Your thoughts on CGI-heavy movies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

More_Badass

Member
For the record, my favorite movie ever is The Raid. I've seen it probably five or six times, and nothing beats a practical effects, on-camera, bloody, gritty action scene

Over the past decade or two, we've seen the use of CGI rise from a tool that complements special effects (i.e. Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, The Thing) to the special effect, the aspect that builds entire movies and scenes (i.e. 300, Avatar, Pacific Rim, The Thing, many others)

For me, it's more noticeable when I watch a movie with my Dad, because he can't stand movies like that, and thus endless comments and remarks ensue. I'm more used to it, but it's still weird to see the apparent shift from real actor to a digital double or see digital blood flying out of wounds. I just saw Man of Steel last night and like half the action scenes were CGI. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but still. Getting ready to watch Pacific Rim tonight.

So I was wondering what your opinions were on the (over?)use of CGI. Personally, I don't mind when it's used to add atmosphere/tone to a movie like in 300 and Sin City or other simple uses like erasing objects and when it's seamless, but I would like to see practical effects and animatronics become more prominent again. Watching Carpenter's The Thing and seeing the awesomely grotesque creatures or still being amazing by Jurassic Park's dinosaurs twenty years after its release really makes me appreciate the tangible nature of good old-fashioned effects

the-thing-1982-chest-chomp.jpg
The%2BThing%2B2011%2B3.jpg
Click to expand...
 
As long as it's well done, it's fine. Even if I can tell a bit.
I just hate it when it's so jarringly bad that it actually ruins a movie.
 
As long as it doesn't distract me from the rest of the film it's acceptable. I enjoyed LotR, which has numerous CGI scenes and characters (although complemented with real props, sets, models, etc).
 
ages less gracefully than practical effects of course. i'm glad OP mentioned Sin City though; the CG was used to great stylistic effect there.

I tend to dislike action movies that use a ton of CG. don't know if there's an inversely proportionate relationship between amount of CG used and genuine intensity portrayed by the actors, but it seems like that's the case.

There are a lot of other factors involved (so many), but compare Die Hard 5 to Hard Boiled. Bruce Willis seems bored, even during the most "intense" moments. he knows he's safe, jumping in front of a green screen. Chow Yun Fat is literally running for his life at one point with real explosions going off right behind him. The way his face screws up while shooting blanks is genuine because there's actual muzzle flash and sound.

or compare the car chase in Death Proof to the truck chase in Indiana Jones 4.

Grimm Fandango said:
Hate it when they do CGI for stuff that really doesn't need to be. Like Tron Legacy's CLU or the infected people in I Am Legend.
Click to expand...

Or that moment in Blade II where they're in front of the lights. my god
 
If it can be done practically to better effect, then it should be done practically. Otherwise who gives a shit unless the CG is godawful?
 
Movies will never go back to the level of practical effects used in The Thing.

There's Fincher levels of CG integration and then there's garbage like Man of Steel, and it's highly dependent on how it's used.

I deeply appreciate how much Guillermo Del Toro insists on using practical effects (did you know that articulating "spine" they latch onto the Jaeger pilots in the beginning of Pacific Rim was 100% practical?), but I'm willing to bet 98% of the people watching that movie don't actually care.

Something like Life of Pi would never have been a success if Richard Parker didn't look great, but I think audiences are generally forgiving for bad cg if the storytelling context around it is good enough.
 
So much of CG seems to fall onto lighting the models and matching the original film.

If they can do that, I'm usually ok with CG, but so often things like flesh look plasticy or just completely out of place.
 
I just watched Man of Steel tonight and I couldn't help but think that while the CGI looks pretty good, in a couple of years it'll look just as bad as the Burly Brawl does now.
 
Scullibundo said:
If it can be done practically to better effect, then it should be done practically. Otherwise who gives a shit unless the CG is godawful?
Click to expand...

If the action movie actors aren't in genuine danger, the action must be well choreographed to compensate or else the novelty will wear off quicker. Even a well done CG-filled action sequence would be that much better with well-done, practical, dangerous effects/stunts
 
TwntyOneTwlv said:
I just watched Man of Steel tonight and I couldn't help but think that while the CGI looks pretty good, in a couple of years it'll look just as bad as the Burly Brawl does now.
Click to expand...

Some of the digital doubles in Man of Steel look really bad already. I can't imagine how shitty it will look in ~5 years.
 
I hate it. I thought the Hulk CG in avengers looked really good though. I'm fine with that level of CG, which should hopefully be the norm 10 years from now.
 
Those who love practical effects should be sure to watch Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. The movie is 4-Stars for the practical effects alone. Show me the practical effects and you know it's a great movie.
 
mac said:
Those who love practical effects should be sure to watch Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. The movie is 4-Stars for the practical effects alone. Show me the practical effects and you know it's a great movie.
Click to expand...

Well damn. That my only criteria for a good movie. Guess I'll watch this
 
If it does not bother me while watching movie (the CG doesn't look out of place), then I'm fine with it.
Jimothy said:
Some of the digital doubles in Man of Steel look really bad already. I can't imagine how shitty it will look in ~5 years.
Click to expand...
Somewhat agree with this. Now, even Doc Manhattan sometimes looks a bit off for me.
Edit: To be fair, MoS action mostly fast and blurry, so I guess they decided not to go all out with the CG. If Snyder had used his trademark slo mo, the CG people would have been more precise with the effects.
foxtrot3d said:
If done and used correctly it can be a wonderful thing, however, usually it's just cheap and convenient. "Real" effects are always better even computer effects that are cutting edge today tend to look dated within 5 years, just look at the original Star Wars and compare them to the prequels. The originals used practical effects that are essentially timeless and age very well, whereas the CGI heavy prequels already look dated today.
Click to expand...
This. Very, very much this.
 
If done and used correctly it can be a wonderful thing, however, usually it's just cheap and convenient. "Real" effects are always better even computer effects that are cutting edge today tend to look dated within 5 years, just look at the original Star Wars and compare them to the prequels. The originals used practical effects that are essentially timeless and age very well, whereas the CGI heavy prequels already look dated today.
 
If the plot isn't overshadowed by the effects I don't care. A bad story will always mean a bad movie no matter how good the effects are.
 
These two movies spring to mind immediately: Tron Legacy and I Am Legend.

Tron Legacy's absolutely ridiculous looking young Jeff Bridges was terrible, and REALLY distracting.

I felt like I Am Legend would have massively benefitted from having real actors as the creatures, instead of those CGI abominations. Even a mix of practical/CGI would have worked wonders. As it stands, I felt like the movie lacked any sort of a real threat or punch.

But it all really depends on the movie. I prefer practical effects, but CGI is absolutely fine in most cases. Especially in cases like Sharknado, Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus, etc. That CGI is amazing :lol

Honestly, bad uses of either CGI or practical rarely "take me out" of a movie. I can usually look past it. Tron Legacy and especially I Am Legend suffered, though, definitely.
 
cgi should never be the main effect in your movie unless you've got the likes of weta handling things. it always looks fake and dopey, especially digital doubles of actors. they're always noticeably off, even if the double is only in frame for a few seconds.

its got a lot to do with the 'weight' of the images. you can just about feel when something is a model or some other such practical effect.

stuff like 2001 and Blade Runner look miles ahead of some of the garbage that hits theatres nowadays.

if I see one more digital blood splatter.....
 
Whatever works. I'm not too conscious about whether it should all be practical effects or CGI: if it benefits the product, if it's how the film-makers would describe what's on-screen, then it's worth it. For some stories, full 2D animation might be better than live-action, and vice versa. My problem with the modern film industry, perhaps, is that it's using CGI the way old studios used rear projection instead of filming into cars driven for real. This over-reliance on digital effects and post-production comes across as lazy, ruining my ability to appreciate cases where it's for the better. I think practical effects are far less prone to uncanny valleys, but they're ironically less practical than integrating CGI into today's big horror stories.
 
EBE said:
cgi should never be the main effect in your movie unless you've got the likes of weta handling things. it always looks fake and dopey, especially digital doubles of actors. they're always noticeably off, even if the double is only in frame for a few seconds.

its got a lot to do with the 'weight' of the images. you can just about feel when something is a model or some other such practical effect.

stuff like 2001 and Blade Runner look miles ahead of some of the garbage that hits theatres nowadays.

if I see one more digital blood splatter.....
Click to expand...

It also depends on how the director want the film to look as well. Snyder's 300, for instance, has the comical-looking blood splatter.
 
EBE said:
its got a lot to do with the 'weight' of the images. you can just about feel when something is a model or some other such practical effect.
Click to expand...

Like CG, poorly done practical effects will also lack weight. :P

So many people can't even tell what's practical vs digital these days it doesn't really matter. I've seen people complain about minature work in the SW prequels as being crappy CG as well as people thinking something was done with practical effects actually being done as CG. Hell, people to this day still swear that something like Davy Jones was done with a prosthetic or that most of Iron Man's shots used a real suit.

Really convincing CG takes time, resources, and the proper talent. In today's movie industry of trying to cut costs wherever possible despite ludicrous overall budgets, using solely practical effects are often the more expensive option because re-doing shots during principal photography and reshoots usually costs a lot more than doing it with some element of CG planned from the start. In the worst cases, all the takes get discarded and they end up replacing the scene with a CG shot anyway, adding even more to the budget due to the addition of an unanticipated shot needing to be done.

My take on the whole matter is the same as always - whether its practical or digital, you have to do it right. We're really at the point that in more cases than not you can't just say it would have been automatically better if done one way or the other. But in many cases, the director or studios will say a shot is "good enough" and final it and move on once deadlines start approaching.
 
i don't have a problem with them, especially these days. throughout the early 00s, it's been incredibly spotty, with a few gems here and there. i do believe there should be more of a balance between both, which from what i've seen this year, seems to be the direction things have been going. plus, being in the industry, it's kind of cool seeing everything before it hits the masses.
 
I like what sculli said about practical effects. If you can do it practical, do it practical. Otherwise, cgi is cool.

Gravity I thought was great and that was practically all cgi (almost).

Digital doubles are getting good enough that they can be very convincing when shown for a span of a few frames. In The Avengers I couldn't tell that Black Widow was a digital double during the scene wherein she's being chased by the Hulk. Same with Hawkeye during the Legolas bit.
 
After rewatching Child's Play 1, I couldn't stop thinking about this.

Yes, the doll and the Chucky animatronic looks kinda weird now, but I'd take that over CGI that will definitely look shitty down the years.

Blood CGI though, that shit makes me angry.
 
When it's done well, I appreciate it. When I notice it, I hate it more and more and I start to wish for more practical effects instead. I just don't want to be bombarded by CGI. I need to see real things more often than not. Or I guess whatever I perceive as real.
 
So far, the only director who still use only practical effects in his movies that I am aware of is Tarantino. He is willing to burn an entire building to get what he want to look. And he has done it before.
 
Is it the right tool for the job it's being asked to do?

That's the only question that has any relevance when it comes to effects work.

The idea that, in 2013, there are still people handwringing over "a CGI onslaught" is weird to me. It's been like, what - 20 years worth of that onslaught at this point? With no end in sight?

And how many of you guys are hell bent for 60fps 3D cinema? Why? If you can't get used to how computer generated imagery looks after two fuckin decades what makes you think you're going to get used to high framerate 3D?

It's a weird dichotomy film fans find themselves in - bitching about CGI, complaining that it's not as good as the good old days, while simultaneously wishing people would stop being chained to the good old days and allow for technologies to advance.
 
At this point even well done CGI doesn't even impress me. Pretty much every movie uses it now, so I'm kind of just numb to being awe struck bye it. I remember being fucking blown away by the CGI in the LOTR triliogy, even when watching them on dvd. I saw the Hobbit last week, and the CGI just felt run of the mill (art direction was great though). Not trying to dismiss modern special effects, but that's just what the constant bombardment of CGI-heavy movie viewings has done to me. I don't mind it, but it isn't as exciting as it used to be.

Seeing flashy practical effects impresses me much more nowadays. And yeah, CGI gore and blood always looks worse.
 
fool160821 said:
It also depends on how the director want the film to look as well. Snyder's 300, for instance, has the comical-looking blood splatter.
Click to expand...

oh I agree. but often times that particular effect is used as an, in my opinion, cheap substitute for the tried and true squib. if cgi is being used to create a particular visual style that isn't possible with things like make up or other in camera effects its totally understandable - cgi is a tool, and if your vision necessitates you using that tool then by all means go for it. but for me its the most 'WTF are you serious' digital effect out there, which is why I mentioned it specifically - you really cant just get a condom and fill it with some fake blood? like, really?

XiaNaphryz said:
Like CG, poorly done practical effects will also lack weight. :P

So many people can't even tell what's practical vs digital these days it doesn't really matter. I've seen people complain about minature work in the SW prequels as being crappy CG as well as people thinking something was done with practical effects actually being done as CG. Hell, people to this day still swear that something like Davy Jones was done with a prosthetic or that most of Iron Man's shots used a real suit.

Really convincing CG takes time, resources, and the proper talent. In today's movie industry of trying to cut costs wherever possible despite ludicrous overall budgets, using solely practical effects are often the more expensive option because re-doing shots during principal photography and reshoots usually costs a lot more than doing it with some element of CG planned from the start. In the worst cases, all the takes get discarded and they end up replacing the scene with a CG shot anyway, adding even more to the budget due to the addition of an unanticipated shot needing to be done.

My take on the whole matter is the same as always - whether its practical or digital, you have to do it right. We're really at the point that in more cases than not you can't just say it would have been automatically better if done one way or the other. But in many cases, the director or studios will say a shot is "good enough" and final it and move on once deadlines start approaching.
Click to expand...

practical effects are by no means exempt from looking fake if done poorly, I agree. it takes an enormous level of skill in your craft to make any effect appear convincing, practical or not. I just find it a bit disheartening to see so many modern movies favor cgi as heavily as they do. I think youre approaching things wrongly as a director if you say, 'hey, ive got an army of computer geeks that can make anything I want a reality, what can I cram into my next feature knowing that?' as opposed to, 'I have this great idea, what is the correct way tackle it and how can i be cost effective and work within my limitations?'
 
EBE said:
I think youre approaching things wrongly as a director if you say, 'hey, ive got an army of computer geeks that can make anything I want a reality, what can I cram into my next feature knowing that?' as opposed to, 'I have this great idea, what is the correct way tackle it and how can i be cost effective and work within my limitations?'
Click to expand...

What I've been trying to say is that, more times than not, directors do go by that second option and these days going digital/CG is the more often than not the cost effective way with the budgets and production schedules they end up having. It's just the reality of today's movie industry. If it weren't, places like ILM wouldn't have let go of their dedicated model shop. I suspect WETA Workshop would also have suffered the same fate if it wasn't for the various subsidies/tax incentives WETA gets to take advantage of in NZ to keep their bids down.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
What I've been trying to say is that, more times than not, directors do go by that second option and these days going digital/CG is the more often than not the cost effective way with the budgets and production schedules they end up having. It's just the reality of today's movie industry. If it weren't, places like ILM wouldn't have let go of their dedicated model shop. I suspect WETA Workshop would also have suffered the same fate if it wasn't for the various subsidies/tax incentives WETA gets to take advantage of in NZ to keep their bids down.
Click to expand...

i can see that. i guess the conversation then turns its head toward things like studio control and while something like the auteur theory of film has its problems for sure, its nice to believe a director WOULD have enough control over his own show to be able to make that call and maybe put just a little more effort in places where lesser films stumble, like visual effects, and not have to worry so much about time schedules and whatnot.

and this is another thing entirely: while anyone can say they hate the use of cgi in movies, the fact of the matter is that that industry is hugely competitive and often overlooked if you arent ILM or Weta or studios of that stature. one need only look at all the hullabaloo made not too long ago over that animation company that worked on Life of Pi (the name escapes me at the moment). some sad stuff
 
I like minimal cg

Like say a robotic arm will be like a practical metal arm with a whole bunch of components and most of everything is there but then CGI is used to animate some actions

This way its more convincing coz the weight rly shows
 
lol.

Practical effects and CGI look damn near identical nowadays if you're willing to spend the money. That's all it comes down to.

If/when CGI gets less expensive, most studios won't even bother with practical effects, because its pointless. Why spend money setting up a set piece where you have to take into account safety, feasibility, etc when you can do the same thing in a computer for the same quality for much cheaper?
 
As long as it doesn't enter the uncanny valley it's going to be fine. The rest of the movie however, that's a whole different problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What are your thoughts on humility?
32
940
CGNoire replied
No CGI realy means Invisible CGI.
29
1K
jason10mm replied
Your Favorite Movies of 2024
47
1K
Durien replied
Put your worst movies of 2024.
2
62
3K
diffusionx replied
  • Poll
Your ranking of all Fast and Furious movies
24
983
Rockondevil replied
Top Bottom