What's so bad about CGI?

One of the most common criticisms I've heard of a lot of movies in recent memory is an over-reliance on CGI. I've heard all the jokes, like the actor wasn't actually doing anything except standing in front of a bluescreen, but what these critics almost never explain is why this is a negative thing. I mean, I've never heard a film criticized for, say, using too much stop-motion; in fact, it would probably be praised for doing that. Could someone please explain what makes CGI so different, because I'm just not getting it.

Because it's new, and as we all know, all new things are bad, and all old things are good.

edited 20th Apr '12 8:17:40 PM by Ekuran

I agree. CGI is overhated, and I think the reason why is that it has pretty much replaced all the older, more nostalgic methods of special effects. Sometimes the detractors argue that CGI allows filmmakers to substitute spectacle over story, but that's a problem every special effect has. And IMO, if you're just watching a movie for the visual thrill of it, it's not even a problem, I feel.

I think what people dislike about CGI is the Uncanny Valley, especially how noticable bad CGI can be in a movie, whether it be animated or live action.

Yeah they also hate how machines are doing what creative people used to do,despite the fact that creative animators can still do a lot,..and of course the Uncanny Valley. Despite the fact that rotoscoping did the exact same thing (Ex: The 1978 LOTR cartoon)

A lot of CGI-detractors seem to think that all a human does is press some button once, and then BOOM, the computer creates your dinosaur/Transformer/Kraken for you. CGI requires just as much work as other methods, mainly to make it look realistic. Sure, it can be done poorly, but so can every other special effect.

Do those machines not require creative animators to program them with what to do, though?

edited 20th Apr '12 9:19:22 PM by HamburgerTime

Exactly what I was getting at.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you.

I love practical F/X, but I have no real problem with CGI. I have a problem with shitty CGI used where practical F/X could probably be used, but on some productions I'll meet the makers halfway on it.

I don't mind its occasional use, but I dislike how it is overused. Not just for the Uncanny Valley, but for a film that's built on human actors in an almost entirely CGI film, it actually dictates major cinematography and editing decisions. This was brought up by Redlettermedia, but if you look at the Star Wars prequels, they have a lot of walking and talking and standing and talking, like so:

• Two characters are walking and talking.
• They stop. One character turns and says something.
• Shot — Reverse Shot.
• The other character says something.
• They pivot and start walking in another direction. The scene cuts to them walking again, and talking. Rinse repeat.

The problem here is that because everything is green screen, there's only so much stage to walk on, so this sort of thing is done to make things easier. But it makes for a really boring film. Entire scenes are cut like this, and have characters repeatedly walking in straight lines or sitting down facing each other, with shot-reverse shot cuts everywhere, because they need to be able to get the CGI in. For extremely CGI heavy films like Transformers, where there is very little human interaction, this isn't an issue, but for a film where human actors are the principals, it becomes jarrng.

Redlettermedia does nothing but nitpick at the smallest things based on the reviews I've seen. If they really look at EVERY film the way they look at the Star Wars prequels, they clearly must hate 95% of films.

And about the "greenscreen makes for a boring film," I disagree. In films like the Star Wars prequels, it's apparent that the greenscreen isn't just to save time, but to create these complex backgrounds that could never be built with a set. In films like Star Wars, the environment they're in is clearly as much of a character as the humans, aliens, and robots.

edited 20th Apr '12 10:07:35 PM by Extreme64

I think you missed a point.

I mean, aren't you pointing out it basically affects how entire scenes are shot(which I agree with)?

As I said, in films like Star Wars, it's meant to be shot that way. It's to show the alien environment they're in.

Don't get into a Star Wars fight with Zephyr; trust me, drop this here.

edited 20th Apr '12 10:21:21 PM by HamburgerTime

I think that current CGI is just not that seamless the whole time. It is a fairly young technology, after all.

The point is that it makes for shooting the actors in a boring, repetitive way. The effects are irrelevant.

It's not at all about the alien environments. In fact, I made only a cursory mention of their "alien-ness." You're objecting to apples when I've only got oranges. What I mean is that every shot in the prequels is shot on a green screen field of about 20 feet wide, 40 feet long. That's not necessarily a small space, but films, and especially action films are about movement. When George Lucas is concerned about making sure every shot is shot in a controlled environment that he can replace with a C Ged backdrop, he's not thinking about camera angles or dynamics. To make those kinds of changes would mean changing the camera set up for different types of shots. Look at production videos of the PT — every one of those shots is made on the same stage with the same two cameras shooting reverse angles, and when it comes time to edit the film, he cuts them together with some wholly C Ged long shots for variety, but otherwise, it's the same set up, for every shot. The result is that there is a very shaky rhythm to these films. You could have a mostly computerized battle which has none of the physical handicaps of actual filming, and then cut to yet another scene of two characters having an emotionless conversation walking down a hallway. In fact, half the reason that long tracking shot (which is entirely CGI and required no camera work) at the beginning of ROTS is so talked about is that it is so different. There is nothing else like this in the entire PT, because when it comes to shooting actual actors, there's only one way.

Films aren't just about how they look, or what the actors say, or how they say it. It's also about how scenes fit together to make a film and how those scenes are shot.

edited 20th Apr '12 10:50:50 PM by CrimsonZephyr

I still think you'd be happier in another fandom, Zephyr. You can't have enjoyed typing that.

It took about seven minutes, tops. You can really only like something in one way. But when you dislike something, there are billions of ways of articulating it.

But why bother with something you dislike at all? Don't Like? Don't Read! (or watch, as the case may be).

Anyway, we're getting off-topic, which is entirely my fault.

edited 20th Apr '12 10:55:46 PM by HamburgerTime

Because people like bitching about everything (also known as catharsis).*

edited 20th Apr '12 10:57:32 PM by Ekuran

Who would enjoy bitching, though? I certainly don't. It makes my stomach cramp up.

Anyway, back on topic. I definitely think there are some situations where CGI is unnecessary. For instance, in creating an alien character; in keeping with the Star Wars theme here, I definitely think the puppets and masks of the earlier films looked more like aliens than the CGI creations of the later ones. Heck, you don't even have to leave the prequels: compare Kit Fisto (a guy in a suit) with Coleman Trebor (entirely CG) and tell me which is more believable.

Trebor looks like a guy who would more realistically be able to safely handle a lightsaber. Waving a blade near those tentacles looks dangerous. Perhaps Kit Fisto should consider simply carrying a gun.

edited 20th Apr '12 11:08:14 PM by CrimsonZephyr

That wasn't my question. Which would you believe was an alien if you saw them walking down the street? I'd think Trebor was a hologram or something, personally, if he looked exactly like he did in the film.