CGI: good or bad?

L

LeeDless

Brigade Leader
CGI.jpg

Any thoughts on the proliferation of computer-generated special effects in movies over the last decade?
Personally I feel that CG should be used to compliment models, puppetry, set-design and so forth, not REPLACE them.
 
In some cases I agree. Models are still used in great block busters today like LOTR. Main problem you'll find is that it's immensley cheaper to use CGI to recreate something than to build it yourself. IMO CGI just hasn't quite got the edge over real props and stages yet. There's still that sence when you know it isn't real. It won't be long however untill CGI takes over completely and it'll be near if not impossible to tell the difference making models and puppetry redundant.

Crazy avatar by the way :p
 
Well to be honest CGI is a good thing i mean look at Transformers you couldn't of done that with just puppets alone. I would settle for the two to coexist peacefully, puppets used when needed and CGI used when needed but as Voddas said the time is coming when CGI will be impossible to distinguish from the real things
 
Wait... I thought George Lucas WAS CGI too.

Good CGI is fine. Obviously, otherwise it wouldn't be good CGI. Models / Puppetry uncomplemented by CGI are no longer viable, but I agree that mixing traditional with digital special effects tech would make up for shortcomings where applicable. It's just a shame that the biggest 'shortcoming' is ultimately going to be cost. Impressive or not, puppetry and model-making were never cheap. I know you specifically address Movies, and though we're quick to scoff at 'bad CGI' on TV, when it rears its ugly head, it has usually allowed for a higher quality program overall, allowing TV to tread ground it otherwise would have had an even harder time convincing us of.

CGI doesn't annoy me in live-action, but I'm getting sick of it in animation. The UN should decree that only Pixar are allowed to make computer generated animation, since they're the only ones who can achieve anything interesting without buzz-words, BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE! kiddy pleasing, or tired pop-culture references and innuendo. Odd then that the 'CGI' itself in these movies - sloppy and unappealing as it usually is - is mostly less objectional than the cliched baggage that comes with it. 'CGI Animation' seems to have become a faddish genre instead of a pioneering mode of film making.

But that's probably a digression from the point of the thread which is, uhh, there's a LOT more wrong with the Star Wars prequels than CGI proliferation. They're just genuinely bad movies that become the scapegoats for film-making progress. Or something.
 
kupoartist said:
But that's probably a digression from the point of the thread which is, uhh, there's a LOT more wrong with the Star Wars prequels than CGI proliferation. They're just genuinely bad movies that become the scapegoats for film-making progress. Or something.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Star Wars was obviously fine to be left as it was. Lucas has even tainted the originals with his fiddling! A HEX on him! I thought the CGI was good in the newer movies, I just didn't think the movies themselves were taht great. Don't even get me started on JarJar... now there's a character that gives CGI a bad name.
 
It doesn't bother me particularly - I loved the old models in Star Trek/Red Dwarf but CG can look great when done right too. I personally find it very easy to suspend my disbelief in movies so even cheap special effects can often be passable so long as they put some effort into it.

The Star Wars prequels ranged from terrible to average, but it was nothing to do with the CG in my case either. More the irritating characters and meandering dialogue.

It's still sometimes hard to identify with CG characters compared to actors, cartoons or even puppets. Hopefully they'll get there soon. Of course, it works when the character isn't meant to be someone you identify with. General Grievous was my favourite part of the SW prequels.

R
 
kupoartist said:
The UN should decree that only Pixar are allowed to make computer generated animation, since they're the only ones who can achieve anything interesting without buzz-words, BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE! kiddy pleasing, or tired pop-culture references and innuendo.
Click to expand...
Thankfully the average joe can separate a Pixar movie from a mediocre summer-fun and frolicking CG animal movie, usually. But something really needs to happen with the amount of CG **** that Dreamworks, etc are barfing out.

Disney were the frontrunners with 2D animation, by a mile, but they don't help themselves on the CG front with films like Meet The Robinsons.

In Live Action, I don't mind it in some movies, actually. I'm not a big enough Star Wars fan to say anything about that catastrophe but unless it serious prevents me from enjoying the movie. I'm alright with it. Lot-RAH couldn't have been done without it.
 
I'm getting sick of CGI movies, it was nice when there was only one being released now it's like... four or five on average. With mediocre plotlines mainly with some moral I totally haven't seen before in a cartoon as a child! OR a bad rescue movie which Pixar seems to love.
 
If you look back at older horror movies, you'll feel that what you're seeing could be real since, even though it's acting, there's still something physical. With CGI, there's nothing or little there, and it's hard to feel anything towards it; good or bad.

Try watching The Evil Dead trilogy and you'll see what I mean.
 
I can tolerate most CGI... but when it's used to create a sequel to a classic film *Indiana Jones comes to mind*, CGI, puts that movie on it's knees, tips a barrel of Napalm over it and lets it burn.

Also, it ruins the value of making the movies. I mean, during the 80's it was all about getting atleast 2 different models for everything, hours on costume designing and make up and finding actors big/small enough just to fit into the said costume. Now it's just a green screen. Yup, it's that blunt.

Overall, it's as said above. Good if you want to compliment something, but having it replace everything is ghey.

So, yeah, I believe it's killing alot of films today ^^
 
I don't enjoy that many films these days. Partly due to the CGI which I find often overbearing on films and partly due to the really crap jokes they try and slip in all the time.

I think CGI really reached it's peak with films like The Matrix. Now I just feel it's gone a bit too far.
 
Will-O'-The-Wisp said:
So, yeah, I believe it's killing alot of films today ^^
Click to expand...
That's not down to CGI tho. That's down to the creator or Director being crap at their job. People should know when to use it and if the audience feels it's a bad choice then it is a bad choice. Not because it's CGI but because of how they chose to use it.
I loved the new Indiana Jones =P and without CGI we wouldn't have remakes/continuations to the likes of Superman, Die Hard, Incredible Hulk, Transformers etc. There are always going to be bad examples of CGI, but same can be said for puppetry and models etc.
All, we can really do is prepare for the inevitable CGI take over.
It will RULE the movie WORLD!! MWaahahaaaaaaa.....
*ahem* Sorry bout that :p
 
I used to hate CGI with a passion - mainly because it looked so damn fake, but I just watched Blade Runner The Final Cut and honestly... I couldn't tell if the shots of the city were models or CGI anymore. Now that it's got to that stage I'm okay with it. It was early CGI that looked awful (and current CGI in any UK television productions since they clearly lack the budget to do it right).

But by all means, keep it out of anime unless it's all CG like Appleseed. I have to admit that GITS: Innocence combined the two in a fairly unique and likeable way though (CG Backgrounds, hand drawn Characters)
 
Back
Top