Let's rant about CGI

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It's a problem. It sticks out like a sore thumb almost always. I mean, to me, Spider-Man was mostly unwatchable. I understand that it's probably cheaper and safer than using live action stunts, but we got along fine for years, right?

Has CGI become any better looking in the last few years? For the most part, I don't think it has, since Titanic or Terminator 2 (one exception that comes to mind is Yoda in Attack of the Clones, with whom I think they did a fine job - too bad the movie was horrible, but that's another thread). Is it because 6-10 years ago, there were far fewer people doing CGI, and the ones that were doing it then were really good? One theory I have is that to make realistic movement, there should be a little bit of blurring, and they haven't pinned that down yet - everything looks too clean.

So, who else HATES THE CGI?

― Ernest P. (ernestp), Friday, 2 May 2003 05:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I certainly hate films which expect me to marvel at the CGI based special effects, ignoring any considerations of plot or characterisation.

There are few films where I have found CGI effects that convincing... take Terminator 2 - the shape changing terminator never really looks "real" to me.

but anyway, bring back Ray Harryhausen.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 2 May 2003 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)

CGI for its own sake is about as pointless as a bucket of popcorn you can't eat, BUT... I just watched the TV series of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (c. 1988) on video and was soooo grateful that the time of beaver outfits like furry dustbins is now OVER. We deserve to have film and TV that makes fantasy properly fantastic, otherwise we might as well be watching a sub-standard school play.

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 2 May 2003 08:48 (twenty-two years ago)

CGi usually looks best in dark or rainy settings because it hides it a bit and makes it seem like a more natural environment (T_Rex attack in Jurrasic Park still looks phenomenal).

For me at it's best CGI looks like a moving matte painting. At it's worst like a video game. Rarely does it acheive seemless photorealism -- usually only in small touch ups, composits or things that are inanimate to begin with robots or the corportate are demolition in Fight Club -- there's a lot of CGI in films all the time that we never even notice because they pulled it off so well.

I was hpyer aware that the much priased Gollum was CGI, to the point of distraction. It was an admirable attempt, but something about it just felt off -- you know what it was -- he looked almost more realistic than the human actors. On the other hand Dexter Jetster (that alien in the "diner")in the sleep inducing Attack Of The Clones is one of the most convincing CGI critters ever.

I think the real problem could be that CGI is still basically in it's infancy and because it's digitally based that magical organic chaos factor that comes with stop motion or optical effects is missing. No matter how hard they try they can't replicate the that inperfect beauty.

How's that for an all over the map answer.

― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 09:22 (twenty-two years ago)

somebody CG all my spelling errors.

― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 09:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the "stop motion" (is that what it's called?) filiming that was done in the first three star wars movies looked a lot better than newest two movies look with CGI. That incorperated blurring of the figures. I'm trying to think of an example where CGI was used well, but can't (probably because if it was used well I wouldn't have noticed it.)

Didn't Gladiator win best special effects at the oscars? that was diappointing because it did look too real at all.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:19 (twenty-two years ago)

"soooo grateful that the time of beaver outfits like furry dustbins is now OVER" that was just a low budget movie. I almost always think a costumed creature is beter than a CGI creature.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)

hey my brother did the cgi for gladiator! although yes, it did look pretty phoney. could hollywood really afford to go back to the days of ***tries to remember name of dude who made loads of $$$$$$ historical epics in the 20's; fails****? what is the rpice differential in say, creating a massive set like they used to, and hiring 10000000000 extras, as opposed to hiring peeps like my bro to sit a computer all day? is CGI actually cheaper? what are the arguments for using CGI?

― ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

If you want to see some digital effects that looks really dated, go and look at that Alien 3. It looked funky back then and now it looks goofy.

― earlnash, Friday, 2 May 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i generally don't like CGI but i don't have a problem with it in cases like harry potter which is obviously cartoonish fantasy.

i didn't like gollum though, i guess because i wanted the two towers to be non-cartoonish fantasy.

― j fail (cenotaph), Friday, 2 May 2003 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah the "flailing bodies" cg-movement in Harry Potter was neat.

to me the early clunkier + less seamless cgi has already become a mini-golden-age unto itself. "Bad CG-Monsters I Have Loved": the Anaconda, the Relic, the Deep Blue Sea sharks, the alligators in Eraser.

people with unlimited budgets shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it though - like Lucas&co obsessing for weeks over weird minutiae like whether cg-yoda's mouth is suddenly too expressive. "Maybe he shouldn't have so much control over those M's and P's. Maybe we could x-ray Frank Oz's hand and incorporate the x-ray into the skeletal structure of cg-yoda's face. Or just his thumb, to keep that lower lip rigid for certain elongated vowels" I mean forest-for-the-trees man!! THE FILM YOU'RE MAKING IS INCREDIBLY BAD

also destroy forever: the cgi tunnel shot. recent offenders include sexy beast and donnie darko but the list is endless

― jones (actual), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I can appreciate the instant-kitschiness of some CGI (ie The Mummy and its ilk).

― s1utsky, Friday, 2 May 2003 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I am a big FX fan so I usually enjoy them no matterhow "bad" they look. I rather have more effects of a lower quailty than fewer of a better quality. It's the though that counts in my book.

Eraser... sweeeeeet. "You're luggage". That really was a thing of beauty. Eraser really actually groundbeaking for a straight action movie in it's own way in the way it used CGI to "enhance" images that would have been totally Steven Seagal without it. Charlies Angels Too looks to be taking a similar approach.

An Arnold flic without FX is like a Philly Cheese steak without the cheese. I'm gonna go rewatch TOTAL RECALL now...

― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Another example of shameless CG tunnel is The Mystery Of Rampo. Which is actually an unseen gem of picture.

― PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

i've always loved this david foster wallace piece about F/X Porn.

― j fail (cenotaph), Friday, 2 May 2003 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)

oy I remember really hating on Mystery of Rampo.

― s1utsky, Friday, 2 May 2003 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

chronology of all FX response:

today: wow
next year: hmmm
ten years' time: haha
20 years' time: aww
30 yrs' time: wow

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 2 May 2003 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

As far as all-CGI films, Pixar easily takes the cake -- for instance Monsters Inc. I forget that I was watching a computer animated film and on an unconscious level registered it as cartoons in the reality. The fine hairs when Sully falls in the snow was quite gorgeous, and that's about where I disagree with those hand-drawn 'purists' who say that CG is soulless with respect to traditional animation. (I don't think trad. cartoons should be scared of losing business to CG, not solely for economic reasons, but because each mode is a completely different style and aesthetic such that they don't compete head to head in my mind.)

But then there's Final Fantasy, which was too perfect and glossy (save for Dr. Sid and his amazing wrinkles).

― Leee (Leee), Friday, 2 May 2003 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)

that last bit sounds like a band name

― slutsky (slutsky), Sunday, 4 May 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

a muppet band name.

cgi in "spider-man" is a cert for future "aww"ness: impossibly liquid motion when the green goblin is performing airobatics, but then he stops moving and there's this adorably clunky, chunky plasticy getup.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 4 May 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

eight years pass...

Are there any instances of CGI being intentionally disturbing/unsettling? I'm not talking about uncanny valley stuff unless it's on purpose. I was thinking about this with regard to the trailer for the Thing remake--there have been plenty of practical effects that have been scary/disturbing/creepy but I couldn't think of any CG examples off the top of my head.

― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 4 August 2011 17:16 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.