How bad could they make it?

[Menard]

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

[daveblackeye15]

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!!!!

[Menard]

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

[odinn7]

The original 3 Star Wars Movies.

[ulthar]

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.

[daveblackeye15]

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.

[Menard]

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

[dudeman]

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.

[Menard]

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

[AndyC]

I think the point is that whatever Jackson uses, he uses it appropriately, and he uses it well.

[ulthar]

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).

[dean]

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

[The Burgomaster]

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.

[cheecky-monkey]

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.

[Wence]

The effects in John Carpenter´s The Thing were excellent.
Why did they start with a remake? Pure Nonsense...