Poll: Too Much CGI!

[Siberian Relic]

There are specific reasons the OP's examples worked so well for their specific use of visual effects. Jurassic Park, the T-Rex was actually motion-captured as a stop-motion puppet, and later rendered and lit, and then added to the shots in post.

Anyway, I see some benefits to model work. You have a tactile object with literal detailing, imperfections, and character; that translates subconsciously to the viewer that's extremely hard to replicate in a computer. The lighting, while it may be irritatingly difficult to match, is real lighting. However, there are significant drawbacks. The OP posted the Battle of Endor. That entire battle was assembled on the film itself - the physical material - one ship at a time. Each starship was built, filmed, and added on an individual basis. So, while the models may have an edge in reality and may be cost effective, it's also very, very time consuming. The only reason we were able to go from a few X-Wings in a single shot above the First Death Star to dozens of starships above the Second Death Star was due to the visual effects team getting more efficient with that process of splicing.

On the flip-side, CGI offers many benefits. In terms of cost-effectiveness, let's look at Jurassic Park again. Spielberg made use of both animatronic dinos as well as full-CGI versions. CGI may be expensive, but just imagine how much it would cost to build a properly working, fully articulated animatronic dinosaur - head, eyes, mouth, tongue, arms, legs, and tail. On top of that, the post-production team would have to erase all traces of the supports, cables, and wires used to operate the monster. That would be expensive. The only cheaper route would've been to go with stop-motion or simply use only footage that had been cut around the limitations of the actual animatronic head.

CGI in the Battle of Coruscant is an area where I'd encourage its use. Someone mentioned overkill, but I don't really think that's the case there. Lucas, while a bit excessive, has always been keen for visual detail. He gives us scope and immersion into a monstrous three-dimensional battle above a city-planet, filled with combatants and fire. In terms of physical sets and models, that would be impossible to achieve in any reasonable time frame. Even the best studios run by schedules.

I do have to say, though, that I agree with the OP's overall consensus. CGI - and digital filmmaking in general - has become far too easy to use. It's become a crutch for indulgence, rather than a channel for creating the impossible. That's one reason I'm such a huge fan of Chris Nolan. He uses it where he needs it.

 

[GodofCider]

One can never have enough CGI.

 

[drwow]

I don't like CGI, at all, that sense of danger isn't there when you can tell the actor is just running away from a green screen.

 

[OctoH]

Really depends. Catwoman? Terrible.

 

[DanDeFool]

Just compare the space battle from Revenge of the Sith...

to the one from Return of the Jedi

And tell me which one has you more invested.

Depends on what you mean by "invested".

The Revenge of the Sith space battle is definitely a lot more visually interesting, but the space battle from Return of the Jedi is more interesting overall because the story, characters, and directing aren't a load cardboard tripe in a rusty dumpster.

Personally, I like the move toward more CGI in movies, since it opens up a whole realm of creative expression that would be otherwise impossible. However, I agree that it's a difficult challenge to make CGI that looks "real", and creating an all-CG movie (like the Star Wars prequel trilogy and Avatar) just winds up looking exactly like an all-CG movie. Hollywood's computer animators have gotten quite good at what they do, but not good enough that they can make a movie entirely in a computer hand have it look realistic.

Personally, I'd rather see a lot more CG-animated movies where the characters don't look like cartoons (think FFVII Advent Children as opposed to, say, UP). That way you can do the whole thing in CG anyway and don't have to worry about it looking "fake".

And if you want a movie that uses a crap-ton of CGI and yet is still very compelling, try the Lord of the Rings movies. Granted, those films did use a lot of physical actors and were shot in real locations, but the judicious use of CGI really helped bring those movies to life.

 

[smallthemouse]

I don't like CGI, at all, that sense of danger isn't there when you can tell the actor is just running away from a green screen.

Because otherwise he would be running from a hand puppet. Much more dangerous?

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

...you do know that the model stuff ain't easy, right?

I was just thinking that. Would CGI be easier/cheaper to do? If that's the case, I can see why it would be used instead.

Which is exactly why they use it more, saves a BOATLOAD of time, money and easier to do.

 

[drwow]

I don't like CGI, at all, that sense of danger isn't there when you can tell the actor is just running away from a green screen.

Because otherwise he would be running from a hand puppet. Much more dangerous?

you're telling me that the indiana jones scene where he was running from the boulder would have had the same effect with CGI? how about star wars a new hope vs the newer movies?
the authentic look from props gives the viewer (I think) a more intense experience, where CGI just looks fake.

 

[A Weakgeek]

I'm just so sick of CGI, and i love animation and when a movie uses something else besides CGI I give it few points right away

Edit: Also while talking about Star wars, how much you wanna bet that if the original trilogy had been done now there would be no alien costumes, and even the twi'leks would be bloody CGI

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Haha, the Star Wars Episode III Space Battle.

Nerds arranging stuff on their computers, making... stuff ...happen isn't going to invest me in a scene anymore, Lucas. It would really help if you had FUCKING CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN YOUR FILM AUUURGHHH /mad

 

[Xenetethrae]

I could go on about the problems I have with Revenge of the Sith, but right now I'm just focusing on the visual aspect. Take the two shots at face value. Before you see any characters, who or what do you think is fighting?

The ship designs also play a major role in characterizing each faction. The Rebels in Jedi have more organic, rounded ships, which are starkly contrasted by the dagger shaped Star Destroyers.

In Revenge of the Sith, you are given a flyby pan of dozens of different ships slugging it out with each other, everything is moving way too fast to get a good grip on the scene, and you don't know who is firing at who. It's just a big clusterfuck of ships blasting each other.
If you pay close attention, you can even see one of the Separatist cruisers ramming another Separatist ship for no reason.

I'd say the ships from the different factions in Revenge of the Sith are very distinguishable from one another. They follow a smilar organic vs. rigid pattern that the rebels/empire had. Plus they are color coordinated.

Separatist cruiser shown colliding with a Trade Federation Droid Control Ship is also shown on fire and careening towards Coruscant. The cruel mistress gravity undoubtably had greater control over the ship than its engines. (ie: one ship was shot down and crashed into the other). Personally, I thought the scene from RotJ when the Super Star Destroyer crashes into the Death Star II to be the more ridiculous of the two parallel scenes.

As to the clusterfuck of the CGI space battle... yes it may be more confusing, but it should be. I sure as hell don't want movies to represent futuristic space combat with British military tactics circa American revolution.

EDIT: Realized I referred to Revenge of the Sith instead of Return of the Jedi for the secene with the death star(too many similar letters, RotS vs. RotJ)

 

[Ekonk]

With CGI you can do much more than with models, but with CGI there's always the risk of - dun dun dun - the uncanny valley.

 

[lucky_sharm]

I could go on about the problems I have with Revenge of the Sith, but right now I'm just focusing on the visual aspect. Take the two shots at face value. Before you see any characters, who or what do you think is fighting?

The ship designs also play a major role in characterizing each faction. The Rebels in Jedi have more organic, rounded ships, which are starkly contrasted by the dagger shaped Star Destroyers.

In Revenge of the Sith, you are given a flyby pan of dozens of different ships slugging it out with each other, everything is moving way too fast to get a good grip on the scene, and you don't know who is firing at who. It's just a big clusterfuck of ships blasting each other.
If you pay close attention, you can even see one of the Separatist cruisers ramming another Separatist ship for no reason.

I'd say the ships from the different factions in Revenge of the Sith are very distinguishable from one another. They follow a smilar organic vs. rigid pattern that the rebels/empire had. Plus they are color coordinated.

Separatist cruiser shown colliding with a Trade Federation Droid Control Ship is also shown on fire and careening towards Coruscant. The cruel mistress gravity undoubtably had greater control over the ship than its engines. (ie: one ship was shot down and crashed into the other). Personally, I thought the scene from RotS when the Super Star Destroyer crashes into the Death Star II to be the more ridiculous of the two parallel scenes.

As to the clusterfuck of the CGI space battle... yes it may be more confusing, but it should be. I sure as hell don't want movies to represent futuristic space combat with British military tactics circa American revolution.

It should be a clusterfuck? Then how can the audience project themselves in the scene? Or care about what's happening? Or even know what's at stake? Or why they're fighting at all?

The space battle in ROTS is no doubt very spectacular and pretty, but has nothing else. There is no substance, there is no emotional connection to the audience, just two factions that for all we know are randomly killing each other for no reason at all. I mean, I suppose the audience would at least care about which side the good guys are on, but all of the characters are just bland, boring cardboard cut outs and the terrible, overabundant dialogue doesn't help either.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Just compare the space battle from Revenge of the Sith...

to the one from Return of the Jedi

And tell me which one has you more invested.

Depends on what you mean by "invested".

The Revenge of the Sith space battle is definitely a lot more visually interesting, but the space battle from Return of the Jedi is more interesting overall because the story, characters, and directing aren't a load cardboard tripe in a rusty dumpster.

Personally, I like the move toward more CGI in movies, since it opens up a whole realm of creative expression that would be otherwise impossible. However, I agree that it's a difficult challenge to make CGI that looks "real", and creating an all-CG movie (like the Star Wars prequel trilogy and Avatar) just winds up looking exactly like an all-CG movie. Hollywood's computer animators have gotten quite good at what they do, but not good enough that they can make a movie entirely in a computer hand have it look realistic.

Personally, I'd rather see a lot more CG-animated movies where the characters don't look like cartoons (think FFVII Advent Children as opposed to, say, UP). That way you can do the whole thing in CG anyway and don't have to worry about it looking "fake".

And if you want a movie that uses a crap-ton of CGI and yet is still very compelling, try the Lord of the Rings movies. Granted, those films did use a lot of physical actors and were shot in real locations, but the judicious use of CGI really helped bring those movies to life.

The Lord of the Rings is a really good example. You'd be very surprised to see just how much of those shots were actually clever miniature work. That said, the things that they couldn't do without CGI, they managed to blend the CGI in really well.