Something I needed to say...

[bill smith]

 I just read a review of Revenge of the sith that made some comments about CGI, and said that the old days when people made worlds with wood, clay, paint, blood, sweat and tears were better than today when you just "push a button".

Well, BEEEEEE ESSSSSSSS!!!!!!

 I've recently tried to get into 3d modeling and I can tell you that people who are good at it work hard at it and it's a very, very hard field to get good at. Someone may think that its easier to build a 3d CGI model and make it look real than it is to build a real model and paint it up/dirty it down.

Well, I don't think so. Making photoreal CGI 3D is damn hard work, and if someone thinks it's so damn easy, let him or her go get some 3d modelling and rendering software, like blender 3d or Bryce, both of which are free, and let's see him or her show us all how easy it was to make a convincing 3d render that looks real.

I'm not going to argue which is "better", as lots of cheap CGI looks like crap and a lot of cheap live action/modeled stuff looks like crap too. I'm not going to argue which is harder to do. What I am going to say is that anyone who thinks CGI is easy is ignorant and really insulting a lot of people who work hard to make good CGI look good.

It's not just "push a button". I've tried some 3d modelling and cgi, and it's hard as hell.

[ulthar]

I've been making this point on this particular forum for years.  As is far too often the case, too many people commenting about {Just_About_Anything} know absolutely NOTHING about it...certainly on the Internet.

The part that gripes me is that if the CGI is done well, these same people don't even notice it (and thus don't complain about it)...so, in general, their sample space is biased toward bad (or cheap) CGI.  It's like holding the fx in ROBOT MONSTER as the standard for costume fx.

Of course, the real problem with CGI is its overuse...using it in places where it is not necessary and/or it becomes the focus of the film.  I love movies and have made an amateur study of how they are made for about forty years, and I don't think a movie should EVER be "about" the visual effects - a showcase for what the visual guys "can do."

Pixar is successful because they focus on story, and build their CGI world's to tell that story.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

I've been making this point on this particular forum for years.  As is far too often the case, too many people commenting about {Just_About_Anything} know absolutely NOTHING about it...certainly on the Internet.

The part that gripes me is that if the CGI is done well, these same people don't even notice it (and thus don't complain about it)...so, in general, their sample space is biased toward bad (or cheap) CGI.  It's like holding the fx in ROBOT MONSTER as the standard for costume fx.

I'd wager that a film like Robot Monster DID do more than it's share of damage to the reputation of costume FX, as did other films of the day. Fast forward to modern day times, and a film like Van Helsing makes you feel the same about CGI. That movie was wa-ayyy overblown with CGI. As you said, overuse and focal point really renders it useless.

Pixar is successful because they focus on story, and build their CGI world's to tell that story.

I'll drink to that. Seeing many of their movies, you immediately get caught up in the contextual world they build, and everything else is secondary.   Story is always first with Pixar.

[Chainsawmidget]

Good Cg can at times be indistinguishable from live action, but many times it's used in places where live action would have worked better or it becomes more of a focus than practicle special effects would have been. 

Still, For the most part, I always get more of a sense of reality from things practicle effects, if for no other reason than the fact that you can tell people are actually interacting with it. 

Frankly, I see no reason why more people don't use Cg to enhance the practicle effects giving you the best of both worlds. 

I still find much more charm in a bad rubber suit than I do a bad CG monster. 

[voltron]

cliche fanboy post: cgi (good or bad) is the worst thing to happen to movies since, well......i can't really think of how to end that. i just find it pointless and it tends to distract you from the film itself. and yes, i studied 3d animation in college, and let me tell you, it's not easy work, but at the same time i think it'll be just another passing trend like the current revival of 3d.

[Jim H]

cliche fanboy post: cgi (good or bad) is the worst thing to happen to movies since, well......i can't really think of how to end that. i just find it pointless and it tends to distract you from the film itself. and yes, i studied 3d animation in college, and let me tell you, it's not easy work, but at the same time i think it'll be just another passing trend like the current revival of 3d.

You think CG special effects are a "passing trend"?  What will come after, exactly?  In any case, it's already been far too long to be called just a "trend" - it's been over 15 years since it became a Hollywood mainstay.  And there are absolutely no signs of it stopping, or going anywhere.  Effects pictures have been around for over 100 years now, and in all that time the only instances a technique has truly gone away is when something significantly better replaces it (like digital matte paintings instead of actual matte paintings).  So, until "constantly improving computer generated special effects" is replaced by...  Something we can't even comprehend at this stage...  There's no way CG work is going anywhere. 

I've recently tried to get into 3d modeling and I can tell you that people who are good at it work hard at it and it's a very, very hard field to get good at. Someone may think that its easier to build a 3d CGI model and make it look real than it is to build a real model and paint it up/dirty it down.

Yes.  Not enough appreciation goes to this type of artwork.  Which is exactly what it is - art.  Done by, in big budget pictures, often dozens or even hundreds of people.  It is, in many cases, more work than more traditional techniques.  The upside is it often requires less time on set and such, which can save money in other areas.

[ulthar]

  The upside is it often requires less time on set and such, which can save money in other areas.

Another upside is that advances are cumulative...develop a new shader, and it can be reused, for example.  Or code to model a given phenomenon, etc.

Well, this can cause crappy results, too...(cue sand-morph scenes from THE MUMMY (1999) ), where an effect is overused just because "we developed it, we have it now, we have to USE it!"   

Good CGI is seamless - it goes unnoticed.  THE FINAL CUT used some CGI that I defy anyone to notice was even CGI lest they knew it was there.  In that particular case, I cannot imagine a reasonable (and cheaper) way to produce the effect by traditional means.

Blasting an art on the basis of its bad examples is pretty weak...

[Paquita]

I was kind of on the fence about CGI, but I think I’m starting to appreciate it now.  Thanks to my daughter’s obsession with the Harry Potter movies and Labyrinth, I’ve been able to study both of these movies closely.  Harry Potter uses quite a bit of CGI and Labyrinth, for those that don’t know, is a Jim Henson movie using  muppets, make-up, and machinery, although it did have some CGI in it and actually was one of the first movies to have a CG animal with the owl in the beginning credits.  Comparing two characters, Dobby from Harry Potter, and Hoggle from Labyrinth, upon the first few viewings, I didn’t see them and think “Hey that’s CGI!” or “Hey! That’s a costume/muppet/robot-thing!”  Both are great examples of the best of the best, and I can see and appreciate the hard work that went into them.

I still like the idea of a bunch of guys building a robot or making a monster suit for some poor sap to lumber around in for my entertainment better than a bunch of computer nerds sitting in a fluorescently lit office making CG trolls, but as long as I don’t notice it when I’m watching the movie, I think I can get over it.

[Chainsawmidget]

Well, this can cause crappy results, too...(cue sand-morph scenes from THE MUMMY (1999) ), where an effect is overused just because "we developed it, we have it now, we have to USE it!"

Those Matrix fight scenes strikes me as the worst offender here. 

[AndyC]

I think the amount of bad CGI we see is testimony to just how difficult it is to make good CGI. Having played around with it myself, there is a hell of a lot of time and effort and patience that goes into making any remotely realistic object, never mind a whole scene.

A lot of us don't like CGI for three reasons:

1. Good CGI is hard, but bad CGI is far too easy, so we get a lot of it.

2. Even good CGI is used far too much in some movies, and it is a big part of the overemphasis of action and spectacle in movies, at the expense of everything else. When you can show virtually anything onscreen, you don't have to be selective in what you show, or compensate for what you can't show in other ways. Movies get overloaded with effects.

3. We like the old-school effects and admire the artistry of the people who did them well. CGI is replacing those kinds of effects, so we see it as a threat and a slap in the face to the artists and movies we cherish.

We tend to employ defense mechanisms, such as being disproportionately critical, derisive or even angry where CGI is concerned, dismissing it as a passing fad or whatever, but the fact is, it's a legitimate filmmaking tool, an art form in its own right, and it's not going anywhere. I think we could see a lot more improvement in movies if we stopped the knee-jerk bashing of CGI in general, and started expressing what we really mean. If you use CGI, don't do a half-assed job of it, or you're better off without it. Put something besides spectacle in your movies, like good acting, a plot, characters we like. And we should try to articulate what we like about the old-school effects in more useful terms than "they looked better" or "they took more effort." Why did they look better? What qualities did they have that other techniques lack?

[Flick James]

I don't care how easy or how difficult CGI is. This is completely irrelevant to me. I just generally don't care for it. When I see CGI, particularly bad CGI, what invariably enters my mind is "look, it's CGI" and it just kills it for me.

Sorry. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

My complaint about the use of CGI, is so many movies are JUST CGI effects with no regard for story, acting, plot etc.  All those summer blockbusters come to mind.   

I did see a making of HellBoy thing and that was amaizng the amount of work they did to make a realistic and well done "real" image that they then gussied up with CGI.  That was amazing stuff (and one of my fave films of recent years).

Its when effect are the movie, as oppsoe dto being part of a movie that drives me batty,

-Ed

[Jim H]

I don't care how easy or how difficult CGI is. This is completely irrelevant to me. I just generally don't care for it. When I see CGI, particularly bad CGI, what invariably enters my mind is "look, it's CGI" and it just kills it for me.

Sorry. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

So, something about it just rubs you the wrong way in a way that you can't describe.  Right?  That actually makes more sense to me than most arguments against CG do.

On that note, I guarantee you there's tons of CG you've seen and never even realized it.  Stuff like minor background elements, matte effects, alterations of real objects, etc.  A lot of stuff like straight drama has minor CG elements sprinkled in these days, just done in a way you'd never know.

[Flick James]

I don't care how easy or how difficult CGI is. This is completely irrelevant to me. I just generally don't care for it. When I see CGI, particularly bad CGI, what invariably enters my mind is "look, it's CGI" and it just kills it for me.

Sorry. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

So, something about it just rubs you the wrong way in a way that you can't describe.  Right?  That actually makes more sense to me than most arguments against CG do.

On that note, I guarantee you there's tons of CG you've seen and never even realized it.  Stuff like minor background elements, matte effects, alterations of real objects, etc.  A lot of stuff like straight drama has minor CG elements sprinkled in these days, just done in a way you'd never know.

Oh, I have no problem with that. CGI and digital effects in general are industry-standard at this point. When CGI is the centerpiece, I find it is nearly always easily identifiable and looks like s**t to me. In other words, it looks like a video game to me. Even some of the background elements come across as a video game. Bad CGI is bad CGI. When I watched The Mist it stuck out like a sore thumb. All I'm saying is, when I stack the average CGI, and even some of the best CGI against, say, the work of Rick Baker, I'll take Rick Baker every time.

[AndyC]

I don't care how easy or how difficult CGI is. This is completely irrelevant to me. I just generally don't care for it. When I see CGI, particularly bad CGI, what invariably enters my mind is "look, it's CGI" and it just kills it for me.

Sorry. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

So, something about it just rubs you the wrong way in a way that you can't describe.  Right?  That actually makes more sense to me than most arguments against CG do.

On that note, I guarantee you there's tons of CG you've seen and never even realized it.  Stuff like minor background elements, matte effects, alterations of real objects, etc.  A lot of stuff like straight drama has minor CG elements sprinkled in these days, just done in a way you'd never know.

That's a good point. The badly-done, improperly used CGI, is going to make more of an impression because it is more noticeable and more identifiable as CGI. Ideally, CGI should not stand out, and when it's used effectively, it can slip by us without setting off our CGI alarms. That could skew our perspective somewhat.

CGI definitely has a distinctive look about it, even when it's done well. I suppose how natural it looks will depend on what you're used to. Kids who grew up with CGI aren't going to see it the way we do. I have no difficulty watching stop-motion monsters and robots, having grown up watching them. I would even say the stop-motion jerkiness adds something for me. The monsters look more monstrous and menacing. I look at the ED-209 scenes in Robocop or the endoskeleton in the original Terminator, and I think they're perfect, while many others would find the stop-motion cheesy and dated. Same with the 80s chroma-key effects that look so crappy today. They looked just fine at the time.

It's just a matter of what we're used to. And the nature of CGI allows it to be continuously refined. That CGI-ish look has lessened considerably over the years, and will probably continue to do so.

The only thing that worries me is the thought that the day might come when it is easy to crank out movies without actors or sets or costumes or anything. It could be the end of movies. Mind you, if anybody could make a movie with anything in it, at a cost of only time and imagination, then good storytelling would be the only way to stand out from the crowd. Making a movie with that level of technology would be analogous to writing a book. The tools are available to anyone, but relatively few have the skills to write something a lot of people would want to spend hours of their spare time reading. Making movies cheaper and easier to make might well save us from overblown schlock in the long run.