CGI...will it ever end?

[odinn7]

That's the way I see things. I grew up being amazed by special effects. The amount of time and effort that would go into making the special effects for a movie, that's what it was all about. The good old stop-and-go motion...well, I just loved it. I even did movies like this with my 8mm movie camera. The effects in the original Star Wars series were fantastic. You watch them now, sure, most of them don't look too real but this is what I grew up with. Now, I look at CG in some movies and get annoyed because I think to myself how a particular scene could've been done the old way...plus I feel damn old (but that's another topic for another time).  But at the same time, I realize this is modern times and of course people are going to use the tools that are available to them. The use of CG in some movies is just ridiculous but then as already stated, there are movies that wouldn't be possible without it. I program CAD and CAM and occasionally have messed with the 3D end of it to do simple renderings. This is not easy so I can certainly imagine that in most cases it takes quite a bit of work and knowledge to make CG happen.

Also, ulthar, I was just kidding with the "geek" remark...it was just a carry-over from that other thread. No offense meant.

[PSlugworth]

I think Ray Harryhausen makes a pretty good point whenever he's asked about his thoughts on CGI:

"If you make it too real, ... it makes it mundane.  For example, in the '50s and '60s, a startling image like the Cyclops [from The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad] was unique, because it wasn't on the screen.  Now you see the most amazing things on a 30-second commercial, so you've lost the whole concept of the spectacular, the amazing, because everything is amazing, you know.  It's mundane."

He does admit that he admires CGI, however, especially "Walking with Dinosaurs," big dino-fan that he is.



Post Edited (03-17-05 12:46)

[ulthar]

odinn7 wrote:

>
> Also, ulthar, I was just kidding with the "geek" remark...it
> was just a carry-over from that other thread. No offense meant.
>

None taken.  If I got upset at being called a geek, I'd spend all my time ticked off.  :)

[Cheecky-Monkey]

I was a little angry when I wrote the original thread--CG, when used correctly, can indeed be very effective. For example, Shrek, Finding Nemo, Toy story 1&2, Ice age, etc. Have made fantastic use of CG.

It's when its used for creatures and make-up in live-action films that I get infurriated. Great artists like Stan Winston, Rob Bottin, Rick Baker, KNB effects group, Screaming Mad George, etc. are all being put out of work because filmmakers and producers
a) aren't giving the time needed to create realistic-looking effects,
b) are too lazy to deal with practical effects (in some cases),
c) find it too expensive (I'll admit that it is true in some cases).
 
So I guess I should have been more clear--completely CG animated films are fine by me, putting the medium to good use.
But when it comes to creatures, make-up and gore--let real effects artists take over there.
Of course, there are lots of recent films that use plenty of great-looking animatronic and make-up effects, like Hellboy and the Dawn of the Dead remake, for example, which is good, but there are to many films, both big and low-budget, that use CG for their creature/makeup/gore effects, like anything made by George Lucas or Stephen Sommers (I shutter when I see that guys name...).
There are lots of cheap, cost-effective and inventive ways filmmakers can pull of entirely convincing creature effects on zero budgets without utalizing CG.

[ulthar]

Have you seen "Eight Legged Freaks" or "The Forgotten"?  I'm sure there are others, but those are two movies that have excellent 'traditional' and CGI effects, with great integration.  (IMO).

My major point in part echos what others have said: virtually no modern movie will NOT have at least SOME CGI or enhancement to the traditional effects.  If, in post production, some lighting values are changed, glare is removed, or whatnot, that's computer effects.

But I reiterate my earlier point.  I'd bet that there are MANY examples of good, seamless CGI that you have not complained about because YOU DID NOT KNOW it was CGI.  You are picking on the obvious 'bad' stuff that was, admittedly, overused where it was not the best tool for the job.

Also, I did not realize Rob Bottin was hurting for work. That's a pretty impressive resume listed on imdb:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001964/

Lot's of those films had CGI effects components, btw.

Oh yeah, one last thing: a lot of the CGI is based on sculptures and such, so there is nothing to suggest that the traditional artists cannot get work on cross projects.  Just a thought.

[trekgeezer]

I'm sorry to hear about Bottin and the others. But really where you get the best  stuff is when there is a seamless blending of traditional effects and CG.  

Peter Jackson and Weta  did a great job with LOTR. They built some spectacular miniatures and partial full sized sets and populated them with CG characters.

Gollum was a literal masterpiece.  I really enjoyed all the extras on the DVD's explaining a lot of the effects. When trying to perfect  Gollum,  the digital effects supervisor was walking by the full sized duplicate they made of  Boromir laying in the boat and noticed how life like the skin was. He asked the makeup guy who did it and was told how it was done with an airbrush.  So, they  had the makeup guy teach the computer guy how to use a real airbrush and had  the computer teach the makeup guy how to airbrush in the graphics program.

There are lot of instances where this has happened on films.  On Jurassic Park Phil Tippet  (protege of Harryhausen) was going to do the dinos in go motion.  But when they decided to go digital they still used Phil's armatures to do the motion capture. Phil Tippet went on to eventually started  his own digital effects company (they did the bugs in Starship Troopers).

I dislike cheap CG stuff just like everyone else, but even the stuff on tv shows now is starting to rival the movies.

Like Harryhausen said though, we are jaded these days. It's rare that anything dazzles us anymore.  I know when I was a kid some of his stuff scared the hell out of me.