I am a big fan of CG. I think that technology will make an Ender's Game movie possible. I work with 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) and it is much better than 2D (AutoCAD) stuff. I love technology... but...
To many movies are putting in CG where it is not needed. Last night, I watched Next. There were a couple of scenes (one involving a train and another was a helicopter shot) both were done with CG when they could (and should) have used the real thing. Nothing spectacular happened during those shots, why not just have the real thing. I think CG should be left for the things that are not possible to do in real life.
[/soapbox]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I agree. I saw I am Legend recently, and I thought the movie was great...for the first 45 minutes or so. Sure there was CG deer and lions, and CG was done to make NYC look empty, but it was well done and non-intrusive.
But then (spoilers, I guess) when the zombie things came out, they were WAY to obviously CG and it really detracted from the rest of the movie, to where at the end I hated the entire film.
I'm hyped about Tuesday, Jan 8th because the local art theater is playing Total Recall, one of the last big films to not use CG in any way, shape, or form. I hope it to be a refreshing, and hilarious, evening.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I agree completely with your I Am Legend take. I would almost rather see someone in a rubber mask than see poor cg. It doesn't have to be that way, Transformers was a great mix of CG and live action.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I hope it to be a refreshing, and hilarious, evening."
The scene where he's pulling the device out of his nose is truly funny. I hope they meant it to be, you know?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The thing is, these days using CG is cheaper, in many cases.
People just aren't going to movies the way they used to, so studios are cutting what costs they can.
Funny, true story: Neil Gaiman wanted to write a new scene in MirrorMask where we see the heroine at school. McKean was upset.
"Do you know how much it'll cost to scout out a location, build a set, hire the extras, hire the supporting actors, film for days for what will be such a brief scene?"
He then advised Neil to write out a spectacular scene set in the all-CGI other-world. It could be accomplished quickly and cheaply. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm hyped about Tuesday, Jan 8th because the local art theater is playing Total Recall, one of the last big films to not use CG in any way, shape, or form. I hope it to be a refreshing, and hilarious, evening.
It's far from being one of the last. Recent blockbusters such as Casino Royale, the Bourne film series, and allegedly Iron Man and Indiana Jones IV have done mostly without.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: The thing is, these days using CG is cheaper, in many cases.
People just aren't going to movies the way they used to, so studios are cutting what costs they can.
Funny, true story: Neil Gaiman wanted to write a new scene in MirrorMask where we see the heroine at school. McKean was upset.
"Do you know how much it'll cost to scout out a location, build a set, hire the extras, hire the supporting actors, film for days for what will be such a brief scene?"
He then advised Neil to write out a spectacular scene set in the all-CGI other-world. It could be accomplished quickly and cheaply.
Argh. That's so disappointing. That's just too fake. It would be like a singer doing a halftime show for a football game and lip synching... oh wait.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: Clever, satirical, and overflowing with comic-book violence, Total Recall was also the last great special-effects epic before the age of computer-generated imagery.
quote: The scene where he's pulling the device out of his nose is truly funny. I hope they meant it to be, you know?
It's satirical, so I think they knew. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I heard Steven Spielberg say in an interview that he greatly admires all those old Hollywood movies where CG was not available and they had to think of creative ways to show an effect.
It will be interesting to see if the next Indiana Jones movie has limited CG and more traditional Hollywood effects. I think it could be alot more fun that way, but DEFINITELY alot more work and more money to make.
[ December 30, 2007, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The site's incorrect. CGI and other digital FX were used before then, though more as a novelty, or to remove harnesses from actors during dangerous stunts, etc.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Hmmm. I wouldn't call not using CGI more creative. At least, not necessarily. -Any- method of special effects can be used as a crutch, or over-used, or just as a re-hash from something done in an earlier film. I think CGI is just the latest one to suffer a glut.
From what I've heard, BB, Indy 4 is -mostly- CGI free...though one of the actors leaked that some of his stuff was filmed in front of a greenscreen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh for sure CG is IMO the MOST important movie related development in the last 30 years.
But there are certainly circumstances where CG would not be the best medium for showing a special effect. I wonder if the zombies in I Am Legend could have in a few scenes been people with makeup rather then 100% CG.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
From the earliest production shots, it looks like the "Infected" in I Am Legend were originally actors made-up to look bald, fanged, and albino-skinned.
Not sure if they were always intended to be replaced by CGI beasties or not, but the makeup looked pretty crude.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
What does CGI stand for? Computer graphics -- ?
Whatever they're called, they sucked in The Golden Compass. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Computer Generated Imagery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Like any artistic tool it can be used well or used badly. Too much CG is (IMO) shopped out to ILM and the director takes whatever he or she gets.
Well designed visual effects serve the story, enhance the director's vision, and make possible things that otherwise wouldn't be.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Speaking of which, The Golden Compass (which whatever you thought of it, spent a lot of time trying to make its CGI polar bears look good) is starting to phase out of theaters domestically, yet has still to break even on its budget...even adding in the better foreign box office.
Meanwhile, that dang Chipmunks flick went for quick-sloppy-cheap CGI, had a budget of only 60 million...and is a worldwide box office smash.
Go figure. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sometimes people want fluff. In the chipmonk movie it was never about being "real". It was about being cute and funny.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
With peanut butter on Wonder Bread, even. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ick.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh for sure CG is IMO the MOST important movie related development in the last 30 years.
But there are certainly circumstances where CG would not be the best medium for showing a special effect. I wonder if the zombies in I Am Legend could have in a few scenes been people with makeup rather then 100% CG.
BB, I couldn't agree with you more. It has been a wonderful advancement in movie making. It just has to be used in the right context.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<heresy> I didn't think Gollum looked good. He looked fakey. </heresy>
The Balrog, however, totally kicked it. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How could they have done the train scene in Next cheaply or safely? I don't remember the helicopter shot.
I do remember watching the special features which unfortunately showed Cage miming some moves to be melded with CGI.
Though I really liked the movie. The romantic chemistry was great.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I'd like to see more movies that are 100% CGI.
I'd like to have a 4-year old compose a brilliant movie all by themselves.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by: Achilles I'd like to see more movies that are 100% CGI.
Ever heard of Pixar?
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Yes. Brad Bird and John Lassiter are both geniuses.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: How could they have done the train scene in Next cheaply or safely? I don't remember the helicopter shot.
I do remember watching the special features which unfortunately showed Cage miming some moves to be melded with CGI.
Though I really liked the movie. The romantic chemistry was great.
Before CGI, they would have placed a car infront of a train and boom. It wasn't just that. The second time a train goes by (without the crash), it is a CGI train. What's the point in that. The helicopter scene is just a shot of a helicopter flying along some cliffs by the seashore. It was either CGI or just looked fake.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Speaking of which, The Golden Compass (which whatever you thought of it, spent a lot of time trying to make its CGI polar bears look good) is starting to phase out of theaters domestically, yet has still to break even on its budget...even adding in the better foreign box office.
Well, the bears were the exception. They were awesome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: From the earliest production shots, it looks like the "Infected" in I Am Legend were originally actors made-up to look bald, fanged, and albino-skinned.
Not sure if they were always intended to be replaced by CGI beasties or not, but the makeup looked pretty crude.
They originally wanted to use real actors in makeup, but there were a LOT of problems with it, and they switched it to CGI, ironically, to be more realistic and visually appealing. There's this fake blood they were going to import from England because it looks more real and people were going to have to be in it for hours and it couldn't just be the food coloring stuff because it was uncomfortable, but that stuff was uber-expensive (I might be thinking of a different movie for the blood stuff), but it really came down to the fact that when they looked at the vamps from the makeup department, they didn't look right at all, didn't look real at all. My problem was less with how they looked in IAL, which I thought was fine, but rather with how they moved. I'm annoyed with bad guys who seem to all more or less be the same, like the vamps, or the robots from I, Robot, or the mummies from The Mummy or what not that all just crawl all over buildings and basically have the same physical attributes and strengths but with different skins put on. It's cookie cutter minions. So, the look was fine, it was what they actually did that bothered me. Sometimes less IS more.
And how in the hell is Iron Man being done with little CGI? I'll be deeply impressed if that is the case, but I find it hard to believe. I think my favorite films, as far as cutting edge special effects go, are the original Star Wars movies. Lucas pioneered a lot that stuff back when it didn't really exist yet and came out with something like no one had ever seen before. Nowadays you just slap together a computer room with some geeks, but it was harder then.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
They wanted to use "real" armor and practical FX as much as possible in Iron Man. According to Paltrow and other actors, the time they spent in front of the ol' greenscreen was at a bare minimum.
Keep in mind, both the bootleg Comic Con footage and the official online teaser both contain mostly non-CGI shots of at least three of the armors in action.
Though it's no secret that CGI mo-cap is being used for most of the film's aerial combat sequences, as well as to spiff up the visuals of Tony Stark's weaponry in action. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
One of my favorite examples of a recent film that favored practical FX and only light doses of CGI is Emma Thompson's Nanny McPhee. Listen to the commentary sometime. It's really funny, listening to Emma discuss the very athletic things she and the crew had to do to pull off much of the stuff.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't watch enough of the commentaries. Nanny McPhee was a wonderful movie. One that could have been uined with cheesy CGI.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I don't watch enough of the commentaries. Nanny McPhee was a wonderful movie. One that could have been uined with cheesy CGI.
There was CGI in NP, it was just mostly during the "Snow in August" sequence.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I expect there to be some, but I would just like to see higher quality CGI.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
You should just watch old movies.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I think I am not getting my point across. I LOVE CGI. It has been a great advancement in movie making. I understand it is cheaper to do CGI rather than real live FX. My problem comes when the CGI looks too much like a cartoon. The train scene in Next looked like a cartoon, and not like a real train hitting a car. If the director wanted that scene to look like a cartoon then he succeeded. The problem is not with CGI, it is with poorly created CGI.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly. You need designers that are both good at what they do and whose goal is to serve the film. Not to "show off".
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)