Anyone else sick of CGI?

Never liked it !

 

It amuses me. I like picking it out when it's bad.

 

While there are certainly good examples, more common (for me, at least) are bad examples. In many cases CGI stands out like a sore thumb and detracts from the movie. We often comment on how old movies had primitive special effects (like the original Planet of the Apes movies). Those actually bother me less than the over use of CGI today.

The SyFy channel has many movies where there are bad examples of CGI.

Scott

 

Gravity is an example of excellent CGI, but the director even got the 3D right.

 

I'm playing Rollerball (1975) from Twilight Entertainment as I'm reading and typing this, and it's amazing that everything is done "in camera", definetely no computers for Cinema Films in 1975. Everything looks not so perfect and glossy, but it looks real, tangible.

 

I was at one of the panels at Comic Con a few days ago that had the production teams that were behind all of the various versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise in all of the TV and movies discuss their designs and how they were created including all of the models needed for production in various different scales. They also talked about the other ships in the series and how most of them were a result of the modeling teams combining parts from various other ships to build a new model which was usually expected the next day. One of the most interesting facts was that the last physical model they ever did for a spaceship was sometime back in 2001 and ever since then all of the ships for Star Trek or other series that they worked on have all been CGI.

 

I wish CGI would go away, it looks so fake.

 

CGI isn't going anywhere. Hate the look? Then don't watch films made past the 1980s. Problem solved.

 

The 7 Most Common CGI Screw-Ups Explained:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-common-cgi-screw-ups-explained/

 

That's the same look I get on my face when I get the monthly credit card bill after an Amazon CD-buying binge.

 

Wonderful things are possible with it, but like many crafts, it takes talent, taste, time, skill and discretion to employ and realize it well. Most media projects are short on at least a few of those factors.

CGI seems to me to be overused as an enhancement or fix. Over the top color filtering or grading and neon-ized, hdr-ized photos are similar "issues." Audio too is often manipulated rather freely. One reason may be a lack of a sense of subtlety. But there's also respecting the reality of what's been captured and/or leaving it to be perceived by others as is without assumed benefit of such exaggeration, or leaving it to be perceived differently by others.

But - you dress better.

 

Says you!

 

Most action movies start making me dizzy about 1/4 way in. Film techniques have changed so much that I dont think my brain can catch up. I think they give the public what they want. "I work all week in a stressful job. I dont want to think. I want to veg-out and let the movie get into the edge of my brain and turn the rest of my thoughts off. Give me an escape through fantasy action." CGI is very needed for the types of movies people want. Society in general is dumbed down. CGI isnt the real problem.

But, Im very opinionated about this topic and think most american made films suck.

CGI if done sparingly can be a great tool. When it takes over the storyline? Or the storyline is totally dependent on it? Then its out of control.

 

Watch the first three Romero zombie flicks, then watch his most recent three and get back to me on the practical effects vs. GC debate. Or The Lord of the Rings trilogy vs. The Hobbit trilogy for that matter. CG can help but it can't be center stage.

 

It is good to make lemonade out of lemons. Makes for a nice drinking game, but on the otherhand I'd rather not have the bulk of movies suck. Horror used to be one of my fav genres. Now they're downright unwatchable.

Even the best rendered, best textured most well lit CG has none of the impact of practical effects. There's no gut reaction or 'pop' to any CG. Nothing at stake. Just people sitting at a computer for way too long. None of the interaction of practical effects teams. Booo-urns.

 

The peak. And now diminished returns.

 

I remember reading an article someplace that mentioned how stop motion "creatures" are scarier that CGI because that creature actually existed. It may have only been a foot tall. But it existed physically and the viewer knows that. That makes it frightening.

 

Yes, I really appreciate directors/DPs that use camera rails. That slight movement of the camera that occurs with someone holding a camera in a still shot is quite tacky.

 

The Hobbit trilogy is the worst offender of this. Half of the movies are added action sequences seemingly designed to show off their CGI budget. It's like the film company said "We spent $xx million on CGI. We want to see it!"

It started during the LOTR trilogy though. There was one battle sequence where a CG Legolas was doing all sorts of flips and jumps that defied logic. It looked so fake that it almost ruined the movie for me. It's like they have some of the finest source material from which to create a film and they feel the need to pump it full of CGI steroids for the masses who don't get the literaty impact of Tolkien's work.

To sum it up, CGI is best when it's used as a tool, not as the focal point of the movie. I think Prometheus was great with this. It was a good mix of practical and CG effects and it looked great. It also helped that Ridley Scott knows cinematography and FX pretty well and knows how to shoot properly in 3D.

 

So this:

Please make one!

 

Most of the time it looks like the camera man is in a desperate need of a bathroom break. So many of the shows I see on TV escpecially that camera is all over the place.

 

CGI is fine, it's when they replace CGI for a decent script is when I don't care for it.

 

When it's used well, I can't tell it's CGI. See the last version of Blade Runner, which is predominantly not CGI. Ridley Scott put some in for the last release, and I never thought "this is CGI."

But when a film uses it primarily for their characters and special effects, I lose interest. Ridley's prequel to Alien, Prometheus, was a huge letdown.

 

I may be wrong, but I think the only CGI used in the re-released version was used in one or two quick scenes to fix what where original 'bugs', not to make it more cinematic. The stand out goof was in the scene where Deckard is chasing Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) and she crashes through the window glass, what's seen is clearly the face of the stunt woman wearing a bad/non-matching wig. That was fixed by digitally adding Cassidy's face. I'm sure other edits would be of similar ilk.

Agree, but there are exceptions, such as Terminator 2's T-1000 in quicksilver form, new Planet Of The Apes, etc. As with all these things, you've got to use the right tool for the job, and not abuse it (3D I'm looking at you).