Poll: Too Much CGI!

[The_Echo]

I don't care much for Star Wars, but I'll say that Revenge of the Sith was a trifle more fun to watch.

I go for the story of the film, not the visual aesthetics. I don't care if it looks gorgeous as fuck--if it's got a shitty story, it's a shitty movie.

Also, OP, have you ever been invested in a video game? Because that's nothing but CGI, my friend.

 

[Varanfan9]

As a Godzilla fan I utterly hate CGI. Its used to much when some actual work into good old fashioned special effects would due. Godzilla has used rubber suits and no other giant monster looks more real than him.

 

[_Cake_]

CGI is so much cheaper in a lot of cases. So if they are low budget movie sure I get it - suspension of disbelief - but if they have the budget for some real special effects then I better not see CGI blood for fucks sake.

 

[Blueruler182]

So... Your reason for not liking CGI is because you know it's not real... But the robot with plastic skin is... I'm sorry, I've heard the argument and to each their own, but "it doesn't seem real" when it comes to a robot or a puppet or a lil model just makes no sense. At least with CG you can actually make it look and react properly. Hell, I'll take the Nolan-Hulk over Lou Ferigno painted green any day.

Besides which, arguing you don't like CG when you're on an almost exclusively gaming site seems off. It's all CG.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I don't care much for Star Wars, but I'll say that Revenge of the Sith was a trifle more fun to watch.

I go for the story of the film, not the visual aesthetics. I don't care if it looks gorgeous as fuck--if it's got a shitty story, it's a shitty movie.

Also, OP, have you ever been invested in a video game? Because that's nothing but CGI, my friend.

I could go on about the problems I have with Revenge of the Sith, but right now I'm just focusing on the visual aspect. Take the two shots at face value. Before you see any characters, who or what do you think is fighting?

The ship designs also play a major role in characterizing each faction. The Rebels in Jedi have more organic, rounded ships, which are starkly contrasted by the dagger shaped Star Destroyers.

In Revenge of the Sith, you are given a flyby pan of dozens of different ships slugging it out with each other, everything is moving way too fast to get a good grip on the scene, and you don't know who is firing at who. It's just a big clusterfuck of ships blasting each other.
If you pay close attention, you can even see one of the Separatist cruisers ramming another Separatist ship for no reason.

 

[Sandytimeman]

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.

I love the two quotes from George Lucas "A special effect without a story is just a special effect"

and about the Prequel movies: "There are dozen's of special effects in every scene!"

 

[Soviet Heavy]

So... Your reason for not liking CGI is because you know it's not real... But the robot with plastic skin is... I'm sorry, I've heard the argument and to each their own, but "it doesn't seem real" when it comes to a robot or a puppet or a lil model just makes no sense. At least with CG you can actually make it look and react properly. Hell, I'll take the Nolan-Hulk over Lou Ferigno painted green any day.

Besides which, arguing you don't like CG when you're on an almost exclusively gaming site seems off. It's all CG.

Thank god there's an Off Topic board then right? My issue is that CGI is constantly evolving, and so older uses stand out more, as it shows how dated they become over time. Seeing something physically being there holds more weight than something that will look like a cartoon in a few years. It gives older films more longevity.

Also, I appreciate the work that goes into projects where the studio put a lot of effort into making their special effects work. I don't get the same appreciation out of CGI. It is the difference between a person hand carving a statue, and a person building a robot that can do it to exacting specifications. It just loses its charm and personality along the way.

 

[Raistlinhawke]

Movie treads are entirely dependent on ticket sales. If you hear a movie is over-loaded with CG, the best thing you can do is not go see it, and get your friends to do the same.

CG is a tool that condenses the work force and minimizes the work schedule. Its a cost cutting measure performed by an industry that has been losing money since the 1930s. The only way to ever get the attention of the studio heads is to go after the money.

Personally, I do miss the age of model work and sets, but not often enough to effect a majority of my purchasing. However, if a film becomes known for its work in that field, even if its story and acting is under par, I make all the effort I can to support it. Its all that can realistically be done, barring becoming the next Producer at Warner Brothers.

 

[Blueruler182]

So... Your reason for not liking CGI is because you know it's not real... But the robot with plastic skin is... I'm sorry, I've heard the argument and to each their own, but "it doesn't seem real" when it comes to a robot or a puppet or a lil model just makes no sense. At least with CG you can actually make it look and react properly. Hell, I'll take the Nolan-Hulk over Lou Ferigno painted green any day.

Besides which, arguing you don't like CG when you're on an almost exclusively gaming site seems off. It's all CG.

Thank god there's an Off Topic board then right? My issue is that CGI is constantly evolving, and so older uses stand out more, as it shows how dated they become over time. Seeing something physically being there holds more weight than something that will look like a cartoon in a few years. It gives older films more longevity.

Also, I appreciate the work that goes into projects where the studio put a lot of effort into making their special effects work. I don't get the same appreciation out of CGI. It is the difference between a person hand carving a statue, and a person building a robot that can do it to exacting specifications. It just loses its charm and personality along the way.

I get that, and like I said, to each their own, it just seems weird to me. I knew a guy who hated super hero movies because they were unrealistic, but the fact that the guy in Die Hard isn't speared by shrapnel when the taxi hits those two cars incredibly fast doesn't bother him at all. It just seems like a similar argument to me, both are impossible, why should one bother you so much?

Which wasn't a direct question to you. Lord of the Rings is a living testament to creating miniatures, so I can see your argument.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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?

Brings an interesting thought to mind: what would be cheaper, creating the world wholesale inside the computer, or taking shots of a real jungle and then changing and layering all the bioluminescence he wants over the top of it?

I got the extended cut of Avatar for two reasons: I wanted to see the deleted scenes and I wanted to know how the fuck the did what they did cos I haven't been wowed like that since Jurassic Park and I first saw the Brachiosaur.

The CGI in a movie will look better and the effects seem less dated if one of two things happens in my view:

1-Like in Terminator 2, it is used sparingly for shots that are otherwise impossible.

2-Like Avatar (or Transformers), you go totally for fucking broke and make it so integral and so good the movie won't survive without it.

On an off topic note, I'd like to take this opportunity to say this.

Stan Winston, you were a magnificent man and the special effects and movie industry is lessened by your loss.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

That guy is my bloody idol. He was a master of practical effects. He was the reason I added to T. Rex into my argument.

 

[Kiltguy]

I miss this guy;

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0366063/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yYeZMx1Y7U skip to 1:50

If only man could make scaled models, and CGI just to cover up the little things. Man, that would be perfect.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

The last straw that broke Star Wars for me was the huge amount of CGI. they could have made it costumed. It would have been better. Hell look at Pan's Labyrinth. AN AMAZING film with the help of just, costuming. it wouldn't be the same if it was CG. No matter what a CG Character in a real world won't look as real. Well, for now anyway.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

That guy is my bloody idol. He was a master of practical effects. He was the reason I added to T. Rex into my argument.

To me this man is a god among men for what he did for special effects. I cried when I heard he'd died.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The last straw that broke Star Wars for me was the huge amount of CGI. they could have made it costumed. It would have been better. Hell look at Pan's Labyrinth. AN AMAZING film with the help of just, costuming. it wouldn't be the same if it was CG. No matter what a CG Character in a real world won't look as real. Well, for now anyway.

The thing that bothered me the most in the new Star Wars movies were the CGI Clone Troopers. Stormtroopers worked just fine in the original. And Seeing Temuera Morrison's disembodied head atop a CGI body just looks bad.

 

[Arsen]

The problem with CGI is that the technology ages. With actual sets, puppets, and props the movie has a certain quality that stays with it as time goes on. Sure, the CGI my look good now, but a few years down the road it'll look horrible.

And all these kids who are jaded and spoiled by Avatar need to watch Labyrinth. THAT is what a fantasy film is supposed to look like.

 

[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!

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Eh,so long as it isn't another highlander sequel fight scene

 

[meowchef]

Take my Jurassic Park example, a perfect blend of excellent CGI and incredible animatronic work.

It really isn't that excellent of CGI work though. You can always tell what parts are CGI and what aren't

Does anyone else think that total silence in a hectic space battle like the ones from Star Wars (And I do mean total silence no music or anything) would create a beautiful contrast?

He goes for that when Obi Wan is on his way to Geonosis in Episode 2 with the Fetts chasing after him. No sound other than the seismic charges I believe.