Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Computers taking over film making..

Zakaree Sandberg said:
hahaha maybe;-)
no no.. i went on my rant after watching a 2012 preview and I was having high hopes for it.. then i kinda felt let down in the preview and felt like they were using awesome CGI and crazy effects as a crutch for storytelling.. and Im probably being unfair since the movie isnt out yet and I havent seen it.. but My main gripe was with people using CGI as a crutch.. I actually liked star trek and the first transformers (not super excited about transformers 2).. so I guessssss my main problem is with shitty movies using CGI to carry the film. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Hey, I am here with you.

I am just of the mindset that if you can't do something right, don't do it at all.

I am a VFX artists and a director, so I can see the value in using CG. I just feel the notion that "you can accomplish anything with CG" is really taking Hollywood by storm. I think that it is always going to look better if you can at least in part capture high quality live action first, and then you go down the order of operations (CG being last).

I feel some studios want to use a lot of CG because it is popular and is what audiences expect. When you have $$, trends, and fads dictating your film instead of the content, you are already in trouble.

CG is a wonderful tool, but I also find myself dissappointed when I see needless CG shots that could have been done better with some time and dedication the live action way.

As a VFX artists, the sad thing is that if it doesn't suspend the disbelief, it is still shit, even if 200+ people did spend countless hours making it.

Only show what you can show well.
 
Ok, first off a little defending:

"CCBB" is a great movie... at least the story and directing was there in a strong way, and I love Cate B. and Tilda Swinton. The CGI was incredibly realistic when you take into account what they were trying to do... by far the best 100% CGI human face yet, and plenty good enough to keep people in the story.

Also, Band of Brothers is phenomenal... nothing comes within a light year from it in terms of conveying what it must have been like to fight that war... of course the format has a lot to do with it, but I feel it deserves a sort of respect reserved for art from the likes of Mozart and Beethoven because of what it accomplishes... and a big slice of that respect should obviously be directed towards the producers and distributors that made it happen, of course.

Ok... now that that is out of the way. :-)

I think the beef here isn't with CGI, but with money making schemes that fall back on big budget trickery and insane amounts of marketing while somehow forgetting about the whole story telling part. If so, then I couldn't agree more. However what are you gonna do? Get rid of Capitalism? hehe... please don't. Just make your own movies and keep in mind you'll need to fight in the marketing ring if you want people to see them... or just make good movies and be happy... work on making the world a better place off word of mouth. Or "sell out" and laugh at us while you roll in your Uncle Scrooge swimming pool. Personally I will swim in my swimming pool of moral accomplishment (once I fill it up). :)
 
Jared Caldwell said:
CG is a wonderful tool, but I also find myself dissappointed when I see needless CG shots that could have been done better with some time and dedication the live action way.
Click to expand...

I'm CG dude too, and my line of thinking is pretty similar to yours - when i'm asked how any given effect could be done, i usually first try my best to come up with a way to do it on-camera, or by shooting and comping practical elements... and resort to CGI only when all else fails.

...of course, that might be just because i'm a lazy bastard - you know, i'm usually the one that has to sweat the hours on the puter if it's CGI ;-)
 
I too love the idea of doing as much live action as possible, but I also have seem many examples where crappy wire work could have easily been replaced for CGI in movies that had access to the funds. In the end it is all about doing "it" in whichever way necessary to make it realistic. I love what someone said earlier about it being people behind the computer screens, not T-1000's.

I am also of the school of "if you can't do it right, don't". But the issue isn't what people are asking for. They are not saying "give us CGI", they just want to see fantastic/crazy/impossible/improbable/surreal/what-have-you things. It is up to us to manifest these dreams properly. I am glad people ask for more, otherwise we wouldn't have had "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea". :)

We are at a stage where almost every dream can be realized in 2D, and it is getting cheaper and easier so it is hard to look away, it is too cool! The problem is that production companies/studios crank out movies to get a slice of the people's monthly entertainment budget. The issue is that they don't always manage to have a good story ready before they begin.

Things will change. People won't be so easily bought over once they've seen a million super fantastic CGI shots... and a good stories will never become obsolete. It is probably more of a scenario where filmmakers are tripping over themselves blinded by the new shiny toys. Sorry if I ramble.
 
I think my response is more often than not "Why not just shoot it?"

I can't go with you on 2012 though. I'm a disaster porn junkie and love to see cities get destroyed by giant waves. I'm one of 8 people (look it up) who loved the day after tomorrow. It's always been my dream to have to break out an ice axe to get to work. I actually got to live that dream this year and wore crampons to get downtown but the idea of a giant apocalyptic Snow Day is like a recurring daydream of mine. But I can agree with your sentiment that it shouldn't be used as a crutch. But neither should a big name actor. A bad ass sountrack. Or any of the other crutches we use. At some point the crutches though add up to a leg.

Will it be a movie that makes me think? Probably not. But I think I'll be entertained. Some movies are commentary on the human condition. Some movies are cirque de solei. I think there is a place for both.

You could make the same argument that most Attenburough documentaries aren't very strong on the meaningful character development as well. But they're insightful and pretty. I could watch 90 minutes of spaceships flying around shooting at each other and I would be more than happy. With little to 0 character development as long as the battles were sweet. I also love contemplative Andrei Tarkovsky films. I think there is a place for both. I think War of the Worlds simply for the amazing sound is worth watching. I watched it twice in the same day. I don't like the movie but hearing it in the theater was worth the cost of admission twice.

Similarly I've seen movies that had absolutely nothing visually interesting in them that I've wanted to see again just for the story and characters immediately. I just saw the Year One. I thought it was worth my time. I wouldn't describe it as a "great movie" and didn't change me as a person. But as 90 minutes of sketch comedy it was worth the price of admission.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a place for the rollercoaster ride film. There is a place for contemplative insightful films. And I think the two aren't mutually exclusive. But it's not hurting the industry. Just because one store is just selling T-Shirts doesn't mean the world is going to stop selling pants. There is more than enough room in Hollywood for stupid eye candy films alongside intelligent and poignant dramas (Just not during the months of May - August). Give it 4 months and it'll be back to character driven movies which you can wait to rent on DVD instead of needing to get the 'theater experience'. But even that will probably be chock full of CG that you didn't know was there since it wasn't smashing buildings.
 
Just saw "UP" this weekend in digital 3D. Wonderful movie all around. Rich original story with interesting characters, which is what really makes the difference.
Meaningless overcut frantic action, whether it is done live or CGI is no substitute story and character. I too am tired of repetitive derivative crap in all forms from the majors. Its just boring.
 
CGI is overused in Hollywood these days, the story ofen takes a backseat to all the effects. And dont even get me started on the new Star Wars prequels. Ive seen CGI cutscenes in games look more realistic.
 
... ok so dont watch it because YOU DONT HAVE TO and watch some Sundance stuff or all that amazing flicks from around the world you never heard of. I think you can easily spent rest of your life with that footage. :001_smile:
 
Its simple, there are only good films and bad film. Thats all.
 
Let's think of HitchHikers Guide as an example. YES, there was a lot of CG in that movie, but 98% of all the characters were puppets. The Voguns, the depressed robot, etc were all puppets. All of these characters could have cheaply, quickly, and easily been created using CGI, but they didn't. They made them practically. When I see a director take the time and effort to do an effect practically that could've been done in half the time with CGI, I have so much respect for that person. I think puppets and practical effects will always look more real than CGI.... until Avatar comes out, then I may eat my words.
 
Let's think of HitchHikers Guide as an example. YES, there was a lot of CG in that movie, but 98% of all the characters were puppets. The Voguns, the depressed robot, etc were all puppets. All of these characters could have cheaply, quickly, and easily been created using CGI, but they didn't. They made them practically. When I see a director take the time and effort to do an effect practically that could've been done in half the time with CGI, I have so much respect for that person. I think puppets and practical effects will always look more real than CGI.... until Avatar comes out, then I may eat my words.
 
Plundstr said:
CGI is overused in Hollywood these days, the story ofen takes a backseat to all the effects. And dont even get me started on the new Star Wars prequels. Ive seen CGI cutscenes in games look more realistic.
Click to expand...


show that, show me a game cut sequence that looks better then star wars..........nonsense

see although i agree that some of the sequences look less the stellar being that they are now ancient in terms of cg's capabilities, its so easy to say THAT SUCKS but you could not do anything remotely as good.

not just in VFX but FIlms in general its so easy to criticize something but yet have no concept of how difficult it was to achieve.....everyone brags about how they can make a better movie then so and so but no one does....

when you can do better....your opinion will have some weight until then.........

Jonathan Stevenson said:
Let's think of HitchHikers Guide as an example. YES, there was a lot of CG in that movie, but 98% of all the characters were puppets. The Voguns, the depressed robot, etc were all puppets. All of these characters could have cheaply, quickly, and easily been created using CGI, but they didn't. They made them practically. When I see a director take the time and effort to do an effect practically that could've been done in half the time with CGI, I have so much respect for that person. I think puppets and practical effects will always look more real than CGI.... until Avatar comes out, then I may eat my words.
Click to expand...

cheaply done in CG? please 1 character can take a dedicated team up to 10 months in look development in CG, gollumn took years, dont say such ignorant things.
cg is not cheap. as for hitchhickers guide to the galazy what are you are comparing a show with characters that 1, are robots, have no facial animation or if they do is very limited.
 
Last edited:
Zakaree Sandberg said:
my point wasnt that they should abolish all cgi.
I just see it everywhere now, and its so obviously fake to me.
but whatever.. it was my rant.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a silly rant. You're complaining about the summer blockbusters relying on CG, but what alternatives do they have?

Star Trek: Either a model, shoot in space, or CG.
Transformers: Cartoon, or CG, or GM starts making robots.
2012: Roland Emmerich would probably choose to destroy the world in camera, if he could. Thankfully he can only destroy storylines. Same with Bay, though he's trying really hard.

The real rant should be about the terrible scripts and one dimensional characters. Ben Button had a ton of visual FX, but it also had a story.

I feel your pain, but the only solution is better writers and directors. Studios will just reuse the same formula that made them money before. In most other business models, that works, but for film it just creates shit. They put it on the fast track, hire multiple writers and put together a frankenstein script.

Maybe the only solution is to not watch them. =)
 
This is the film equivalent to the God discussion that pops up in smalltalk at dinner parties. :rant:

CJ Roy said:
The real rant should be about the terrible scripts and one dimensional characters. Ben Button had a ton of visual FX, but it also had a story.
Click to expand...

Bingo. It's only a problem when script and story sucks. No one complains about CG when the script is good.
 
MiguelOrtega said:
show that, show me a game cut sequence that looks better then star wars..........nonsense

see although i agree that some of the sequences look less the stellar being that they are now ancient in terms of cg's capabilities, its so easy to say THAT SUCKS but you could not do anything remotely as good.

not just in VFX but FIlms in general its so easy to criticize something but yet have no concept of how difficult it was to achieve.....everyone brags about how they can make a better movie then so and so but no one does....

when you can do better....your opinion will have some weight until then.........



cheaply done in CG? please 1 character can take a dedicated team up to 10 months in look development in CG, gollumn took years, dont say such ignorant things.
cg is not cheap. as for hitchhickers guide to the galazy what are you are comparing a show with characters that 1, are robots, have no facial animation or if they do is very limited.
Click to expand...

Well, if we stick to Star Wars...

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/816935/bioware-mmo-project/videos/sw_oldrepublic_trl_e3.html

This looks way better than anything the prequels could muster, even if the animation isnt as detailed or as realistic it has heart and soul, the characters feel more alive. And we barely hear them speak once. A couple million dollars and a few months more it could have been photorealistic... maybe...

Also as for the "make something better yourself" argument, well thats a little thin. Maybe if someone else had the same budget and power over the production as Lucas did, who knows.

And yes, Gollum looks awesome and could only have been done in CG, however some scenes in LOTR also look like crap so...
 
Last edited:
"better yet .... don't pay for these movies. "

The Swedish Bikini Team couldn't drag me to see "Transformers."

On the one hand, you have wild eyed CGI zealots who think that every piece of crap image that Hollywood barfs up is magical. On the other, you have sloppy rants that set off the aforementioned zealots.

Give me a break.

Terry Gilliam went to the movies the other night, and this is what he saw. "Trailers from 'Transformers,' 'G.I. Joe,' 'Harry Potter'; they all had the same explosions, the same sound mix, the same rhythms, it was all the same film," the director says, still not quite believing it. "Hollywood's been doing this for 20 years. When's it going to end?" LA Times​

Thank you Mr. Gilliam.

Hollywood's so-called "blockbusters" are more and more like runaway trains of sewage intent on rolling over the audience and drowning them in stupidity. CGI allows this idiocy incredible freedom to create flashing light shows. Yay.
 
Pick out a shot from LOTR that looked bad. And I'll probably show you a real live action miniature that you have a problem with. The CG used in LOTR could not have been done any other way. Was there some sub-perfect CG? Sure. But what was the alternative 300billion dollar budget to genetically engineer a giant elephant?

And that Star Wars cinematic is what you get with a decade of R&D. Even then it only looks about as good as the worst shots in the prequels. I will say that some of the animation in the prequels in background characters was less than stellar but ILM has improved dramatically since then. And the VOLUME they had to deliver was insane. There are limits to time and money.

And even then I think you would be shocked to see how much of that isn't actually CG. I would be you that a significant portion of the "cg" shots you think look so fakey aren't actually cg and are actually live action.

That's what I hate most about people whining about CG. It's often times NOT CG that they're bitching about. It's just something about the shot they don't like.

I mean let's just get it over with and just shoot Dogma95 films (and watch the movie industry implode). These films which are "ruining hollywood" are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into making those same CG techniques available relatively inexpensively to romantic comedies, dramas and run of the mill good movies.

Actually you know what's really ruining movies. Sound editors. People are just using explosion sound effects to completely ruin these movies. They think they can just play a bunch of explosion sounds and cover up a mediocre story. Freakin' microphones are taking over and ruining film making. We need to go back to making silent films free of sound where these stupid blockbusters just play a bunch of loud sounds that are obviously fake sounding.

You know who else are ruining movies? And taking over movies.
Pyrotechnicians.
2nd Unit Directors.
Stunt men and women.
Fight Choreographers.
Armorers.
Music Editors.
Steadycam operators.
Handheld camera operators.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top