CGI Is Starting to Suck

SAG-AFTRA is already concerned enough about it that I think in the last 10 years, they've added a paragraph to their contract that basically says, if you use a computer-generated person based on a real actor, you have to pay the real actor as if he actually was in the movie. At the moment (as with Paul Walker in Furious 7), it costs far more to use a CG actor than it does a real one, but it may not always be this way. The trades have reported that in the aftermath of Walker's death, more and more studios are requesting full-body scans of their casts for major summer tentpole releases so that if the actor dies or is critically injured, they could "theoretically" recreate their image and not have to recast the film.

I think nobody minds if a CG actor is used momentarily in a scene to as not to subject the actor to huge risk, like hanging on the side of a building or jumping off a cliff. But it's becoming more and more possible to make live-action movies with dead actors, which is an interesting legal and moral issue.

 

As in 3-D and HFR and an older Thorin.

 

This is correct. However to be fair, artistically, they did have conflicting visions for the film. But the way Jackson tells it, as producer, he wasn't going to meddle. DelToro wanted Brian Blessed as Thorin (no young, hot, age defying dwarf), and to shoot in 2-D. Those are some of the differences we know for sure. That and no Legolas and Taruiel take over. Also I'm almost certain DelToro would've actually made use of Beorn. *sigh*

 

Fixed.
Ever seen that guy's track record at getting games made. Woof!

 

Willem Defoe, Ellen Page, Norma Reedus and others are actors who've had their likeness in videogames. They're no longer lending voices. It's weird.

 

After seeing Avengers 2 in the cinema, I feel totally burnt out with CGI smash-bang-whallop. It just wore me out.

 

It is inevitable. All the main characters in these action or VFX movies have a digi double. Studios are also pushing for more detailed facial rigs as well. The upcoming Terminator will be a test of how well the young digital Arnold will be received by the public. If all goes well, there will surely be more of the same.
From what I have seen first hand, it ain't bad but we have a long way to go before the facial stuff can really be convincing.

 

The digital Jeff Bridges in Tron 2 was horrible. OTOH all of the work in Benjamin Button was quite good.

John K.

 

By the way, talking about the Fast and Furious movies- there are a fair bit of real stunt and not all digital. I supervised the animation on the upcoming Universal Theme Park Ride so have a chance to get to know a bit more. All the main characters and stunt men played a part. It is a mixture of both real footage and CG. (Still not my cup of tea even though I worked on it).

 

They'll just re-use old actors!

 

I'm still waiting for the promised Bruce Lee movie.

 

The CG Jeff Bridges was indeed terrible. Things have approved a bit since then. .
Thanks goodness we have moved on from 'Money for Nothing' too!

 

When it comes to the movie 300 I would say clearly you don't. So this isn't some random "makeup guy" telling you what visual effects are. This is the makeup department head of 300 telling some random color timer who did not work on the movie what actually was shot on film and what was actually CGI on 300. If you want to make this about my experience with VFX vs. your experience with VFX then you cant start by talking about what actual CGI you have directly worked on and what you actually did. ILM is a big company. A lot of employees there were secretaries and shop P.A.s What did you actually do as VFX artist or CGI artist that you feel you can play the experience card here?

yeah I don't care what you think about VFX or movies. But if you want to argue with me about how 300 was made you are going to loose that argument. deal with it.


Yours truly,

A makeup guy

 

I hope you're right about Abrams, but if his last 'Star Trek' flick is any indication of his preferences for relying on CGI effects and over-the-top action sequences instead of story (which is what Star Trek used to be about), then I have my apprehensions about the new 'Star Wars.' I'm still excited and going in with the best intentions though.

 

Hi Scott,
I didn't work on 300 personally like you do but a lot of shots were done at MPC. There seemed to be more than just compositing- There were digi doubles; effect sim and some pure CG animation as well.
I guess everyone has different opinions how much CG is too much.
Again, I am not trying to add fuel to a fire, just curious.

 

That's why I'm glad they brought in Lawrence Kasden to co-write the script. Thst helped Pave the way for a solid script and sequel. Although Abrams is a talented guy, he works best when collaborating with other strong artists to complete whatever vision he has. Say what you will about Disney management interfering but, in this case, if it was their idea to bring in Kasdan (or Lucas) , they made the right call. No me wants to tarnish the vision that sold billions of toys and the original films themselves in the mind of fans. In the case of Star Trek Paramount was looking for a vision radical enough to give the franchise new blood but also that would attract a wide audience without losing some of the core Trekkers so, in that case, Abrams had carte Blanche.

 

I understand that and my short list of the CGI on 300 (all of which was pure CG animation) was not meant to be a comprehensive CGI list for the movie. But when people talk about CGI driven movies like Transformers and The Hobbit and then try to lump 300 in with that then they are mis-characterizing 300 IMO. Just look at a movie like Daivd Fincher's Zodiac, a drama based on true events that was in every way meant to be as realistic as possible. Would you call that movie a "CGI movie?" It had far far more CGI than 300. The vast majority of the elements on 300 were real elements shot on film. This was my point. Not much of the actual imagery was generated on a computer. I have run into people who think the entire movie is CGI like Polar Express. It has a stylized look but it is not a CGI driven movie. Not even close.

 

CGI has made special effects too easy. The best way of doing special effects is by combining CGI, models, animatronics, etc., not just relying on CGI alone.

 

I thought they already did that, judging from Keanu Reeves acting skills.

 

I actually hadn't done my due research for the upcoming one, so I didn't realize that Kasdan was involved. That's wonderful news.

 

Despite what qualifies as a dictionary definition of CG or not both of these movies are ugly because of digital manipulation one way or another. Doesn't matter if they're different uses of different digital tools. Bottom line is to many they're both ugly as hell to look at and given that films are a visual medium I'd say people's complaints are valid. To the layman if a computer is used to create something it's CG. I understand you wanting to make a differentiation but ultimately it doesn't matter much to people's lack of enjoyment.

 

I actually passed seeing it due to that concern.

 

Ugly in your opinion. But not "because" of CGI. The look was based on a very clear and important directorial choice to have the film combine the look of the graphic novel and the look of classic paintings and other artwork from ancient Greece and the Renaissance.

Here is Zack talking about the look of 300

" I was a fan, of course, how could you not be, and I never thought actually we'd get the rights and he'd be into it, you know what I mean. I was a fan of 300. We went after 300 because I was really struck by the combination of story, art, and color in that book and how cinematic it was. My feeling was if you could get those images on a movie screen you'd be doing something different from what has been seen in cinema. It was another experience. I thought that was a big deal.

It was funny because when I was making the movie, I would say, "This is going to be like nothing you've ever seen." And people would go, "Oh yeah, anyway, it's like what everybody says," and I'd go, "No really!" I think now it was funny because someone said to me the other day "'It's like nothing I've ever seen" and I said, "That's what I used to say!" I don't even say it anymore because I'm exhausted by it, but it's funny because that is the experience in the end."

If these looks are ugly to you so be it. But the looks were the result of a singular vision to bring the look of the graphic novel to the screen.


The above image was inspired by a Renaissance painting.

Can't argue personal taste but I don't find these images to be ugly.

 

Yeah, and that's scary that they can pull that off so easily now. I don't even like when they do it in still photos, making some false picture which really never happened.

 

They've been promising "The next Marilyn Monroe movie" since 1995.