Jim Kilgour
Carbonite Member
.
Are CG effects destroying filmmaking?
- Thread starter Jim Kilgour
- Start date
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
This is actually a great topic and your Forest Gump example is a very good example. Personally CGI has it's time and place. There are movies, that benefit greatly from them... Can you imagine Gollum in LOTR as an actor in a costume?
I think that CGI has it's time and place. It is good when it enhances the story, but when it becomes the story, then that is a big problem. Unlike most people, I did not HATE the final two Matrix films. I respect what they attempted to do, but I wasn't a big fan (I enjoyed them though). That being said, some of the CGI, especially fight scenes were so bad they ruined everything leading up to them. People come across, with few exceptions, as looking really bad in CGI (Examples: Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone - Harry on the broom chasing the key; Blade 2 - The fight in front of the lights, The Matrix - Anytime Neo is flying).
I think it all depends, but with complete human looking animation like in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (while a bad movie) I would not be surpised to see with the next actor strike threat studios moving to something more like that and telling the actors to go screw themselves.
I think that CGI has it's time and place. It is good when it enhances the story, but when it becomes the story, then that is a big problem. Unlike most people, I did not HATE the final two Matrix films. I respect what they attempted to do, but I wasn't a big fan (I enjoyed them though). That being said, some of the CGI, especially fight scenes were so bad they ruined everything leading up to them. People come across, with few exceptions, as looking really bad in CGI (Examples: Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone - Harry on the broom chasing the key; Blade 2 - The fight in front of the lights, The Matrix - Anytime Neo is flying).
I think it all depends, but with complete human looking animation like in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (while a bad movie) I would not be surpised to see with the next actor strike threat studios moving to something more like that and telling the actors to go screw themselves.
krestofre
Knight of the Holy Order
It has to be used in a balance (like everything in life). The LOTR films struck a perfect balance in my mind. Those films could not have been made without CGI, however Peter Jackson didn't abandon over a century worth of filmmaking knowledge. He used practical effects along side CGI and the blend was seemless, and allowed the films to exist. Imagine if the Golden Palace of Rohan had been CGI instead of a model / set.
Ah, that's where you're getting into dangerous territory. For this post I'll refer to this as Lucas Territory. When you're completely eliminating everything else in favor of CGI, then that's when you're going to lose some people. I have yet to see a CGI X-Wing that looks better than the models that ILM built in the 1970s.
As long as the filmmaker analyzes the shot and says "What's the best thing to use to create this illusion." then things will likely be fine. It's when filmmakers start saying "Well, we'll just do all of this as CGI." then you see the overabundance and just plain bad work.
My two cents.
Chris
Ah, that's where you're getting into dangerous territory. For this post I'll refer to this as Lucas Territory. When you're completely eliminating everything else in favor of CGI, then that's when you're going to lose some people. I have yet to see a CGI X-Wing that looks better than the models that ILM built in the 1970s.
As long as the filmmaker analyzes the shot and says "What's the best thing to use to create this illusion." then things will likely be fine. It's when filmmakers start saying "Well, we'll just do all of this as CGI." then you see the overabundance and just plain bad work.
My two cents.
Chris
MojoTrancer
Well-known member
You guys are hitting the nail right on the head (haven't got to use that one in while). CG is getting way out of hand. And at this point I even have to wonder if it's more cost effective than other methods. Last time I checked, movie budgets were getting larger, not smaller. If you're paying a legion of computer artists to create 500 to 1000 effects shots, then how is that cheaper than just building a miniature or building a set?
Which brings me to the "room-full-off-nothing" and how it effects performances. I still maintain that actors need something to interact with. Using your imagination is critical for an actor, but I think putting them in a blue/green room and having them emote to a tennis ball on a stick is bit much.
EDIT: And I have a real beef with John Gaeta. He hyped the cg effects in the second and third Matrix films to PT Barnum levels. And other than the "seige" (the least-hyped sequence) it all sucked. He spent all that money on R&D and new technology to give us some of the most fake-looking fight sequences in film history. Shame on him!
Which brings me to the "room-full-off-nothing" and how it effects performances. I still maintain that actors need something to interact with. Using your imagination is critical for an actor, but I think putting them in a blue/green room and having them emote to a tennis ball on a stick is bit much.
EDIT: And I have a real beef with John Gaeta. He hyped the cg effects in the second and third Matrix films to PT Barnum levels. And other than the "seige" (the least-hyped sequence) it all sucked. He spent all that money on R&D and new technology to give us some of the most fake-looking fight sequences in film history. Shame on him!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Jim Kilgour said:
You nailed it. When used to enhance the picture and/or properly as a tool then it is magic.
But it is overkill most of the time
spencer
Well-known member
The only time I can think of that utilized a really REALLY good green stage (ie, all cgi) was Sin City.
Star Wars prequels are abbhorations in my opinion. One of the coolest things of the originals was the realism that was exhibited. With the greenstage, actors stick out like a sore thumb in a much crisper backdrop.
But Sin City was so styllistic in execution. It didn't try and create a backdrop that would almost fit into the actors' appearance-it fit the actors into a backdrop. That's where Lucas didn't do well, and Rodriguez did.
But like everyone else said-seemless integration is the trick. Hell, I honestly didn't recognize that the ping pong ball in forrest gump was cg until last year. That's when it works.
Star Wars prequels are abbhorations in my opinion. One of the coolest things of the originals was the realism that was exhibited. With the greenstage, actors stick out like a sore thumb in a much crisper backdrop.
But Sin City was so styllistic in execution. It didn't try and create a backdrop that would almost fit into the actors' appearance-it fit the actors into a backdrop. That's where Lucas didn't do well, and Rodriguez did.
But like everyone else said-seemless integration is the trick. Hell, I honestly didn't recognize that the ping pong ball in forrest gump was cg until last year. That's when it works.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
CG has made it possible to tell some stories that might not have otherwise been told. On the other hand, like anything that is abused it is a bad thing, think Van Helsing. I have to admit that I was amazed when I watched Jurassic Park the first time. There are a couple of science fiction stories I read twenty years ago that are ripe for the making now. They just would not have worked with puppets. As a counter argument I guess you can point at what Ron Howard did with models in Apollo 13.
I don't think CG is killing films, I think poor storytelling is. Saying that CG is destroying films is kind of like saying cinematography is killing films. It's kind of like the gun analogy, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or CG doesn't kill films, bad filmmaking kills films.
I think CG advances are pretty amazing, but it's just a tool. No different than bad films with overblown scores that make up for lack of emotional scenes. To quote another analogy, don't blame television for the corruption of youth, blame crappy parenting. Hmm...have I gone too far with the analogies?
I think CG advances are pretty amazing, but it's just a tool. No different than bad films with overblown scores that make up for lack of emotional scenes. To quote another analogy, don't blame television for the corruption of youth, blame crappy parenting. Hmm...have I gone too far with the analogies?
Rich Lee
I shoot Pirates.
bah, i started writing this long ass reply, but nixed it, not worth it.
everything has a limit and can be done badly...there are films with horrible vfx and there are films with wonderful vfx...and as with allot of things, its a matter of taste.
there is no way to really explain why things are they way they are...each show has their own "characteristics" each filmmaker is different and has different ideas, sometimes its no ones fault but their own, sometimes its the studios fault for not giving them enough money, or putting up the money at the right time. allot of times they just bite off more then they can chew.
there are definitely films that have really great vfx work...you just aren't thinking about them cause they don't stand out....the ones that do are either really impressive or really suck...
i highly recommend picking up Cinefex #101..there is a really great roundtable like discussion with the best vfx people in the industry, they are the ones that make it happen...its amazing cause they talk openly about the frustrations of working with big studios and other things...very informative...
everything has a limit and can be done badly...there are films with horrible vfx and there are films with wonderful vfx...and as with allot of things, its a matter of taste.
there is no way to really explain why things are they way they are...each show has their own "characteristics" each filmmaker is different and has different ideas, sometimes its no ones fault but their own, sometimes its the studios fault for not giving them enough money, or putting up the money at the right time. allot of times they just bite off more then they can chew.
there are definitely films that have really great vfx work...you just aren't thinking about them cause they don't stand out....the ones that do are either really impressive or really suck...
i highly recommend picking up Cinefex #101..there is a really great roundtable like discussion with the best vfx people in the industry, they are the ones that make it happen...its amazing cause they talk openly about the frustrations of working with big studios and other things...very informative...
John C Lyons
Veteran
CGI can work in much the same way as every technique before it.
CGI can work in much the same way as every technique before it.
I agree with Yankee and some of the others that it can be done well and most certainly there are many examples of this. I find it annoying when people say "most/all of the time it ruins a film" about advances in technology. That's just bullshi t talking. Very similar to those in some forums that still whine about digital films. You've seen some poor movies (Van Helsing) like the rest of us and you're just generalizing. When they used men in monster suits and planes on strings back in the day that looked fake as hell but people could still like the movie if it was done well. Do you feel now, in 2005, that scale models, matte paintings, etc ruined cinema?
Like every other filmmaking tool available sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes you can have a totally green screen movie and it works for the material (Sin City) and sometimes it feels very false and emotionless (SW prequels). But it's still really hard to pull off at any serious length of screentime and hopefully filmmakers continue to use it sparingly as a tool until holographic cinema comes along and you start making fun of that.
CGI can work in much the same way as every technique before it.
I agree with Yankee and some of the others that it can be done well and most certainly there are many examples of this. I find it annoying when people say "most/all of the time it ruins a film" about advances in technology. That's just bullshi t talking. Very similar to those in some forums that still whine about digital films. You've seen some poor movies (Van Helsing) like the rest of us and you're just generalizing. When they used men in monster suits and planes on strings back in the day that looked fake as hell but people could still like the movie if it was done well. Do you feel now, in 2005, that scale models, matte paintings, etc ruined cinema?
Like every other filmmaking tool available sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes you can have a totally green screen movie and it works for the material (Sin City) and sometimes it feels very false and emotionless (SW prequels). But it's still really hard to pull off at any serious length of screentime and hopefully filmmakers continue to use it sparingly as a tool until holographic cinema comes along and you start making fun of that.
SilverWolf
Veteran
It looks like we are all in agreement on this subject. CG is great when it used to enhance the illusion and take you to an unreal place. If anybody has watched Bad Boys 2 and noticed the part on the highway with Ferrari that is some great CG.
John C Lyons
Veteran
And if anybody watched the Brontosaurus stampede in King Kong you'll know sometimes we shouldn't brag that we can do everything yet.:undecided ouch!
SilverWolf
Veteran
OMG when I saw it I was think Ewww this feels so fake and bad. My brain also couldn't comprehend how people can outrun huge dinosaurs let alone the fact that kong is shaking watts around like a rag doll and she didn't break her neck or back.
MojoTrancer
Well-known member
the-lyons-den.com said:
Yeah that sequence was pretty painful to watch.
And in a round-about, ranting way I was agreeing with everyone else in my previous post. When properly used, CG is great. But sometimes the old ways are still better and more convincing.
Shawn Murphy
Well-known member
Isaac_Brody said:I don't think CG is killing films, I think poor storytelling is. Saying that CG is destroying films is kind of like saying cinematography is killing films. It's kind of like the gun analogy, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or CG doesn't kill films, bad filmmaking kills films.
I think CG advances are pretty amazing, but it's just a tool. No different than bad films with overblown scores that make up for lack of emotional scenes. To quote another analogy, don't blame television for the corruption of youth, blame crappy parenting. Hmm...have I gone too far with the analogies?
nicely put Isaac.
personally I worry more about product placements in films, but hey, I guess there will always be films created solely as a vehicle for making money, as well as those that are created purely as an artistic vision (and then worst of all: the films that try to appease both sides, personally I think the ones that try to swing both ways fail more often than even the purely commercial ones!).
Rich Lee
I shoot Pirates.
i think films like kong and narnia and LOTR are too ambitious and dont allow them selves the proper time/money to really execute the VFX well enough...labor is spread thin on these projects. its not a question of skill or artistic ability, its time/money.
given the same time/money with the same sort of ambitions, and minatures/model work will look crappy too.
anyway...blah blah blah...
given the same time/money with the same sort of ambitions, and minatures/model work will look crappy too.
anyway...blah blah blah...