What's so bad about CGI?

Mad Max is a good example of that. MOST of the film is practical sets, stunt work, and explosions. While CGI was used to touch things up, add in the scenery of the Post-Apoclyptia, and the only point of annoyance was a really gratuitous CGI steering wheel flying into the Camera.

CGI also tends to work hand-in-hand with 3D Movies that A LOT of people don't like.

Though I think sometimes the audience is able to see the CGI because they want to see it. Meaning they are aware that a certain scene can't be shot in real and therefore think that they are able to spot the CGI, even though it looks nearly perfect. They reveal themselves though whenever they complain about scenes which actually aren't CGI. Like all those people who complained that Chris Evans muscles in "The First Avengers" looked unrealistic when they were actually real all along.

The steering wheel flying into the cinema audience faces was a deliberate joke on the part of Millar and his cinematographer. Which I, and most of the other folks who saw it at teh Imax in the audience with me actually thought was funny. Your mileage may vary.

You're right on the general point, though. Practical effects and CGI are just tools in the director's toolbox. What matters is how well, or conversely, how badly they're used. Fury Road got it almost universally right with both of them, and was a wake-up call to the rest of Hollywood - "this is how you make a PROPER action film, dumbasses!" I certainly enjoyed it more than Terminator: Genisys.

This video covers this argument about CGI.

It covers it's strengths and weaknesses. Also covers why CGI has a bad reputation and shows scenes where you wouldn't even notice it was GCI.

Woo Freddie W!

The Benjamin Button part sums up the problem with the Academy Awards and motion capture. If it's an obvious fantasy creature like Gollum or King Kong, then they don't care about your acting because "computers did it all". But if it passes for really good makeup, then in come the nominations.

edited 6th Aug '15 9:51:32 AM by Tuckerscreator

IF Fury Road doesn't get all the nominations for Cinematography, Visual Effects and Editing flung at its general direction from AMPAS, next year's Oscars in those categories are meaningless.

And why AMPAS still doesn't have a Stunt category really puzzles the hell out of me.

I saw a feature about Wolf of Wall Street. There is CGI all over the place but it is mostly used like the matte paintings of old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pocfRVAH9yU

edited 6th Aug '15 9:59:18 PM by DS9guy

My problem is not the CGI itself, it's the fact that it's used mostly for showoffs who just wants to make the movie look good as opposed to being overall good. Most of Blue Sky's movies, the Happy Feet movies (examples of fully animated movies), Bluevatar (Which what I want to call James Cameron's Avatar, so I don't get confused with Nickelodeon's Avatar the Last Airbender) and the Michael Bay movies (examples of live action movies), are probably the worst offenders. Yeah, the effects are undoubtedly good, but it's just shallow to like a movie just by it's looks.

Also, a lot of live action movies seem to be 90% CGI and 10% live action. If you want CGI to be a shortcut for everything, go all the way and make it 100% animation.

Full CG Hollywood-style action movies are almost exclusively the province of Japan, what with Advent Children, 009 Re:Cyborg and that Space Pirate Captain Harlock one. Oh, and the Resident Evil ones. No one wants to actually try doing that anywhere else.

(Yes, I'm aware the subject and tone can be pretty different, I just mean the huge explosive action film type of thing.)

edited 14th Aug '15 10:31:50 AM by Zendervai

I wouldn't say that CGI is mostly used for showing off. In fact, nearly every movie uses CGI in a way that we would never notice.

But I agree that movies which put so much emphasis on the CGI that the story suffers as a result are annoying.

Pretty sure it's the other way around (i.e., crap stories try to use spectacle to cover up their crappiness).

Nah, I would say that movies like Avatar or Gravity are all about the visual experience to a degree that nobody cared to give the stories the necessary polish. Crappy movies usually also have crappy CGI.

Well, Gravity is a case where a really strong plot would actually hurt the movie. It's almost entirely a visual experience. The plot in that one is perfect for the movie we got.

I think one reason for CGI being looked down upon is the lack of obvious limits in that in theory you can do anything.

With practical effects, there are hard limits such as how much a puppet can move around or how much you can afford to destroy. Directors faced these limits with either creativity or big budgets. The technology constantly became better, but that wasn't a problem because it pushed the limits without getting rid of them. But then CGI caused an entire paradigm shift and the fun of seeing these limits pushed to the utmost seemed gone. (CGI has its limits as this thread has shown, but the effort that went into it is less obvious to the audience.)

I knew a film buff who liked the censorship in old films because of how directors found ways around it. When anything is possible, nothing matters. I think that is where the charm of stop-motion lies.

Dorkly weighs in.

As JurassicWorld demonstrated, CGI looks perfectly real in live-action and should be used at every opportunity. Those puppets and animatronics from the first film look like shit in comparison.

edited 6th Sep '15 3:11:22 PM by nervmeister

I wouldn't know. Haven't seen Jurassic World yet.

They do, really.

..........Oh, I couldn't quite make that out, Demongod. You know how obscure this text gets when my vision turns completely red. So bothersome. Now WHAT was it you were saying? ;(

edited 6th Sep '15 5:00:39 PM by nervmeister

Embed works again!

Now, there's a kind of thumbnail I didn't expect...

@nervmeister: My opinion, that's what I'm saying. I do appreciate puppetry and animatronics, but Jurassic Park has quite a few shots that show off how it hasn't aged too well with a few exceptions.

Stuff like the Hesei Gamera Movies have aged a lot better, to me.

Oh, I know and respect that you're just giving your two cents. I wasn't really losing my shit. Still, I was initially shocked.

The fact of the matter is CGI should only be used when practical effects are impossible. Remember the cartoon claws in that Wolverine movie?

You know how awful Audrey II would look in Little Shop of Horrors as CGI?