Computer graphics in movies - Your take.

[Snake]

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

[Domino]

Roller Coaster scene in Final Destination 3. Do I need to say more?

Looked fake as hell.

Shawn

[yukonhorror]

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. 

[SSH]

I AM BEOWULF!

[Darth Mandarb]

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!

[Nikolas]

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!

[nihilyst]

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.

[TheJBurger]

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!

[BOYD1981]

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[ManicMatt]

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!

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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!

[CaptainBinky]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[CaptainBinky]

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.

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

[LimpingFish]

Kermit the Frog vs Tim Curry in Muppet's Treasure Island! Take that, Lucas!

/grasping at straws

[CaptainBinky]

Actually, good call - that bit was ace
I especially liked all the little buttons and bits of cloth flying off - now that's attention to detail!

"I'm a frog! Slippery hands!"

[auriond]

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.