CGI & other advances: GOOD/BAD?

[DirthNader]

Hi, all. I have a question. How many of you out there feel that CGI (Computer generated immagery) is a great invention?

Here's my opinion, in case anyone wants to know. I grew up in the '80's, a time when movies were just beginning to see the fruits of computer influences. A good example is a scene in Steven Speilberg's (hope I spelled his last name right) movie, Young Sherlock Holmes, in which a Parish priest is hit with a blow dart with some pretty heavy halucinagenics on the tip. The poor old man begins to imagine that the stained glass portrait is alive and out to kill him. The figure from the window pops out and chases the maddened priest out into the street, where he is trampled to death by a carriage *ick *.

The Stained glass figure was completely CGI and looked great! In fact, it was way ahead of it's time. Overall, I enjoyed that movie and would recomend it to anyone (giving a disclaimer that the story-line is completely wrong, but then SB gives that same message at the beginning of the movie), however I feel that the use of CGI has been taken to an extreme.

I see the need for it in such films as Jurasic Park, the new Star Wars prequals, and television series like Farscape. But come on! Who wasn't dissapointed at the first rendition of a computer animated Yoda? He looked a little choppy and Gearge Lucas made a mistake in going back and forth between the puppet and the animated character (I'm reffering to Episode I, in this case). It wasn't seemless, and it took something away from the experience because, after all, when something is computer generated, it's pretty obvious (i.e. Some of the full shot scenes in Titanic.... *shivers with disgust*)

I dunno. I guess I personally prefer the days when actors actually interacted with characters that were physically tangable. Time Bandits, another great movie that I highly recomend, had Ogers, a really gigantic giant, and "the most fabulous object in the wooorld", all without the need or use of CGI. The Adventures of Baron Munchhousen (I know I butchered that one up) is another example of what was done and, in my humble opinion, should still be done when it comes to movies with imagery that is more fantastic than reality. People of skill took their time and created some of the most memorable creatures and places that film has ever shown.

I'm rambling. Just let me know what'cha think.

Thanks

 

[CraigD]

Hi Dirth,

CGI is a great tool for filmmakers, but it definately has its downsides.

Many directors will use CGI as it's far less time consuming than other forms of visual effects. They leave the work with the tech heads, check out the progress and when they're happy with the final result - it's in the film.

Where as puppetry and other effects slow down filming and can often be frustrating when things don't work out.

However, I do find that many directors today get carried away with the technology, and it comes down to laziness. And as much as I love the Star Wars prequels, I do believe that Lucas has often taken the easy way out. Don't get me wrong, I thought Yoda was extremely well done, and quite necessarily computer generated for Attack of the Clones. But the performances suffer due to the extensive blue/green screen work.

And of course, CGI isn't perfected as of yet. Ever seen Jan de Bont's remake of The Haunting? God awful film. CGI is not scary. I think in the horror/monster movie type of genre, puppetry and make up effects are far more effective.

So yeah, I think CG is great but overused at the moment, but as it becomes even more seamless, director's will use it more, and audiences will probably mind less.


Craig

 

[DirthNader]

Thank you. I agree with you 110%. I guess that was the point I was trying to make, too.

I think you are also right in regards to it becomming more used as it gets more seamless. The audiences won't mind so much, naturally, because they will have grown up with it and anything less (i.e. make up and puppetry) will seem archaic and terribly out dated.

Thanks for your input. That's the stuff I'm looking for.

 

[Drtooth]

my two cents....

I think, Movies aside, CGI is just a tool, like most animations. If you make an all CGI cartoon series, it will not be cool just becasue of the CGI. Case in point, Jimmy Neutron, Max Steel, and Cubix. GOD AWFUL!!!!

As far as movies, I think CGI is used where it doesn't need to be, and isn't used where it should be. Look at Inspector Gadget the movie...the biggest mistake (casting, wrong city name, and plot aside) Madcat and Brain should have been CGI's (like Scooby Doo or Bullwinkle) and not real animals. Brain was just a dog in that movie when everyone knows that he was one of those anthromophic (sp) type cartoon dogs that walk on two legs! YUICK!!!

As far as Yoda goes, he should have been CGI in (and only in) the fighting scenes. Though he tried to make the CGI look and move like the puppet, the puppets limitations make him appear old.

 

[beaker]

When I first saw T2 and Jurassic Park, both insanely great films IMHO...I was truly blown away by the then state of the art cgi. Since then virtually every film cept Ya Ya Sisterhood uses it to some extent...so it has become a bit ho hum. Even in Episode Two, weve become so accustomed to it, that we arent as blown away as we should be.

Speaking of Star Wars, Lucas used an oppurtunity to to do what I would consider butchering...the special editions of the trilogy...oh man...look what he did to the masterpeice Jedi!

So there are examples of cgi being used to 'history revision'.
(as was the case of a lot of NYC setting late 2002 films)

However, pure cgi films continue to dazzle me. Final Fantasy and Monsters Inc were on my top ten list of last year for a good reason(then again I disliked the pastel look of Shrek)

But some directors and studios are really tweaking out cgi effects over real footage. Look at Minoirty Report, those spider robots were convincing because it was a small effect and had a very organic rustic look. For visual effects and cgi, I say just wait for the two Matrix sequels next year...from what Ive read these films are spose to be th emost astonishing visual effects pieces ever.

 

[DirthNader]

I agree, and don't get me wrong. I feel that cgi does have it's place, but it does seem to be overused. I've just always had a hard time with that kinda art replacing traditional effects.

Just think of where special effects would be if it hadn't been for pioneers like George Lucas. Many things were litterally invented during the filming of the first three films. Advances were made in sound and visual effects. Even with the untouched versions, I still get that thrill of being there.

I think he (Mr. Lucas) should take some pointers from his friend (Mr. Speilberg). The new E.T. DVD will have the added option of watching the original, completely free of the added effects. That's twice the fun at half the cost, or somethin'. In any event, it shows that even a directopr as revered as he is, still thinks of his audience and realizes that there are truly "die hard" fans out there who appreciate what they remember with an original piece.

I do look forward to seeing the two new Matrix's.

 

[gymkatarules]

If it does look bad already, CGI will look sillier and sillier as these films get older. Filmmakers have gotten way out of line with using these effects too heavily, while films using opitcal effects more often than not still look great (2001, anyone?). Boo on CGI. Boo.

-Chris

 

[Drtooth]

However, I feel if you use CGI on a bad movie, you'll still have a bad movie!

Case in point: Dinosaur. It had potential, but it just got so conviluted and long. Ugh. At the last minute, they decided to get voice overs, and not keep it a picture without speaches. They had all these no names and B list celebrities like Della Reese. ANd the film was so long and so boring. So many treks though the desert. I almost thought the film had bits of Lawrence of Arabia spliced in! The visuals were astounding, but the thing was like watching paint dry.

Compaire it with Pixar movies (Monsters Inc, Toy Story, Bugs Life). All were memorable dispite CGI animation. Dinosaur was a brash, wreckless move! Eisner (or someone) said Heck with Pixar, we can make CGI movies without them.....


No! They can't!

 

[beaker]

>>>Compaire it with Pixar movies (Monsters Inc, Toy Story, Bugs Life). All were memorable dispite CGI animation. Dinosaur was a brash, wreckless move! Eisner (or someone) said Heck with Pixar, we can make CGI movies without them<<<

Hehe, look slike I missed out on all the boring fun of Dinoasaur Seriously, I hope Disney learned their lesson of trying to go at it alone as far as pure cgi films. Pixar and Square Studios(Final Fantasy) set the new standard for all cgi films, so those studios are hard to top. On a side note I was quite displeased Shrek got the academy award, when Monsters Inc and Final Fantasy IMHO had that beat hands down. Heck even Waking Life to me was more entertaining animated film wise.

But as far as cgi applies to creature shop...its funny, on Aint It Cool whenever something JHC or Creature Shop comes up, you'll get all these idiots dissing puppetry and animatronics in favor of cgi. Im sorry, but 80's fantasy(Never Ending, Willow, Legend, Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, etc) to me was way more exciting than modern stuff like Potter or LOTR.

 

[CraigD]

Hey Cory,

I agree with you that Monsters Inc. was a much more enjoyable film than Shrek (and I also really dug Waking Life), but Final Fantasy was awful, a real headache inducing film. For the academy to nominate that film in the animation category over Waking Life was an embarrassment.

As for your view on 80's fantasy, sure, films like The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth and Willow were great, but Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have really ignited the studios interests in fantasy again. And although Harry Potter may be slightly flawed (but still very enjoyable), nothing can top LOTR. I don't care what you say. Look at Willow, and it's just a clone of Tolkien's story anyway. Lord of the Rings is the greatest fantasy film ever made, and it did not get carried away with CG in the slightest. It used it when necessary (the Cave Troll for example), but the reason the film worked so well is that Peter Jackson completely respected the story and he was the perfect person to bring the books to life.


Craig