CGI Is Starting to Suck

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. But they could've been made with LESS CG (i.e. a tolerable amount) or BETTER CG (if Jackson would make up his mind and allow the artists ample time to create something worthwhile. He even redesigned the dragon AFTER the first film had been released, so they had to go back and change that too!) Likewise The Hobbit didn't need to digitally manipulate every single shot. Nevermind the CG, it just looks ugly. I see forum members talking about Mad Max's "great cinemotography". My question is, "How could you tell? I can't see behind the wall of digital tampering."
     
    goodiesguy and Vidiot like this.
  2. PNeski@aol.com

    [email protected] Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I do agree ,it was too much CGI ,I always though on good movie would have been better ,they are still fun but the idea of leaving a cliffhanger for the start of the third movie never worked for me
     
  3. Django

    Django Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    My main problem with most modern films is the overuse of CGI. I've done a thread on this before.
    But as was demonstrated to me, when used well it is an amazing tool for filmmakers.
    Expecting subtlety from a hollywood blockbuster is highly unlikely.
     
  4. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I rest my case.
     
  5. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    No. You didn't rest your case, you just ignored the primary part of my post AGAIN. Oh well, to hell with it, you aren't worth the effort.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2015
    Oatsdad likes this.
  6. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Hey! Ten years on the forum, and I finally encountered a second person to add to the ignore list. Not bad so far.
     
  7. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Believe me, I'm just all broken up about it.
     
  8. You didn't see the "300" did you?
    I have to wonder if they had a "conflicting" vision for the film.
     
  9. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    As in Del Torro reckoned he could do it in two, two hour movies or one three hour? Hmmmm.
     
  10. That and the....sappiness that has increasingly become part of Jackson's storytelling just wouldn't mesh with Del Toro's darker take on the material.
     
  11. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    No. What happened on Del Toro's version of The Hobbit was that one of the studios that controlled the film rights (MGM) went bankrupt, and their inability to provide financing delayed the film about 2 years. Del Toro didn't want to be mired in delays forever, so he opted to leave so that he could try to pursue getting other films made. Jackson stepped in when it was clear Del Toro couldn't come back in time to begin production. I don't dispute that they would've made very different films from each other, but bear in mind that Jackson would have still had a lot of control over post-production.

    http://www.ew.com/article/2010/05/31/guillermo-del-toro-leaves-the-hobbit
     
  12. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    There was very little CGI in 300
     
  13. All the backgrounds. It was shot primarily with green screen without standing sets as I recall.
     
  14. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    All the back grounds were filmed elements and all the sets were practical. The CGI was pretty much just the elephants, the rhino, the wolf and the ships crashing on the rocks. That's about it. Everything else was filmed.
     
  15. oh I know but I have to wonder during the process of adapting if they didn't see eye to eye and Del a Toro used that as an excuse to bow out.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
  16. Interesting. Nice to know.
     
  17. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think we're getting wrapped up on the definition of CGI. Let's just say there were tons of digital effects including a massive amount of compositing in the movie 300:

    [​IMG]

    It's fair to say that much in the movie did not exist in life and was put together solely in the digital realm. Perhaps not CGI per se, but still enough digital compositing to give the film a very unreal, artificial feeling to it. I know it was a successful film, but there are a lot of elements of 300 that I think were oft-putting.
     
  18. I don't care how loved it was, back when I saw "Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring" way way back in 2001, it was all well and good. I noticed that they kept showing Frodo from behind so you knew it was somebody else being a small guy next to the giant wizard, but after a couple of minutes I was easily able to ignore it. No, what I really noticed was near the end in the cavern. The cavern shakes. Someone (I think Gandalf) yells RUN and they start to run. Suddenly, it's all computer generated and everybody is running along in the straightest of straight lines, single file, with everybody having the same footfall no matter how big or little they are. It really reminded me that I was watching a movie. Before that, I had been drawn in. A disappointing ending to what was, until then, a quite good film.
     
  19. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    CGI is Computer Generated Imagery. Using the term as it is actually defined is hardly getting "wrapped up in the definition." In the image above you show there is little CGI. Every element was filmed. There were not "tons of digital effects." The people are real, the costumes are real, the props are real, the set is real and the background is real. It is a composite shot. But that is not "CGI." It is digital compositing. Before that it was done digitally it was done optically. So this is nothing new to film. Digital composites are better than optical composites when done well. The color and contrast is tweaked in the digital domain but that is pretty much the same for all films these days so that hardly fits any definition of CGI much less that actual definition of CGI.


    No that would be grossly inaccurate thing to say. Just about every element in this film did exist in real life and was shot on film. And I think to call it a CGI movie because of the compositing would be a real stretch since compositing goes way back before the time of CGI when it was done optically. Really, short of the actual CGI in this movie (the elephants, the rhino, the wolf and the ships crashing on the rocks) just about everything you see in 300 was actually filmed.


    Digital compositing is not CGI. What next? Digital color timing is CGI? CGI is computer Generated Imagery. There is a lot of it in many of the movies that are talked about in this thread. Not so much in 300. Was it unreal? Yeah, that was the idea. Ever see Eraserhead? Did that one feel realistic? No. Was it a CGI movie. Well, obviously no. CGI and realism are two different issues. Just because the look of a movie is stylized and that is achieved digitally instead of optically doesn't make the movie a CGI driven movie. The real difference between the stylized look of 300 and your average no FX oriented drama is the extent to which the look of the film was pushed. Pretty much all films are now color timed in the digital domain and the looks are all pretty much substantially tweaked. 300 just did it to the point of being deliberately stylized
     
  20. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    A makeup guy is telling me what visual effects are?

    How many visual effects companies have you worked for? I spent two years at Cinesite/Hollywood and many months at ILM in San Rafael, plus a lifetime in digital post-production (11 firms in LA over 30 years) Do you think I'm not aware of what visual effects are?

    I think over reliance on visual effects in general is not making movies better. No matter how well-done they are, at some point it adds another level of unreality to the experience. Scott, did you actually read the article in question?
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  21. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I don't think so. I think Del Toro only left because he was frustrated that nobody could raise the money needed to get the Hobbit series into production.
     
    SandAndGlass, Hutch and wayneklein like this.
  22. Well it did free him up for At The Mountains of Madness but, unfortunately, Universal said no to that project.
     
  23. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Very true -- and I bet that would've been a very interesting film. I've liked all of Del Toro's films that I've seen so far, particularly the Hellboy films. I think Del Toro has had a lot of bad luck getting films made, but that's a common problem for quite a few filmmakers. Even Spielberg, Scorsese, and Ron Howard have complained that there's no such thing as getting an automatic green light for films these days, particularly for mid-budget films. Huge $100M+ blockbusters and very small under-$10M human dramas you can get made, but everything else is reportedly quite a struggle.
     
  24. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I don't know who he added to his ignore list because I already added that person and couldn't see the comments Vidiot was responding to. *Snicker* I think I have like 8 people on my ignore list.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  25. jeatleboe

    jeatleboe Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY
    What all this cartoony CGI nonsense, I wonder how long it will be before there is no further need for human actors at all? The day is coming, you know.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine