[OT] Down with CGI!

[Darkness]

Re: CGI is BAD

Limper takes the Soap Box.....

"I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."

"Thank You."

*nods* A good role-playing session (or book) beats a bad but nice-looking movie any day.

 

[Crothian]

Re: CGI is BAD

Limper takes the Soap Box.....

"I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."

"Thank You."

It's not meant to. It's purpose is to aid in the story telling.

Spiderman's web shoting is much better now then the 70's/80's TV show (if you remember that, I'm not exactly sure when it was). That TV sho had lousy special effects and that took away from the story. It was too rediculus to be believed. But now through the use of more advanced methods, these special effects add to the story.

 

[Limper]

"Meant to.... " If only everything were used the way it were meant to. Yes its true CGI could be an asset..... in moderation.

I do love good special effects, but its SO RARE they do well with computer animation of any sort. It looks cheap more oft than not.
The effects of the 70's were bad BY TODAYS standard at the time they weren't an issue.

I suppose my rant is against all the DIET EYE-CANDY that the media keeps subjecting me to. It makes me very very sad to think how many people LIKE this tripe, who activly dislike thought provoking tales. Would it be to hard to have a good story AND good effects......... sometimes I'm ashamed to be a capitalist.

 

[BOZ]

Re: CGI

Like the Colonel, in 5 years or so we may not know what is actually real!

i don't even know what is actually real or not, right now!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

pure cgi is crap.. look at movies like the original star treks.. the ships looked so real because they used actual models.. all of this pure cg crap is just that.. crap.. (my word for the day)

its laziness and cheapness and i'm sick of it
i refuse to see spiderman because of this very reason.. if i want to watch a cartoon, i'll watch a cartoon

CGI is anything but laziness. It takes at least as much money and man-hours to do CGI as older model-based special effects, at least for high-budget movies. Yes, it's becoming less expensive and labor intensive to use CGI, but filmmakers who really want to push the envelope still spend lots of money and time to really distinguish their effecst from the rest. Plus, you're comparing top-flight effects using models to CGI, when I could point to hundreds of movies and TV shows that used model-based effects, and the ships (or whatever) looked like someone strung their toys up in front of a camera. The best CGI easily compares favorably to, if not surpasses, the best non-CGI effects. Compare the old effects in Star Wars to the special edition Lucas put out; I was there in the theater both in 1977 and for the re-release, and the new stuff revitalized that film; the effects simply hadn't held up.

I will say, though, that the two most impressive special effects movies I've seen came long before CGI - Close Encounters of the Third Kind and 2001. The effects for both stand the test of time very well. But they're the exception, not the rule.

 

[Rashak Mani]

(gets up on the soapbox...)

Well I wouldnt say "Away with CGI" but certainly... "We hate silly or desnecessary CGI !"...

More than ever people can see badly done or Show off CGI work... and Jar Jar Binks is the prime example of boring and showoff work. If he had been shot thru the head in the film many would have cheered his very timely death...

CGI is the future thou... no getting around it... slowly the directors are seeing that CGI by itself isnt a crowd pleaser thou. Got to have some substance too...

(waves... gets down from soapbox )

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I thought the cgi in spiderman was really good. While if I studdied it I'm sure I'd be able to see where it was cgi, either from logic no human could do that even on cables, or throguh actually seeing a flaw. during the movie it flowed seemlessly enough that I never stepped back away from the movie and it allowed spidey to do the things spidey does in the comics, but couldn't be done on cables no matter how good the stunt man.

 

[bondetamp]

Re: CGI is BAD

Limper takes the Soap Box.....

"I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."

"Thank You."

Yeah. I have the same beef with costumes. They are used in almost every film now, and some of those films have quite shoddy stories.

 

[Limper]

Re: Re: CGI is BAD

Yeah. I have the same beef with costumes. They are used in almost every film now, and some of those films have quite shoddy stories.

Good point indeed... very good point. Stupid Hollywood don't they pay any attention to messageboards.

 

[kkoie]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm really beginning to get a little ticked at CGI. At times, it can produce amazing results in movies, but to much of it just makes me sick.

Ticked off? Why are you letting something as simple as computer animation even making you mad in the first place?!

Do we really need a CGI yoda, when he has been doing fine as a puppet in the last 4 Star Wars movies? What about the CGI Scooby in the upcoming Scooby Doo movie? (yech!!!) Take for example the famous T-1000 is T2. The T-1000 couldn't have been done in any other medium. That was a great example of early CGI. Now think of the CGI abomination known as Jar-Jar Binks! Now that CGI allows cheap and versatile special effects, Lucas and other movie makers are only thinking about whether or not such a CGI character is possible, not whether it is necessary.

I suppose the idea that creating a CGI Jar Jar Binks was more realistic than having some guy walk around in a suit just isn't a realistic reason huh?

Methinks that Lucas added Jar-Jar to show off the capabilities of CGI rather than to make a real character.

I think you are judging Jar Jar not on the fact that it is CGI but by the FACT that you simply didn't like the character. I think computers has nothing to do with it.

Some of my favorite movies such as Aliens and the original Star Wars trilogy were filmed before the advent of CGI. They still have good special effects, without CGI.

Interesting, well what about the fact that the origonal star wars were later redone with CGI? I suppose that was bad as well despite the fact that it improved the film?

Moreover, often CGI and real actors just don't combine.

Now you are just being silly and nitpicky! Using real actors and CGI combine about as well as using real actors and puppets, if not more so! At least with cgi the character looks natural. Not a lot can be said of the puppets.

There just is something that doesn't look right with slick CGI images superimposed upon scenes of real actors and real backgrounds. There are plenty of cheap CGI scenes to demonstrate this.

Well it is wrong to judge all of CGI in all movies based upon poor work. Not all cgi is cheap looking. The backgrounds from the star wars films are examples of about as good as it can get.

Don't get me wrong. There are some places where CGI works really well, and I think that some all CGI movies such as Toy Story were great. However, too much CGI in the wrong places is just sickening.

Oh thats not so sickening, what I find truely sickening are all those nut jobs who go out and spend tons of money supporting cinematic trash like The Scorpion King and other films that are at best, mediocre as heck, and at worst, total garbage. NOW that is SICKENING.

K Koie