Anyone else sick of CGI?

Yes same for me

 

I'm fine with CGI when it's done well. The problem is that a lot of the time it's done poorly and/or cheaply.

To me, nothing will ever beat practical effects with models anyway.

 

I think another issue, most viewers can tell when they are bending or breaking the laws of natural motion or physics, with movements that are not able to happen in real life.

There is just something we have as humans, that alerts us to what is real visually or not real. The way things impact, or bounce off each other in a lot of CGI, just ring false to me.

 

Yeah, that's the other thing I hate about CGI. They often don't get the physics right.

 

CGI
3D
Animation
Scripted film

If I get a WOW factor from any of the above, then the movie's succeeded in my book.

 

I've never been keen on it. It looks far too artificial, and as someone said earlier, it's like animation with live action characters. However, when it's used well, it can be impressive. Christopher Nolan's use of it in Inception is superb.

 

I hated it when it first started being used but I think in the right hands it's a perfectly effective tool and can create some truly immersive special effects. Some films use it well, some poorly, just like every other bit of technology out there. I prefer it when it's combined with real sets, models, etc, a mix of the physical and the not physical instead of just actors standing in a green screen room.

My main complaint at the moment is that it seems many of the blockbuster films are devised with 5 or 6 big action sequences in mind (the first thing devised) and then the rest of the script is written afterward to stitch those action sequences together without any attention paid to characterization, story, etc.

The best special effects in the world are worthless without a good script, good dialogue and good actors.

 

Visually, bladerunner would be my favourite film. I think it looks better than any CGI film.

 

I hate bad CGI. But the other day I watch Damnation Alley (1977) and the green-screen scorpion special FX were beyond laughable. I forgot how bad old special FX could be.

 

The Spider Man movies were un-filmable without CGI. I think the first Sam Raimi one is a perfect example of "good" CGI. The movie looked like a comic book which was OK. Did you ever see the old Spiderman movie from the 70s/80s? I think they had a hose connected to his glove to shoot out the web.

The Batman movies are the most awesome superhero movies made for some of the reasons you mentioned.

 

I grew up with the old TV show, so I know how bad it could have been, yeah. I just think they took it too far in the opposite direction.

Like, they could have used CGI for the webshooters, of course -- I don't think it could have been done like a stage play. But I think they relied on it to replace the actual ACTORS during action sequences far too often.

 

Let's go back to blue screen special effects and overlays, yikes.

 

I had a moment when babies and pets on commercials started moving their mouths, instead of just having a character voice over, thinking—this really is sort of worse than the old way.

 

Transformers comes to mind as a bad example.

The new Apes movie did a great job with it.

 

No. Modern film action is cheap and poorly choreographed because the performers aren't as good as they should be/used to be.. Go watch old Hong Kong films. Long master shots because the athletes could perform and hit their marks. Nowadays shaky cam and quick cuts are the sign of weak physical performances. Trying to overcompensate for lack of skills is all. Noting wrong with your age or vision.

 

Yes, Bladerunner was probably the last analog (in-camera) sfx movie made that maintained extraordinary production values and attention to detail.

Recently I came across an extensive behind-the-scenes video of the making of that movie, from concept, casting, production, filming, in-fighting, sfx... everything really, told by all the players involved. It's truly a fantastic record (if you have the time - it's over 3hrs):
http://www.bladerunner2-movie.com/community/forums/topic/225

Edit: changed link

 

A while back, I caught Jurassic Park on TV for the first time in years, and I was amazed by how a 20 year old movie looked better than most contemporary CGI-fests. I think that using CGI in conjunction with practical animatronic effects really helped.

 

Not really sick of it, but getting close. I'd be fine if those scenes wrier short and sweet but they rarely resist the temptation to drag the fake CGI action scenes out for far longer than need be, especially when we all know the outcome in the end anyway.

 

That's because people like Spielberg know their stuff.

 

cgi is needed for tv shows on a budget like dr who! I am actually sick of people complaining about CGI ! how does Superman fly without it ? Star wars ? come of it people it is needed !

 

Exactly! I watched Frankenheimer's The Train last night and he's crashing actual locomotives, bombing train yards etc and it's all real (well, some models could be glimpsed in the bombing sequence) and it feels visceral. And that's a 50-year-old film.

 

Sure, I agree, but that was a zero-budget B-movie. Most of the complaints against bad CGI are being directed at films costing more than $100 million.

 

Castaway with Tom Hanks(the movie with him stuck on an island) used a TON of CGI.

Weather/clouds/daylight/shorelines/waves/removing distant islands & boats/low tides all needed major fixing.

I would have never known if I hadn't spent time with the commentary track.

 

On a technical sense, top 3 things that annoys me the most about most modern films.

- CGI ( except for a few like GRAVITY, JURASSIC PARK 1 & 2 and other Spielberg directed flicks most were poorly done)

- Bad Lighting (one good example would be a film I watched recently, OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN, there's a whole lot of action **** goin on, but unfortunately for the poor viewers, to dark to see a damn thing.

- Excessive shaky camera, to make a slow moving action shot or compensate poor stuntwork to appear fast and dangerous. To the people with motion sickness, I feel ya!

 

I hear ya, anyway Spielberg always had a good eye for visual effects but I have no idea what happened with 'Crystal Skull'. It was really beneath him; The monkeys especially looked like cartoons!

BTW, I don't think Janusz Kaminsky is the right DP for Spielberg, with Douglas Slocombe, now that was a match made in heaven!