Poll: Too Much CGI!

[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.

 

[Siberian Relic]

There are specific reasons the OP's examples worked so well for their specific use of visual effects. Jurassic Park, the T-Rex was actually motion-captured as a stop-motion puppet, and later rendered and lit, and then added to the shots in post.

Anyway, I see some benefits to model work. You have a tactile object with literal detailing, imperfections, and character; that translates subconsciously to the viewer that's extremely hard to replicate in a computer. The lighting, while it may be irritatingly difficult to match, is real lighting. However, there are significant drawbacks. The OP posted the Battle of Endor. That entire battle was assembled on the film itself - the physical material - one ship at a time. Each starship was built, filmed, and added on an individual basis. So, while the models may have an edge in reality and may be cost effective, it's also very, very time consuming. The only reason we were able to go from a few X-Wings in a single shot above the First Death Star to dozens of starships above the Second Death Star was due to the visual effects team getting more efficient with that process of splicing.

On the flip-side, CGI offers many benefits. In terms of cost-effectiveness, let's look at Jurassic Park again. Spielberg made use of both animatronic dinos as well as full-CGI versions. CGI may be expensive, but just imagine how much it would cost to build a properly working, fully articulated animatronic dinosaur - head, eyes, mouth, tongue, arms, legs, and tail. On top of that, the post-production team would have to erase all traces of the supports, cables, and wires used to operate the monster. That would be expensive. The only cheaper route would've been to go with stop-motion or simply use only footage that had been cut around the limitations of the actual animatronic head.

CGI in the Battle of Coruscant is an area where I'd encourage its use. Someone mentioned overkill, but I don't really think that's the case there. Lucas, while a bit excessive, has always been keen for visual detail. He gives us scope and immersion into a monstrous three-dimensional battle above a city-planet, filled with combatants and fire. In terms of physical sets and models, that would be impossible to achieve in any reasonable time frame. Even the best studios run by schedules.

I do have to say, though, that I agree with the OP's overall consensus. CGI - and digital filmmaking in general - has become far too easy to use. It's become a crutch for indulgence, rather than a channel for creating the impossible. That's one reason I'm such a huge fan of Chris Nolan. He uses it where he needs it.

 

[GodofCider]

One can never have enough CGI.

 

[drwow]

I don't like CGI, at all, that sense of danger isn't there when you can tell the actor is just running away from a green screen.

 

[OctoH]

Really depends. Catwoman? Terrible.

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

Depends on what you mean by "invested".

The Revenge of the Sith space battle is definitely a lot more visually interesting, but the space battle from Return of the Jedi is more interesting overall because the story, characters, and directing aren't a load cardboard tripe in a rusty dumpster.

Personally, I like the move toward more CGI in movies, since it opens up a whole realm of creative expression that would be otherwise impossible. However, I agree that it's a difficult challenge to make CGI that looks "real", and creating an all-CG movie (like the Star Wars prequel trilogy and Avatar) just winds up looking exactly like an all-CG movie. Hollywood's computer animators have gotten quite good at what they do, but not good enough that they can make a movie entirely in a computer hand have it look realistic.

Personally, I'd rather see a lot more CG-animated movies where the characters don't look like cartoons (think FFVII Advent Children as opposed to, say, UP). That way you can do the whole thing in CG anyway and don't have to worry about it looking "fake".

And if you want a movie that uses a crap-ton of CGI and yet is still very compelling, try the Lord of the Rings movies. Granted, those films did use a lot of physical actors and were shot in real locations, but the judicious use of CGI really helped bring those movies to life.

 

[smallthemouse]

I don't like CGI, at all, that sense of danger isn't there when you can tell the actor is just running away from a green screen.

Because otherwise he would be running from a hand puppet. Much more dangerous?

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

...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.

Which is exactly why they use it more, saves a BOATLOAD of time, money and easier to do.

 

[drwow]

I don't like CGI, at all, that sense of danger isn't there when you can tell the actor is just running away from a green screen.

Because otherwise he would be running from a hand puppet. Much more dangerous?

you're telling me that the indiana jones scene where he was running from the boulder would have had the same effect with CGI? how about star wars a new hope vs the newer movies?
the authentic look from props gives the viewer (I think) a more intense experience, where CGI just looks fake.

 

[A Weakgeek]

I'm just so sick of CGI, and i love animation and when a movie uses something else besides CGI I give it few points right away

Edit: Also while talking about Star wars, how much you wanna bet that if the original trilogy had been done now there would be no alien costumes, and even the twi'leks would be bloody CGI