Poll: Too Much CGI!

[War Penguin]

I don't think you chose the best examples, OP. As much as I love both movies, they both looked equally kind of fake. However, there are some instances where they looked equally real, too, but in different ways.

While I do agree that there seems to be too much CGI nowadays, there are some aspects and features of it that I like. One thing that doesn't seem to be as important but surprisingly is so: Lighting. Yes, lighting does make a whole lot of difference, whether you notice it or not. One thing in the Revenge of the Sith battle that made it look as real as it could get was the sun coming up from the planet they were fighting above. That felt pretty real. Return of the Jedi didn't have the greatest lighting in that battle, and it looked pretty unnatural.

Another thing that made that battle real was the explosions. Granted, since there's no air in space, the flames of the explosions would be much smaller and burn out quicker, but ignoring that, they look much more natural than they did in Return of the Jedi.

However, one thing that I'll agree with you on is the over-abundance of detail. One thing that bothered me was that since you were looked at the large ships from a distance, you still saw a whole lot of detail. Every crease, every crack, every shimmer. It got annoying after a while. In Return of the Jedi, you didn't see too much detail until you got closer to the ship itself. That made it feel much more natural.

One more thing that I don't like about CGI that has been said before but I'll repeat for the sake of emphasis: Creatures. Like I said before, there's way too much detail than needed. I agree that models make is look better.

TLDR: Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, there seems to be way too much CGI in movies these days, but it can make great area, lighting and explosion effects. However, puppets/models make better creatures and can make things look much more natural. If only we used both and not just one or the other. Oh well.

EDIT: Oh, and I seem to have missed a point that needed to be made: Costs. Yes, CGI is a whole lot cheaper and makes things created at a faster rate. However, OP, since you've brought up Avatar many times in your argument, Avatar was expensive and time consuming because of the motion capture, not because of the CGI in general.

 

[BoredDragon]

If we're talking the star wars movies, the original trilogy looked WAY more impressive than any of the CGI crap from the infamous prequels. CGI starts to look really fake when you are exposed to it for extended periods of time. The original trilogy was smart enough to use CGI sparingly and film on location most of the time so the CGI enhances the story and visuals without taking us out of the environment too much. However, the prequels have almost every shot with CGI and most of the time its hard to get immersed in that universe (among other reasons) when you know what you're seeing is fake.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Topic turned into starwars debate.

CGI Yoda looked terrible, puppet Yoda looked Yoda.

HOWEVER.

Why on earth would we not use CGI if it's constantly improving? Do we want to be stuck in the stagnate wastes of puppet theater forever? Sure it was great twenty years ago, sure, it can still look great today, but we're moving towards the future of movie design.

I used the Star Wars example because it is one of the most readily apparent franchises to be hit with this problem.
It can be applied to other film series as well, but Avatar is too common a bashing topic.

I am not against the advancement of CGI. I am just concerned with how it is being used today. Instead of using it to enhance a story, it is being used as a showcase for the effects team to show off. The best visual effects are the ones you don't notice, and it is hard not to notice fifty bajillion Star Destroyers duking it out in a prolonged tracking shot.

 

[Quaidis]

Outside of movies that are meant to have a cgi effect to them (like cartoons, Pixar stuff, or certain kid movies. Crap, I think Avatar was built with the intention of having an all CGI flavor - even if half of it was real life set pieces made to look cartoony), I honestly miss movie sets and puppets. Some can look just as terrible and fake as any CGI movie, but if done right it makes it believable. And I'm sure it helps the actor get into character. It's much easier to fear or hate a very ugly muppet than a blue screen or little white ball on a string.

 

[Miniges]

It depends. For horror, you really need models and props. That sense of you seeing the texture interact with the actors and looking real is too important to skip. on the other hand, stuff like star wars, trek, and serenity benefit from cgi. the 'realness' is less important than the spectacle and scope. I do understand those opinions that call for models and puppets across the board. there is a charming retro quality to little models flying around space. I don't mind some of the star wars special edition changes, but i hope GL doesn't go in and totally redo all the space battles.

 

[Miniges]

Reading some of the comments, i have to strongly 'disagree' with one point. People seem to think that CGI looks fake and Puppets don't. Does anybody really look at jabba and not instantly imagine all the motors and midgets they need to run him? how about the hoth battle? do you not see instantly that the AT-ATs are about 2 feet tall? Models and puppetry require just as much disbelief suspending as CGI. Maybe even more so. but many of these opinions, i suspect, are generational and in 20 years defending puppets will seem as hopelessly quaint as defending a telegraph.

 

[smallthemouse]

*sarcasm start*
You know the problem with the world today is that women are gaining more and more rights, and the more they get the more we notice how bad we were for not giving them the rights in the first place. What happened to the good old days, when they had basically no rights at all. Now that was the best.
*sarcasm stop*

Stupidest argument. "The problem with CGI is that it keeps getting better! WAAAH!"
Are you people listening to yourselves?
Just because your favorite movie from 500 BC has models does not mean that we must stop evolving and worship the obsolete.

CGI is the future.
Models are the past and look unrealistic and more fake than modern CGI.
Let the it go!

edit: and if you can look at me with a straight face and tell me that the original terminator with the frame by frame movement when Arnold's skin got burned off looks more realistic than Avatar, then I just don't know what to say

 

[SteewpidZombie]

CGI just isn't good enough to be used in EVERY single flippin movie or TV show. Some movies like Avatar...BEAUTIFUL, yet obviously unrealistic because of the bright and un-natural colors. If movies used CGI of Avatar quality, but with more realistic color to make it look real, CGI could honestly work. But then you get crap like that Submarine scene from 'Lost' (Looks like it came outta a old PC game)

Spoiler

 

[Blind Sight]

I'm of the opinion that CGI for things like gore tends to make them a lot less threatening or scary. One of my favourite movies is The Thing, and the puppets and gore in that is just outstanding, it's absolutely creepy because it feels like it's actually there:

I agree, I couldn't feel safe for ages when I saw this T.V. Show where the monsters were all real. Much scarier than CGI because it's actually there.

Also, that video has made sure I never watch The Thing. Ever!

Just be glad you had the warning, first time I watched this movie I had no idea what to expect. Then randomly a dog's face split open, tentacles grew out of its skin, and tongues with little mouths on the end slittered out of where its face used to be. I was eleven.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

*sarcasm start*
You know the problem with the world today is that women are gaining more and more rights, and the more they get the more we notice how bad we were for not giving them the rights in the first place. What happened to the good old days, when they had basically no rights at all. Now that was the best.
*sarcasm stop*

Stupidest argument. "The problem with CGI is that it keeps getting better! WAAAH!"
Are you people listening to yourselves?
Just because your favorite movie from 500 BC has models does not mean that we must stop evolving and worship the obsolete.

CGI is the future.
Models are the past and look unrealistic and more fake than modern CGI.
Let the it go!

edit: and if you can look at me with a straight face and tell me that the original terminator with the frame by frame movement when Arnold's skin got burned off looks more realistic than Avatar, then I just don't know what to say

My argument is not so much that CGI is bad, but that it is not being used effectively. It is being thrown in because it is easy to make, and there is too much of an emphasis on the effects. It is the same argument that games focusing too much on graphics are lacking in gameplay.

The movie Avatar had a shitty story that was created to satisfy children under the age of five who had never watched Pocahontas or read any history. It was made to show off stupidly expensive special effects to say "we can make a movie based solely on eye candy".

There is no substance, no heart in something made on a computer. When done properly, CGI can look fantastic, but when that's all there is, you might as well just be watching a game cutscene interspersed with real people making dumb comments just to push the special effects extravaganza forward.

 

[enriquetnt]

really good model work is extremely hard to pull off and extremely expensive, also it HAS limits due to being phisical in nature (i.e you cant have 5000 space ships on a battle, or you cant put your camera certain places, or cant do certain dramatic camera movementes due to the limitation of the models) CGI is limitless wathever you can imagine can be done in it sure it still looks fake no matter how good it is, especially when they try to do characters whit it (avatar is maybe the best example that no matter how much money you expend they STILL look fake, you cant suspend disbelief, if it where up to me i would have use makeup for the navi, the movie would have costed half what it did and maybe have and ounce of human emotion in it, you CANT FAKE EMOTIONS whit CG no matter what you do, theyr eyes are, dead there is no soul there, nothing for the audience to connect, enviroments, vehicles, aliens, monsters, fog, rain, clouds, and such have achieved photorealism, known animals, fire, and water still need work but are realistic enough for normal people not to notice, characters especially human or even humanoid who need to PERFORM i think where still 10 or 20 years away to nailing perfection on those (if it can be done at all) CGI has gotten very expensive as of late (to much demand for it and not enough truly capable proffesionals out there) so it boils down to the matter of cost effectiveness so use models for smaller less complex shots, and use CGI for crazy complex shots.

 

[ryo02]

models or cg I think they both have their good points if used right the trouble with cg is its too tempting to over use it. if they can learn balance and restraint and use both cg and models for the best results we will all have much better looking movies.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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)

I'll simply say that yes, people loved Avatar. People also loved Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. People loved etc etc. Its possibly the most intangible thing to love a movie. I have no rational explanation for why I like anything like I do. Avatar managed to draw me in, I was immersed in a world familiar and yet alien to me. Transformers 2 (for all the other faults I thought it had) also made be believe that giant robots from a world beyond ours had landed on Earth and lived there.

You don't like Avatar. Power to you champ, but stop standing there like a stunned mullet because someone else does.

 

[Nouw]

I'm of the opinion that CGI for things like gore tends to make them a lot less threatening or scary. One of my favourite movies is The Thing, and the puppets and gore in that is just outstanding, it's absolutely creepy because it feels like it's actually there:

I agree, I couldn't feel safe for ages when I saw this T.V. Show where the monsters were all real. Much scarier than CGI because it's actually there.

Also, that video has made sure I never watch The Thing. Ever!

Just be glad you had the warning, first time I watched this movie I had no idea what to expect. Then randomly a dog's face split open, tentacles grew out of its skin, and tongues with little mouths on the end slittered out of where its face used to be. I was eleven.

If it makes you feel any better I saw the brain-slurp scene from Starship Troopers at 11. Not as bad however >.>

 

[enriquetnt]

the BOTH look unrealistic and fake for completely different sets of reasons this is an impossible discussion both sides of the argument have equal amounts of right and wrongs, this is like discussing who`s hotter redheads or blondes? sure it will be a LOOOOONG argument but in the end it boils down to personal preference


for me? i like most 30 something years old i prefer models over CGI but thats not gonna stop me from enjoying all those amazing CGI fests that are going around these days, but i assure that i enjoy even more the rare gem that chooses to go whit models (Pan,s Labyrinth, Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy and so on)

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I actually think the space battles were handled incredibly well in the prequel trilogy. In fact, they actually did use model work for Episode 1 and 3 for certain, though the use was far more extensive in the first. They just spruced everything up with digital effects and compositing. The rest of the prequel trilogy is a great example though. I rewatched Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith recently, and I was baffled by how horrible they looked. All of the green screen effects look like total crap now, and it hasn't even been that long since the movies came out. I understand that the rigors of making A New Hope gave Lucas a panic attack, but that doesn't mean that building sets is the enemy. Mixing quality made sets with digital effects can create some of the most incredible scenery you can view at this day and age. Just look at the new Star Trek movie. If you can see past the lens flares, there is some real quality there.

Anyway, overall I think the story integration of digital effects is the most important thing. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a great example. Everything in it is obviously fake, but it feels real because of the overly stylized tone the film has throughout the entire picture. In contrast, excessive CG blood use in the opening shot of The Expendables is eyebrow raising. Unless they're real human parts, it doesn't matter what you're using, just how you use them.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I actually think the space battles were handled incredibly well in the prequel trilogy. In fact, they actually did use model work for Episode 1 and 3 for certain, though the use was far more extensive in the first. They just spruced everything up with digital effects and compositing. The rest of the prequel trilogy is a great example though. I rewatched Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith recently, and I was baffled by how horrible they looked. All of the green screen effects look like total crap now, and it hasn't even been that long since the movies came out. I understand that the rigors of making A New Hope gave Lucas a panic attack, but that doesn't mean that building sets is the enemy. Mixing quality made sets with digital effects can create some of the most incredible scenery you can view at this day and age. Just look at the new Star Trek movie. If you can see past the lens flares, there is some real quality there.

Anyway, overall I think the story integration of digital effects is the most important thing. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a great example. Everything in it is obviously fake, but it feels real because of the overly stylized tone the film has throughout the entire picture. In contrast, excessive CG blood use in the opening shot of The Expendables is eyebrow raising. Unless they're real human parts, it doesn't matter what you're using, just how you use them.

I used the Space battle comparison because it is one of the few places where both trilogies are on almost equal terms. I would have used the Hoth battle vs Geonosis, but I felt they both had flaws. (Clones with heads not attached to bodies, see through snowspeeders... you know)

There really isn't much to compare in ways of model work, but I wanted to show how it can be done right at a fraction of the budget used to make the same scene in CGI.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

CGI usually looks good to me...

 

[Vault101]

CGI isnt always bad, its about how you use it, take District 9 for example

its just like sometimes puppets and can look or some or just look like...bad puppets

sure it some CGI is bad but I can look at older movies and see bad puppets as well

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I actually think the space battles were handled incredibly well in the prequel trilogy. In fact, they actually did use model work for Episode 1 and 3 for certain, though the use was far more extensive in the first. They just spruced everything up with digital effects and compositing. The rest of the prequel trilogy is a great example though. I rewatched Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith recently, and I was baffled by how horrible they looked. All of the green screen effects look like total crap now, and it hasn't even been that long since the movies came out. I understand that the rigors of making A New Hope gave Lucas a panic attack, but that doesn't mean that building sets is the enemy. Mixing quality made sets with digital effects can create some of the most incredible scenery you can view at this day and age. Just look at the new Star Trek movie. If you can see past the lens flares, there is some real quality there.

Anyway, overall I think the story integration of digital effects is the most important thing. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a great example. Everything in it is obviously fake, but it feels real because of the overly stylized tone the film has throughout the entire picture. In contrast, excessive CG blood use in the opening shot of The Expendables is eyebrow raising. Unless they're real human parts, it doesn't matter what you're using, just how you use them.

I used the Space battle comparison because it is one of the few places where both trilogies are on almost equal terms. I would have used the Hoth battle vs Geonosis, but I felt they both had flaws. (Clones with heads not attached to bodies, see through snowspeeders... you know)

There really isn't much to compare in ways of model work, but I wanted to show how it can be done right at a fraction of the budget used to make the same scene in CGI.

That's where I disagree with you though. The CGI didn't make the space battle weak, it was the lack of any real stake in the battle we were seeing that was the issue. If you're filled in on the story, you know exactly who is fighting who, but seeing a ship go down has absolutely no weight since you know that it's either a bunch of expendable clones or droids dying in the explosion, big whoop. On the other hand, seeing a ship destroyed in Jedi means that hundreds of people dedicated to the cause of freedom just got vaporized. They might even be cool squid people like Admiral Ackbar. That is a tragedy. I have no issue with the visuals though.

If you wanted to make a case against the both trilogies, you should have compared the Yoda puppet in Empire and Jedi to the puppet and CGI use in the prequel trilogy. The Phantom Menace puppet looks like total garbage because of the direct and even lighting combined with incredibly stiff movements, while the CGI Yoda just plain doesn't look real standing next to an actual person. He stands out as much as the crappy backgrounds with the shitty shallow depth of field filters poorly stamped on top of them.