CGI in Films

Being an effects buff and budding CGI artist, this question has been bugging me. What do you guys think about CGI in films?

Having been around the IM Db message boards where everyone's constantly bashing CGI while heralding practical effects. This has been making me feel rather uncomfortable. By now we all know CGI is here to stay in Live-Action and Animation, but these guys are calling even big budget CGI cheap without realizing how much effort it takes (And trust me, it is a lot harder than it looks).

In my opinion, having grown up during the evolution of CGI (ie being born in 1994) I'm not as spiteful against it compared to these guys. Hell, I loved the CGI in the Transformers movies. But there are times when I can notice poor CGI (leaving aside Sci Fi Channel and The Asylum, of course), and have wonder why the effect wasn't practical.

Then there's the whole "Leik OH MAI GAWD! ANIMATRONICS ARE MUCH BETTER!1!!!"... no. Now don't get me wrong, I like animatronics and other practical effects. But much like CGI, they can also be poor- think the rod puppet Xenomorph in Alien³ or anything in Star Trek V. Hell, even the video I made in grade 12 has poor practical effects. But at least I have an excuse - I made it in under a week with limited filming time. Well, that and creature is kinda supposed to look like garbage.

Either way, I can't chose one side - both have their ups and downs and in the most talented hands can be well made. But at the end of the day, computers and latex over servos & fiberglass are still computers and latex over servos & fiberglass.

Whew.

CG has its place, as do practical effects. I don't think anyone can deny that without being really closed-minded. Both require massive amounts of creativity and technical knowledge, just in different fields. I do feel that practical effects are at least better if there something the actors need to react to (as opposed to plenty of CG examples where the actors literally have to react to nothing during filming—though I suppose there are ways to circumvent this), but that doesn't make it 100% the better choice in every situation.

Really, both have their major advantages, and both have their major faults and drawbacks.

What said.

As for the IM Db boards, going there for anything other than a refresher on how stupid the internet can make people is a waste of time.

This pretty much sums up my opinion. Both do have their place. But many members on IM Db are closed minded, which is the problem. While they may hate CGI for certain aspects (like over animation, poor lighting, poor interaction), they really have no need to hail practical effects like a fallen god.

Hell, I spend a fair bit of my time looking at "Behind The Scenes" to discover that many of the films these people complain about actually do have practical effects. It's that technology's improved to the point where that can be confused as CGI. I'm actually impressed with some of my findings even.

But I can justify their feelings at times. Using the rereleases of Star Wars and ET The Extra Terrestrial as examples, both have an overuse of CGI that doesn't really add anything to the plots of the respective films. Whereas the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner uses CGI to correct continuity and enhance the effects made in 1982. Interesting thing is, while doing some research. I found out that in addition to the obligatory CGI, there were miniatures constructed by a company known as New Deal Studios.

Say about that with what you will.

edited 20th Oct '12 8:42:21 PM by philipnova798

That studio really liked FDR?

This may be due to my Aspergers, but what are you talking about?

People make too many broad, sweeping generalizations. There's some ugly, lazy, crappy CGI, sure. But there's also a lot of truly beautiful work it's accomplished that really can't be done with practical effects, sometimes.

It's equal parts cranks taking pleasure in grousing and folks who somehow feel threatened by the presence of CGI. Personally, I don't care how an effect is achieved, so long as it looks good. I will say, going back and looking at some older movies, that I frequently wonder how they did some of the stuff they did without CGI. I don't think any filmmaker should deny him or herself the use of whatever tools are available to them.

I will say though, that with as fast as the technology progresses, it's easy for CGI to start to look dated VERY quickly. When I saw the Lord of the Rings films, I was astounded by them; now, I can pick out that little glowing line around the actors that indicates they're in an effects shot (kind of like how some greenscreen shots from movies of the Raiders of the Lost Ark era are now screamingly obvious).

I love practical F/X, but I have no problem with CGI. Both have been used to great effect, and both have been used in incredibly shoddy fashion. They're tools, and I really don't care what your toolbox is as long as you use it well and not like an idiot.

What does your Asbergers have to do with not knowing basic history?

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an US president in the 30s and 40s), enacted an economic reform called New Deal to try to fight the Great Depression.

edited 21st Oct '12 5:20:58 AM by Kerrah

Thanks, but I also got the joke after I decided to search FDR.

CGI is probably the greatest tool for movie making. In the right hands it really creates worlds and characters that could never otherwise exist. In the many, many, many wrong hands its the cheap and lazy way out of making convincing special effects.

I think right now, the best lesson learned about working with CGI is the biggest advantage of animatronics: there is something for the actors to interact with. Optimus Prime from Transformers is a high-quality and sophisticated special effect, but I don't believe for a second that he exists in the same world as Shia LaBeouf. Conversely, the prawn from District Nine look goddamn real because Sharlto Copley was acting alongside a man in a motion capture suit.

edited 21st Oct '12 8:46:41 AM by Rotpar

Not just that, but I also saw pictures on Image Engine's website that they used people without mo-cap suits for some scenes (like the prawn cutting a slab of meat).

Personally, I think a large amount if hatred of CGI comes from either glaringly bad uses of it (especially when it seemed new and novel and people used it as a crutch in place of good storytelling, e.g. The Haunting remake). People see that and assume all uses of it are bad and obvious. And they don't even realize the best uses of it are the ones designed to be completely unnoticeable (e.g.: the sheep in Brokeback Mountain).

Or the addition of crowds and set extensions.

Well, just giving one example, but yes.

I found The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen an enjoyable, if flawed, film. One of the best things about it, technically speaking, is their Mr.Hyde, which is not at all CGI but an actor is make-up and a very well-made, sophisticated suit. Contrarily, I kind of think The Thing from the Fantastic Four movies SHOULD have been CGI, as to my eye he looked like he was made out of plastic and foam when he's supposed to look like he's made out of rock (though this could have been the result less of which technique they chose so much as lack of directorial vision, which I think those 2 films suffer from anyhow).

My main problem with CGI is it looks like CGI. And even in situations in which you can't actually see that's the case, you can still tell, because nothing living moves that smoothly. You'd think they'd have come up with something to make movements look more natural.

I mean, obviously there are some exception (the Transformers movies) but when it comes to using 'living' things (particularly humans)...

edited 21st Oct '12 4:15:20 PM by VeniVidiPony

Well, they do try after all. But I will agree that, yeah, it's still too smooth for it's own good. Though there are at least attempts to make the movements less smooth yet be natural.

I agree, Dr. Hyde would be less effective in CG. The Fantastic Four's Thing on the other hand just screamed shoddy costume.

edited 21st Oct '12 7:05:07 PM by philipnova798

CGI in films means that you can get letter perfect recreations of the aircraft used in the Battle of Britain in any remake of the original film. None of those Merlin-engined Buchons and Heinkels that robbed that film of a lot of its credibility.

CGI is nice, but I like model-work. Star Trek TMP and II have some amazing ship model work and still look good to this day.

I can top that - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Made by ILM on a very low budget by comparison.

What film are you talking about?

edited 30th Oct '12 2:55:55 PM by philipnova798

Tam is referring to the film Battle of Britain. They used copies of German aircraft license-built by Spain, which not only had the different engines Tam noted, but also had a slightly different appearance.

Yup,that is right. I would have clarified that myself but I was busy on other threads. Thanks, Noh.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.