Poll: Too Much CGI!

[Hatchet90]

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.

 

[teebeeohh]

the second one is better, but only because it is THE battle of Endor while the first one is just one of at least 4 battles of corrusant i could name of the top of my haed

 

[BoredDragon]

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)

 

[Caligulove]

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.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Outright Villainy]

CGI is a race to distract the eye. Modelwork is tighter but has soul.

It's like listening to a mime track versus a live recording. The mime track maybe exactly autotuned to perfection and have the singer singing three lines simultaneously, but the single cough in the live version destroys all that studio interference.

CGI, imho, has only worked in the hands of PIXAR. Especially in patchwork rubbish like that battle.

Point out who is fighting who and then I can invest some emotion into it.

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.

Totally in agreement with Soviet Heavy. The puppet had far more depth than that CGI nightmare. The lightsaber battles were pointless, irritating and counter-exposition.

And I'm old enough to know a good puppet when I see one.

Couldn't agree more. CGI Yoda made me recoil in horror from the uncanny.

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.

 

[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.