Your thoughts on CGI-heavy movies?
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
- Status
Dragoon En Regalia
Member
No, boring reliance on genre tropes without variation has taken the fun out of new horror and action titles. Action's dependent on the stakes and ties viewers have to story characterswith good conflict and direction come great action sequences.
Lazy usage of CGI's a symptom of the syndrome.
gutter_trash
Banned
Bruce Willis ducking under cars in a tunnel, you can tell the car is CG and suspends disbelief from what were acostumed to in the old days when they used real cars
you just know the car, the chopper and the fighter jet are fake and it affects to believablity
you just know the car, the chopper and the fighter jet are fake and it affects to believablity
Spring-Loaded
Member
A good way of having those stakes is genuine mortal peril, i.e. practical effects.
Excatly. Bruce Willis is bored because his life isn't in danger and I'm bored because he's all safe.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Um...what? The car and chopper was fully practical.
The F-35 was fake, but everything else you mentioned? ALL real.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Would most actors actually do complicated action scenes if done practically as opposed to a stunt double? Would it really be more effective if they did it that way but end up using a stunt double and they keep the camera shots far enough away where you can't really see if its actually him or not? Even worse, if you can actually spot it was a stunt double, wouldn't that also take you out of the scene just as a bad CG shot?
Again, its not the fault of the specific technique. You can do a good version of such a scene with CG and still have genuine reactions - if you're going to use CG in a scene requiring the actor to react a certain way, have some sort of stand-in props that actually require the actor to move and react. Just saying "do it with practical effects" won't automatically make things better any more than someone thinking "just fix it in post" will make something automatically better.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
If you care about the character, and you care about the story, the nature of the effects won't even enter into the equasion.
you don't need practical effects for something like Princess Mononoke, or the Incredibles to work, obviously. If an action scene in say, Dragonball Z or even Fantastic Mr. Fox works well, it's not because you were worried that a cartoon might get squished, or that a stop-motion model might get broken. Most people don't worry about whether the stuntman is going to be hurt in the middle of a movie that's working on a narrative level. They worry about THE CHARACTER.
If you're tripping on whether the stuntman is in mortal peril, you're already disconnected from the narrative & the storytelling.Practical stuntwork is more immediate, yes. But it's not a guaranteed means of getting an audience to invest in the storytelling, either. Typically, what happens is that the character has ingratiated themselves to the viewer enough that once they're out of their predicament and the movie is over, THEN you're like "Wow, think about the stuntman who had to pull THAT off."
But that isn't a key component to successful storytelling at all. I'm not saying it can't help or enhance. Obviously it does. But nobody's writing, storyboarding, and shooting these scenes with the thought "how can we seriously put someone's life in danger to make sure this scene goes over."
Spring-Loaded
Member
I'm certain it would be unlikely Willis would agree to be around flipping cars in any way than and that just going ahead and using CG would be more realistic, cost-effective and reasonable.
In my mind, realism and reason don't matter. All I'm concerned with is the unobtainable ideal. in this instance, it's actions scenes in movies essentially being footage of the actual depicted events, captured live. I can guarantee it be more exciting for the audience if the action direction of a given action movie's action was equal to the final, real-world product, yet replaced entirely with practical (or real) effects, the knowledge that it's more (or actually) real would be better. There comes a point at which CG would have to be used (fantasy, space stuff) because human technology either hasn't advanced to the necessary point or because certain fantasty elements don't the way they would need to (e.g. fairies do not have dragonfly wings).
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
I know it's a good think to be aware of the stuffs happen in films. But sometimes we should shut off half of our mind and let our imagination flies. I know at best everything happen on screen is fake, but I don't let that takes me away from the films. As I mentioned earlier: If the effects don't look out of place, I'm fine with it.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Animation be damned
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
TacticalFox above mentions that particular scene was mostly practical.
Again, it doesn't particularly matter if its done practical or digital if the end result isn't convincing either way. And it doesn't matter either way if the end result IS convincing - we're getting to the point where digital effects in several circumstances is indistinguishable from practical effects to most viewers. If they think it was practical but it really wasn't, it doesn't really matter in the end since they didn't really notice and focused on the scene itself.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
this seems a weird tack to take if your stance is anti-CGI.
Spring-Loaded
Member
It could look (prehaps even feel) like practical effects at some point in the future. Th knowledge that it isn't real will ligner at the back of one's mind though. You see Jackie Chan almost fall off the edge of a building, it might pull you out of the movie, yet you're still invested in the action because he's about to actually die. Once he survives, you're able to fall back into the movie story a go from there. If you know the action of a film is fake and there's a point at which things get so ridiculous that you are pulled out of the movie, then you think "bah too crayz, and it's all fake I can see the wires" then it's just lame trying to get back into the movie.
Simpling knowing something makes all the difference. I remember reading some (possibly fake) cuckolding erotic story online where a guy told his girlfriend to go out and have sex with someone and to send a "1" text back if they had sex. Upon receiving the "1" back, he ejaculated right there. Granted, that may not have actually happened if the story happened at all, but even if it didn't, the writer receiving confirmation that his/someone girl had sex with someone else (no real reason to lie, so it's the same as knowing a stunt is real) was arousing without seeing/hearing any of it.
I'm not necessarily anti-CGI, just pro-practical. That's what I've deemed my ideal.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Can be done amazingly but most of those movies do not age well in the GFX department.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Still - that statement I quoted is boilerplate advocacy for CGI. That you've chosen to use it to advocate for practical effects is weird, to me. It's counterintuitive as all hell.
You can't say "realism doesn't matter" when the entire point of even arguing for more practical effects is SPECIFICALLY due to the realism involved.
if "realism doesn't matter" you should be way more predisposed to the idea of an effect being achieved by whatever means best executes the vision of the storytellers, whether that's practical, CG, or a blend of both. Because you've already volunteered with your "realism doesn't matter" statement that you're willing to suspend disbelief quite a bit
Yea that's what I hate as well.
Spring-Loaded
Member
No, I meant realism as "reality". I have no concern (not "no concern" at all, but none in the theoretical vacuum that is this discussion of my ideal) with practicality or what's within the realm of possibility when it comes to filmmaking because I'm not a filmmaker. I merely consume film and I only want the films I consume to be as exciting as possible. By having the people on-screen be in in legitimate danger, it becomes more entertaining to me. this is specifically about action/action movies. if CGI must be used I want it to feel as believable as possible even if its depiction of entirely fantastical, impossible events; the creature biting through the Earth should look appropriately massive, the lighting should be appropriately dark and everything on earth should be jossled around more intensely than any earthquake would be capable of because the planet is getting bitten in half.
I can concede that when you have a finite budget, time and energy/life, then you have to make decisions accordingly. But I want to make it clear that that's not what I'm discussing or concerning myself with. All that I can truly say I'm concerned in regards to the car chases I see on screen are whether the actors are actually in the cars, the cars arre actual being commandeered the way their commandeering is being depicted and the crashes are actual crashes. If there's plane heading toward a house at the same time a gas truck and a derailed train are, then I want there to be as much real plane train and truck being filed as is possible, even more than is possible.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Your approach to movies seems voyeuristic to the point where your suspension of disbelief seems to hinge on whether or not the stuntpeople could be seriously injured.
This doesn't seem to really allow for suspension of disbelief at all. It makes your statement even more counterintuitive, really
Basically, you want movies to be documentaries about things that never happened. Which makes a sort of sense - I see where you're coming from. But that's almost more unrealistic than computer generated imagery.
This doesn't seem to really allow for suspension of disbelief at all. It makes your statement even more counterintuitive, really
Basically, you want movies to be documentaries about things that never happened. Which makes a sort of sense - I see where you're coming from. But that's almost more unrealistic than computer generated imagery.
Spring-Loaded
Member
What disbelief do I have t suspend when they're legitimately in danger? It's not even a matter of belief at that point, but instead a matter of physics/probability.Your approach to movies seems voyeuristic to the point where your suspension of disbelief seems to hinge on whether or not the stuntpeople could be seriously injured.
This doesn't seem to really allow for suspension of disbelief at all. It makes your statement even more counterintuitive, really
Basically, you want movies to be documentaries about things that never happened. Which makes a sort of sense - I see where you're coming from. But that's almost more unrealistic than computer generated imagery.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
They're not "legitimately" in danger. Yes, there's a chance the stunt could go wrong, but obviously it doesn't, otherwise you wouldn't be watching it.
This seems like a cousin to the idea that car races are only worth watching beacuse someone could blow up at any moment, or hockey is fun to watch because people might punch each other.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
So you watch movie to see people in serious danger? I don't get what you are going for but to me, CG or practical, they are just tools to help you tell a story in pictures. After all, movies are just fiction and all you see on screen is fake. What method film makers are using, it's all come down to execution. Why should actors suffer from real injury and even death for something that is not real?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Depends on how they blend it. Watched Pacific Rim and was amazed out how good it looked. Then watched White House Down and laughed the whole way through. In that case I was thinking about movies like Die Hard where it was entirely believable but White House Down had so many take me out of the movie moments.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
I think this is a creative problem, not a visual effect problem.
It depends on the movie, but I'm usually amazed at how good and real some old movies look. Rewatched Alien recently and man... you can't beat the egg hatching scene with CG. It just looks real, it's there. It's a living alien egg hatching.
TMNT movie: as goofy as it is to watch a movie about humanoid turtles, they look very real.
Little shop of horrors: I would hate to see a CG Audrey to be honest, it wouldn't be as real.
What I really hate about CGI heavy movies is that they use CGI for everything. Sometimes it's just the actor in front of a green screen and you can feel it in the actor's performace: the guy doesn't have anything to touch or look at, it sucks the life out of the performance.
Sometimes they throw a real object for the actor to interact with, like a chair or something, and you can totally tell where the CG begins and ends, it's just a shame.
TMNT movie: as goofy as it is to watch a movie about humanoid turtles, they look very real.
Little shop of horrors: I would hate to see a CG Audrey to be honest, it wouldn't be as real.
What I really hate about CGI heavy movies is that they use CGI for everything. Sometimes it's just the actor in front of a green screen and you can feel it in the actor's performace: the guy doesn't have anything to touch or look at, it sucks the life out of the performance.
Sometimes they throw a real object for the actor to interact with, like a chair or something, and you can totally tell where the CG begins and ends, it's just a shame.
^ lol wht's that?
The most boring thing about CGI is when is used without being really needed.
See tha above. There was also "Johnny Depp" jumping a fence (where's the gif) in Public Enemies.
It allows a more lazy movie directing. Why carefully plan nice shots and sequence if is possible to do it with CGI? And then "let's put camera going into the gun barrel to see the bullet being shot" or so. These "impossible angles" rarely add a value to a scene, it's just trying to be cool but pointless.
The most boring thing about CGI is when is used without being really needed.
See tha above. There was also "Johnny Depp" jumping a fence (where's the gif) in Public Enemies.
It allows a more lazy movie directing. Why carefully plan nice shots and sequence if is possible to do it with CGI? And then "let's put camera going into the gun barrel to see the bullet being shot" or so. These "impossible angles" rarely add a value to a scene, it's just trying to be cool but pointless.
looks like a fight scene from Hanna (?) where they've superimposed a 3D image of Eric Bana's face on the stuntman
angular graphics
Banned
In most cases CGI is used for stuff that couldn't be done otherwise so it's a necessary "evil(?)", even if it doesn't look that good.
For example.. Man of Steel, all the digital doubles were extremely apparent (to me at least) but could they do these scenes a different way and still be that kinetic? No way.
Without CGI it would have been a different movie.
For example.. Man of Steel, all the digital doubles were extremely apparent (to me at least) but could they do these scenes a different way and still be that kinetic? No way.
Without CGI it would have been a different movie.
Gravity would not have been possible without modern CGI
You know you cannot make Jeff Bridges look young right without CGI right?
You know you cannot make Jeff Bridges look young right without CGI right?
More_Badass
Member
If you're talking about Live Free or Die Hard, the majority of those stunts were practical and just enchanced with CGI
http://www.studiodaily.com/2007/07/how-they-did-it-live-free-or-die-hard/
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
I think that due to the fast and blurry(?) action of MoS, the CG people decided not to go all out with the digital double and saved budget for bigger effect like collapsing buildings, explosions, Krypton, etc. If Snyder had used his trademark slow motion, then MoS would have cost even more.
Gravity is definitely gorgeous.
More_Badass
Member
Also the Fast Six tank chase was practical. Real tank crushing real cars on a bridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Fc_bgA9iA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Fc_bgA9iA
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Fast Fix? You meant Fast Six, right?
Fudgepuppy
Banned
The thing about practical effects, is that their limited nature forces the director to show restraint. This puts them in situations where they might have to restructure scenes so they are of a different nature that could be better. When a director in today's world says "And then this thing happens which the CG-guys will do", then that moment to breathe, that moment when he reflects on the possibility of the scene being smaller or simpler is out the window.
That's what ultimately sad about CG, as it takes scenes that could be more intimate, more scaled back and more grounded, and makes them into a crazy spectacle. But the spectacle in the end might not be as impressive as something more scaled back, because the eye can detect fakeness easily. Just compare the driving-scene in Children of Men with the one in War of the worlds. In Children of men you can tell it's not fake by the fact that it's not crazy and insane, while in War of the worlds, you think "the camera can't move like that unless they green-screened it."
CG is a tool that has a fucktonne of great usages where directors used to just have to give up, but they introduce a new level of basicness, which is what's sad as movies that don't need to insane sequences for the story to work, get them anyway because they could.
Pacific Rim is amazing because GDT was a part of the process all the way, even doing the storyboards himself for ILM before they started shooting, so they could sync the practical scenes with the digital-scenes. They blend perfectly because they constantly use real-life elements so the viewer has some change of pace. PR could not have been done as well with rubber-suits and miniatures, because they didn't go overboard and used the CG to create monsters that otherwise couldn't.
So it's a mixed bag for me, I just want movies with good scripts, and in the process of making a huge blockbuster that's a CG-fest, script seems less important. Compare The Rock with Transformers, both made by Michael Bay, and you can see what happens when a director has no limits.
That's what ultimately sad about CG, as it takes scenes that could be more intimate, more scaled back and more grounded, and makes them into a crazy spectacle. But the spectacle in the end might not be as impressive as something more scaled back, because the eye can detect fakeness easily. Just compare the driving-scene in Children of Men with the one in War of the worlds. In Children of men you can tell it's not fake by the fact that it's not crazy and insane, while in War of the worlds, you think "the camera can't move like that unless they green-screened it."
CG is a tool that has a fucktonne of great usages where directors used to just have to give up, but they introduce a new level of basicness, which is what's sad as movies that don't need to insane sequences for the story to work, get them anyway because they could.
Pacific Rim is amazing because GDT was a part of the process all the way, even doing the storyboards himself for ILM before they started shooting, so they could sync the practical scenes with the digital-scenes. They blend perfectly because they constantly use real-life elements so the viewer has some change of pace. PR could not have been done as well with rubber-suits and miniatures, because they didn't go overboard and used the CG to create monsters that otherwise couldn't.
So it's a mixed bag for me, I just want movies with good scripts, and in the process of making a huge blockbuster that's a CG-fest, script seems less important. Compare The Rock with Transformers, both made by Michael Bay, and you can see what happens when a director has no limits.
angular graphics
Banned
Then you have stylized movies like Speed Racer.
It's 5 years old and it doesn't look dated. In another 5 years it still won't. It looks exactly like it should.
It's 5 years old and it doesn't look dated. In another 5 years it still won't. It looks exactly like it should.
More_Badass
Member
Typos. That's what I get for using my phone. And I added the behind the scenes video, very impressive
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Then you have stylized movies like Speed Racer.
It's 5 years old and it doesn't look dated. In another 5 years it still won't. It looks exactly like it should.
Yup. Art design is an important aspect, too.
The Raid is one of my favorites in a long time, but I've actually used it as an argument "for" CGI effects. At least, it's the "right" way to use CGI, if that makes sense.
Monsters is another favorite film of mine that wouldn't have even happened without CGI, so yeah. I don't get the hate for CGI in movies. It opens up a world that wasn't there before, visually.
Monsters is another favorite film of mine that wouldn't have even happened without CGI, so yeah. I don't get the hate for CGI in movies. It opens up a world that wasn't there before, visually.
More_Badass
Member
Still, I'm cool with. Speed Racer, 300, Sin City, probably others I can't think of, used CGI to create great artistic stylized effects. But on the other hand, you'll have movies where the action switched to a digital double and it's so jarringThen you have stylized movies like Speed Racer.
It's 5 years old and it doesn't look dated. In another 5 years it still won't. It looks exactly like it should.
I might have to give an exception to MoS, because you just can't portray that level of power and fighting without extensive CGI. But the doubles are still jarring
way more
Member
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Do you think Doc Manhattan was well done? I think he looks great, except for some scenes.
I'm not sure if very many people agree with me, but I found The Great Gatsby's use of CGI offensively bad. Not sure if it was intentionally done to create a "surrealistic" vibe, but it made the already-mediocre movie completely intolerable.
More_Badass
Member
How could I forget Watchmen? Another good use of CGI for stylized scenes.
I think Doc Manhattan was well done. Actually the character benefitted from CG, because it gave him an even more otherworldly look, than if it was an actor with practical effects, make-up, etc
- Status