CGI has ruined movies-discuss...

Well it's more or less a required element in the sci-fi/fantasy genre these days. Either you like movies that make the most use out of CGI or you don't. If not don't go to see them, stick to your drama's and action movies that don't need CGI to bring certain things to life on the screen.
 
A large part of the success of the dinosaurs in JP is that the cgi models were match-moved to armatures manipulated by traditional stop-motion animators.
 
"The Hulk" was a perfect example of poor CGI. When he was prancing around the desert it just looked like a video game. These Hollywood oiks should learn that sometimes "less is more", and use it more sparingly.
 
The one with all the dinosaurs?

They are being chased by a herd of 2-legged ones, and they hide behind a log and a T-Rex snaffles a few.
 
For me it's mainly that first scene with the dinosaurs, with the brachiosaur; it doesn't look at all convincing, but I agree with you on that scene you mentioned as well.
Most of the best SFX work in Jurassic Park is done with animatronics. The cgi in the second film is far superior- as you would expect given the advances made in the time between the two films - and there is a lot more cgi in the second one.
 
The dragon in Dragonslayer is fantastic, and it's done with stop-motion animation. I think one of the things about that sort of old fashioned way is that they kept shots of the monster down to the minimum, because it was difficult to do, so a lot is left to your imagination. With cgi being relatively easier maybe there's a tempation to show too much. It's also about suspension of disbelief - that has to happen for the film to work properly.

As regarRAB blokes in rubber suits, Alien was done that way and the creature was much more convincing than the one in Alien 3.
 
That is superb, isn't it! I'm not sure how it was done. There are 2 elements of cgi - the modelling/rendering and the animation, and both were excellent in Final Fantasy. Was the movement rotoscoped or match-moved? Match-move animation, such as Kong in the King Kong remake, gives very realistic movement because the moves are being made by an actor.
 
I have to say though..... The CGI in the last Lord of the Rings film is amazing..... Watching those flying creatures destroy that building in the cinema was a joy to behold. Really scary and realistic.
 
CGI is good when there is no alternative - some films could never have been made without it (Jurrasic Park, Transformers) - however movies do have a tendancy to overdo it these days.

The new starwars movies were overly CGI'd. I doubt there was a single shot in them that didnt have some CGI. They used CGI where models or guys in suits would have done just fine.

I think CGI really shows it limitations when used for humans or animals. We have millions of years of evolution to tell us what is right and wrong when it comes to human and animal movement/expressions etc.

Some of the most dodgy scenes in the starwars movies (the new ones) are scenes with CGI'd characters - when a guy in a suit would have done fine. The scene with 3PO in the droid foundaryon geonosis is mind numbingly bad. The spderman movies also suffer from this, as did I am Legend. Even TV isnt safe - BSG for example uses CGI cylons instead of guys in chrome suits.
 
I dont think you quite yet appreciate how much of a film is actually CGI and you dont know it!

Check out this site http://www.dneg.com/projects/united_93_18.html

Its the CGI work that was done on United 93, a film you really wouldnt expect much CGI on!!!
Its by a company called Double Negative, theyve got quite a bit of their work on there.... you should especially check out Cloverfield and Atonement... some of the stuff in those movies that ended up being CGI is astounding!!!
 
the problem is when it is used too much. im sorry but the star wars prequels ended up looking like cartoons in places to me. there is no sense of wonder any more - how did they do that etc.

and the art of stunts is dying out now - CGI makes directors lazy.

the reason i personally like films like indiana jones and terminator 2 is that the stunts are amazing and you can see the artistry there. nowadays ANYTHING is possible so when you watch something like the fights in spiderman you know most of it is CGI (and you can ALWAYS tell when it isn't a real person..) it sort of just washes over you.

every now and again some films do use real stunts (there was quite a bit in die hard 4) and it makes me long for the days of when CGI was used sparingly (ie the abyss, willow, bits of T2).
 
It's basic econimics - it's actually cheaper to use a CGI character in these scenes than it is to hire an actor, put them in full custume / make-up, film them then post produce the film. The money saved can then be spent on other parts of the film. The CGI cylons were poor to begin with but the FX company was changed in S3 and they have got a lot better. The modern cyclons are much better than the old toasters and their design is such that it would be impossible to use an actor in a suit. That's where CGI is good - you're not prohibited by physical constraints. We may all think the original Alien is cool, but it was designed with 2 arms & 2 legs so that a man could be put in a costume. Imagine what Geiger could have come up with if they had had CGI in the 70's!
 
It tells you something when Spielberg insisted on no CGI for the latest Indiana Jones film. (although that was a few years ago - I wonder if he managed it?)
 
LOTR has great CGI.

The best is easily FFVII: Advent children. The entire film is CG and it looks far more realistic than beowulf.

Maybe these film makers need some tips from video game developers?
 
CGI hasn't ruined it - lazy directors have. There was no need for Sam Raimi to CGI Spider-man to the extent that he did (that he also made the Evil Dead films makes it even more unforgivable) and there are a lot of films where CGI has become an easy solution to a difficult shot.

When used correctly, it's an excellent tool and should be borne in mind by the filmmakers, but when used as a main tool in the making of the film, then the film suffers and I hope they start to realise it.
 
i think the worst examples are when they use CGI when there is no need - eg the mutants in I Am Legend. they completely ruined the film for me; they don't look tangible, they don't look like the actors could actually reach out and touch them.

i think jurassic park was a great use of CGI but that was coupled with spielberg being a brilliant action director. ditto titanic - some of the shots of the ship are decidedly dodgy, but james cameron is such a good action director* that it7 doesn't seem to matter

*i think spielberg and cameron stand out as they throw in little things which other directors wouldn't think of:
glass of water shaking in JP
ed harris getting his wedding ring caught in the door and it saving his life after nearly throwing it down the toilet in 'the abyss'

etc etc
 
What CGI has ruined in my opinion is a generation, or should that be generations, of "movie-watchers." To be more specific, it is the generation's perception of what makes a film.

I am only in my 20s myself, remember watching films pre-CGI and going to see them at the cinema and thinking how cool CGI was in the 90s etc. but it has never been what makes a film for me. I have recently found myself extremely irritated by frienRAB of the same age and my younger relatives who will absolutely refuse to watch, in some cases, or will continually slam films made say in the 1960s because of the lack of CGI. If it happens to be in monochrome as well, well that is heinous!

Unfortunately there are some people out there who will only watch films with CGI and don't really care that films made in the days pre-CGI are classics, have great plots/cast/soundtracks/suspense etc. etc. and won countless awarRAB or whatever...

My younger relatives refused to watch Raiders of the lost ark with the rest of the family over Christmas because of the lack of 'SFX' in their opinion! Sacrilege in our house :D
 
Back
Top