Are you fooled by CGI or do you see something as real?


Translation:Oh woe is me! Look at my post count. I am desperate for attention and tension so I can feel even a minutiae of human contact on the internet. I desperately try to ridicule and mock people on the internet in the hope they will respond to me with some form of response that will make me feel alive. I don't even have the ability to look at posts of users to identify that the questions I so desperately ask in my surges for tension have already been answered.

I have to watch films about a Hangover and flying objects to try and feel as though I can fly and maybe one day I will have a life where I can justify a Hangover - oh love me world for I wish to embrace the world of hangovers and one day fly, high, in the sky.

Maybe if my social skills were better I would understand that people don't want to respond to somebody who is nothing more than an aggressive poster forcing their opinion on others... but I have no other way of communicating. Oh Lord - the world of Trevor Liar is so small.
 
Just depenRAB on how well it's implemented. Nothing in the movies was ever real, it's a case of whether we are able to buy into the fantasy or not.

LanRABcapes tend to look ok and go by unnoticed while CGI monsters and characters are usually obvious and a bit cheesy. Not always though.
 
wow, you have turned the forum glitch into an armchair psychology assessment of my personality! bravo

you don't respond, because you can't.

you clearly cannot distinguish a personal opinion from something you regard as fact. this is clear by insisting it is i who have forced opinions on you, when all i have done is remind you that your opinions are your own

even others are berating you for being a complete klutz and telling them that if they didn't like your favourite film, 500 Days of Summer they were:-



this is the attitude of somebody on a definite gee up, or somebody with severely limited social awareness skills
 
I must admit I do love the omg wow factor some cgi sequences can add to films ( eg. battle scenes in the lord of the rings trilogy) but its just dull and overdone these days, I want to see proper car chases and fighting etc, I don't think I have seen a film since the bourne trilogy that uses good old fashioned stuntpeople ( no wire work, proper chase scenes and proper scrapping).
 
the first few times i saw CGI i was blown away - willow, sleepwalkers, the abyss. i couldn't work out how they had done it

then it was used sparingly, but very well - jurassic park, forrest gump.

then everyone got in on the act and every big budget film i see now is full of it.

some like gladiator use it well, making the colliseum come to life.

others like gi joe use it when there is no need.

it is now used by lazy film makers who can't be bothered using stunts and properly directed action.

its reached the point where i now long to see old fashioned stunts and not some rubbish looking GCI

indiana jones was a case in point. the first 3 are endlessly rewatchable due to the craft of the stuntwork. the last one was awful, cheap looking CGI animals and fights that were clearly filmed in a studio (the chase in the jungle in the jeeps). terrible.

the last big blockbuster i can think of that used stunts and model work and not loaRAB and loaRAB of CGI was total recall.

i think CGI is used by people who can't direct. even avatar which is full of cgi is a good film (in my opinion) as james cameron knows what he is doing!
 
God yes, what has promised to be an interesting topic has plummeted to two ego's thrashing it out.

Just to keep on topic: CGI is not real, if sometimes it can be unnoticeable then fine, but you cannot expect the synthetic to appear totally real. To call it all crap is so narrow minded and wrong is just pathetic.
 
it's a special effect, not a magic trick. it isn't trying to dupe you, just provide the best effect possible of an alien race using the technology we have available.

i'm sure 30 years ago, cinema-goers knew The Empire Strikes Back's "Yoda" was only a puppet, but the general idea is to try and suspend belief for the duration of the movie and allow the character to come through whatever method is employed.

Avatar (and Gollum to some extent) has raised the bar for CGI performances, to the point where you don't see something "real" but can believe in the characters, and not just snigger at the effects

i'm not sure you know how to watch and enjoy movies at all :D
 
We'll I'm being a bit hypocritical, since then I started arguing with the same poster (Kablamo) on another thread, at least it's on topic though :p
 
Some of the stuff in that is astonishing. Esp the ugly betty scene im surprised it wasnt cheaper to just shoot that out on a real street
 
It's everyone's perogative to guffaw at the likes of Ray Harryhausen, Tom Savini, John Dykstra, Stan Winston and Carlo Rambaldi et al, but the thing for me is that I can suspend my disbelief and connect with those movies because the effects are still created out of something organic, something tangible - I know subconciously that they are of the 'real' world in genus. Feats of the impossible in CGI-heavy movies just leave me with the impression of watching someone play a computer game, which just leaves me cold and disinterested. Personally I find it disconcerting that something so sterile is predicated upon us 'masses' as being all whoo-big-and-shiny, and so many just go along with it and flock acqueiscently into cinemas.

It's certainly not all bad - subtlety is the key. As others have pointed out above, it's use is ineluctable in the production of films today, but in terms of the rousing visual excitement of verisimilitude, a cast of thousanRAB in a 'classical' (and no doubt what the inculcated today deem as 'gay') Hollywood epic totally obliterates a cast of ten multiplied by a thousand courtesy of a computer.
 
I agree with what others have said about the T Rex in Jurassic Park. But when I'm watching dinosaur documentaries on television (:o) the dinosaurs aren't nearly as realistic as the JP rex. They just look cartoonish in comparison. I think it would have to be the most realistic CGI animated thing I've ever seen, and I still have nightmares about it.
 
i agree, and using my "Yoda" example, he was indeed much more endearing as a puppet, than in the prequels as a CGI effect.

i think when WETA revealed Gollum though, they really did get close, and then the Na'vi effects for Avatar are closer still.

there is perhaps still something not quite right, but it is getting there...
 
I have never knowingly been fooled by special effects, but no doubt that in reality I have been fooled many times. CGI is an amazing medium, or tool, and that is all it is, a tool, the same as puppetry, stop motion animation et al, and in the right hanRAB it can be incredible, and like wise in the less skilled hanRAB it can look not so good. But as stated before, it is up to the viewer to see beyond this and simply respect it as part of the story telling process, if indeed there is any story telling there in the first place! Imagine if no FX were being created, the great experiences we have at cinemas and at home would be far far less, and by this point non existent, so let's just appreciate it for what it is, a means of telling a story. The artists and technicians go a long way to make stuff believable, and as realistic as possible, but this is almost impossible, especially when put against real life elements. The joins will always be seen, though they are almost totally invisible when done well. I have a lot of admiration for the artists working in films today, and past artists in the industry too, they work extremely hard to achieve these effects etc, but nothing is perfect, especially when you try and mimic reality.
 
I find CGI more convincing when it's used for locations & robots. When it's used to create organic characters it usually looks more obvious.
 
Back
Top