http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/22/the.scene.terminator.salvation/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
thats badass.
thats badass.
Is cgi ruining films?
- Thread starter ScarBrow07
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree that CGI is a technique that can be used or abused, but also remember that there are incredible all-CGI films like WALL-E and The Incredibles, and of course there's the effects-heavy Dark Knight and Iron Man, which no one seemed to complain about.
Part of the problem is that heavy CGI costs so much of a flim's budget that you either have to skimp in other areas (like hiring a good cast of actors and writers) or make it appeal to the largest amount of people in order to make a profit, which means being less risky and "dumbing down." ("Dumbing down" is really a misnomer, it has more to do with keeping it inoffensive and safe, and creating a movie that easily translates to an overseas audience as well.)
What never fails to piss me off, though, are people who complain about how CGI is ruining movies, yet they never go to anything but big Hollywood releases, don't see or rent indie films and have never gone to a film festival to see new stuff. The Critic was right: if you stop seeing bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies.
If the movie sucks, just don't go. And yes, it counts as going if you use theater passes, have someone pay for you, sneak in, rent, or go during a matinee or at the dollar theater. If you put your ass in a seat, you're supporting the film you're watching. And if you're one of those people who go "Just to see how bad it is," then you're part of the problem. There are wonderful things called movie critics (not review aggregates like Rotten Tomatoes) go and read their articles. If you'll notice: I said read, not just look at the star rating.
I didn't have much of a problem with Crystal Skull, though I wouldn't say it was as good as the original trilogy. It was silly and campy and had some severe stupid-induced seizures, but the first three movies have those too, we just didn't complain because we were kids and didn't know better. I especially loved how people called the UFO "unrealistic," as if a magic sandbox that shoots ghosts is within the realm of possibility but flying saucers are not. Sorry to break it folks, but the Indiana Jones flicks have never been subtle, well-acted character-driven films. I feel lucky we got something as good as Skull, it could've been worse.
Part of the problem is that heavy CGI costs so much of a flim's budget that you either have to skimp in other areas (like hiring a good cast of actors and writers) or make it appeal to the largest amount of people in order to make a profit, which means being less risky and "dumbing down." ("Dumbing down" is really a misnomer, it has more to do with keeping it inoffensive and safe, and creating a movie that easily translates to an overseas audience as well.)
What never fails to piss me off, though, are people who complain about how CGI is ruining movies, yet they never go to anything but big Hollywood releases, don't see or rent indie films and have never gone to a film festival to see new stuff. The Critic was right: if you stop seeing bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies.
If the movie sucks, just don't go. And yes, it counts as going if you use theater passes, have someone pay for you, sneak in, rent, or go during a matinee or at the dollar theater. If you put your ass in a seat, you're supporting the film you're watching. And if you're one of those people who go "Just to see how bad it is," then you're part of the problem. There are wonderful things called movie critics (not review aggregates like Rotten Tomatoes) go and read their articles. If you'll notice: I said read, not just look at the star rating.
I didn't have much of a problem with Crystal Skull, though I wouldn't say it was as good as the original trilogy. It was silly and campy and had some severe stupid-induced seizures, but the first three movies have those too, we just didn't complain because we were kids and didn't know better. I especially loved how people called the UFO "unrealistic," as if a magic sandbox that shoots ghosts is within the realm of possibility but flying saucers are not. Sorry to break it folks, but the Indiana Jones flicks have never been subtle, well-acted character-driven films. I feel lucky we got something as good as Skull, it could've been worse.
CGI doesn't really work in horror movies unless it is subtle, animatronics and good old puppets are more scary. For example take John Carpenters 'The Thing', I still have not seen any creatures half as scary as what's in that film.
Physical props and special effects have always had some sort of charm that makes them better than CGI usually is. Look at the original Star Wars trilogy. The props weren't exactly high-tech, but they were a hell of a lot better than the "remastering" they did.
CGI is at a level where it looks very good, but not good enough to believably blend with real actors and objects on the set. Every fantasy movie made in the last five years or so comes to mind.
CGI is at a level where it looks very good, but not good enough to believably blend with real actors and objects on the set. Every fantasy movie made in the last five years or so comes to mind.
Well the thing is that CGI has opened the door for all kinds of junk to come to the screen. Before the CGI, FX were much more expensive so not any jerk/nerd could make a movie... Now the gate is open and there is no spam filter. Anyway for true artists CGI is a revelation, a new tool of imaginable power, and it shows. So CGI has created a bunch of bad movies, but has also created masterpieces previously unimaginable. People just need to sort it out.
Without CGI they could not have made the ultimate movie, which manages to combine:
- high school romance
- family comedy including a cute dog
- kung-fu
- the President of the United States
- car chases
- the U.S. Military
- cybercrime
- alien invasion
- Arctic exploration
- killer robots
- mysterious "Men in Black"
- breakdancing
- Musical numbers*
With visuals so pervasive and convincing that I totally forgot that I was watching CGI after the first ten minutes.
*Note: Bumblebee communicates through excerpts of songs on the radio.
- high school romance
- family comedy including a cute dog
- kung-fu
- the President of the United States
- car chases
- the U.S. Military
- cybercrime
- alien invasion
- Arctic exploration
- killer robots
- mysterious "Men in Black"
- breakdancing
- Musical numbers*
With visuals so pervasive and convincing that I totally forgot that I was watching CGI after the first ten minutes.
*Note: Bumblebee communicates through excerpts of songs on the radio.
Regardless if a movie has good CG, it still needs to live up to the name of a Hollywood film!blackcherry said:
Who would care about Link: The Faces of Evil for the CDi even if it had graphics that rivalled Crysis Warhead?
Pixels don't make a movie, acting, music and cinematography do.
Try telling that to the people who though that 'Cel-da'(as they called Wind Waker) would be bad and refused to play it just on looks.Anarchemitis said:
CGI doesn't ruin movies, the movies ruin CGI.
I've seen movies where the CGI itself is so damn subtle and well made that I can't even notice it, yet in some others it's so easily visible it just looks like a game from the GameCube era. One example of good CGI would be the first Jurassic Park movie (such as when the T-Rex is attacking the jeep those two kids are in), and the Star Wars: Episode 1... It's so hard to notice the CGI that it blends in perfectly and you can't even notice.
Now you look at a movie that just throws so much CGI in there that you focus more on making fun of their crappy animating or graphics that you don't even notice the plot. So really, yes and no about your question, it just depends on the movie.
I've seen movies where the CGI itself is so damn subtle and well made that I can't even notice it, yet in some others it's so easily visible it just looks like a game from the GameCube era. One example of good CGI would be the first Jurassic Park movie (such as when the T-Rex is attacking the jeep those two kids are in), and the Star Wars: Episode 1... It's so hard to notice the CGI that it blends in perfectly and you can't even notice.
Now you look at a movie that just throws so much CGI in there that you focus more on making fun of their crappy animating or graphics that you don't even notice the plot. So really, yes and no about your question, it just depends on the movie.
So you saw a few movies with bad CGI, and now you think everything computer-made = suck when it comes to films?
seriously, watch some more movies and realize how much CGI has done for special effects, and how much stuff would be extremely hard to do without CGI
seriously, watch some more movies and realize how much CGI has done for special effects, and how much stuff would be extremely hard to do without CGI
I guess I can hope this was all sarcasm. Alright alright, the CGI in that film is great, pretty damn good, but it is the hollow, emotionless CGI of Michael Bay wanking off in my face for two hours. It is not the CGI that makes it bad - it is just a bad filmUncompetative said:Without CGI they could not have made the ultimate movie, which manages to combine:
- high school romance
- family comedy including a cute dog
- kung-fu
- the President of the United States
- car chases
- the U.S. Military
- cybercrime
- alien invasion
- Arctic exploration
- killer robots
- mysterious "Men in Black"
- breakdancing
- Musical numbers*
With visuals so pervasive and convincing that I totally forgot that I was watching CGI after the first ten minutes.
*Note: Bumblebee communicates through excerpts of songs on the radio.
CGI is still kinda new, it can be done well, it can be done badly. At time of writing it does age worse than well made models, but as people have been quick to point out it can be done well, and it can be done badly.
Would you rather have this shit [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4] than this? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGaBJMqQo8]. Not that Children of Men is that great, but it looks fantastic.