Poll: Too Much CGI!

[Soviet Heavy]

There is way too much of an obsession with Computer Generated Imagery in film today. I can't bring myself to believe what I am seeing is real, because I know it isn't. Nothing from films like Avatar or Sucker Punch make me believe it is actually there, because we have become so used to seeing CGI effects in films.

Whatever happened to good old fashioned Model work? To this day, the T. Rex from Jurassic Park, or the Space Battle from Return of the Jedi feel more realistic than anything being thrown at us nowadays. CGI is also incredibly expensive compared to models, otherwise Avatar wouldn't have cost half a billion dollars to make.

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.

The limitations of the model work makes the battle much easier to comprehend, while still being exciting. The Coruscant space battle is almost epileptic with all the flashing lights and not know what the fuck is going on for a good three minutes or so.

The other way I will describe with the T. Rex from Jurassic Park. While this was a special effects heavy movie, there was still extensive model work, especially with the T. Rex's head. The environments were also real, with the Dinos added after the shots, making the world seem more real, because those are actual locations. This makes the dino CGI a bit more conspicuous, but if the 3D is good enough, they still look impressive.

Now I hate to end on a question, because it is so bloody common now, so I will simply end by saying this: CGI is overabundant in Films nowadays, discuss what you will.

 

[Woodsey]

The one from Revenge of the Sith, easily.

I don't get the CGI complaints with the prequel trilogy - it all looks great to me. ESPECIALLY that space battle you posted.

 

[DeathsHands]

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

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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

I know it isn't easy, but it looks better IMO. I respect the effort put into it.

I'll give another example: The Alien Queen from Aliens compared to the one from AVP. Animatronic versus CGI, the animatronic queen looks absolutely amazing, even today, while the CGI queen looks like ass.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

...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.

The way I look at movies with lots of CGI is my imagination: I need to immerse myself in what I'm seeing for it to have that real, whoa feeling. It's what works for me anyhow. ^^

CGI is definitely easier, but I feel it leads to lazy filmmaking. Who needs realism when you can make a five hundred foot tall monster in a few weeks? It just feels stale, when you see CGI effects and shots so often, that it becomes hard to appreciate them.

Working with the limitations of models and on location shooting lends to clever camera tricks, and is more visually intriguing, since you want to know just how they pulled some of the shots off. With CGI, you know how they did it, and it pulls you out of the immersion.

 

[delvin313]

The thing about CGI is that it is constantly improving, we really have seen it change significantly from when they first started. Maybe it looks terrible to you now, but you change your mind as the years go by. I have no strong preference either way, but I am interested to see what the future holds for CGI.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The thing about CGI is that it is constantly improving, we really have seen it change significantly from when they first started. Maybe it looks terrible to you now, but you change your mind as the years go by. I have no strong preference either way, but I am interested to see what the future holds for CGI.

True, but right now I feel we are entering the Uncanny Valley stage of CGI effects. Stuff like the Thor trailer or Battle Los Angeles feel a bit too real for me to think of them as "Hey that was a great looking scene". You start to notice the flaws more, because instead of appreciating a 3D object with obvious flaws, you are nitpicking the details, which detracts from the image overall, because your are more critical and less enchanted by the image.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

...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.

The way I look at movies with lots of CGI is my imagination: I need to immerse myself in what I'm seeing for it to have that real, whoa feeling. It's what works for me anyhow. ^^

CGI is definitely easier, but I feel it leads to lazy filmmaking. Who needs realism when you can make a five hundred foot tall monster in a few weeks? It just feels stale, when you see CGI effects and shots so often, that it becomes hard to appreciate them.

Working with the limitations of models and on location shooting lends to clever camera tricks, and is more visually intriguing, since you want to know just how they pulled some of the shots off. With CGI, you know how they did it, and it pulls you out of the immersion.

I understand the first part, though the second part is purely opinion if you ask me. It doesn't break the immersion for me, but then again I don't focus on such things while watching a movie, I just focus on the movie in general.

To each their own, right?

I suppose. Though I still disagree on the CGI being any cheaper. Otherwise Avatar wouldn't have cost as much as it did to develop all those new toys.

 

[Stammer]

I do think that some movies these days use it way too much. The Star Wars prequels are a great example of overuse. The best movies are the ones that use CGI in small quantities as opposed to making the entire movie out of it.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I do think that some movies these days use it way too much. The Star Wars prequels are a great example of overuse. The best movies are the ones that use CGI in small quantities as opposed to making the entire movie out of it.

Yes! That is why I compared the old trilogy to the new. Take the shot from the Endor video to where the fighters are screaming along the Death Star, right before diving in. It looks insane to this day. How hard would it have been to make that shot? You need to build the set, work with precision camera movements for the sweeping shot, and then mimic those exact camera shots again superimposing the starfighters over top.

Compared to the Revenge of the Sith shots, where it was all done on a computer. The CGI in the prequels has not aged well. Look no further than the Jedi temple shots from Attack of the Clones, they look horrible.

 

[Nimcha]

I disagree. That Episode III space battle you linked is way more awesome than the other. Star Wars has always been about the spectacle, and you can't get much better than that.

Do you also prefer the Yoda puppet in Episode I to the CGI Yoda in the other films?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I disagree. That Episode III space battle you linked is way more awesome than the other. Star Wars has always been about the spectacle, and you can't get much better than that.

Do you also prefer the Yoda puppet in Episode I to the CGI Yoda in the other films?

Yes I do. The puppet Yoda looks far better than the CGI one bar none. Particularly Attack of the Clones Yoda looked awful.

 

[burningdragoon]

Honestly, I understand the complaint, but I don't think the space battle from Star Wars III is the best example. Space battles are probably one of the best (opinion) times to use CGI.

The problem with a lot of CGI, which is still apparent in the SW prequels, is that everything looks so pristine, even when a large part of the movies take place in a desert. Along with that was the almost complete lack of a set or anything other than a big blue area to guess what they are looking at, putting the actors in a much more difficult position.

 

[Woodsey]

...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.

The way I look at movies with lots of CGI is my imagination: I need to immerse myself in what I'm seeing for it to have that real, whoa feeling. It's what works for me anyhow. ^^

CGI is definitely easier, but I feel it leads to lazy filmmaking. Who needs realism when you can make a five hundred foot tall monster in a few weeks? It just feels stale, when you see CGI effects and shots so often, that it becomes hard to appreciate them.

Working with the limitations of models and on location shooting lends to clever camera tricks, and is more visually intriguing, since you want to know just how they pulled some of the shots off. With CGI, you know how they did it, and it pulls you out of the immersion.

How can you possibly be immersed in a film, if what you're thinking about is how they did the special effects?

 

[Nimcha]

I disagree. That Episode III space battle you linked is way more awesome than the other. Star Wars has always been about the spectacle, and you can't get much better than that.

Do you also prefer the Yoda puppet in Episode I to the CGI Yoda in the other films?

Yes I do. The puppet Yoda looks far better than the CGI one bar none. Particularly Attack of the Clones Yoda looked awful.

Oh god. I'm sorry but I can't take anything else you say seriously now. How old are you?

That puppet looked seriously out of place. The CGI Yoda has far better movement, better expression and much better lipsynching. Plus, it gave them the ability for Yoda to fight Dooku and Sidious, two great lightsaber battles.

 

[Anarchemitis]

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

I'll see your CG and raise you scale models.
(At 1:02)
Fact is, models are cheaper. They take less manpower, less resources, less money to do. However, you can do more with CG than you can with models.
In the shots in the Launch Scene I just showed, it would take hours to make the lighting correct in order to make a 4 foot model look like a rocket that's 33 stories tall. In CG it would take minutes. Those camera movements would cost thousands of dollars to precisely position, and then the shots would have to be recomposited in computers anyways to add those flecks of ice that fall off as it launches. A trifle of a particle system in CG.
Convenience is the governing word for why CG is employed in movies so much these days.

The trouble is that it's very easy to take the effects and push them too far so they stop being believable. That Episode III scene you don't take seriously because of the ridiculous amount of scope. Or perhaps all the freaking spinning those fighters do. (Spins like that almost killed Niel Armstrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency]) Or recall in Indiana Jones 4 Indy's son fencing inbetween two moving jeeps and then bushes start whippin' by whacking him in the crotch. Oh yes, very immersive.