Alright, I've been meaning to vent about this for a long time.
Recently I've seen I Am Legend. And it was the last straw that made me want to post about this even more.
It was an OK movie, but what really ruined it for me was all the computerized graphics, especially for all the infected people.
Are computer graphics in movies just taking over, or what?
I think it looks so goddamn fake and unrealistic - and way too "animated".
In I Am Legend it looks like they had Disney do all of it for Christ sakes. It totally ruined it. The way they had the infected scream with their mouths wide open and shaking like a character in any computerized kid's movie... BAH, it pissed me off. I won't get started on the infected dogs...
Why is there so much do you think? Is it just the easy way out? I'm not saying computerized graphics is easy or not time consuming - it just looks so fake and cheesy - especially when it's thrown into a movie that is supposed to be serious. Is taking the time to make a "zombie" look "real" with make-up, props and other do-dads so damn time consuming where they think, ah, fuck it, let's just make them all computerized...?
One of my all-time favorite movies is The Return of the Living Dead. Those zombies looked so "life-like".... it made it that much more real and scary for me. I have yet to see a zombie movie that looks as fucking good as that.
What are your feelings about CGI in movies?
--Snake
Roller Coaster scene in Final Destination 3. Do I need to say more?
Looked fake as hell.
Shawn
All of the new star wars movies pissed me off for this very reason. The dialogue wasn't great, but the puppets in the original trilogy made those movies fun.
It's cheaper to do animation. You have to pay actors, makeup artists, etc... For the graphics, you may only need hire a couple of guys who don't get actor/actress salaries. But it is BS.
But even though it is computer animated, the new Grand Theft Auto IV looks crazy good. The stuff looks much more real, so it seems like technology is evolving.
I AM BEOWULF!
I think that CG is just like any other special-effect's tool for movies.
If a tool is used properly, it can work well and be really good. If abused, it looks like shit.
This is no different with CG effects in my opinion.
There are examples where CG doesn't work and doesn't "fit" into the movie like in the Matrix sequel. Then there are times when the CG is so perfectly blended with the movie that you don't even think of it as CG like in the new War of the Worlds.
I think what happens is that a lot of directors want to focus the attention on the CG and this is where the problem comes in. War of the Worlds was a great example 'cause the special effects took a back-seat to the story/acting and thus worked very well and seemlessly blended. An example of this is the toward the ending when the soldiers are firing rockets at the tri-pod ... you can barely see the tri-pod. The focus is on the soldiers.
Just like any tool of a trade ... if used properly it produces great results, if not used properly ... well ... you get shit.
There were a lot of "shit" movies and/or special effects before the advent of CGI!
The other thing I have trouble with CGI is when CGI is extremely well made, and so realistic, it looks that they spent months building that King Kong. Problem is that, while the monkey is perfect in every way, and dinosaurs as well, the actress is quite awful and is doing the most amazing stuns, drops, everything without even loosing her makeup! It's honestly a dissapointement seeing her in the palm of Kong, who is btw, fighting with 3 dinosaurs and she gets out without even a scratch!
If done well, CGI in movies can work very well. What I can't stand are CGI monsters in cheap monster movies. It_is_horrible. But on the other hand, the CGI monster in the Korean "The Host" blended well with its surroundings. But of course, a good make-up-artist can do wonders. I really liked the costumes of the Silent Hill monsters.
I'm still waiting for them to make a completely CG movie that is so life-like, and tell nobody that it was CG. Then after everybody watches it and comments on the authenticity of it, they spring the trap NOW!
i think the thing with CGI is that you have to spend just the right amount of money on it, too little and it looks crap, too much and it looks like highly polished crap.
my favourite CGI work is that of Flight of the Navigator (a 20 year old movie) and the LoTR trilogy, but i really do prefer puppet/model work which is sorta making a comback, a lot of stuff in Terminator 3 was models, including both terminator's endoskeletons which were built to scale. puppets and models look more realistic because they are actually in the scene being affected by the actual lighting and casting proper shadows.
CG is at its best, as Darth says, when it isn't the focal point of the movie. I'm thinking of the Cloverfield monster here. Throughout the movie we get a lot of glimpses and snapshots of him which are (in my opinion) seamless. But at the end this is all kind of ruined by the big close-up we get of his face. It is the cheesiest moment of the film. In some ways he looks too good close-up, and it kind of spoils the realism.
The makers obviously couldn't resist the opportunity for a bit of exhibitionism, and I wouldn't begrudge them that, but I think that sequence is what would bring the film down a percentage or two in my review.
Not so much CGI, but still in the realms of movie effects, what makes me laugh is the 'in-car' scenes where you can see the road rolling away out the back window. I can't believe today's movies still use that technique, and why does the director never remind the actors that they CAN'T STEER A CAR ON A FUCKING STRAIGHT ROAD!!!
There they are wobbling the steering wheel about, like I used to when I was 7 pretending that my bed was Ferrari, and all the time the background shows the car is quite clearly moving in a straight line. It's a schoolboy error and it makes me angry every time I see it.
I have been heard on several occasions laughing at some of the rubbish CGI in films.
King Kong - Ugh.
Ghost Rider - Flaming skull head, doesnt really look real does it?
The Hulk - Haha
Die Hard 4.0 - That plane is so fake. (As far as I can remember it was a mig plane or something attacking Mclane)
Matrix - Fake CGI people.. bloody hell..
Spider-man - Swinging spidey looks like he's made of rubber.
Argh. Just argh!
I fully agree that there has become far too much reliance on CGI in filmmaking to substitute for just getting their hands dirty and making some pleasing sets. Animatronics is a field that could have advanced leaps and bounds had they not all but dropped it for CGI when it first became available, and I still say that when both are done by masters of the art, animatronics STILL outshine a CGI creation in sheer realism and immersion.
Gotta agree with ProgZ on that (about animatronics).
I don't know who has had the opportunity to ride the new Pirates of the Caribbean at Disney World (in Orlando, FL) but they added in an animatronic Jack Sparrow. The damn thing is so convincing and believable that I had to do a double-take to make sure it wasn't actually Johnny Depp. So yeah, cg characters aren't always a good thing.
I always dread CGI monster effects in movies. Sometimes it looks good, but even then it's still CGI. There's an inherent "look" with CGI that the medium can't seem to shake. The Host had a interesting monster, and the fact that it was a good film regardless, made the sometimes lacklustre CGI more bearable.
I was always a bigger fan of animatronics, or even advanced stop-motion, than I've ever was, and probably ever will be, of CGI. Of course, an all CGI movie can be enjoyable, with the right artists and animators behind it. Twee as it was, I enjoyed Advent Children, and Spirits Within biggest flaw is that it's trying to replicate reality at the cost of engaging the audience.
Using digital stunt performers to create "awesome" stunt and fight effects is pretty redundant when it's obvious that they are CGI.
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. They still have to act, they still have to say the lines. And through motion capture, they have noting to act against. No set, no other actors. Just a nerd with a camera. Why not just put them in the damn film? You're paying them the same!
Yeah, but Gollum was great though, wasn't he?
It's not about CG / animatronics / stop-motion, it's about the directing and the acting.
Gollum is great because Andy Serkis is amazing, not because the rendering's any better than anything else.
Alien is great because you hardly see the creature, not because an Alien suit is better than CG.
Quote from: CaptainBinky on Thu 10/04/2008 23:15:30
Alien is great because you hardly see the creature, not because an Alien suit is better than CG.
Good point. How lame was it when the Alien was finally revealed as a guy in a suit? The flip side of Gollum must be Yoda's appearance in Episode III. Proof that a man with his hand up the backside of a foam puppet can turn in a better performance than all the CGI in the world.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 10/04/2008 23:19:41The flip side of Gollum must be Yoda's appearance in Episode III. Proof that a man with his hand up the backside of a foam puppet can turn in a better performance than all the CGI in the world.
True, but I'd like to see a guy with his hand up Yoda's arse make him have an even moderately convincing lightsaber duel :p
Kermit the Frog vs Tim Curry in Muppet's Treasure Island! Take that, Lucas! :D
/grasping at straws
Actually, good call - that bit was ace :D
I especially liked all the little buttons and bits of cloth flying off - now that's attention to detail! ;D
"I'm a frog! Slippery hands!"
I'm gonna reveal myself as a Transformers semi-fan here, but I thought the CGI in that movie blended pretty seamlessly with the real world. Sure there were a few cracks here an there, but most of the time it was fantastic. Michael Bay's (terrible) directing didn't do it justice at all.
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.
I prefer nice realistic 3D modelling instead of fat actors in stupid costumes anytime.
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.
Quote from: Domino on Fri 11/04/2008 00:38:08
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.
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
Jurassic Park is mostly animatronics, btw :)
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.
Immortal shows a realy nice use of the difference between CGI and real.
Quote from: Andail on Fri 11/04/2008 13:13:48
Yeah, Space Boy, those close-ups of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were hardly CGI...
Yep, I'm aware of that.
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.
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
Space Boy is *not* dense. :D
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".
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
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
Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 11/04/2008 23:41:08
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.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 11/04/2008 23:41:08
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.
Let's not discuss Resurrection or those hideous Paul Anderson AvP's, please.
Quote from: nihilyst on Thu 10/04/2008 17:53:28
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 :)
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
Quote from: Andail on Fri 11/04/2008 13:13:48
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.
Yup. I'm also fascinated by the feeling that most CGI-creatures seem weightless somehow.
I think CGI have come to stay for both economical and practical reasons. This "revolution" has also removed all remaining borders of what can possibly happen in the movies. Hollywood seem to have become obsessed with these endless possibilities, and the overall quality of the output has declined in favor of gigantic skyscrapers swallowed by flying purple pigs and other such scenarios. Hopefully the novelty will wear off, and they can again put the emphasis on solid storytelling - it is what made Hollywood so successful in the first place.
I just saw The Mist. I know it probably contains tons of CGI, but i didn't see anything that looked fake.
That was one great movie. WOW!!
I think the most disappointing cinematic experience for me was watching Spider-man 1. The webslinger slinging through all those computergenerated skyscrapers... horrible.
On the other hand, nothing cheers me up like a little bit of trivia: I watched the Making of Charlie and the Chocolat Factory, and you might remember the chipmunks squirrels opening nuts?
Tim Burton requested specially trained chipmunks squirrels, while he could have used CGI.
Maybe you'd never noticed CGI, but it just makes me value a movie more when I know a filmmaker's put effort into details like that.
They were squirrels, and also there was only one oompa-loompa that was played by one guy, even though it looked like there was about 20 of them.
:)
I agree with the people who have said CGI is nothing more than a tool. In the right hands it's fantastic and can show you things that would not be possible otherwise and then you have the flip side of that. While 'I Am Legend' has admittidly absolutely terrible CGI for the monsters it is interesting to note that it had some very good CGI in it too, the additions to the city itself. The weeds, some billboards, the quarantine covers on the buildings, the broken bridge etc were all CGI and a really good use of it too.
And there is no way that the animatronics in Jurassic Park were better than the CG. Any full-body shot of the T-Rex is CG and those are some of the most impressive, especially when it steps out of its enclosure or chases the jeep. What about that last shot of the T-Rex? Couldn't do it without CG. The animatronics for the film were very limited because they are so heavy and broke down alot in the rain scenes. It was, and probably still is, impossible to build a full-size walking T-Rex so they had to build pieces which means most of the impressive stuff in Jurassic Park couldn't have been pulled off without CG.
Some other great examples of CG.
Terminator 2: sure it might not look perfect today, I still think it holds up real well, but it is a fine example of how CGI can add so much to a film. The villian would not have been any where near as affective with any other effect approach.
Minority Report: apart from the silly car chase part this film has plenty of great CGI moments. The interface Cruise's character uses, the spidery bots that are tracking him, the intrusive advertising etc.
War of the Worlds: not a big fan of the film but the CG was very well integrated into the live action stuff. Speilberg is easily the best special-effects director in the world today.