CGI: The scourge of today's cinema?

What is your opinion on the current state of movie effects?

  • I prefer the CGI effects today as compared to the live-action effects from 15 years ago.

    Votes: 14 51.9%
  • I prefer the live-action effects from 15 years ago as compared to today's CGI.

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • Undecided.

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Note: The following are my opinions, and are based solely upon my perception(s) as an individual human. I do not intend to imply any of the following as fact. Please read and reply in such a manner that takes this into account.

CGI: computer-generated imagery; Animated graphics produced by computer and used in film or television.

CGI; it seems like an excellent concept. Something that should provide effects not before possible for the purposes of enhancing the entertainment value of movies. But let’s examine the real effect this has had, now that CGI is a prevalent technology.

Do you believe that the majority films are better because of CGI? I, for one, don’t! I find the obvious non-real textures, lighting and physics that are common in CGI impregnated films to be of distraction from an otherwise good film. In some cases, I find the CGI to make a borderline watchable film worse than it should have been.

Let’s consider a few big box office films that feature very poor CGI animation and/or effects.

The Incredible Hulk: This movie features CGI that is totally unconvincing in appearance as well as in physics. I know, I know, this is a comic book brought to life(an excuse for BAD CGI?) -- but I found myself laughing as the Hulk jumped what seemed to be miles in one bound. This movie, I thought, seemed worse due to the CGI. I would have been more impressed if they had just covered a strong-arm guy in green make-up, as they did in the late 70’s Hulk television series. The green-painted man looked allot more convincing to me than the comedic CGI character used in the recent big-budget movie.

Spider Man(1 and 2): These movies feature some pretty poor CGI. The CGI animated scenes of Spider Man jumping and climbing, among other things, looked more like scenes from a video game rather than a live action film. The Spider Man CGI object itself, was not convincing at any point, either.

Star Wars(New versions vs. classic trilogy): The new Star Wars films, to me, look pathetic. The computer animation was totally unconvincing -- and that scene of Yoda in battle -- hmm; I tried not to laugh, I swear! The original trilogy looked ‘real’ for all intents and purposes. The use of scale models and latex creatures, at least, seemed mostly real and believable to an extent. The new films, to me, are seriously downgraded in believability. It also seemed, to me, that the original trilogy relied more upon a strong story, and that the new movies rely more upon effect as a substitute for story.

Cat Woman: Ok, Miss Berry is hotter than hell, but not even Miss Berry can distract one from the laughable CGI effects found within this feature film. The resurrection scene, with that CGI cat, was especially entertaining -- as a comedic component! Did anyone find the scene in that jewelry store, with Cat Woman bouncing across the walls like, well, nothing in the real world -- entertaining in a serious sense?

The bottom line is that films are worse today, as far as effects, than they were 15 years ago when studios were forced to use scale models and latex monsters. Because much of this was done in the real world, they were also forced to adhere to at least most laws of apparent physics! In a way, I see this as analogous to compression in commercial recordings today. Before the mid-90’s, it was impossible to compress music to the extent possible today -- digital compression algorithms were needed to reach the current levels. An example of previous technological limitations that forced *experts* to remain within a wise boundary? I think YES. While the new technologies ARE beneficial when used wisely -- it seems that the qualifier(wise) is not present in most cases today.

Please reply, letting your feelings be known. Call me an idiot, if you like. I don’t mind; just speak your mind! :)

-Chris
 
Last edited:
L

Leprkon

Audioholic General
WmAx said:
Cat Woman: Ok, Miss Berry is hotter than hell, but not even Miss Berry can distract one from the laughable CGI effects found within this feature film. -Chris
the story was so bad, I didn't bother rating the effects... even the swishing kitty walk, as special an effect as it was, was ruined by the gloating look the whole time on Hally Berry's face.

Michelle Pfieffer has no competition here.. and her movie was pretty doggone bad too, yet SHE managed to save it... Guess Hally's just not all the way there yet. :(
 
HookedOnSound

HookedOnSound

Full Audioholic
WmAx said:
CGI: computer-generated imagery; Animated graphics produced by computer and used in film or television.
I find CGI works best when you know that CGI is used but are looking at it on a technical level... in other words, you appreciate the artistry used...

Have you watched Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? or Toy Story? Shrek ?, etc?

Fantasy and animated movies fit very nicely with CGI because you know it's used but somehow (CGI) removes the realism of real-life action movies because you know that CGI is used as a cheap trick to avoid doing some complicated stunts.

The only movie of late that comes to mind is The Bourne Identity, I found the car chase sequences quite exciting to watch because you felt the danger of the Bourne character doing those crazy maneuvers, CGI woudn't have cut the mustard for sure....

If you look at the progress within the last 10 years it is quite amazing what has been achieved. I believe CGI has its place and hopefully be better used as a tool in a 'bag of tricks' instead of being the 'bag' so to speak...

Either way, I always look forward to watching the newest films using the latest CGI technologies at work 'cause the bar/standards is always rising...Soon we might not be able to tell the difference between real and animated characters...

Kim L.
 
G

guess88

Junior Audioholic
My gripe about movies today isn't so much CGI, but just poorly written stories, which i believe the advancement of CGI has helped enforce. Movies look so much cooler nowadays, special effects so much easier, most movie makers today seem to just go for cool CGI effects, a good looking cast, and that's it. I don't know how many movies today, with even a cool plot, just SUCKED because the story never properly developed or unfolded.

I actually liked the CGI effects in Spider Man and the Hulk. I used to be a huge comic book fan, and to see those movies come to life were a dream come true. My main problem with them are that... besides Spider Man 1, i thought the writing lacked. Spider Man 2 was ok, but a bit too cheesy and commercialized for my tastes. The Hulk.... i won't even begin to describe. The sad thing is that for some reason, the production crew didn't involve Stan Lee into the screenwriting. I mean seriously!!! Looks like they got what they deserve. In an interview with Stan Lee, he actually had a storyline which i thought was GREAT, which involved a focus towards the mental pysche of Bruce Banner and the Hulk. If any of you followed the comic, you'd remember that the Hulk hated Bruce Banner, and eventually they made their peace and learned how to work together inside one body. But yeah...

Abusive use of CGI to compensate for poor writing.. that's what we get nowadays. Big budget films, with top notch effects, and a plot that flunks.
 
howie85

howie85

Full Audioholic
Dog Fight

All I can say is that I have watched the Hulk fight the dogs scene about 10 times and I still love it. The way the hulk flies around and gets bigger when he gets madder is much like the comic book. The story of the movie was pretty lame but if you ever read one of the comics it was much smashing and bashing and very little story. Did anyone note the poodle bit Hulk in the jewels and thats when he smashed it to pieces?? LOL :eek:
 
Duffinator

Duffinator

Audioholic Field Marshall
Opps, I meant to quote quess 88.
I think you have to go back a lot further than 15 years to get movies with less CGI. In my mind there are two movies that made huge steps forward in CGI. Obviously the first was Star Wars. Whether you liked the movie or not, the CGI took our imaginations further than they had ever gone before, in a galaxy far far away.... The second is T2. The liquid metal stuff was mind blowing IMO. I'm still in awe of what they did in that movie every time I watch it. :D

But more to your point, I don't know if I would totally blame CGI for bad stories. Could it be that it's harder to come up with original ideas? Or are the movie studios so deperate to make a quick buck they put out garbage? But there are good movies still coming out of Hollywood. I'm sure my choice here will get blasted but I REALLY liked "Lost in Tranlsation". No CGI, no violence, no sex, just a great story where nothing really happened. :)
 
G

guess88

Junior Audioholic
Duff...

I'm just saying i think the ease of use and availability of CGI has a relationship in the decline of quality of todays storylines. It's all tied in with Hollywood trying to make a quick buck. (you can look at the downscaling of R movies to pg-13 for that.) Make a movie that looks good, great in commercials, hype it, you're generally gonna make back all your dues, and then some.

There are still great movies being made though. When talented artists actually put their heart and belief into a work, and say, "screw the ratings and critics... i'm going make what i've always wanted to see." Sometimes.. the work comes out great. Lot of times nowadays i'm actually more drawn to watch movies with no effects just cause i know there's an emphasis on developing a story. Indie movies are great to look at too just for the fact that it's about people who aren't "made" yet, trying to get known and putting out something different. They're usually low budget, and when you don't have a budget... you work on creativity, and a good story to pull you through.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
HookedOnSound said:
I find CGI works best when you know that CGI is used but are looking at it on a technical level... in other words, you appreciate the artistry used...
So true! Note I did not say CGI was bad when used WISELY.

Have you watched Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? or Toy Story? Shrek ?, etc?
Yes, and IMO, very appropriate uses of the technology.

Fantasy and animated movies fit very nicely with CGI because you know it's used but somehow (CGI) removes the realism of real-life action movies because you know that CGI is used as a cheap trick to avoid doing some complicated stunts.
Indeed. But as another poster mentioned, T2 was an excellent example of convincing CGI. It was uses sparingly, and only for the effects which could not have possibley been pulled off with any other method. How else do you do a metal morphing effect? :)

-Chris
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
I think the overrealiance on CGi has hurt Hollywood, but the CGI isn't always to blame. Oddly, directors are often using very fake looking CGI when they could do something with live action. Why do they do this? CG is extremely expensive, so it's not money. I think it's a perception that that's what the public wants.

We can all cite examples where CGI has been laughable, but sometimes it's quite good. Spiderman has some extremely realistic graphics; in the case of that film, any attempt to use live action footage would have been absurd. That is to say, they did incorpate a lot of bluescreen stuff, but the things Spidey does can't even be approximated by a human.

I think most of Starship Troopers CGI was amazing, and I think there's a reason for that. IMO, CGI works extraordinarily well for almost everything except characters. I've seen almost no convincing characters that were CGI; Golum was pretty decent, and occasionally looked real, but it's tough to create a full sized person realistically.

CGI is fantastic for space type stuff- I think the outer space parts of the newest Star Wars films crushes the original three. When used to portray objects, it works like a charm.

Some of the best effects, IMO: Final Fantasy, Titan AE, LotR, T2, Starship Troopers, The One, Spiderman 2. Some of the worst: Van Helsing, LoEG, Hellboy, Phantom Menace). Special Award for Awe Inspiring Bad Effects: Anaconda.

BTW, there's some buttcringingly bad pre-CGI stuff, too. To be honest, the creature effects in the original Star Wars films were often laughable- many of the creatures in the Mos Eisley cantina were obviously made of foam, and you could see the frickin' seams on the Ewok costumes! And the stop action herky-jerky Terminator robot, when he gets up after having his flesh burned off in the tanker explosion in the original Terminator, is hilarious! It's right out of a 1930's dinosaur movie! :p

I think CGI will get better as we go along, and is an important part of film making. I'd like to see its use reserved for 1) things that it does well, and 2) things that can't be done any other way. It allows directors to craft movies that could otherwise not be made. CGI effects have strengths and weaknesses, just like mechanical effects. I think the trick is to use each type of effect where it's appropriate.
 
L

Leprkon

Audioholic General
guess88 said:
Duff...It's all tied in with Hollywood trying to make a quick buck. (you can look at the downscaling of R movies to pg-13 for that.)
remember the good old days, when a "real" teenager wouldn't be seen dead at anything less than an "R" rated movie ?
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Leprkon said:
remember the good old days, when a "real" teenager wouldn't be seen dead at anything less than an "R" rated movie ?
Yeah, that's another annoyance --- the removal of certain key violence and sex scenes that make some movies seem more realistic/dramatic, in order to achieve a PG-13 rating. Could you imagine Bad Santa, for example, being edited to achieve a PG-13 rating? How about Pulp Fiction? Scarface? Well, actually you can -- just watch the network TV edited versions that are broadcast.... :(

Of course, I have a peeve with most censoring issues. Just one example on cable/satellite: if you watch Howard Stern show(this is not a discussion of the quality or taste of the show), then obviously you don't want censoring. Yet E network censors nudity, etc.. To the best of my knowledge, they are not required to do so, because they are not an air broadcast channel. They do so voluntarily. This makes zero sense to me. This extends to other shows, as well, but I digress. I'm starting to rant again. :eek:

-Chris
 
HookedOnSound

HookedOnSound

Full Audioholic
must have been sleeping...

WmAx said:
T2 was an excellent example of convincing CGI. It was uses sparingly, and only for the effects which could not have possibley been pulled off with any other method. How else do you do a metal morphing effect? :)

-Chris
You're right! I can't believe I forgot to mention Terminator 2! I think I am getting at that age where I am forgetting more than I remember (kids will do that to ya!) That movie was a rare gem! Good CGI and most of all it was used 'appropriately'.

Thanks for reminding me! :cool:

Kim L.
 
Rock&Roll Ninja

Rock&Roll Ninja

Audioholic Field Marshall
I've spoken before, and at leangth, about the horrors of piss-poor CGI in feature films. The problem isn't CGI itself (Starship Troopers has better CGI monsters than anything made in the last 5 years) which can be good, the problem is CGI is now a crutch for action/adventure/horror/sci-fi films.

Example: CATWOMAN. yes the CGI was never going to make the story any better, but when you need to create a CGI cat, that does nothing more than walk forward and you are too F#@king lazy to go to the SPCA and film a real cat, you have no business being in the movie business.
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
If you want an action movie with well used CGI and more live action characters look into AVP "Alien vs. Predator". CGI was used sparingly and only when needed. Many live action costumes and props. It adds much to the "feel" of the movie.

The original Starwars trilogy, and T2 are some of my favorite movies of all time.
 
Rock&Roll Ninja

Rock&Roll Ninja

Audioholic Field Marshall
AVP did have some good CGI (the original predator's invisibility never looked as good with its superimposed 70mm gelatin effect). Too bad the movie was made 10% worse with pointless slow-motion. (and they never did expalin why they brought automatic riles into the temple....)
 
H

HoneyMan

Enthusiast
That scene with yoda in Starwars Episode II is brilliant. A great example of how CG can fit seamlessly in a movie. There is no way known they could get a puppet to do anything like that!

Both of the recent Starwars films use CGI to great effect.

I cant wait for Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children to be released. Ive always loved the CGI used in FF video games and the game itself.

Star Wars & Final Fantasy are tied for my most favourite sci-fi/ fantasy entertainment.

I do however like the use of minatures in cinema. I have a thing for old sci-fi movies, Alien, Aliens, The Abyss and the original Starwars Trilogy.

With the amazing video quality available today CGI looks less out-of-place.
 
Last edited:
H

HoneyMan

Enthusiast
Whats most disturbing is this popular trend going around to diss CG in an attempt to appear as a film purist. I cant stand all the elitist criticisims of movies with CG. Anyone with an open mind to filmaking will appreciate it for what it is.

I mean take a look at the poll, these so called purists are definetly a minority which suggests to me that all they are doing is trying to make themselves appear elite.
 
Last edited:
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
HoneyMan said:
Whats most disturbing is this popular trend going around to diss CG in an attempt to appear as a film purist. I cant stand all the elitist criticisims of movies with CG. Anyone with an open mind to filmaking will appreciate it for what it is.

I mean take a look at the poll, these so called purists are definetly a minority which suggests to me that all they are doing is trying to make themselves appear elite.
Purist? Well, if you are referring to me, and that's what you inferred, then it's obvious you did not bother to read the posts from me. Try again.

-Chris
 
H

HoneyMan

Enthusiast
My My, such vanity. As if i wrote all that just for you, :rolleyes:
 
JohnA

JohnA

Audioholic Chief
Let's get some things straight...

I think that the whole point of this thread was CGI in "real world" films like Star Wars, LOTR, etc....not CGI in Anime or cartoons like Sherk, FF, etc...

While I like CGI for the most part...LOTR, M&C, Matrix, and others....there are those that just don't want to spend the money to make it look "REAL" like Hulk and Catwoman...yes these are comic book stories, the point is that they need to make it look real. As the old saying goes..."If it is worth doing, it is worth doing well"

I'll still take a classic Hitchcock or Jimmy Stewart move over the likes of the Hulk, Catwoman, and even the New Star Wars; it is the actors that make a movie, not the special effects. I think a lot of actors are not giving it their all and relying more on SFX to carry the movie.

Just my $.02
:D
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top