I had read in another post about someone's disappointment with a movie because of the heavy use of CGI. It seems as though quite a few studios have been using CGI in place of sets, special effects, creatures, etc. Quite a few of these CGI effects, to me anyway, look fake.
What I was wondering is what movies anybody would think if they did them in CGI today would not look as good as the original?
I have three movies I feel fall into this category.
1) Bladerunner
2) Alien
3) John Carpenter's 'The Thing'
All three of these movies were done with brilliant effects and sets. I feel that if these movies were done with the current state of CGI effects, they would look nowhere near as good. Pretty good for movies over twenty years old.
Bob
Now some movies look so bad that CGI might actually be able to IMPROVE them. One example could be the original Gamera movie (or at least the crappyier american version) but even with the CGI I'd still propabbly like the costume more because I love costume mosnters and take them any day over the CGI monster (though a movie with a light blending of the two is cool like Gamera Guardian of the Universe)
On subject now
.....
Mad Max or Roadwarrior. I mean if they replaced a stunt double flying or an explosion with a CGI man or a CGI explosion I'd be p**sed royale.
Alien and The Thing I agree with Menard on this
Evil Dead
The Birds (oh I'd hate to see a CGI flock of birds unless it was in a video game)
Godzilla-OOPS! TOO F***ING LATE!!
Beast from 20,000 Fathooms-OOPS! TOO F***ING LATE AGAIN!!!!
I do agree that the effects were an improvement on Gamera, although I am still fond of the original. I do believe that some of the effects of 'Evil Dead' could be improved with CGI (I am refering specifically to the claymation, which was good) but I think as a whole it would hurt the film since what sets 'Evil Dead' out from the crowd is seat-of-your-pants filmaking. They had very little budget and used ingenuity in its place, and look what they accomplished. By the way, I used to have an issue of the first series of Cinemagic magazine which did an article on these amateur filmmakers who were Raimi and Campbell; this was before 'Evil Dead. They were making a Star Trek short on Super 8. It was interesting to see Bruce Campbell as a Vulcan.--Bob
The original 3 Star Wars Movies.
My opinion, so take it for what it is worth:
CGI has its place. Making monsters/characters cgi is not the best use of this resource, as those usually are MUCH better when done by traditional methods. Witness Jar-Jar Binks.
But take movies like Monsters, Inc, and Shrek. For these, CGI = good movie. Those movies would not be the same if done by traditional means. I mean, what would that be, anyway? 2D cell animation? Clay-Mation?
It's like any other tool when it is new and the artists are trying to find its place; it will be overused for a while.
But yeah, I agree: The Thing would not be the same with CGI throughout the film.
I agree with Uthar. CGI does have a place I just hate it when it's used crappily or used for monster effects that turn out to be crappily. It can be used and done right but I just hate it when they use it wrongly.
I did not mean to suggest that CGI did not have a place. I have certainly enjoyed 'Toy Story', 'Monsters Inc.', and would like to see 'The Incredibles'. The effects in the movie 'Twister' were, for the most part, well done (too bad they didn't bother to add a story to the movie while they were at it).
It is, however, difficult for a creature to be frightening when it looks like a cartoon. Movies which have featured cartoon creatures (maybe I am being a little to pessimistic) are 'Species' (although I enjoyed the movie, for the most part, I found the creature to be disappointing) and the remake (???) of 'The Mummy'.
Today's CGI effects do look better than a lot of the Claymation effects of the past (Ray Harryhausen excepted; he was truly a magician with effects). There are many creature effects of the past that certainly would have been better if done with CGI today. And we have certainly seen how well CGI could be integrated with the newer 'Star Trek' as compared to the original (my apologies to trek_geezer).
But I do believe there are certainly many films that if they were made today, with today's CGI effects, they would just would not compare to the original.
By the way, one director who has put CGI effects to good use is Peter Jackson. Even in his early days of filmmaking, he got good results from his effects with or without a budget. I have heard that he is planning to do a remake of 'King Kong'. That is one movie I certainly would want to see.
Bob
hey did Dead Alive have CGI used to enhance anything? That movie is awesome. If all the effect were made in 100% CGI today it would be lame.
Any classic gore film like Gore Gore Girls would be horrible if it was CGI. The cheap schlocky gore is more charming than fancy CGI. I appreciate and get fascinated by cheesy gore effects more than all this high tech stuff.
I wondered about 'Dead Alive' (A.K.A. 'Braindead'). The effects in it are truly well done. This is of course Peter Jackson creating his usual movie magic. I do not know if they used any CGI in 'Dead Alive'. I do not believe they did, but, if they did, you cannot tell.
Bob
I think the point is that whatever Jackson uses, he uses it appropriately, and he uses it well.
Menard wrote:
> I do not believe they did, but, if they
> did, you cannot tell.
>
>
That's the whole point. With the exception of a 'Monsters, Inc' or 'Toy Story' type film, the best used cgi are the ones you don't even notice.
Personally, I think cgi is best used as an enhancement. Where many go wrong is to rely on it for too much.
I think the cgi in 'Eight Legged Freaks' was appropriately done. It was difficult to tell the cgi spider effects from real spiders and puppets (and other traditional techniques).
I just recently bought the Star Wars Trilogy box set and came to the realisation that because of all the added effects, I didn't like the movie nearly as much as i used to.
CGI is a tough thing. Computerised special effects can be both a hindrance and a handy tool for a film to use. It is a very fine line which is just getting crossed too often. I think the downfall in a lot of CGI effects is that people get overexcited by the technology and make it do too much: it reminds me of people editing films on the computer in my old media class, because it was all new to them, people were adding all kinds of fancy wipes and dissolves, morphs and such, when a simple cut or fade would have done. By overusing the technology, they made their work tacky and awful, when if utilised properly, the transitions could have made their films much better.
Yeah, it's perhaps a slightly different situation, but hey, its similar, and that's good enough for me! :P
For the most part, I'm not a fan of CGI. I think it is very over-used and is sort of "cheating" when it comes to live-action movies. I prefer to see real people doing real stunts on real sets or in front of real backgrounds. I think CGI is great for sci-fi movies, but it really doesn't fit in other types of movies. I would almost prefer to see the film industry revert to things like matte paintings and stop-motion animation. Using a computer to make significant portions of a movie just seems wrong to me.
Souless, effortless, cheating, ghastly, pretentious are all words I use to describe CG. It will never hold a candle to the effects of the 80's, when they actually had to TRY.
The effects in John Carpenter´s The Thing were excellent.
Why did they start with a remake? Pure Nonsense...
I did not know anybody was doing a remake of John Carpenter's remake. They would certainly have to use a different approach rather than trying to recreate the effects of Rob Bottin and Roy Arbogast. Maybe they can do a Toy Story version for the kids which would no doubt be directed by Tim Burton.
Blade Runner, maybe... Aliens and The Thing, definitely not. modeling and animating organic objects is alot more difficult to pull of for several reasons.
The sad thing is, CGI is the way films will be made in the near future. The fact that "Sky Captain" could be shot for less than 1/4 the cost, had they tried to do it with sets and miniatures, only proves the point. Production costs are rising through the roof, thanks to the unions being out of control, and this may be the only way to continue to make "epic" films on a standard budget of $60 million or less.
Frankly, I see movies evolving into several catagories in the near future:
1. The ultra low-budget, shot in the backyard DVD movie. All that has to happen here is a regualr distribution systemt o be set up for them. Which is where a lot of new talent will come from, and be noticed by.
2. The studio financed, low budget shot of DV film. Where a studio allows a new film maker to prove that he can actually MAKE a movie in the studio system. (Like Timecode, or Bamboozled)
3. The midrange movie. Where you are shooting on real sets with real actors, and not much CGI is called for. (In time, these will all be shot DV as well.)
4. The studio spectacular. Probably shot in the "Sky Captain" mode, where style and art design is the real star, and maybe you'll remember they were trying to tell you some kind of story. (Sky Captain, Van Helsing, The Mummy, etc.)
The one thing I wish they WOULD do with CGI, is go back and sweeten a few shots in some dearly loved classics. For intance, they could do a little wire removal from "War of the Worlds" or maybe replace that end shot of the new planet landscape in "When Worlds Collide" That sort of thing. I recently picked up a copy of "Dr. Who: Daleks Invasion of the Earth, 2150 A.D." with William Hartnell as the Dr. Amazingly, there's an option where you can watch the serial with either new CGI effects, or watch it with the original "pie pan" flying saucer. More of this kind of use would be great.
Joe wrote:
> The one thing I wish they WOULD do with CGI, is go back and
> sweeten a few shots in some dearly loved classics.
(Disclaimer) Okay, first of all, I am a die-hard fan of Carpenter's 'The Thing,' and I am also a proponent of keeping things as the original director made them (ie, I don't care for colorization, etc). However, that said, I like Joe's idea for CG.
There are two scenes in 'The Thing' that the model effects are painfully obvious: where MacReady finds the dead Norwegian at the Norwegian's camp (the one sitting in the chair) and the close-up of MacReady holding the dish of blood that is momentarily going to sprout a creature (the hand is fake, and you can clearly tell). I am not critizing Bottin's effects, and, again, I love this film. BUT.....
If some enterprising CG artist wished to clean up these two scenes, I would not be too terrribly offended, so long as three criteria were met:
1. Any/all copies of anything purporting to be John Carpenter's 'The Thing' has the original as the default; the modified scenes are included only as an 'extra' or 'special feature' option. For example, on a DVD, you can choose to watch the modified version or the original, with the original being the default.
2. Any copy that has the modified scenes is clearly marked that it contains modified scenes, not created by the original director/production crew as an extra or special feature. This is a little different from a disk containing cut scenes that the original crew created.
3. The CG were only used to modify the original images, such as maybe adding some texture or removing some glare or something similar that makes it only less obvious that the body and hand are models.
It's likely that with these constraints, few would even bother. There would be very little (if any) financial incentive to do so.
Well, I wouldn't diss CGI entirely. I just believe that there is use for both mediums. I mean, what's wrong with using sets, puppets,a nd make-up effects mixed in with "light" CGI?
Sugar_Nads wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't diss CGI entirely. I just believe that there
> is use for both mediums. I mean, what's wrong with using sets,
> puppets,a nd make-up effects mixed in with "light" CGI?
I'm a cgi advocate, at least for when it is used properly. I think the tool is maturing, which means it is, and will be, over-used while people figure out the when, where and how to make it most effective.
Sadly, due to the rate at which technology has grown, many view cgi (and other modern technologies like cameras on telephones) as something that 'just because we CAN do it, we should.'
Let's not forget that GOOD cgi is very, very expensive. Hi resolution rendering of true 3d models with arbitrary camera angles, etc, is not done easily. Big Idea (Veggie Tales) creator Phil Visher commented about buying an extra 200 some odd computers and housing them in a 'spare closet' down at the local mall (ie, an unleased store) in order to meet the production schedule on (iirc) The Star of Christmas. Doing something like that on a short schedule takes some money and some qualified manpower on the tech side, to say nothing of the artists involved in a full cgi project.
One thing I'd like to know is of all the (mostly crappy) animation on tv for kids right now, how much is cg based? What about something like The Simpsons, King of the Hill or Family Guy? How much are computers used in those productions?
But bottom line, I don't think the BEST cgi money can buy can outdo The Thing or Alien. The effects, though very, very good, are not what makes those films what they are: it is (imho) mood, acting, camera work and general direction.
By the way, someone mentioned "The Mummy." I read a review of The Mummy a while back in which the reviewer really blasted the use of the cgi sand effect-it was overused, way overused. That reviewer basically said someone had the ability to create this really cool sand effect, and that effect was essentially in every fx based scene. To that person, this was a real turn-off, and I imagine a similar reaction to a schlocky cgi The Thing or Alien. After all, which Mummy movie is creepier, the original with Boris Karloff or the Brendan Frasier version? I know which one kept me up late afraid to go to sleep when I was a kid.
You saw The Mumy with Brendan Frazier when you were a kid?
I don't believe anyone was suggesting that the effects alone make the movie (although many reviewers on Amazon.com will judge a movie solely on its effects). Each aspect of a film contributes to the end result. If a movie like John Carpenter's 'The Thing', which is effects heavy, were to use the quality of effects from 'Dawn of the Mummy', it would not be the classic we know it as today, despite John Carpenter's best effort. An example of a classic that used few and simple effects but depended on its story, acting, atmosphere, and directing is 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Its subsequent sequels and remake proved that you cannot make up for what is lacking by just throwing in gore (although gore freaks will beg to differ). Certainly effects do not make a movie [___________________(insert comment here)], but poorly done effects or inappropriate effects can become a distraction from the rest of the film. Although it is humbling to remember that the reason we are on this site is due to poor effects, bad acting, shoddy directing, and cliched amateurish scripting among other likeable movie qualities ( :
I have to agree with ulthar. I dont mind the use of CGI if it used as a tool. When a movie becomes a "CGI feast" that when it just becomes stupid. I feel that it take away from the imagnation in some aspects. Think now if the movie Alien chestbuster was CGI. I dont think it would be half as scary. I think if a a special effect besides CGI could be in a movie use it. Dont take the easy way out and just use CGI for everything.
You can’t give it, you can’t even buy it, and you just don’t get it!-Aeon Flux
Although it is humbling to remember that the reason we are on this site is due to...[/url]
Bingo!!
I watch so many movies about time-travelling kick-boxing mutant cyborgs from a post-apocalyptic future taking over a cyber-reality from another dimension that 'good' special effects is the *least* of my concerns