Poll: Too Much CGI!

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

I'm pretty sure that every single scene (or at least the significant majority of the scenes) in the prequels were done entirely on green-screen. One of the reasons why the movies fail is because they're completely artificial. Almost nothing is actually "there" on the screen.

I think everyone here needs to watch Red Letter Media's Mr Plinkett's review of the 3 movies. Each review is like an hour and a half long (so in total you're looking at a LOT of video to watch), and they have a lot of really dark and messed-up scenes in the reviews so I will not post them here. But I seriously suggest you all check them out. He gives a lot of reasons why the prequels sucked in comparison to the original trilogy in those 4 1/2 hours.

Ah yes, Mr. Plinkett. I was more emotionally invested in his Feeding Frenzy indie film than the Star Wars Prequels.
When the entire movie is based off of technology that becomes outdated as soon as it is released, the films don't age well at all, because you can map when they came out depending on the quality of the effects.

 

[Canid117]

I also have a question for someone educated in physics. Seeing as how there is no gravity in space, would G forces be as extreme or even present?

Yes, of course. Newton's first law. An object that's in motion, stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Now, consider yourself strapped in a spaceship that suddenly makes a hard turn, your body still wants to go in the direction it was going but is suddenly objected to go in the new direction. That's g-force, basically.

Really feel like I should have remembered that from high school science classes. Derp.

 

[Nimcha]

I also have a question for someone educated in physics. Seeing as how there is no gravity in space, would G forces be as extreme or even present?

Yes, of course. Newton's first law. An object that's in motion, stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Now, consider yourself strapped in a spaceship that suddenly makes a hard turn, your body still wants to go in the direction it was going but is suddenly objected to go in the new direction. That's g-force, basically.

Really feel like I should have remembered that from high school science classes. Derp.

I had forgotten all about it until playing Mass Effect 2.

 

[JochemDude]

Up to recent extend CG is indeed starting to piss me off, as is 3D for adding absolutely nothing except higher prices. It just takes atmosphere away you named Star Wars but I'll go and say Blade Runner. Damn you guys if I have been ninja'd already, that would be the second time in like 10 minutes (Hurt from johnny cash in the 'covers you like better than original' thread, I'm getting so damn tired of it...

 

[SailorShale]

I know CGI is cheaper and all, but animatronics and puppets just turn out so much better.

Spoiler

CGI Jabba is too perfect. The puppet is just creepy and nasty. You don't wanna be near him. CGI one doesn't have that feeling. I guess in the future CGI will be able to portray that, but for now it can't. Also: in Terminator 2, during some of the parts where the T-1000 got blown up and the silvery stuff had to mold itself back together? Most of that was prosthetics, and only a small portion of that was through CGI. That's amazing. Maybe films should mix it up more like that?

 

[Kwaren]

Too much CGI ruined Clash of the Titans for me. They focused on visuals and let the plot and characters fall through the holes.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Too much CGI ruined Clash of the Titans for me. They focused on visuals and let the plot and characters fall through the holes.

Funnily enough, I watched that today, and it was what prompted me to make the thread.

 

[Vykrel]

honestly, i prefer CGI. it just looks better, imo.

although revenge of the sith was obviously a better movie, i still love the cgi and special effects of the newer films.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

That's unfair. One is a scene from a good movie with now-dated effects and the other is a scene from a mediocre movie with significantly less dated effects.

Imagine if Jedi had the technology of Sith to tell that same battle.

The problem isn't the use of CG, but the fact that the story being told by the battle is significantly weaker.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Up to recent extend CG is indeed starting to piss me off, as is 3D for adding absolutely nothing except higher prices. It just takes atmosphere away you named Star Wars but I'll go and say Blade Runner. Damn you guys if I have been ninja'd already, that would be the second time in like 10 minutes (Hurt from johnny cash in the 'covers you like better than original' thread, I'm getting so damn tired of it...

Be happy, you were the first to bring it up. Blade Runner is a perfect example of how extensive model work can produce a scene as good if not better than CGI. Attack of the Clones borrowed a lot of imagery from Blade Runner, but none of it looks as good as the original source.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

That's unfair. One is a scene from a good movie with now-dated effects and the other is a scene from a mediocre movie with significantly less dated effects.

Imagine if Jedi had the technology of Sith to tell that same battle.

The problem isn't the use of CG, but the fact that the story being told by the battle is significantly weaker.

Still, taken on a technical level, aware of the limitations during both time periods, Jedi pushed forward with technology, while Sith was just another space battle. There really isn't anything in it that I feel pushes it beyond what we'd already been shown in Phantom Menace or Clones.

 

[Kwaren]

Too much CGI ruined Clash of the Titans for me. They focused on visuals and let the plot and characters fall through the holes.

Funnily enough, I watched that today, and it was what prompted me to make the thread.

Oh yea I'm good!

 

[Mr Thin]

I loves me some CGI, yes I do. I thought the new Star Wars films looked great, I loved 300, I loved Avatar; I just like CGI.

Having said that, I do agree that puppets are better for gore & horror (like the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth, JESUS CHRIST that thing was terrifying), and often do have a more physical presence on screen than a CGI creation - presumably due to, you know, actually being there.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Some of it can be pretty good, but usually no. Why? It looks unnatural. It tends to be obvious and out of place. Now, if it's something like an epic space battle, then yes. But usually? No. Detract from the feel of the movie. It doesn't feel in the least bit organic.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Some of it can be pretty good, but usually no. Why? It looks unnatural. It tends to be obvious and out of place. Now, if it's something like an epic space battle, then yes. But usually? No. Detract from the feel of the movie. It doesn't feel in the least bit organic.

Hence why I was so unimpressed with Avatar. He spends millions making flyby shots of a jungle that he could have done for less just by flying a helicopter over the Amazon. Why bother making something fake when you could work with the real one?

 

[Vrach]

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.

^This. If the video is any less awesome, it was due to the lesser script, not the effects.

You can't bring yourself to believe it's real? You believe the rubber T-Rex to be real then?
CGI - when done right and it's easier, if more expensive, to get right in comparison - looks far more believable than props. If you've got a thought in your head going "I know that's not real", sorry to tell you but that's your 'problem'. I get it, it's not that I don't, but you or someone else put that thought there, it's not something based on logic or reality of the situation.

 

[Something Amyss]

Still, taken on a technical level, aware of the limitations during both time periods, Jedi pushed forward with technology, while Sith was just another space battle. There really isn't anything in it that I feel pushes it beyond what we'd already been shown in Phantom Menace or Clones.

Which is fine if you take Star Wars as nothing but scenery porn, but the visuals of all six movies should have been there to advance the narrative. That the limits no longer needed to be pushed should have been a good thing with the last prequel. It's a shame the narrative wasn't up to the same tier as the visuals, because that would have been top notch.

It's actually sort of this reason I'm glad CG is becoming commonplace. It's no longer the novelty it once was, and it can't drive bad movies at the box office the way it once did as a result. Not to say it can't at all, and Hollywood is trying to find new ways to make this happen (3D, for example), but at some point this is going to bottom out, the arms race will be done, and we'll have one less way to cover up bad filmmaking.

 

[AgentBJ09]

...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. ^^

In some ways, you're right. CGI can do some sweet stuff in films. The effects from ILM in I Am Number Four were spectacular, coupled with the movie itself, which I liked.

However, CGI has a place. It being the whole experience in a film takes a lot out of it for me. (See Avatar)

 

[icame]

The suckerpunch trailer features a dragon flying around a castle while fithing zeplins and girls with machine guns, as well as a giant samaurai with a minigun. Your not supposed to think its real.

 

[Something Amyss]

^This. If the video is any less awesome, it was due to the lesser script, not the effects.

You can't bring yourself to believe it's real? You believe the rubber T-Rex to be real then?

Left the first part in because I totally agree. Second part made me grin, because I grew up on a Superman that was filmed rather blatantly with wires and sideways camera shots. You could see through the Snowspeeders in Empire, but I loved that scene with the Speeders vs the Walkers because it was intense and imaginative. THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T MAKE TANKS QUADRIPEDS, YOU IMPERIAL BASTARDS!

Indiana Jones had some very "fake" shots, but it was a good series. CG didn't help it any, but that wasn't the real problem with The Lost Kingdom of Camp Crystal Skull.

But honestly, I've ALWAYS hated the "that looks fake" response, because they used to be able to make you BELIEVE A MAN COULD FLY with wires and trick shots. If you can believe in models, you can certainly believe in CG, but honestly, it shouldn't be that hard to buy anyway. Especially since the WORST CG and models look a thousand times better than they did ten years ago.