Is CGI wrecking good films ?

Anonymous

I really want to go the flicks to see the new A Team movie, but I think I am going to be dissapointed. I think too much CGI in films is ruining what could be great action movies. CGI is great, don't get me wrong but seeing the A Team trailers, he just doesn't look like he is in a tank firing a machine gun at a a plane while being suspended from a parachute.
Think Blues Brothers, no CGI.
Think Apocalypse Now, no CGI.
Think The Deer Hunter, no CGI.

Now, Saving Private Ryan was enhanced by CGI, no doubt but it added to the film rather than being the film. So was Black Hawk Down and Con Air, action movies with a bit of CGI.

Is this making any sense or am I just a grumpy tw@t ?

morstar

I'm with you. It gets overused definitely.

I love 3D but that gets used for its own sake too much. CGI actually seems to undermine the need for creativity. Everything is just as big and bad as it can possibly be.

Aggieboy

dmclite wrote:

I really want to go the flicks to see the new A Team movie, but I think I am going to be dissapointed. I think too much CGI in films is ruining what could be great action movies. CGI is great, don't get me wrong but seeing the A Team trailers, he just doesn't look like he is in a tank firing a machine gun at a a plane while being suspended from a parachute.
Think Blues Brothers, no CGI.
Think Apocalypse Now, no CGI.
Think The Deer Hunter, no CGI.

Now, Saving Private Ryan was enhanced by CGI, no doubt but it added to the film rather than being the film. So was Black Hawk Down and Con Air, action movies with a bit of CGI.

Is this making any sense or am I just a grumpy tw@t ?

Grumpy tw@t gets my vote. The 'A Team' is for 12 year olds.

verylonglegs

Today's 12 year olds would have no idea of the A-team though.

I kind of understand the op's point but not with regard to the film you use as an example...you are saying you aren't happy that a scene with a guy in a tank which is parachuting through the sky and shooting down an airplane uses CGI and isn't 'real' enough?!! Not sure that's ever going to be filmed and look 100% genuine tbh. Or have I misunderstood and you don't want such unlikely extreme scenes in the film at all?

Cleat Eastwood

One of the points of cgi isnt about story it's about enhancing the viewers experience, what michelle henning called creating th efrenzy of the visible. It's all about hyperreality, trouble is as you found when it makes you question it's use it probably shit.

give me ron burgundy anytime

sandy hill

CGI generally makes poor scripts marketable.

scott-s30

The thing that really bugs me these days in films and TV is the stupid, pointless and overused amount of deliberate camera shake or the sudden pan from subject to subject. Plus the sudden zoom-in, zoom-out nonsense. There have been so many films and shows I've given up watching because of this. Would have liked to have seen the new Battlestar Galactica but never made it past the first 10mins of the pilot!!
So many times I started watching something and had to turn it off shouting, 'keep the f***ing camera still!!!!'.
Maybe I'm just being over-sensitive but it does my head in :evil:

Bobbinogs

Original Clash of the Titans. Made using bits of string, Morph (in a bad mood) and his mates and lots of time lapse photography. Great way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

CGI based remake. Cost millions, all a bit pants.

Conclusion: Don't use cgi in a vain effort to prop up poor films.

Now, release the Kraken...

Mothyman

...I agree with DMClite.....they can do anything with special effects so we need better cinematography,acting, script and storylines. I prefered The Night of the Hunter when Robert Mitchum sat on a donkey in silhouette to make him look big and dominant on his horse....sorry I'm rambling.....

rolf_f

Watch the chases in Bullitt or French connection and compare them to the yawntastic crap in modern films. To be honest, these days Holywood is entirely capable of spending millions producing dull action whether CGI'd or not. As soon as you start pretending the laws of physics don't apply, it looks crap however you do it.

I've largely given up on Holywood. It's useless.

P.S. is anyone going to bother to go to the new Cruise/Diaz film to see how bad it is or just make a rational judgement and not bother?

PedalPedant

I'd definitely say CGI is wrecking horror films. In the pre-CGI days horror films relied on implicit horror which left the viewers imagination to run wild.

Modern horror films show you the big scary CGI monster in the first scene which is all very impressive but once you've seen it there's no anticipation or tension left.

The Japanese seem to understand this still, the original Japanese version of Dark Water is frankly terrifying but you never really *see* anything scary, it's all just implied. The first Blair Witch[1] film got this right as well and that was purely because they didn't have the budget for any CGI.

PP

[1] The sequel was utter bilge unfortunately.

anto164

You say 'is CGI wrecking good films', but can i add.. 'are films wrecking good CGI'?

Watch this.. (open it, press play so it starts buffering, then hit pause, the go make a cuppa and come back and watch it in full screen)

http://vimeo.com/7809605

ALL of it is CGI, and it may make some of your ideas about CGI change.

Anonymous

I've just e-mailed Alex Roman to ask for 12 minutes of my life back.

anto164

But when i watched it, i was gobsmacked to see that all of that was CGI.

Anonymous

It is impressive CGI but my word, dull!! Annoying theme of changing focus but not actually focussing on anything interesting.

As a showcase for CGI it's excellent, as a film it's tedious.

anto164

it's not an 'action movie' but it shows what can be achived.

virtually everything in that video looks like it can't be done on CGI, yet none of it is real (Apart from the person that's in a couple of shots).

Just look at the worn texture of the leather on the camera, look at the way the light reflects off the books, look at the surfaces etc, that's what makes the CGI good.

Now reflect back to the CGI of the early 2000s, that's all dire in comparison to what's done these days.

If all films were CGI'd to the same extent as the clip i posted, it'd take decades to make one film, but it's just to show what kind of an impact CGI can make, and how realistic it can be.

Anonymous

anto164 wrote:

it's not an 'action movie' but it shows what can be achived.

virtually everything in that video looks like it can't be done on CGI, yet none of it is real (Apart from the person that's in a couple of shots).

Just look at the worn texture of the leather on the camera, look at the way the light reflects off the books, look at the surfaces etc, that's what makes the CGI good.

Now reflect back to the CGI of the early 2000s, that's all dire in comparison to what's done these days.

If all films were CGI'd to the same extent as the clip i posted, it'd take decades to make one film, but it's just to show what kind of an impact CGI can make, and how realistic it can be.

I'm well aware of the quality of the CGI, it is truly excellent.

I feel that as opposed to a film as in a piece of work it's more like a demo of what can be done.

MrChuck

I suppose you don't even notice good CGI, but I agree that it can burst the bubble and just make things look like a cartoon, just like in the A-Team trailer and that sort of movie is pretty cartoonish to begin with! But even in films like that I think there's a sort of level of 'realism' you're prepared to go with but once that's gone out the window (because a scene is just too much and/or not done very convincingly) you just don't care anymore.

Cleat Eastwood

anto164 wrote:

You say 'is CGI wrecking good films', but can i add.. 'are films wrecking good CGI'?

Watch this.. (open it, press play so it starts buffering, then hit pause, the go make a cuppa and come back and watch it in full screen)

http://vimeo.com/7809605

ALL of it is CGI, and it may make some of your ideas about CGI change.

Yes but you can't equate a coupl eof rendered sequences from Max with the use of composited cg graphics from a big budget studio.

All that little students show reel vid does is show the quality of the texturing, if you look at the renderer it was Vray, and that can make even a bog standard 3d affair look classy.

I thnk the point of the OP was that cgi adds nothing to the story telling, to the experience of engaging in the world of the film.

Anyway cgi must be rubbish because JLG hasn't used it in one o fhis films yet. And as we all know when it comes to films JLG is GOD. 8)

Anonymous

Thing is I enjoyed 300, because I knew it would be CGI'd and it was set in an animated, comic style of filming. I love the Bourne movies though and as far as I am aware hardly any CGI was used and so the films such as these stand out for me.

Yes Aggieboy I am a grumpy tw@t, but I have to take 2 boys age 10 and 11 to the A team so you are right on both counts

Bunneh

Must admit as much as I like looking at stunning visuals nothing beats the 'old' 70's stop frame films like Clash of the Titans etc. I will never forget recoiling in horror when the hero of the film stabbed a large tiger like cat in the chest with his sword. I recently saw Avatar and found myself bored, I also went to see the last Batman film at the cinema and found myself more concerned at how uncomfortable the seats were.

Toy Story films on the other hand are exceptional in their story, and you just don't care they're CGI. I have also enjoyed all the Harry Potter films, and even though I cannot stand 'kid' heroes I found myself lost in their brilliance.

The latest penchant for 3D with CGI is producing some p*ss poor films, the street dance crap, the shite killer pirahna film that's come out etc etc. Technology is great but I'm happy with a good story even if the animation is ropey.

Aggieboy

dmclite wrote:

Thing is I enjoyed 300, because I knew it would be CGI'd and it was set in an animated, comic style of filming. I love the Bourne movies though and as far as I am aware hardly any CGI was used and so the films such as these stand out for me.

Yes Aggieboy I am a grumpy tw@t, but I have to take 2 boys age 10 and 11 to the A team so you are right on both counts

You're well aware that I'm a good judge of character . Now, let's see if Shergar has sent a witty repost to the other thread

rick_chasey

CGI, if used a little more subtly can be a great addition.

Take the dunkirk massive 5 minute one-take shot in Atonement. I don't think it was actually filmed in one go but the CGI allowed it to feel that way, and it's easily the best shot piece of the film.

A similar example can be seen in Children of Men.

People are however, overlooking the best looking film which never had CGI....


2001!

BigG67

anto164 wrote:

You say 'is CGI wrecking good films', but can i add.. 'are films wrecking good CGI'?

Watch this.. (open it, press play so it starts buffering, then hit pause, the go make a cuppa and come back and watch it in full screen)

http://vimeo.com/7809605

ALL of it is CGI, and it may make some of your ideas about CGI change.

I loved that!

GCI is used in two main ways - either to replicate a location, action or image that would be too expensive to do, or to create a location, action or image that would be "impossible".

In the first instance if done competently it is usually seemless, for me it's in the second instance that the problems usually occur, when it needs to create something that can't exist e.g. the floating bubbles of water as in this piece of art or the robots of the Transformer movies. In this case CGI fails when the story fails to get you to suspend disbelief when viewing the impossible things that the movie maker is showing you.

So the stop motion work of Ray Harryhausen worked 'cos the films engrossed the audience and no one noticed/cared that the monstors were unreal. Likewise the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (the CGI looks poor by modern standards) look real because the film sold the whole idea. Indeed the real terror we felt when watching Dr Who is an example of low tech working.

Then you get to those films that leave you on the outside, where the whole deal just doesn't work, the script is poor, the acting weak and the plot awful. Then no matter how well the CGI is done or how subtly it is used it looks wrong.

So for me it's not that CGI spoils movies it's more that it can't save ones that are bad already...no matter how much we want the movie to be good.

sampras38

I'm a HUGE film fan and actually spent 5 years working at Pinewood Studios, albeit not in the film industry I was surrounded by people who were.

I personally think CGI can be useful, but it is used WAY too much these days and as some have already mentioned, seems to be the main focal point in a lot of films these days, rather a good quality script.

The problem is, it's the film distributors who decide what get's shown in the cinemas and the film makers themselves don't have a say. It's all about what they think is going to make money, so the independant less glossy films rarely get a look in. This is also a big part of why a lot of really good british actors go to the US, because otherwise a lot of stuff they shoot just doesn't get seen by the masses.

And whilst there are some really good non-CGI films out there, in the main they are hidden below all the dross.

Don't get me wrong, I like my fair share of CGI and animation, but there is just too much of it around.

simonaspinall

Good example between good effects vs. CGI...

Early Red Dwarf vs. Late Red Dwarf

I think all films should have a cap on the budget and then it's up to the skill and management of the producer and director to get what they can out of it in a German beer law kind of way.