Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

CGI ruins everything!

Archive: 18 posts


So I just got through watching the new Thing movie, and I was soooo disappointed by the fact they used CGI (computer generated images) to create the aliens.

1. It just seems disrespectful to the original John Carpenter movie, because they pretty much BUILT all the aliens in real life!

2. The aliens in the movie looked soooo fake! The John Carpenter one looks more impressive and realistic and this was back in 1982!!! God what a waste of 10 freakin dollars!! *mumble grumble*

You'd think we have found ways to make things without using CGI for everything. This is exactly why a lot of movies today suck compared to the movies back in the day. No more "movie magic"...just computers and rendering farms -_-.

Ok ok...enough of my ranting...

So what films may have ruined your experience because of CGI?
2011-10-15 03:29:00

Author:
comishguy67
Posts: 849


Uhm...haven't seen the movie myself but in the interviews and behind the scenes footage, they claim to be getting back to a more old school style of film. I saw multiple different alien models used in a variety of scenes that would normally be CGI. I think you may just be mistaken here. As for CGI in general, it most certainly is not ruining films or "everything" in fact they enhance it and open up a large array of scenes that would otherwise be:
a) Impossible
b) Extremely expensive
c) Too dangerous

You would be surprised as too how much CGI is used in movies, it has just gotten to the point where you can hardly tell.
2011-10-15 03:36:00

Author:
Littlebigdude805
Posts: 1924


1. John Carpenter's "The Thing" isn't the original. He remade it from the 1951 film "The Thing from Another World " Granted, I liked Carpenter's version better.
2. I'd have to agree with you. I think in some cases CGI and Green Screen is overused. There's something about the way they used to make them with the animatronics
and make up and what not. That's why I love the old Godzilla movies and classic B-movies like "Creature from the Black Lagoon"
2011-10-15 03:40:00

Author:
biorogue
Posts: 8424


@littlebigdude805 LOL well yeah I was being dramatic when I said "everything". But some movies really just don't need it.

But from what it seemed to me, most of the alien action scenes were CGI in the movie.

It looked pretty obvious to me.

And the aliens in John Carpenter's version looked WAAAAAY more realistic!


1. John Carpenter's "The Thing" isn't the original. He remade it from the 1951 film "The Thing from Another World " Granted, I liked Carpenter's version better.

I think the new movie is a prequel to the John Carpenter version.
2011-10-15 03:40:00

Author:
comishguy67
Posts: 849


I agree. There is a certain charm for movies with special effects that they had to try to make. Things like the chest-bursting scene in Alien was more awesome because of the fact that it wasn't easy to do, so it really meant something then. Plus the fact that the actors didn't know an alien was going to burst out of that guy's chest making their reactions of fright and terror all the more real then people reacting to things not there.

Anyway, back in the 70s and 80s, when you saw a special effect like the chest burst in Alien or the hand-eating in the Thing, it shocked you. Now, with CGI, we can do any special effect on computers, so even if we did go back to the old style of doing things it wouldn't impress us like they apparently used to. (like in Alien, when the android's head was knocked off- back then, that was apparently scary enough to get people to faint. Now, we could just make it fake on computers).

I unno. Peanuts.
2011-10-15 03:55:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882


...What!? First of all, of course the actors knew it was going to happen. Second, usually the reactions are filmed separately anyway, so yes they WERE reacting to something that wasn't there. Also, CGI is by no means "easy to do". A lot of work is put in to both creating a CGI friendly environment and creating the CGI itself. It takes a lot of ingenuity, especially when using it in tandem with puppet like rigs and props, which is the case most of the time.2011-10-15 04:07:00

Author:
Littlebigdude805
Posts: 1924


CGI's not the only reason movies/ classic series are soiled. It's also greed. Take Disney Channel for example--no, almost ALL of Disney. On their channel they show nothing but teenage/ five-year-old girl stuff with "attractive" actors who can all sing. Last time I checked, there are only TWO cartoons on the whole channel, and the rest is so-called "reality". With their movies (not PIXAR), they've turned to CGI. They used to be centered and dependent around hand-drawn animation. Do you know how hard it is for a hand-drawn movie to get into theaters? The only hand-drawn ones that actually make it into modern theaters are Studio Gibli's movies. Most companies have to have merchandise to thrive. One show I used to watch (forgot the name) was stopped because it had no merchandise. It was a really good show, too. They just want money. If the shows appeal to our generation, why not make products that do too? Whatever. It might not even be the nostalgia, it might just be us. The younger people seem to enjoy it because they haven't seen the old--ACTUAL--shows/ movies. If you ask one of them, they wouldn't know who Mickey was if it bit them in the backside.2011-10-15 10:35:00

Author:
Sackpapoi
Posts: 1195


More often than not CGI makes things better though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkptadiDABo
2011-10-15 11:29:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193


Cool Syroc, but imho it works only when the color/saturation/luminosity of the real world is matched, and when the image has no depth.
When the landscape has many levels of depth it looks really plain.
To have CGI working it's also a work on photography.
The latest thing that worked in CGI imho was District 9, and War of Worlds before that.
2011-10-15 12:04:00

Author:
OmegaSlayer
Posts: 5112


I was really upset when i saw the trailer for Spielberg's Tintin movie, they made it entirely CGI and 3d, and didnt even attempt to recreate Herge's art style once the characters had been designed. It looks like a cheap kid's TV show. I really wish they would have gone for Computer Assisted Animation like in Futurama or The Simpsons Movie. The movie is a real insult to the Tintin story books.2011-10-15 15:58:00

Author:
Skalio-
Posts: 920


IIt looks like a cheap kid's TV show

No. It doesn't.

You may not like the art style and you might be upset that it's not "true enough" to the original (which is a general meh for transmedia), but the one thing it isn't is "cheap"-looking.

CGI is a tool and a medium, it can be used incredibly well and incredibly badly. And to those of you moaning about remakes being ruined by CGI, let's face it - people moan about remakes regardless of the implementation. If you want the original, and are going to get upset if the new version isn't the same, watch the original
2011-10-15 17:18:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497


It's not the CGI that ruins everything. It's the fact that they think pretty CGI action makes up for the lack of substance. Spectacle over substance, as one might say. It should be the other way around.2011-10-15 18:02:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452


It's not CGI that ruins movies or tv shows. It's humans. The only time you will be able to blame some thing is when computers take over the world with their all knowing A.I 2011-10-15 23:03:00

Author:
Amigps
Posts: 564


Old cylons were better than new cylons.

... and don't even mention remastered Star Trek TOS with that bad CGI instead of the original models and optical effects.

There's also something to be said for the skills behind animatronics, set making and traditional animation etc being lost due to the prevalence of CGI.
2011-10-15 23:14:00

Author:
Ayneh
Posts: 2454


It's not the CGI that ruins everything. It's the fact that they think pretty CGI action makes up for the lack of substance. Spectacle over substance, as one might say. It should be the other way around.

This.

I think I'm on the fence about this one. CGI can be an incredible let down at times, where more traditional methods might have been more effective/captivating. But then at other times....

Well I suppose I could reveal my geeky side and talk abotu how much Lord of the Rings blew me away. Like, completely away. Those of you who saw the full version of Return of the King, and saw the mouth of Sauron.... I mean c'mon - I couldn't have imagined something that freaky!

So at times, I'm very impressed by CGI - but as Sev says - it has to be matched, with passion, creativity, care, and most of all - a splash of genuine movie magic, brought forth by incredible writing, or chemistry with actors on screen, etc.

But then I'm a very fickle person. I'm sure I'll be moaning about it for some reason next week
2011-10-16 00:29:00

Author:
rialrees
Posts: 1015


Now overuse of green screens is almost another matter entirely in my opinion. Unless we're talking about a TV series with limited budget or filming a gigantic and nonexistent landscape like those in the Game of Thrones' video Syroc pointed out. By the way, I expected the Eyrie, the Red Keep and the Twins to be 100% CGI but not so much of Winterfell. I thought it shouldn't be hard to find a castle much like Winterfell's somewhere. It must be hard for the actors to imagine stuff where it doesn't exist. But I digress. Green screens for futuristic rooms and corridors everywhere? Come on, when it's something that stands still in the scenery it should be real and palpable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why the acting in Star Wars prequel films is so dull because the actors can't get immersed in a green screen room.
2011-10-16 01:01:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452


Now overuse of green screens is almost another matter entirely in my opinion. Unless we're talking about a TV series with limited budget or filming a gigantic and unrealistic landscape (the Wall in A Game of Thrones for example). But green screens for futuristic rooms and corridors everywhere? Come on, when it's something that stands still in the scenery it should be real and palpable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why the acting in Star Wars prequel films is so dull because the actors can't get immersed in a green screen room.

Sounds like a problem with the actors, who should really have no problem with such a situation considering it's their profession. CGI can create the same effect but so much more realistic and for a lot cheaper, but if you would rather have walls of plastic and foam cleverly painted...well that's your preference.
2011-10-16 01:05:00

Author:
Littlebigdude805
Posts: 1924


Sounds like a problem with the actors, who should really have no problem with such a situation considering it's their profession. CGI can create the same effect but so much more realistic and for a lot cheaper, but if you would rather have walls of plastic and foam cleverly painted...well that's your preference.

People could get walls of foam so cleverly painted it seemed real wood or metal. That is the magic of the movies. Or was, at least. It reminds me when I went to see a Star Wars Expo celebrating the franchise's 30 years back in 2007, it showcased many of the objects used in the movies. Suits, pieces of scenery, props, etc. And when I checked out the stormtrooper suit up close I was surprised to see that one of suit's buttons was in fact a protrusion in the armor with a black circle painted on it. And the circle wasn't even aligned with the protrusion. It puzzled me how cheap it seemed until I backed away a few steps. The button now seemed 100% real. And it looked better than a CGI button

The "more realistic" advantage you speak of is debatable. If you are used to seeing CGI and animation, it's easy to get an idea of what objects are coated in CGI and which are not. Especially if you play videogames a lot. And then there's what people call the uncanny valley. When you see a robot or CGI character that seems so lifelike but at the same time so strange, like it's missing something. It's because there are so many almost unnoticeable movements a person's body or face does at the same time that the animators just can't figure out every single one. The best facial expressions are those you don't notice, the ones you take for granted every time you see someone talking or smiling or frowning. And because the animated characters don't have these tiny details, you feel something is missing but you can't tell exactly why. Aye, CG makes many things possible but also makes them looks lifeless or artificial in most cases. Everything has to be done with extreme care, and the animators have to be in total sync with the screenplay and art style the movie is going for. Some talent worth of Pixar movies better be mixed into that CGI.
2011-10-16 01:52:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.