CGI has ruined movies-discuss...

Effects on the original Star Wars trilogy = awesome
Effects on the Star Wars prequels = lame

Why?

Tangible minature models. On the whole, computer CGI just feels artificial.
 
Have to disagree there.

Effects on the original trilogy = awesome at the time.
Effects on the Special Editions = awesome.

I just wish he'd go back and CGI the rest of the original trilogy - I can't stand those white boxes around the TIE fighters, the matte lines on the Rancor, the speederbike chase is poor and Yoda, as much as I love him, neeRAB an E.T. style makeover.
 
Haha, yes. The CGI in that movie is bloody terrible. As was the rest of the film, worst bond movie if you ask me.

Jurassic Park still stanRAB up pretty well today in terms of CGI. I think the combination of animatronic and CGI helps alot.
 
No, I don't think it's like that at all.
It's not a case of either one opinion or the other.

As mentioned there are many people in the thread who appreciate CGI when it fits well, but don't like it at all if it's done badly or overused.

I think it works best when it enhances the film, or a scene in a film, or when careful consideration has gone into using CGI for the actual styling of the film.

I think it works badly when the film uses CGI as a big gimmick trying too hard to impress the audience with CGI scenes.

I think it's a case of how well the CGI is blended into the story and what decisions are made by the director, and also how rushed or lazy it has been applied.
Sometimes it can just be overkill and intrude with the story too much.
 
The CGI Spiderman looks waaay too cartoony, one of the main reasons I didnt like the movies.

The Star Wars CGI are a mixed bag. The space battle are nice enough bit some of the character CGI are just embarrasing.
 
I think you'll find almost all but the lowest budget films have some element of CGI these days. CGI is used extensively to correct errors in filming or add things such as views out of a window, stuff you'd never notice. In that respect CGI has been a fantastic tool for the serious director or editor. The bad use of CGI is where a studio develops a cool new effect and bases an entire film around it. Twister is a prime example, Deep Impact another. Volcano & Dante's Peak are two more.
 
That's what immediately sprang to mind when I read the post which you responded to.
That dragon looked very convincing.

I agree with you in that with CGI it often appears that there's too much temptation to 'show off' with it. So you get scenes which tend to linger too long on something which scream out 'Look,.... look at our CGI, look how clever we are'.

'Rubber' suits aren't always a problem either. Prosthetic work can work very well indeed.
Like with anything it depenRAB on how well you apply something or execute it.
The original 'Alien' was 'rubber suit' too, but is generally deemed to be one of the most effective implementations of design in cinema ever.
I think some people around will even think that all films made before 'Terminator 2' must be crap because they didn't have 3D CGI effects. When in reality most of cinemas greatest films will have been made before 1991.
Which leaRAB me to believe that CGI always works best when it is used as a necessity or in order to enhance, but always the focus should be mainly concentrated on the quality of the film as a whole.

They've remade many older films using CGI, but in almost all cases the original film was better despite it not having 3D CGI special effects.
 
CGI did kill I Am Legend for me more than the diversion from the real storyline of the book. I mean the bad guys were fake looking. Seeing them made the movie look really fake and lame. They could not be taken in a serious manner, there was NO feeling of danger from them through them being made of CGI. Now if they went down the line that George Romero uses [old school styled make up] and the style Danny Boyle used in 28 Days Later for The Infected in his movie. THEN I Am Legend would have been a half decent thriller [regardless of the not caring about the I Am Legend storyline] as the enemy in it would have looked real.
 
"In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The Cylons"

:eek::)

You've lost me now!
 
OK i turn a blind eye to BSG as its obviously made on a low (TV) budget.
I thought the show lost the plot though,once they were stranded on the cylon occupied planet.
I thought the cylons wanted to exterminate Humans-not rule them in a shanty town!!!
 
CGI has ruined films to some extent, but not totally. As people have pointed out, there are many films where CGI has complemented the feature and above all, been done well.

There are however, a lot of films where it is overused simply for the sake of it, and Hollywood is guilty of sacrificing plot and acting skills for a few cheap CGI thrills. Most films don't need it but certain genres such as Sci-Fi benefit from it.

As for Jurassic Park - that was a good film, done well. Maybe it was the first film to utilise the next generation CGI techniques, but you can't blame it for the poor efforts that followed it.
 
Back
Top