they were computer rendered.

I think most of the ship itself was a model though.

http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/20_benchmarks_in_cgi_part_3

[LimpingFish]

I believe the rationale was that by making everything CGI, none of the effects would look out of place next to the actors.

Or that everything would look equally rubbish.

Also, I thought the alien suits in Aliens were fucking awesome, and I would easily rate the Queen higher than Gollum any second of the day.

Oh, the Alien Queen is an exceptional creation, both the full size static version and the puppet. But the the Alien "drones", the times we are meant to see full body shots of them in action, particularly the "That's inside the room!" sequence, the limitations of "guy-in-suit syndrome" lessens their impact. The torso/head shots of the drones are damn groovy, but, just as in Alien, when we see them "head to toe", they seem awfully rubbery and foamy.

Which is why those shots are very brief.

EDIT: Alien 3's dog-alien was also a pretty cool design, despite the maximum suckage level of the movie. Alien Resurrection's CGI aliens were a very mixed-bag. Even the animatronic versions.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Let's not discuss Resurrection or those hideous Paul Anderson AvP's, please.

[brokenbutterfly]

I really liked the costumes of the Silent Hill monsters.

I agree, I loved how the nurses were done. Even if the whole scene of the flashlight "stop/move" is incoherent game-wise, when they are twitching I think it's a great blend of sexy with creepy

[Blackthorne]

I think the use of CGI, and 3D modeling, is not only overused in films but also in games as well.

Seriously, every freakin' video game today just looks like a modeler's playground.

Bt