CGI Is Starting to Suck

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Jun 11, 2015.

  1. Rosskolnikov

    Rosskolnikov Designated Cloud Yeller

    With you on that. People wanted to love the film due to either: 1) the gorgeous Wonder Woman or 2) the need to be in sync with female empowerment. Unfortunately, neither of those two realities have anything to do with whether or not the movie was any good.
     
  2. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    LOL, that looks 'realistic' to you? The problems are manifest - obvious miniatures lacking depth of field and detail, unrealistic movement, strobing effects due to stop-motion animation, unrealistic composition with live action, etc. The effects are hardly realistic either now or back then (when I was a kid I always looked for obvious vfx like that, including showing wires and matte lines, etc).

    CGI is infinitely better in every respect including physics based movement, photorealistic textures, models and composition. Just don't expect to appreciate the cgi in craptastic movies like Transformers, because those types of movies have far more problems than the CGI (as Rosskolnikov noted).
     
    Vidiot and Deuce66 like this.
  3. Rocker

    Rocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I meant "realistic" as in, the reality that comes from having an actual physical object occupying the on-screen space. The problems you mentioned are indeed obvious but it's never stopped me from enjoying those movies.

    Said no one ever.
     
    Crungy and budwhite like this.
  4. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I've been saying it for decades. The benefits are indisputable, if one is being objective (rather than nostalgic). Filmmakers seem to agree. The last Apes movie had some amazingly realistic CGI characters and the new one will be even better. Can't do that with physical puppets.
     
    Stormrider77 likes this.
  5. Rocker

    Rocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    There are always exceptions... the last Apes movie did indeed have some excellent-looking effects. But generally speaking, I will take a practical effect over CGI any day of the week. :)
     
  6. vanhooserd

    vanhooserd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville,TN
    Total agreement from me.
     
  7. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    But see, that's the thing. You're now making a distinction between well applied cgi vs badly applied cgi, rather than cgi itself. You didn't make that distinction in the first post I quoted, but made it into a blanket criticism.

    Of course there are examples of poorly realized cgi and I'm not about to defend that at all. I've often critiqued less than successful cgi before. As with any tool, it has to be applied with skill and in appropriate areas (commensurate with the state of the cgi art at the time of commissioning a movie).

    The potential of cgi is pretty much unlimited and is only getting better and better. I'll take it over puppets, strings and matte paintings every time. :)
     
    Stormrider77 and Vidiot like this.
  8. CGI has come a long ways since movies like The Lawnmower Man. If done well its wicked cool. Look at how well they pulled it off for Ghost In The Shell 2017. Despite the poor reviews that movie was excellent.
     
    MikaelaArsenault likes this.
  9. TheVU

    TheVU Forum Resident

    I think it's also how the set, actors, and other elements are filmed.
     
  10. Mr Bass

    Mr Bass Chevelle Ma Belle

    Location:
    Mid Atlantic
    It's hopeless to debate CGI vs stop action the same way that digital - analog debates go nowhere. If you are bothered by the distortions and artificiality of a particular format you can't get around that annoyance. Similarly if you are not bothered by them then you can't be made to be bothered. The only insufferable part is when one side declares their format is perfection and the other side worthless. But there is nothing that can really bridge a perceptual divide.
     
    Plan9 and bpmd1962 like this.
  11. Taurus

    Taurus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    The CGI in this early trailer looks good imo, but I am much more concerned the book's story has been kept intact:

    A Wrinkle In Time

    That book made a major impression on me as a kid, so I hope this second(!) effort by Disney doesn't disappoint like their first one did (for me anyway).
     
    MikaelaArsenault likes this.
  12. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Woof - can't agree! I saw it theatrically and was bored. I just watched the Blu-ray tonight and was even more bored - I barely made it to the end.

    The movie had potential but as realized, it's the snooziest of snoozers...
     
    benjaminhuf likes this.
  13. Maybe you needed a nap. From the opening scene its an action packed movie.

    The movie had a great story, intelligent even. The visuals were top notch, great musical score, good acting. The only part of it that sucked was the ridiculous backstories they wanted to give the characters (Hollywood screen writing ruined another adaptation). Staying on topic of the thread, what are your criticisms of the CGI?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017
  14. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I recently watched Okja - not a great film by any means, but the CGI pig (looked more like a hippo!) was excellent. It really felt like a physical animal. You could see its muscles and layers of fat move and flex under the skin and it walked with a sense of heft, making physical contact with the ground.

    There's no way you could achieve that level of realism by any other way. Compare Okja with that creepy looking dog puppet from The Never Ending Story! :)
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  15. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    And just to bring this discussion up to date: here are some good arguments as to why CGI is not making movies worse...

    Chatter About "CGI is Ruining Movies!" (with images, tweets) · tvaziri


    I totally agree with the authors' points, but (as I said a long time back) I think there's a point where the composites and the CGI kind of start overwhelming the movie and causing it to lose its humanity. One example I can think of are the original Lord of the Rings movies, which I think were generally very well done, and then the three Hobbit movies, which I think were generally awful. I kind of felt hit over the sledgehammer by the latter films, particularly the third one, and I felt like the VFX were getting in the way of the story... not telling the story.

    I also think there are some decent movies out there -- like Thor: Ragnarok, which just hit $800 million at the box office -- that have a plethora of great effects, so-so effects, and haaaarible effects. There's some stuff in Thor that's just jaw-droppingly awful. I can only conclude they just ran out of time, and this is the best that could be done. It was bad enough that it took me out of the movie, which is never a good thing. For all the problems with Justice League, I think the effects were actually better... but the reviews on the film were a lot worse and it's gonna wind up making less money.
     
    Michael and budwhite like this.
  16. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    Good CGI is good CGI. It's all about the inventiveness of the designs. I thought the first "Thor" was beautifully imagined, like a painting from "The Wizard of OZ." Bad CGI is when it looks like they're faking reality or trying to save a buck. Both of Ridley Scott's last films, "Prometheus" and "Alien: Covenant" both had great CGI because they unfettered from having to duplicate reality and imaginations could be unleashed.
     
    SandAndGlass and Vidiot like this.
  17. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida, Central
    So many of the newish Superhero movies use it a lot, some is fantastic, but some instantly take me out of the moment.
    I think if I see this so easily on a 50" screen, did anyone else not notice during movie production or did they just say, "Oh well good enough I guess"?
     
  18. Pete Sorbi

    Pete Sorbi Well-Known Member

    my main problem with it is with sci-fi movies...you used to have a space battle - and due to limitations - there would be a few ships (Im thinking Star Trek) -but now - you can have like 500 - and...it just gets to be a lot to look at....same thing with natural disaster sort of movies.....there is so much going on - you never get to focus on one thing - because thousands of things are getting destroyed....its not really the fault of the CGI itself - just directors who go way overboard.....
     
    Higlander likes this.
  19. TheVU

    TheVU Forum Resident

    The similar issues can happen with multitrack audio recording. They used to do crazy things with 8 tracks. Now there are 64+. The unlimited possibilities have no limits. Perhaps what we really need are limits.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    as of late I was thinking how great CGI looks...
     
  21. Yovra

    Yovra Forum Enthusiast

    Just saw the CGI-version of Peter Cushing in Star Wars, Rogue One again....for the most part the (digital) effects were fine in this movie, except this strange attempt to close the Uncanny Valley, which they didn't. It was distracting and terrible i.m.o..
     
  22. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    I’m thankful that George Lucas made the original Star Wars trilogy when he did.
     
    Michael likes this.
  23. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    too bad we won't see it on BD...LOL
     
    Encuentro likes this.
  24. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    It’s a shame. But I have the unofficial 780p Harmy Despecialized versions, so I’m okay until something better and official comes along.
     
    Michael likes this.
  25. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    ...don't hold your breath to long...
     

Share This Page