CGI Is Starting to Suck

It was during one of these films that I noticed it, too, and I remember thinking, "That's not real and it looks it." On the other hand, when I see the landscape in front of Dorothy and her three companions I have no problem believing I'm in the land of Oz.

 

I read someone that this is the challenge with CGI. For example, once your brain identifies a CGI dragon as a CGI dragon, it will always recognize it as a CGI dragon because that's what it is. You won't be able to suspend disbelief because you've already made the visual and mental connection and you'll always identify it as CGI. The apes in the new Planet of the Apes movies look like CGI apes, because your brain knows they are CGI. Besides the fact that real chimps don't talk either.

 

The over the top special effects is what stopped me from seeing nearly any movies in the past 10 years. You really notice when you watch an old classic movie from 1940 on tv and realize that the character and their dialog glued you to the screen, and there was no movement whatsoever. Most shots lasted long than a minute. No cutaways. Just a good storyline.

 

I dig it. And don't get me wrong, I understand that the digital options in post far outnumber the chemical or light-based options that were previously used, but the intent of their use is the same: to make a shot look the way the film-makers WANT it to look. It's all about want, not about need. The question to me is this: where do you draw the line? I'm guessing it's once you run out of post-production budget!

 

To be fair a LOT of dialogue in these older films is incredibly unnatural, stilted, and almost comical at times. I can put my mind and attitude on hold and accept it, and it sounds like you can too, but it's probably too much to ask of a modern audience of any age.

It has also been pointed out repeatedly - and with examples - that CGI can be used very effectively and in ways that we don't even notice or that it can be beautiful in its own way even when it's clearly CGI. I think you're throwing out the baby here.

 

I may not like it or agree with it - in fact it might be really off-putting, but sometimes the film makers want "weird and unnatural," so, artistically I can't really argue with it.

It can work, imo, I always remember 7even as coming across to me as basically hazy, brown, and dingy looking. Maybe not to my taste, but it works in the context of that story and how it was told.

I'm sure there are other examples, some of which work, and some which are horrendous and a pain to watch.

 

I feel that way about dialogue from movies from all eras. Each decade also seems to have its own version of overacting. It's like the actors are thinking to themselves while delivering their lines, "I'm acting the heck out of this stuff!"

 

To me, CGI interferes with the "suspension of disbelief"which is what gives movies their power. One can still follow the narrative, much like you can with a cartoon, but it's not as emotionally involving. That's probably why Walt Disney stuck with fairy tales and stories about cute animals.

Humans believe what their eyes see. CGI is subtly undermining this quality, and the art is suffering accordingly. Compare a CGI-created character with one in costume and makeup. Both are "fake", but which one is more real and believable?

 

Except when it enhances suspension of disbelief, like in almost every (non-genre) movie these days which are filled with 'invisible' cgi enhancements relating to ordinary, everyday objects and scenery. People never seem to give cgi credit when it's not obvious (and the fact that it isn't noticeable, makes it all the more powerful as a tool).

 

Idk, I saw a scene from a movie recently where two people were in a bar having a conversation, and there was a weird disconnect with the action that was going on behind them, as if it were two different filmed scenes interlaid together. I'm not sure it's really so subtle and unaware as all that. Especially subconsciously.

I think it tends to work when it draws attention to itself, as in Avatar, where the CGI characters were presented as a sort of virtual reality, anyway. Or in Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life, where the dinosaurs and creation scenes were disconnected from the rest of the action of the movie. I would be interested in how much digital alteration there is in Malick's recent films, as I do find them very cinematic. I think it's when the more traditional film elements are primary that it can work. But how rare is that?

 

Sometimes, what the filmmakers want is bad and inappropriate, and they're too close to the project to know. They also sometimes realize late in the process that their story, casting, and characters all have issues, so they flail at technical solutions -- like color, sound, and VFX -- to try to compensate. But it doesn't work. Sometimes, they're just looking for something to blame.

It's usually more a question of time than it is money. Noted French poet Paul Valery once said, "In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished... but abandoned." I have heard that exact sentiment applied many times to post-production and to VFX in particular. You work and work and work... and then you run out of time and the project has to ship.

 

I agree with the article. My main problem with cgi is that films rely on it more then great acting and a well written story.

 

As an old fart I would argue that popular music began to decline in quality as new technologies made it easier to produce and mix an album without necessarily mastering one's craft. Within a decade or so it seemed that everything had one or more of the following sins: became autotuned, mixed to 11, cut and pasted, or had a backing orchestra of 100 eclectic instruments drowing out whatever was going on. It empowered many to be tacky on a grand scale.

CGI seems to the visual side of this and as costs for it's use become lower and lower it become's easier to CGI it rather than budget for an appropriate locale or for a large number of background actors. Unless you have a good amount of pull in the studio why is someone going to allow you to suit up 1,000 or centurians to do battle over an Icelandic valley when it will be "the same" for much cheaper in the computer? Why build a set of 1920's New York when that can be green screened? For action films I think this is double the case as the need for international sales and related langauge translation have made scripts less wordy so that they are easier to translate and more CGI usully means less talking.

The problems and opportunities will be interesting in 10 years or so when CGI technologies advance to a point where any sucking won't be technical in nature.

 

I have NEVER liked CGI animation in cartoons. And the reason is movement. Everything is just too "smooth" and "gooey". I'll take an old Bugs Bunny cartoon over anything CGI any day.

 

I didn't initially like CGI animation -- I liked the writing on Toy Story but didn't care for the look -- but the artistry of Pixar wore me down over time, and right around 2000 with Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, I thought, "man, this is beautiful work." As long as the CG doesn't get in between the story and the audience, and you can just dive in and absorb the plot and the characters, then it works fine for me.

There are some animated CGI films out there like Wall-E and Up where I've practically weeped at how beautiful they looked. Films like that work on every level, particularly in making you believe these characters are real. The first 20 minutes of both those films is just stunning work, particularly on an emotional level. If a film can affect an audience this deeply, then I don't give a **** what it was shot on. All that matter is story and character and emotion, and if you can believe it while you're watching it.

BTW, I don't think I've commented on this yet, but I was initially very skeptical of the recent Jungle Book because it's basically a synthetic movie with CG trees, CG jungles, CG water, CG animals, and the trailers from earlier this year looked fairly "plasticky" and fake to me. But the final film was really, really beautiful. I'd say 60% of it was damned near perfect -- as in indistinguishable from reality -- and then 20% was merely OK, and maybe 20% of the time I'd think, "ehhhhh, that's not quite right." But the fact that they did it so well and made most of the film feel so natural and real gives me hope that they're making massive strides in CG. It took 1200 people two years to make this thing work. And the voice acting, the movement, the camera angles, the CG lighting... it was very, very well done.

 

I've said similar for a long time, but on a basic level for the opposite reason. I've always felt that Bugs Bunny was actually really smooth and the differences in action speeds were more natural and fluid and balanced.

Where the CGI I've seen had less natural movement. The action was less realistic and way too fast. It seemed to have only two speeds, either tame or super fast, with nothing in between.

In addition, the CGI had other issues. The scenes were too cluttered with unnecessary elements that got in the way of the story, and the character development and writing didn't compare to 2D cell of the past. The characters do not seem as distinct.

Another significant complaint would be the voices. We've mentioned before how distracting and unsuccessful using well known actors has been, using their regular voices for characters. But just as bad are the CGI animated films that have these incredibly visually creative and unique monsters or characters, but they are combined with terribly normal human voices. A total mismatch and lost opportunity. Was Mel Blanc the only actor with any vocal talent? Of course not, but even if he was, I gotta believe that in the digital age, we aught to be able to adjust voices to be anything we want, and have it sound as natural as Mel? Maybe not yet...

But even when we compare CGI to really old rougher animation like original Disney or old Silly Symphonies, the old stuff still has more charm and seems more natural. Or maybe I simply like the analog feel it had. Digital, still feels digital.

Back in the 90s as a print art director, I recall my illustrators were trying to make a transition from analog to digital. They'd send me printed promo sheets of their finished work, mixed with both analog and digital illustrations. Although their acumen with digital was impressive, they were shocked that I could pick it out at first glance, and was never wrong. Again their development with the new medium was impressive, but not as good as the analog.

Now... all that said, I've been seeing some CGI lately that is turning my head. As Vidiot introduced us to "Borrowed Time" from Pixar. Very impressive. There were still a few minor details I could be picky about, like we did not see how they were going to handle the afore mentioned voices... but still, I had to reconsider much of my previous criticism of CGI.

It leaves me thinking that just like there was great, as well as mediocre, as well as lame 2D analog animation, so will be true of CGI; and I'm expecting that there is some pretty good stuff out there that I simply haven't seen.

 

I would argue, to the extent that those issues exist, it's not due to a limitation of CGI per se, but rather the visual style and editing choices made by the filmmakers. These days everything needs to go zoom-zoom to attract attention and visual clutter further reinforces the modern day fast and furious aesthetic.

 

Daws Butler. June Foray. But it was different for Mel Blanc, because he didn't simply do voices, he created characters.

CGI artists need to learn about mass and inertia. Raise your arm. Could you do it smoothly, and stop it insantly? No. And that's what my CGI gripe is.

 

Any thoughts on Cameron wanting to push 3D tech to the point of not needing glasses? Also it sounds like Weta/Lightstorm is making some major advancements in the CGI/motion capture domain (water/fire/smoke/nature scenes) and he wants to take it even further by using high frame rates for some scenes.

 

It can't work if your head moves. As long as your head is clamped in a vice, glasses-free 3D can work to a point. But it's not very practical.

 

And just to bring this article up to date: here's a couple of VFX breakdowns which show the before-and-after on several TV series where I think the effects are about as good as it gets for this budget.

Stargate Studios always does really good work...

 

And here's how they make large crowds from a much smaller group of people...



This is really good work, and I think stuff like this is perfectly allowable and understandable. Note they've been faking large crowds on films since the silent days.

 

I hear this a lot. How exactly does CGI cover up weaknesses in storytelling? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

Recently, I was impressed with the CGI vfx used in A Series of Unfortunate Events. What struck me in particular was the digital baby used in most scenes. At first I thought, gee, that's a well behaved baby, but soon realized that it had to be CGI. There were only a handful of shots which didn't look 'real', but it was overwhelmingly well done.

 

I think the theory is "if we throw spectacular visuals at the audience, they won't notice how weak the story is, how there's not a lot of logic or common sense to the plot, and the characters are weak." (See also: Transformers.)