Has CGI become a "bad word"?

[Tinalera]

A friend of mine was pondering seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D. I told him jokingly (maybe?) that I was tempted to avoid the movie on principal and referred to Harryhausen (shockingly my friend, a professed film buff, hadn't heard of Harryhausen!)

I hear occassionally people deriding a film as "pfft. CGI eye candy."

That and talking with other people and reading reviews (like "The CGI just looked too fake")of various films-has CGI effects, with all of its possiblities, now turned into a negative in modern movie filmmaking?

I know watching the skeleton fight scene from "Jason and The Argonauts" still made me smile. Does it look dated? Yes it does, but dang it still has an effect. I even noted some comments on youtube by some (seemingly) younger people that it looked more realistic than today's CGI.

Have these effects become TOO polished in some cases? Or has the movie going public just gotten too much of a good thing?

 

[apinehillproduction]

there definitely is a minor backlash or at least, "pff" factor as you might put it, but I think overall it is still really popular. The fact that 3-D tvs will be entering homes in the next few years is really surprising to me but they wouldn't sell them if there wasn't a viable market.

I am a skeleton on a string/guy in a rubber suit person myself but I can appreciate the work that goes into good cgi too. I thought the makers of Cloverfield did amazing stuff.

 

[Dreadylocks]

It's really lack of story that these summer blockbusters are suffering from. People are mislaying the blame for not liking the movies. It doesn't matter if the effects are shitty or 'too' polished, if the story is good, if the writing is good, people will love it. Nothing was more polished and shiny than the new Star Trek movie, but everyone loved it because they did actually pull off a decent story. And some things are just better when they look the way the writer/director imagined. The new Hitchhiker's Guide movie was well served by it's CGI. Remember the old TV show? The horrible SFX made it unbearable.

But these movies, these summer blockbusters today, are just pulp that's being turned out, so yeah, all you have is CGI 'eye candy' and nothing else. Even the mindless automatons (read:general American public) will get sick of that eventually.

 

[Zensteve]

The new Hitchhiker's Guide movie was well served by it's CGI. Remember the old TV show? The horrible SFX made it unbearable.

That television show was classic. The SFX was pretty top-notch, for its time and budget, and was right up there with Doctor Who & Blake's 7 and other British sci-fi of the time.

The BBC radio version (several hours long) didn't even have any special effects! It's still one of the funniest productions, ever.

Of course, I probably have a bias since it's what I grew up with.

CGI has always had its place in film & television, and it's not a "new" technology. I think that Clash of the Titans is suffering more from being yet another remake, and a remake that a remarkably large segment of current audiences remember vividly from their youth - and they ain't that old!

 

[Tinalera]

It's really lack of story that these summer blockbusters are suffering from. People are mislaying the blame for not liking the movies. It doesn't matter if the effects are shitty or 'too' polished, if the story is good, if the writing is good, people will love it. Nothing was more polished and shiny than the new Star Trek movie, but everyone loved it because they did actually pull off a decent story. And some things are just better when they look the way the writer/director imagined. The new Hitchhiker's Guide movie was well served by it's CGI. Remember the old TV show? The horrible SFX made it unbearable.

But these movies, these summer blockbusters today, are just pulp that's being turned out, so yeah, all you have is CGI 'eye candy' and nothing else. Even the mindless automatons (read:general American public) will get sick of that eventually.

You make a good point about story. I'm not a trekkie(other half is) and *I* enjoyed "Star Trek" for the story. I agree about the churning stuff out to the masses, I just hear the CGI slamming a little more regularly-though I think sometimes it's the "cool" factor.

IE, when the Ghost Rider trailer came out (always loved the comic, and I enjoyed the movie), I heard some some comments "looks to CGI" Wha??? If that movie had come out even 15 years before people would have....well the effects would have had affect body functions . I guess there is that part that will slam something to be cool-I've read a couple of fan reviews of Avatar that said the effects looked like crap( I have yet to see Avatar, but the trailer effects looked "realistic" and not "too polished".

 

[AndrewLee]

I like CGI......sometimes. I like it when it's believable and there isn't too much (not mentioning any names *cough* Avatar *cough*).

 

[Tinalera]

That television show was classic. The SFX was pretty top-notch, for its time and budget, and was right up there with Doctor Who & Blake's 7 and other British sci-fi of the time.

The BBC radio version (several hours long) didn't even have any special effects! It's still one of the funniest productions, ever.

Of course, I probably have a bias since it's what I grew up with.

CGI has always had its place in film & television, and it's not a "new" technology. I think that Clash of the Titans is suffering more from being yet another remake, and a remake that a remarkably large segment of current audiences remember vividly from their youth - and they ain't that old!

I love Dr Who...it was budget, and FX were same, but MAN it still grabs you

 

[2001 Productions]

Nothing was more polished and shiny than the new Star Trek movie, but everyone loved it because they did actually pull off a decent story.

Respectfully disagree. My wife and I both love Star Trek and both hated the new movie. Should've been titled Space, 90210...

(don't get me started)

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Yes.

 

[M1chae1]

CGI is not a bad word. Nor should it be.

It's all about how you use your medium. I think LotR showed perfectly well that you can have insane amounts of CG, and still meld it beautifully with practical effects, and a great story. The story still took the helm in LotR, and Weta did an amazing job of blending models and practical effects with CG...

Also, look at 'The Book Of Eli'. Fantastic composite work there. Those environments could never have been created without composite work and CG.

As long as you're good, and masterfully craft your CG to not OVERSHADOW your movie but to COMPLIMENT...you can use as much CG as you want.

 

[Tinalera]

CGI is not a bad word. Nor should it be.

It's all about how you use your medium. I think LotR showed perfectly well that you can have insane amounts of CG, and still meld it beautifully with practical effects, and a great story. The story still took the helm in LotR, and Weta did an amazing job of blending models and practical effects with CG...

Also, look at 'The Book Of Eli'. Fantastic composite work there. Those environments could never have been created without composite work and CG.

As long as you're good, and masterfully craft your CG to not OVERSHADOW your movie but to COMPLIMENT...you can use as much CG as you want.

Ah, therein lies the key

I enjoyed LOTR, and found as you did, a great combination of using CGI to compliment the visuals. Unfortunately, a lot of other Hollywood films decide to say "we can make everything digital"(can we blame Lucas for this with the prequels? )

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying CGI is bad necessarily, but it used, whether rightfully or not, as an almost derogative term of a film's quality, even though, as Dready suggests, it can be used as a scapegoat for other failings of a film.

You make some good points, and thanks for reminding me of LOTR-I have to watch that again. Gollum was an excellent example of how one uses it to compliment.


See, now you got me all excited again about The Hobbit in 2011....shame on you!

 

[Kosh]

You are spot on Dready! It's all about the story. Unfortunately, as is always the case with technology, story tellers are now sacrificing the core reason for a movie in the first place for the glitz, glamor, spark, fizzle and pop that the technology and VFX allows and is now requisite to our blockbusters these days. Just because you can do it does not mean that you absolutely have to. Regardless, the audience consumes it and the conveyor belt (Hollywood) keeps cooking up and serving this stuff. I am not sure where most effects heavy movies die these days (pre, prod and/or post) but the story seems to be victim no. 1 these days. But what does Hollywood care, people still pay to be spoon fed the drivel (Thank you, sir may I have another, please).

[Steps off of soap box]

M1chae1 accents it right on too. SFX in the hands of a master story teller is something to behold. LOTR (pick your pick) is a master class on using all of your tools (location, actors, story, post magic work, etc) to tell a masterful story that will resonate well beyond its TNT reruns. Another more recent FX driven master class effort was District 9. Bloomkamp made us...scratch that, gives us no option but to empathize and identify with a pure CGI character that looks and sounds nothing close to human. I mean the eyes, he got the eyes...wow.

I have not seen Clash of the Titans (yet) but I always expected it to be FX heavy. Their sell-out efforts to retrofit to a 3D movie probably has not done them any favors either. For me though Hollywood is predictable - you know what you are in for when you go to the movies from Jan - May, May - July, Aug - Nov and the new Nov- Dec release scheduled. You pretty much should know what you are walking into when you attend the majority of the movies during those periods (though Hollywood is trying to stretch things out somewhat, lately).

[Climbs up on soap box, again]

And for the majority of those fanboys (and girls) and summer bang and boom lovers who complain about the quality of a movie based on the FX (too boring or flat or "meh, been there seen that") - give me a break. It's the story, stupid!

Kosh

 

[Apieron Co.]

A friend of mine was pondering seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D. I told him jokingly (maybe?) that I was tempted to avoid the movie on principal and referred to Harryhausen (shockingly my friend, a professed film buff, hadn't heard of Harryhausen!)

I hear occassionally people deriding a film as "pfft. CGI eye candy."

That and talking with other people and reading reviews (like "The CGI just looked too fake")of various films-has CGI effects, with all of its possiblities, now turned into a negative in modern movie filmmaking?

I know watching the skeleton fight scene from "Jason and The Argonauts" still made me smile. Does it look dated? Yes it does, but dang it still has an effect. I even noted some comments on youtube by some (seemingly) younger people that it looked more realistic than today's CGI.

Have these effects become TOO polished in some cases? Or has the movie going public just gotten too much of a good thing?

I think it all comes down to what sort of film it is, If it's a Sci Fi film or Fantasy I find it acceptable.

But set in the real world I think it looks naff and stupid...And Lazy too, several years ago people would love CGI but I feel we're now so used to it we prefer to see stunts and action done live-action, that's why I admire the latest James Bond films, they're all live action, no CGI (Apart from that stupid parachute jump in QOS, but i'll forgive that)

 

[svegas]

Respectfully disagree. My wife and I both love Star Trek and both hated the new movie. Should've been titled Space, 90210...

(don't get me started)

I loved the new Trek. Nemoy loved it, I loved it. Tons of Trekkies loved it. A buddy of mine holds the original series so close to his heart that it is like his bible, but he really loved it too.

It was a fun fast paced movie, but hey, different strokes for different folks!

 

[Dreadylocks]

The BBC radio version (several hours long) didn't even have any special effects! It's still one of the funniest productions, ever.

No SFX on radio? Not so, sir!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06IOBLBsKvA

I agree though, those radio shows were good. But that was the writing. I think what made each incarnation of HG good was the fact that Douglas Adams wrote them himself. Although you could have just read the book on the radio and it still would have been great.

 

[barnaclelapse]

A friend of mine was pondering seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D. I told him jokingly (maybe?) that I was tempted to avoid the movie on principal and referred to Harryhausen (shockingly my friend, a professed film buff, hadn't heard of Harryhausen!)

I hear occassionally people deriding a film as "pfft. CGI eye candy."

That and talking with other people and reading reviews (like "The CGI just looked too fake")of various films-has CGI effects, with all of its possiblities, now turned into a negative in modern movie filmmaking?

I know watching the skeleton fight scene from "Jason and The Argonauts" still made me smile. Does it look dated? Yes it does, but dang it still has an effect. I even noted some comments on youtube by some (seemingly) younger people that it looked more realistic than today's CGI.

Have these effects become TOO polished in some cases? Or has the movie going public just gotten too much of a good thing?

there definitely is a minor backlash or at least, "pff" factor as you might put it, but I think overall it is still really popular. The fact that 3-D tvs will be entering homes in the next few years is really surprising to me but they wouldn't sell them if there wasn't a viable market.

I am a skeleton on a string/guy in a rubber suit person myself but I can appreciate the work that goes into good cgi too. I thought the makers of Cloverfield did amazing stuff.

That whole 3D TV thing still strikes me as a really dumb idea.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Respectfully disagree. My wife and I both love Star Trek and both hated the new movie. Should've been titled Space, 90210...

(don't get me started)

I don't completely disagree. My expectations were very low going in, so they were definitely met and exceeded. I do have some serious problems with the film, such as the whole 'alternate timeline' cop-out, but once I just accepted those things, I thought it was tastefully done. Then again, I'm not a TOS fan so it didn't really ruin anything for me. Well, I do like The Voyage Home. "Everybody remember where we parked!"

Abrams really worried me when he seemed to keep bragging about how he never watched star trek, but after watching the film (and also seeing his total love of sci-fi by making Lost), I think he must have been lying to get non trekkies to go to the film. And his taste in art directors and sfx was just delicious.

@Michael: LotR is a great example. It's CGI is woven in so well I didn't even think of it!

@Apieron: You make a good point and on that note I just have two words: George Lucas

 

[bhikkhu]

this thread reminds me somehow of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

slightly off-topic, though

 

[Tinalera]

I don't completely disagree. My expectations were very low going in, so they were definitely met and exceeded. I do have some serious problems with the film, such as the whole 'alternate timeline' cop-out, but once I just accepted those things, I thought it was tastefully done. Then again, I'm not a TOS fan so it didn't really ruin anything for me. Well, I do like The Voyage Home. "Everybody remember where we parked!"

Abrams really worried me when he seemed to keep bragging about how he never watched star trek, but after watching the film (and also seeing his total love of sci-fi by making Lost), I think he must have been lying to get non trekkies to go to the film. And his taste in art directors and sfx was just delicious.

@Michael: LotR is a great example. It's CGI is woven in so well I didn't even think of it!

@Apieron: You make a good point and on that note I just have two words: George Lucas

I remember an interview with Lucas prior to "The Phantom Menace", where he seemed positively GIDDY that he was going to be able to pretty much able to make an entire movie through a computer-and then proceeded to Blue/Green screen about 95 percent of the prequel trilogy. I recall on the commentaries every now and again comments like "that piece is a real set piece/on location", like it was the oddity rather than then the norm. As I watched it again recently, I shook my head that he got so caught up trying to make everything look so "nice and pretty" with computer effects-he lost his grip (IMO) on the story itself.

As an aside, I also think him killing off Darth Maul after the first movie was a dumb, dumb move.

 

[sonnyboo]

Have these effects become TOO polished in some cases? Or has the movie going public just gotten too much of a good thing?

Honestly, it is psychological. There is something in CGI that is not real and has no "weight" when the brain interprets what the eyes are seeing. The old effects (called "special effects" because it was filmed, not created in a computer) were still somewhat more believable when we saw them because they were still photographed and objects, albeit miniatures. It comes down to something that is actually photographed and exists in the real world versus things created entirely in a computer that we subconsciously know are not real.

This worked very well for LORD OF THE RINGS as well. They used a lot of practical miniatures (set extensions, trees, environments, and buildings - all called "bigatures"), the audience was a lot more believing in them than something like CLASH OF THE TITANS or even the STAR WARS prequels. The real power of the use of CGI was in the compositing of the miniatures, live action, and fully CGI elements.

Also, the power of story and character help the audience ignore CGI as an inhibitor, again think of LORD OF THE RINGS. The best CGI in the world won't compensate for a generic or uninteresting story. The best CGI has always been the subtle, you don't know it's even there, elements. I had no idea how much CGI went into movies like CASINO, where they used CGI to re-create a period and no one ever knew.