CGI in Films

In general, I don't mind CGI if it's done well.

Some things couldn't really be achieved without it, such as the mecha in Transformers, or many of the spells and creatures in Harry Potter. There are also times when CGI is a great and welcome alternative to putting the cast and crew in harms way. In some instances, CGI would just be more practical than using the real thing (ex: scenes involving animals or scenes that need certain weather conditions.)

I will say this: If you can achieve your desired vision without CGI *

you probably shouldn't use it. Even if the CG is realistic it's still noticeable and, in many cases, looks too perfect and feels sort of dead and weird. Some things are just better when they're real.

"With hard work and dedication, I will become a splendid ninja!"

One thing I would like to see in films is CG being used for extreme fluidity. Watch Eris Sinbad Legend Of The Seven Seas if you want to know what I mean. If you can use CG like that for a character in a live action film, you have the beginnings of a creepy and interesting character right there.

Not Three Laws compliant.

There's a point where either CGI or practical effects just start looking fake.

CGI lets you do things that can't really be pulled off with practical effects. CGI lets authors show what they want without the compromise that holds back practical effects so often.

On the other hand, CGI still has problems. The actors feel disconnected from the sets, and things do tend to look just a little too clean.

CGI is great for showing a pitch space battle with more models moving around each other than you could pull off with models, but real sets look better than green-screen ones.

I think there's actually a bit of Reality is Unrealistic bias attached to people attacking CGI. Some people are used to some of the fake-looking elements of practical effects, and when they aren't there they complain. The funny thing is that this can even happen when it's just that good of a practical effect.

Your post sort of reminded me of the first Silent Hill film. Many of the monsters were actually actors in elaborate makeup and costumes that were filmed moving creepily.*

The footage (played backwards) is what's seen in the film and many people thought it was bad CGI, when the actors just had a talent for making really odd movements.

edited 6th Dec '12 2:48:33 PM by RockLeeYourFace

"With hard work and dedication, I will become a splendid ninja!"

I feel like interactive CGI is easier to pull off when the actors have something or someone physical as a stand-in to interact with on-set, like that one scene that was cut from A New Hope that was re-added in the Special Edition with Han talking to Jabba, or Andy Serkis in...anything.

edited 7th Dec '12 10:46:35 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Although sometimes it's kind of awkward when they do that. In Stargate SG-1 there's an episode when SG-1 talks to an Asgard, possibly Heimdall, I don't really remember, but since the Asgard puppet was being used for another character, they used a, rather bad, CG model with the voice actress on set for the scene. The actors had to stare at her chest when they talked to her because the Asgard tend to be really short.

Not Three Laws compliant.

I've read about that actually.

But couldn't she kneel a bit?

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

The character moves around a lot. There was actually a picture of the character on her shirt to tell the other actors exactly where to look. An Asgard mask would probably be even more distracting.

Not Three Laws compliant.

I think that time makes people's ideas of the greatness of practical effects get foggy, like a lot of things. For every Ray Harryhousen creature effect, you had your monsters made out of carpet with two dudes standing underneath them.

For good or ill, CGI is something that lets people get their vision onto film in a way that prior, nobody had ever done before. And I think it gives a lot of young filmmakers out there a chance to do that without having to pay out the ass for makeup or other such things. I'll take a bad CGI effect over a bad practical effect any day of the week. That said, I think that relying too much on either one is a bad idea. Stan Winston is a personal idol of mine, and I think he had an almost zen-like balance when it came to such things.

Nailed it. You can always tell when something is CGI in a movie and that's a huge distraction. I'm surprised to see that so many people think the Thing in the Fantastic Four films should have been CGI because I'm of the mind that all the Hulks that have ever been on screen shouldn't have been.

Two things made me debate CGI vs Animatronics/Puppeteering recently. The first was the 2011 prequel to The Thing and the other was the trailer for Pacific Rim. I found myself wanting animatronics both times. In the case of The Thing prequel, it's particularly glaring because the makeup effects in the original are one of the things people remember most fondly about it. It wasn't until I paid a visit to TV Tropes that I found they did make real-life models of the monsters for the 2011 Thing prequel ... but Executive Meddling forced them to CGI over them! There's a great video of them on Youtube and they all look amazing (and disgusting) and it's a total Wall Banger that they weren't used in the film. Little tip for any studio execs who happen to read this; taking fantastic scale models and covering them with conspicuous CGI is a great way to make your unique horror film seem generic and bland. As well as the (ugh) chase scenes that were added to the Thing prequel.

As for Pacific Rim, Guillermo Del Toro was always a guy who, to me, had a reputation for making everything "real". So when I saw the trailer for Pacific Rim, I was incredibly disappointed to see that it was just more big CGI creatures and robots battling each other. I would love to see how "guy-in-suit" technology has evolved since Godzilla! Especially on something with a big budget, like Pacific Rim. But if it's just CGI, it's nothing we haven't seen before.

There are a few examples of CGI that I have a lot of praise for though. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes exceeded all my expectations and the CGI was part of that. It was a much, much better film than I could've guessed from the trailer and title.

By the way, can anyone explain to me why CGI in older films, such as Jurassic Park and Terminator 2, often looks better than in modern films? Is it a case of the picture quality going up but CGI hasn't caught up to match?

edited 20th Dec '12 9:08:32 AM by Guest1001

Concerning Pacific Rim, the movie is blatantly a love-letter to giant robot anime. Man-in-suit, which hasn't really gone anywhere really, severely limits what the robots and monsters can do. The other thing is that putting a guy in a suit screws with the sense of perspective. It's very difficult to make someone in a suit move like they are many times bigger than they actually are.

Not Three Laws compliant.

True, even I know when when an effect's CG. Doesn't take me out of it... unless it's real garbage.

As for The Thing, I can see where you're coming from, but ultimately, I have to side with the majority. He looks more like Vic Mackey wearing a foam latex costume of the ever-lovin' guy.

Which it is. Personally, I think a mixture of both techniques would have been better, but that's just me.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:48:30 AM by philipnova798

CGI is fine, and so are traditional techniques, but a combination of the two can be quite magical.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Like, I think one of the last Godzilla films used CGI, aside from updating the opticals of the monster weapons, to enhance close-ups of Godzilla's face, so we can get a little more emotion out of him. I may be mistaken, though.

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great