Anyone else dislike over-CGI in movies - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

The Warden · #1 07-31-2004, 04:30 PM

Hello!

jjl's thread reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask.

I'm certain that I'm not the only one who's noticed that moviemakers are relying more and more on CGI for their special effects. I assume that this results in costs being lower and in the moviemakers having more direct control over what's being done.

However, I've noticed that, in many cases, moviemakers are tending more and more towards sacrificing the quality of the effects in the name of cost. The first place I noticed this was in the movie Air Force One, where many scenes were blatantly computer-animated (to the point where some scenes, notably the water scene at the very end, actually pixellated!)...

It's not just the bubblegum action movies doing this either...I've noticed this phenomena even on "good" movies such as the new Star Wars trilogy (and the scenes that George Lucas re-did for the Special Edition of the original trilogy).

However, it's been shown that CGI can be done properly and made to integrate with the rest of the movie without looking out-of-place...for instance, in Jurassic Park (the first one, not the knock-offs!), I have difficulty telling which dinosaurs are actual models and which are CGI. IIRC (it's been a while since I saw them) the Lord of the Rings movies did a similarly good job at integrating CGI.

I just wish that more people were still interested enough in the art of filmmaking to make an effort to make things look better...

Am I the only one who's noticed this? Anyone care to comment on this?

jjl · #2 07-31-2004, 06:50 PM

I haven't noticed pixels (must get new spectacles), but CGI in movies is a mixed blessing. For example, it was done very well in the LOTR, but I suspect at the expense of developing the characters properly. Ironically, Aragorn et al. emerged as two-dimensional (although the book was not exactly strong on character development either - and I'm a big fan). The advent of cheap CGI leads to more dumbing down of movies - impressive technically, but that's all. I guess I'm getting old.

420SEL · #3 07-31-2004, 07:24 PM

I thought CGI ruined the last Bond flick. In some movies it is fine, if it is done well. I expect it in sci fi movies, but it just doesn't fit well in some types. I think it will get alot better. T3 had some pretty well done CGI, the bathroom fight between Arnold and the Terminatrix had me fooled for most of it.

Botnst · #4 07-31-2004, 08:13 PM

The last good Bond flick was Dr. No.

I generally like movies with lots of CGI. Don't know why except for the marvel. I don't go to movies to be uplifted, inspired, informed or educated, I go for entertainment. I guess if there's lots of cgi that its an entertainment movie without pretentiousness?

If I want to think, I'll read a book or logon here. (That's ol' fashioned sucking ' up).

B

mikemover · #5 07-31-2004, 08:24 PM

Like most of the entertainment industry (music, TV, etc.), movies are getting "dumbed down" to the lowest common denominator.

Today's average "couch potato" or "$7 bucket 'o popcorn muncher" doesn't appreciate, or have the attention span, for the subtleties of an actor/actress with actual SKILL....they want to see computer-enhanced fight scenes, $h!t blowing up, and of course boobs....so that's what the producers of popular entertainment give them.

Casablanca or Gone With the Wind or other such ACTING-oriented classic films would most likely NOT have been successful if released in the present-day.

Mike

Botnst · #6 07-31-2004, 08:26 PM

Dang, Mike, I like $hit blowing up and of course, boobs. Acting is okay as long as it doesn't get in the way of entertainment.

mikemover · #7 07-31-2004, 08:29 PM

Yeah, you got me there....not a damn thing wrong with BOOBS, is there?

That's one aspect of "dumbing down" that doesn't bother me so much.

Mike

mikemover · #8 07-31-2004, 08:31 PM

I can appreciate the amazing whirlwind CGI showcases as much as the next guy, but damn....they could cut just a LITTLE bit of it out, to save some money to hire at least one or two actors who can actually ACT, couldn't they?

Mike

kott · #9 08-02-2004, 04:37 PM

find the original "Gone in 60 Seconds". See the cars drive around and hit each other, see the spins and tire smoke and steamy radiators. Yes, it's B-grade at best, but IT'S REAL. Then rent the Nicolas Cage version, and watch his mucho macho Eleanor magically fly over dozens of cars and continue on its way.... I can surrender enough disbelief whan a car leaps over the back end of another car (using a hidden ramp), instead of simply crashing into it and halting abruptly (like would happen to you and me), but defying gravity and flying majestically for hundreds of feet in the company of birds and cumulus clouds and airplane traffic?.... no. Keep it real!

mikemover · #10 08-02-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kott
find the original "Gone in 60 Seconds". See the cars drive around and hit each other, see the spins and tire smoke and steamy radiators. Yes, it's B-grade at best, but IT'S REAL. Then rent the Nicolas Cage version, and watch his mucho macho Eleanor magically fly over dozens of cars and continue on its way.... I can surrender enough disbelief whan a car leaps over the back end of another car (using a hidden ramp), instead of simply crashing into it and halting abruptly (like would happen to you and me), but defying gravity and flying majestically for hundreds of feet in the company of birds and cumulus clouds and airplane traffic?.... no. Keep it real!

Actually, in that scene near the end of the movie, he jumped those cars using an inclined tow-truck flatbed as a ramp. But the car appeared to jump so high, and was going to fast, that there's NO WAY it would have been in one piece and still driveable when it landed.

They fell victim to the "Dukes of Hazzard" syndrome! hahaha.... the mysterious "indestructible car".... No matter what happened to the General Lee on that show, in the next scene it was running just fine, and didn't have a scratch on it!

Mike

yal · #11 08-02-2004, 06:46 PM

Actually if you look at the scene after the jump really carefully (thankyou progressive scan

) you will see that the suspension and the frame of the car break up on impact. There is no way that thing should be driving in the next scene

The best bit was the wrecking ball to the cruiser during the chase scene.

chazola · #12 08-02-2004, 07:36 PM

I think CGI is more more noticable if it's done badly, i.e. on the cheap. Then it can really ruin the film. I was suprised at how bad some of the effects in the first Spider-Man film were, though you can kinda forgive it as it's 'comic book'.
Some movies (original star wars, 2001 etc) had excellent models and lighting, which I think still look better than a lot of the CGI done today.

mikemover · #13 08-03-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yal
Actually if you look at the scene after the jump really carefully (thankyou progressive scan) you will see that the suspension and the frame of the car break up on impact. There is no way that thing should be driving in the next scene

The best bit was the wrecking ball to the cruiser during the chase scene.

Yeah, the wrecking ball scene was even WORSE on the "believeability" scale! There's NO WAY the driver would have survived that. The vehicle would have been FLAT, and the driver would have been turned to mush!

I still love that movie, though....In spite of the cheesy plot and bad acting, there's an endless array of eye candy! 50 amazing cars, and Angelina Jolie! What more can you ask for in a movie?!

hahaha....

Mike

rickg · #14 08-03-2004, 03:28 PM

Guess I fall in more with Botnst's taste for mind-numbing entertainment

To a point.
Matrix 1 was great entertainment, the rest were more of just a showcase for "looky what we can do".
But I do like movies with depth too. Just not ones that go out of their way to be "preachy" about some issue. Nothing wrong with trying to include a message, but don't make it dominate the movie.