I love the two quotes from George Lucas "A special effect without a story is just a special effect"Woodsey said:
and about the Prequel movies: "There are dozen's of special effects in every scene!"
Poll: Too Much CGI!
- Thread starter Soviet Heavy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
and about the Prequel movies: "There are dozen's of special effects in every scene!"
Thank god there's an Off Topic board then right? My issue is that CGI is constantly evolving, and so older uses stand out more, as it shows how dated they become over time. Seeing something physically being there holds more weight than something that will look like a cartoon in a few years. It gives older films more longevity.Blueruler182 said:
Also, I appreciate the work that goes into projects where the studio put a lot of effort into making their special effects work. I don't get the same appreciation out of CGI. It is the difference between a person hand carving a statue, and a person building a robot that can do it to exacting specifications. It just loses its charm and personality along the way.
Movie treads are entirely dependent on ticket sales. If you hear a movie is over-loaded with CG, the best thing you can do is not go see it, and get your friends to do the same.
CG is a tool that condenses the work force and minimizes the work schedule. Its a cost cutting measure performed by an industry that has been losing money since the 1930s. The only way to ever get the attention of the studio heads is to go after the money.
Personally, I do miss the age of model work and sets, but not often enough to effect a majority of my purchasing. However, if a film becomes known for its work in that field, even if its story and acting is under par, I make all the effort I can to support it. Its all that can realistically be done, barring becoming the next Producer at Warner Brothers.
CG is a tool that condenses the work force and minimizes the work schedule. Its a cost cutting measure performed by an industry that has been losing money since the 1930s. The only way to ever get the attention of the studio heads is to go after the money.
Personally, I do miss the age of model work and sets, but not often enough to effect a majority of my purchasing. However, if a film becomes known for its work in that field, even if its story and acting is under par, I make all the effort I can to support it. Its all that can realistically be done, barring becoming the next Producer at Warner Brothers.
I get that, and like I said, to each their own, it just seems weird to me. I knew a guy who hated super hero movies because they were unrealistic, but the fact that the guy in Die Hard isn't speared by shrapnel when the taxi hits those two cars incredibly fast doesn't bother him at all. It just seems like a similar argument to me, both are impossible, why should one bother you so much?Soviet Heavy said:
Which wasn't a direct question to you. Lord of the Rings is a living testament to creating miniatures, so I can see your argument.
Soviet Heavy said:
Brings an interesting thought to mind: what would be cheaper, creating the world wholesale inside the computer, or taking shots of a real jungle and then changing and layering all the bioluminescence he wants over the top of it?
I got the extended cut of Avatar for two reasons: I wanted to see the deleted scenes and I wanted to know how the fuck the did what they did cos I haven't been wowed like that since Jurassic Park and I first saw the Brachiosaur.
The CGI in a movie will look better and the effects seem less dated if one of two things happens in my view:
1-Like in Terminator 2, it is used sparingly for shots that are otherwise impossible.
2-Like Avatar (or Transformers), you go totally for fucking broke and make it so integral and so good the movie won't survive without it.
On an off topic note, I'd like to take this opportunity to say this.
Stan Winston, you were a magnificent man and the special effects and movie industry is lessened by your loss.
That guy is my bloody idol. He was a master of practical effects. He was the reason I added to T. Rex into my argument.Gordon_4 said:
The last straw that broke Star Wars for me was the huge amount of CGI. they could have made it costumed. It would have been better. Hell look at Pan's Labyrinth. AN AMAZING film with the help of just, costuming. it wouldn't be the same if it was CG. No matter what a CG Character in a real world won't look as real. Well, for now anyway.
Soviet Heavy said:That guy is my bloody idol. He was a master of practical effects. He was the reason I added to T. Rex into my argument.Gordon_4 said:
To me this man is a god among men for what he did for special effects. I cried when I heard he'd died.
The thing that bothered me the most in the new Star Wars movies were the CGI Clone Troopers. Stormtroopers worked just fine in the original. And Seeing Temuera Morrison's disembodied head atop a CGI body just looks bad.Vivace-Vivian said:
The problem with CGI is that the technology ages. With actual sets, puppets, and props the movie has a certain quality that stays with it as time goes on. Sure, the CGI my look good now, but a few years down the road it'll look horrible.
And all these kids who are jaded and spoiled by Avatar need to watch Labyrinth. THAT is what a fantasy film is supposed to look like.
And all these kids who are jaded and spoiled by Avatar need to watch Labyrinth. THAT is what a fantasy film is supposed to look like.
It really isn't that excellent of CGI work though. You can always tell what parts are CGI and what aren'tSoviet Heavy said:
He goes for that when Obi Wan is on his way to Geonosis in Episode 2 with the Fetts chasing after him. No sound other than the seismic charges I believe.Canid117 said:
If you actually knew how much CGI and "special effects" were actually used in today's films, from all genres, you wouldn't want to ever see a movie again. I don't have a problem with CGI, especially when it's done well, like Avatar. I feel saddened by those who can't suspend their disbelief in movies, and have to rationalize everything that's being shown.
People actually liked Avatar... WHY!?! People tell me its because you're supposed to get involved in the atmosphere of Pandora. Fair enough, but what's the movie's excuse for the stupid and predictable story line?
A lot of producers/directors seem to think that if you can have a lot of CGI movie that means you can skip out on story. This is entirely NOT true. It doesn't matter how good your effects are if the movie's stupidity prevents you from being immersed within its universe.
Video games are very similar in this fact that they will spend their entire time on graphics and forget about the story and gameplay. However, since movies are an non-interactive medium and don't have gameplay, the story element is more heavily emphasized and thus more apparent when it sucks. I fell out with Avatar in particular once I heard the word "unobtainium". After that, I couldn't stop noticing ridiculous stereotypes and the predictable storyline.
I am using Avatar as an example because I can't understand why people are giving it high praise. Its an ok movie, maybe even good, but its not great when judged on all of its merits and not just its new graphics technology. The lower brows of the world are more impressed by spectacle than substance which is why I think Avatar is getting high ratings (and for that matter why Final Fantasy still has a fan base). However, I REFUSE to believe that most of society is like that.
Someone explain to me why you think Avatar is a spectacular movie and why CGI should be the focus of a movie?
(be intellectual not cynical, I will listen to reason)
A lot of producers/directors seem to think that if you can have a lot of CGI movie that means you can skip out on story. This is entirely NOT true. It doesn't matter how good your effects are if the movie's stupidity prevents you from being immersed within its universe.
Video games are very similar in this fact that they will spend their entire time on graphics and forget about the story and gameplay. However, since movies are an non-interactive medium and don't have gameplay, the story element is more heavily emphasized and thus more apparent when it sucks. I fell out with Avatar in particular once I heard the word "unobtainium". After that, I couldn't stop noticing ridiculous stereotypes and the predictable storyline.
I am using Avatar as an example because I can't understand why people are giving it high praise. Its an ok movie, maybe even good, but its not great when judged on all of its merits and not just its new graphics technology. The lower brows of the world are more impressed by spectacle than substance which is why I think Avatar is getting high ratings (and for that matter why Final Fantasy still has a fan base). However, I REFUSE to believe that most of society is like that.
Someone explain to me why you think Avatar is a spectacular movie and why CGI should be the focus of a movie?
(be intellectual not cynical, I will listen to reason)
Actually CGI gained in popularity because it's actually cheaper than full scale models and sets- there's a lot of costs that go into films, though. Using models is still more expensive, not to mention (arguably) costing more man-hours and more skilled labor.
I fucking love to watch behind-the-scenes vignettes on DVDs or 'Making Of' specials, btw.
Personally, I think the way to go is to use sets and models, enhanced by CG. Look at the Star Trek reboot- lots of CGI but also lots of actual models with green screen backgrounds. Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy used scaled models they dubbed "big-atures" to give cities the kind of detail thats much harder to render with purely CGI.
Even the T.Rex from Jurassic Park was so convincing because the filmmakers cleverly blended the shots with the model and the CG shots for things that were too fluid for the model. Juxtaposing them together and using other framing methods like lighting, real sets and weather made the transition nearly seamless.
George Lucas used to be a master of using models to great effect, then got obsessed with trying to film a movie entirely using CG, but it came out looking soulless. Boring back-and-forth dialog scenes with no creative camera angles or tone- action that feels bland and without any pace- simply piled on for the sake of quantity.
Directors make the best of CGI when they know it's meant to be used to do the things that you could otherwise not do, usually physical limitations.
I fucking love to watch behind-the-scenes vignettes on DVDs or 'Making Of' specials, btw.
Personally, I think the way to go is to use sets and models, enhanced by CG. Look at the Star Trek reboot- lots of CGI but also lots of actual models with green screen backgrounds. Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy used scaled models they dubbed "big-atures" to give cities the kind of detail thats much harder to render with purely CGI.
Even the T.Rex from Jurassic Park was so convincing because the filmmakers cleverly blended the shots with the model and the CG shots for things that were too fluid for the model. Juxtaposing them together and using other framing methods like lighting, real sets and weather made the transition nearly seamless.
George Lucas used to be a master of using models to great effect, then got obsessed with trying to film a movie entirely using CG, but it came out looking soulless. Boring back-and-forth dialog scenes with no creative camera angles or tone- action that feels bland and without any pace- simply piled on for the sake of quantity.
Directors make the best of CGI when they know it's meant to be used to do the things that you could otherwise not do, usually physical limitations.
It's not so much the CGI I don't like as the obvious nature of it, and how easy it is to spot. The best effects are completely invisible to you, instead of a filmmaker going 'look, look, look at all these wonderful effects in my film!'
There's a story recounted from Alfred Hitchcock about filming Birds. After it was released they had some complaints from people writing to say that one of the birds used in the film was so obviously a fake and why couldn't they have trained a real bird/used a better prop etc.
Turns out there were hundreds of fake birds, and in fact most if not all of the birds seen up close were fake. Which meant that out of hundreds of fakes, the SFX only failed once.
Contrast with today, Avatar might be breathtaking and all but it doesn't feel real. You know what you're watching is entirely computer generated, and that's the entire point of it. Avatar is an excuse for a Computer Animation department to show off, nothing more, and no matter how well done the scenery, I never once believed this place existed.
As for Star Wars I actually think the prequel trilogy wasn't too bad on the effects front, largely because they basically did everything in CG, and some of the backgrounds of Coruscant look so real you'd believe there was a city there, or Kashyyk, where the trees and beaches and water (all CG) look good enough to make you believe that they went somewhere and filmed it.
Look also at Lord of the Rings, I have a book detailing the CG and special effects used in LotR, and some of them are absolutely unnoticeable even with this book to hand telling you it's fake.
That's what I want, I don't care if it's CG, or a model, or anything, I just want it to feel and look real, like I could really set foot there and walk around.
There's a story recounted from Alfred Hitchcock about filming Birds. After it was released they had some complaints from people writing to say that one of the birds used in the film was so obviously a fake and why couldn't they have trained a real bird/used a better prop etc.
Turns out there were hundreds of fake birds, and in fact most if not all of the birds seen up close were fake. Which meant that out of hundreds of fakes, the SFX only failed once.
Contrast with today, Avatar might be breathtaking and all but it doesn't feel real. You know what you're watching is entirely computer generated, and that's the entire point of it. Avatar is an excuse for a Computer Animation department to show off, nothing more, and no matter how well done the scenery, I never once believed this place existed.
As for Star Wars I actually think the prequel trilogy wasn't too bad on the effects front, largely because they basically did everything in CG, and some of the backgrounds of Coruscant look so real you'd believe there was a city there, or Kashyyk, where the trees and beaches and water (all CG) look good enough to make you believe that they went somewhere and filmed it.
Look also at Lord of the Rings, I have a book detailing the CG and special effects used in LotR, and some of them are absolutely unnoticeable even with this book to hand telling you it's fake.
That's what I want, I don't care if it's CG, or a model, or anything, I just want it to feel and look real, like I could really set foot there and walk around.
Couldn't agree more. CGI Yoda made me recoil in horror from the uncanny.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Hell, 80% of those bloody new films did.
And yeah, CGI just takes me out of it, unless it's done stylistically, a la pixar, or 300 or something. A consistent visual style is all I need, but even with millions of dollars most films can't even achieve that.