Why do folks hate CGI in movies?

[Unesh52]

I've noticed this odd sentiment held by sci-fi and fantasy fans, as well as fans of horror and really anything that involves things which would be impossible to imitate with common make-up, costume, set, and prop techniques. A bunch of people just seem to prefer old-school costumes and puppets or the like to CGI, sometimes expressing outright disdain for the latter. It's usually kind of off hand, or implied, like, "This movie's so cool! They used a real costume for that alien monster thing, none of that CGI shit."

But that's confusing to me. It seems to me that CGI techniques are really... well, cool. They're smoother, prettier, and more believable, especially when combined with conventional costume and make-up pieces. So why is not using them a point a movie's favor? Keep in mind I'm the farthest thing from a movie buff, and I'm only 18, so I wasn't even cognizant back when CGI was new, and I've never paid that much attention to it's development.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I don't like them because sometimes the use of CGI just seems so fake and artificial when compared to the effects made by the great Ray Harryhausen.

 

[Gigaguy64]

I only dislike it when its poorly done and doesn't look right at all.

I prefer it nowadays because you can do more with CGI than you can with Puppets or Makeup.
And sometimes you cant even tell the difference.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Because if used too much or poorly, it looks terrible. Not any worse, arguably, than a terrible costume, but still.

Also, some directors that will go nameless here use it in place of character development or plot.

 

[Mar451]

I don't like when people use CGI when they could have used more traditional effects

Remember Jurassic Park? Only about 4 minutes of that movie were CGI in all, the rest was clever puppetry and animatronics. Its when people use it as shortcuts where I get annoyed.

See AVATAR, Star Trek, and any Star Wars movie that has Ewan McGreggor in it.

Just because you can use CGI, dosnt mean you should.

Soemtimes its needed, like say for example District 9, or Splice, or Hellboy, but they use the special effects to clean and polish the make up and animatronic effects.

Thats how i feel on it anyway

 

[FortheLegion]

I like good cgi

 

[2fish]

For the same reason I hate to see barbie in an action film, it just looks too platic and out of place. If it is well done then it works, but otherwise it can take away from the film.

Also puppets rock:

 

[Ponch]

I was totally ninja'd by every single previous poster.

 

[Axolotl]

I find that in many cases it simply does not look as good as older methods.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So why is not using them a point a movie's favor?

Because all movies that include these techniques exploit them way too much.

Take the first Alien movies for instance. Since they didn't have CGI and the costumes would've looked like shit in a full-frontal shot, directors had to employ techniques that held the monsters partially obscured or were only seen very briefly during "scare surprise" moments, and it proved to make the movies better overall.

Whereas more modern movies just go overboard with the CGI and show the horrific monsters in full frontal shots, and thus replace the opportunity for the viewer to use his/her own imagination to "fill in the blanks" which has proven to be far more effective and immersive than basically serving it all up on a silver platter with CGI.

THus, CGI might look cool and nice in it's own right, but ever so rarely provide anything that actually makes a movie better or even "decent".

Moviemakers should spend more time on writing good stories and capticating a mood rather than thinking that CGI can do all that work for them, because it can't. In fact CGI is rather incompetent in that department.

 

[Unesh52]

I don't like them because sometimes the use of CGI just seems so fake and artificial when compared to the effects made by the great Ray Harryhausen.

Really?

*Youtube for a second*

Yeah, I'm not really seeing it, especially when the things are moving around near real human characters. In stills too, they look like models. Maybe it's just because the image sticking in my mind of CGI right now is Avatar, and that's like the pinnacle of CGI in cinema for the moment, but those models just seem... dead. I mean, for models they're fucking awesome (I Google image'd him too and I really wish I could get a Medusa statue for my dorm, freaking BA), but they're still.. what, clay? I'm guessing? It doesn't glisten and breath in motion like, say that panther thing from Avatar.

I'm not convinced, but if you say so...

 

[Rylot]

Everyone disdains of poorly used, shoe horned CGI, but even if it's done fairly well but I can still tell that CGI was used it bugs me. I guess realizing that CGI was used tends to break the immersion for me. I'm perfectly fine with really well done CGI, and I really enjoy CGI when it's blended with actual props, I guess it really depends on the context of the movie.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Depends on it's use. CGI blood will never compare to effects blood for instance, it looks fake as hell.

Generally I think if it's something that exists (gore, vehicals, earth enviroments) then it should be done without CGI. Aliens, monsters and so on are ok. Though possibly the best effects are created by combining the two.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I want to see them do it for real. I'm talking more in terms of action films here, and not so much sci-fi...

 

[bicepfetishist1]

Because CGI is outsourced by many studios...The film producer is the client and the CGI guys over promise what their technology can achive to secure the contract. By the time it becomes apparent that the CGI guys have over promised it's too late... the crew and sets have been dispanded for months maybe a year already... and you're left with a movie filled with deal breakingly bad CGI sequences that suck ass and look worse than a PS2 game.

CGI that's taken in-house...like Lord of the Rings/ King Kong is 100% better. Those teams work for P Jackson directly so they don't have to lie to him about what they're team can achive. They're team is HIS team. And he can amend and shoot differently depending on the results his own in-house CGI team can and can't deliver day by day.

That's why I think Tintin will rock

 

[Riku'sTwilight]

As with all the previous poster's comments then yeah bad CGI is horrible, but good CGI is awesome.

When a film is built from the ground up completely with CGI (Spirits Within, Advent Children) then it looks good, and also is entirely believable simpley because you get used to it and immerse yourself within that world.

This same technique goes with anime,cartoons and any other form of media that doesn't use 'real life' in it.

Whereas if a film uses it just as a bit here and there, mostly it is unnoticable (Matrix anyone?) but alas then we get the other end of the spectrum where directors need something to make a film pop (and have obscene amounts of cash left) and so they use CGI to a ridiculous level.

In Family Guy's "Something, Something, Something Darkside" they too address this by making a CGI elephant run across the screen for a few seconds, purely to 'waste money'.

Although then we get into the argument for 'Just because we can, should we?'

 

[Shynobee]

Remember Jurassic Park? Only about 4 minutes of that movie were CGI in all, the rest was clever puppetry and animatronics. Its when people use it as shortcuts where I get annoyed.

You make it sound as if CGI is easy.

Good CGI, just like a good costume, takes patience and a skilled hand. Its just that, with CGI, there is so much more you can achieve.

 

[CanHasDIY]

It depends on the situation. Sure, you've got your fanboy purists who want everything done just like George Lucas did it way back in the 1970's when he made Star Wars. You know, model spaceships, robots made from random junk, and lots and lots of firecrackers for the 'explosions.'

You can pretty much discount those individual's opinions immediately; nothing will ever be as good as the first three Star Wars movies to them.

Then you've got the noobs and flamers who live to bring others down. Ignore them as well.

Some people don't like CGI because it's not tangible - a fan can purchase used-on-set props and costumes as souvenirs (to sell later on eBay) - something you can't do with CGI

Next you've got guys like me - we only complain if it's really, really bad CGI and/or detracts from the scene; indie films get an out for bad CGI because of their low budgets.

Take the film Independence Day. Specifically, the scene in which the alien fighters are strafing the airstrip at Area 51. For the record, I still think that is one of the most awesome action scenes in any movie to date; but what if all those explosions on the tarmac would have been CGI? One of the advantageous side effects of actually blowing stuff up is that is makes it easy for the actors to time their reaction - they can actually feel the shock-wave and thus know when and how to react. CGI lacks that quality; someone on the set calls out "BOOM!" and everyone has to guess when to do what.

In essence, I think the majority of CGI haters fall into either my first (fanboys) or third (souvenir hunters) category.

 

[Good morning blues]

I don't think people dislike CGI when it's used for something that physical special effects could never hope to achieve as well. People dislike it when CGI is overused ? this is a really big problem; when the entire screen is constantly filled with CG effects, they become mundane ? or when it's used even though physical effects look better (Live Free or Die Hard looks much, much better than Terminator: Salvation, for example).

 

[ohgodalex]

As that guy who also hates James Cameron once said in so many words, it can overshadow the plot. See Star Wars Episode I and Avatar for examples.
I feel like the use of special effects in Scott Pilgrim are a perfect example of how and when CGI should be implemented.