When obvious CGI is supposed to pass for reality

[KcMsterpce]

I feel that CGI is a wonderful advancement in technology, and it is a wonderful thing to use in movies. As long as they don't use it to the point of ridiculously unrealistic proportions.
CGI should be used to help cover up the hands that are moving the puppets, not become a puppet whose hands are controlled by ones and zeros.
When I see an action movie, I like to see the actors actually DOING a stunt. I think to myself, "man that guy/girl is crazy! How the hell did they think to do that?"
But when I see that there is a CG guy running around doing flips and spins I think, "Oh shit, there they go again!" and I become less involved in the characters and the scene because it's too obviously FAKE.

If I wanted to see actors standing in front of a greenscreen (yes, Mr. Lucas, you are the worst) doing wire stunts and looking like they're in a completely computer-generated world, then I'd watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2k3.
I hate it when CGI takes over the actors and becomes an animated action sequence in what's supposed to be a real world predicament.
I know a lot of times CGI is used to save the danger of injuring real-life stuntment. But more often than not, I think it's because they want to spend lots of money, brag about how much CG they used, and they're too lazy to use real actors because the safety behind doing the stunts takes more work than hiring 100's of animators and programmers.

There are times when CGI is a wonderful addition to a movie. The best examples I can think of at the moment are in The Abyss, Terminator 2, Forrest Gump, The Frighteners, LOTR(considering the times I DIDN'T notice the CGI, it more than makes up the times I DID notice it), X2.... many many others. When CG effects are added, it helps enhance a visual element, it doesn't overtake it. The best ones of ALL are movies in which I didn't even know they USED CGI!

Unfortunately many Hollywood tycoons out there believe that if they make the CGI too realistic, it won't be noticed. If the effects are so seemless that no one notices, the creators will not be recognized for all the hard work they put into it. However, if it is just obvious enough that it's a special effect, then they will be hailed as geniouses for such a close resemblance to something that is real while at the same time sacrificing realism for an increase in hype.

Sometimes a movie can still be really good even though the CGI is shitty, but man it would be so much BETTER if they would have spent the time MAKING A REAL LIFE model of something, or spending more time getting real stuntmen to do that CG fight sequence that makes me groan at the lack of realism on the screen.

In the end, computers have become a blessing in the right hands. In the wrong hands, it has become a curse. Like so many other revolutionary effects over the history of film.

[boggie]

I really hated the CGI in Spiderman, and the CGI in Kangaroo Jack looks crap. There is just something about CGI, I dunno what it is, but when they use it on animals or humans it is very easy to spot.

[Jon Lyrik]

Most CGI characters look like shit. There is just something about them that look wrong. There are exceptions but the vast majority look really dodgy.

I like stop-motion and puppets a lot better. Sure, the movement is really off most of the time, but at least they look more realistic than CGI, probably because they are made from real material and not 0s and 1s.

[Voodoodoll]

Yep I've gotta agree here. I think that's the main reason I'm not anywhere near as excited about the Matrix sequels as the rest of the world is :(

[quoth_the_raven]

Originally posted by Voodoodoll
Yep I've gotta agree here. I think that's the main reason I'm not anywhere near as excited about the Matrix sequels as the rest of the world is :(



actually i will agree with you. theres one part in the trailer where an agent jumps onto a car and smashes it...and to be honest, i think the CGI is terrible. it looked like something from mario...you know, mario jumping on a turtle. it looked so fake.

i dont mind cgi when its used as a the cream on the cake. but eating a whole CGi cake is just too much.

if anyone understands, please let me know i wasnt babbling shit...:D

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
actually i will agree with you. theres one part in the trailer where an agent jumps onto a car and smashes it...and to be honest, i think the CGI is terrible. it looked like something from mario...you know, mario jumping on a turtle. it looked so fake.



It looked real enough to me. Hell, I'll admit it. I've never seen a real agent do something like that, so the movie looked real enough. Maybe if I'd seen the real thing, I'd be more critical.

;)

[Scarface98.9]

I'd rather have them make a CGI model instead of putting a stuntman's lives on the line for something they can't concieveably do. I'm sure they experimented with different methods in a movie like Spider Man, to make them look better without using CGI. But how can you really make a convincingly looking shot of Spider Man web-slinging? Or a full scale war of Orcs, or droids, or soldiers for a big battle scene? The costs would be astronomical, and a lot more danger for the cast and crew. Stuff like Spider Man can't be made convincing without some heavy CGI work. The effects in the Matrices are great, despite some obvious CGI in parts. Thing is, is that with more elaborate SFX ideas thought up everyday, it's hard to continually do it with stuntmen and be safe. CGI is a great tool, but for absolute realism, and believeability, it's not quite up to par yet to accomodate it

[therealjohng]

Yeah the CGI in The Matrix Reloaded is pretty bad. Except for Zion, which looked amazing! It looked like they were actually there.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by therealjohng
Yeah the CGI in The Matrix Reloaded is pretty bad. Except for Zion, which looked amazing! It looked like they were actually there.


I notice that everyone who slights the fx, all complain about scenes, and others will swear those same scene look real. Then you have others saying certain scenes look fake, while others say the same scenes look great.



If I might suggest....


SPOILERS FOR MATRIX

These things we are seeing in the Matrix, Matrix: Reloaded, and the upcoming Matrix: Revolutions.... Do we really know what they look like? Has anyone here been to Zion, and understand it's climate, noting things like haze, and other polutitions that might make things look weird, like the last town I was in after I blew up the nuclear reactor that one Groundhog's Day. Oh. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that. I better remember to erase that later.

So anyway, I was more impressed with the ideas that were being shown to me. None of it looked fake to me, because I can make no claim to say what it should REALLY look like.

For Pete's sake, maybe stop and think of how this sounds: "He was flying through the fire and up over the city. Then he came down, and fought this dude who started assimilating himself to form clones. Then the guy who flew had to fight all of these dudes, and everyone and a while, he would speed up, and slow down, totally defying the laws of gravity. Occassionally he, and everything around him would freeze, as he was suspended in midair, performing a maneuveur that could only be possible with the aid of wires."

"Man, it looked so fake."

Pure absurdism. If attitudes like this existed when Superman was released, lots of filmmakers would be intimitated to use those sorts of effects, and the industry may have been stuck in a rutt.

Luckily, not too many people harped that Superman looked fake. Superman 2 was better, I think.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
actually i will agree with you. theres one part in the trailer where an agent jumps onto a car and smashes it...and to be honest, i think the CGI is terrible. it looked like something from mario...you know, mario jumping on a turtle. it looked so fake.


Yeah that's one of the major points that I made with my friends recently about WHY I didn't expect to like the FX in Matrix 2. I told them "Well, they could film a guy strapped to a wire attached to a crane while the car is moving at about 10 miles an hour. They could use a different speed of film to make it look like the car is travelling faster on the road. The stuntman could THEN land onto the car safely by swining from the crane with a breakaway hood. Then they could digitally remove the wire from the stuntman, and enhance a few features on the breakaway hood and make everything look so much more realistic."

That's one example of many that I have with just The Matrix looking better, nevermind other movies.

BUT Neo is living within The Matrix, which is a computer program, right? So who's to say it's silly to have the world WITHIN a computer program NOT look like CGI? hehe that's a good excuse, right?

For those who say that The Matrix doesn't exist, so who's to say that it doesn't look CG-ish....
BOO-HOO give me a better excuse. When I watch Legend I see some of the most amazing set design, and I truly believe it's a whole new fantasy world. And there's no CGI at all!

Eh, to each his own, I guess.

[quoth_the_raven]

another case in point. years of james bond stunts without CGI....hell, for the best example, look at the opening of the Spy Who loved me. that guy could very nearly have died doing that.

now look at the parasurfing in Die Another Day. that was some terrible CGI IMHO. it just looked like a gameboy game or something.

blah, i dont mind CGI so long as its used sparingly and in a subtle fashion. too much and too blatant doesnt do it for me.

i guess its all a matter of perspective anyway. i often bitch about it, while others i know will think that it looks great.

its all in the eye of the beholder...;)

[The Postmaster General]

Well, I still stand by my point about "excepting what we are seeing."


Good call about some of the older movies. Just look at The Dark Crystal compared to Episode 2.

[Jim H]

Someone brought up superman... I'll toss in a bit. I think nearly all of Superman's effects were more convincing then quite a few moments of the CGI in Reloaded.

[Jon Lyrik]

I believe Superman holds up very well these days in effects. Maybe not the way Star Wars does, as some of the blue-screen shots are more than obvious, but it sure beats overdone CGI fiascos.

[Tommy Doyle]

I noticed the agent jumping on the car as well in the trailers, looked much to fake for my liking. Blade II was another offender. The battle between Blade and the female assasin chick (sorry to not know names) when they come to ask him for help, was absolutely horrid. I was sitting there, and the CGI kicked in and I thought "I'm watching a video game". It was done really poorly, so poorly in that one scene alone, it lowers my entire grade of the movie. (An extreme I know, but it really affected the movie for me).

The Hulk looks to be another bad offender. I read an interview where someone was saying "There are special effects that were invented for this movie alone!" and I thought "and that's what came out of it????" Of course only seeing the trailers I don't know how it will really look in it's full glory, but it looks like a big version of Shrek running across the screen. The scenes of Peter Parking running across the roof-tops in Spider-Man were horrific... If you can't make it look real, then don't do it, simple as that.

Bad CGI can really fuck up a movie, or at least fuck up your expectations for a movie! :D

[Hairy Monk]

I couldn't bring myself to watch "attack of the clones" to the end. First the beginning scene on the platform, Then the chase scene through the city with thosy flying cars. AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHH!!! Almost went blind when watching!!

Another laughable attempt was the mummy 2. I mean, that scorpion thingie. BWHAHHAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!! that was just plain pathetic. I wonder if the makers of the scorpion were able to get a job after that;)

[Zombie]

Movies like Jurassic Park have the best CGI, ever. For some reason though, weren't most of the dinosaurs ( Like the T-Rex) not CGI?

[Jim H]

It seems hardly a coincedence that the animation of many of the dinosaurs was actually done with a physical model that connected to a dinosaur - the old school stop motion animators still have the motion down better in old movies better then the vast majority of CGI today.

The dinos in Jurassic Park are both. There are some CGI shots (whole body shots) but things like the foot going in the mud and closeups are usually animatronic. It's usually easy to tell - though niether looks fake in those particular movies.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Jim H
Someone brought up superman... I'll toss in a bit. I think nearly all of Superman's effects were more convincing then quite a few moments of the CGI in Reloaded.



Jim -- Come on, man!

For God's sake, Jim, I'm a CGI engineer, not God!

You're stretching here, man. I hear you when you say some of the CGI in Matrix wasn't to your liking, but this statement here.... Ahhhh! It's making my head burn.... My head is burning.... Malfunction! Malfunction!http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/chris-reeve-movies/stm-railway.jpg

[Jim H]

I thought almost all the CGI Neo shots looked less convincing then any effect in Superman.

Sometimes it is obvious they are bluescreening, for example, but it still looks like a person is doing it, and not a cartoon.

Real people = More real looking then CGI.

If it is done well, the motion of traditional effects are more convincing as well. Of course, there are some shots that would of been impossible to do well with traditional effects, so we have to watch unconvincing CGI - like when Neo saves Morpheus and the Keymaker off the truck.

Actually, that could of been done with traditional effects, but it would of required more cuts.

[The Postmaster General]

I will go with you here -- because....

I actually, trully and honestly did think that the Burly Brawl sequence actually was blue screen until I saw how they did it -- err, I knew it was CGI I just didn't realize HOW CGi is was until later.

It does bring some matter of rant-worthiness, when you consider that maybe they do use CGI when they always don't need to use CGI.

[Jim H]

The burly brawl could not of been done as well as it was in big parts of it without the use of CGI. So I think that was ok.

Bout all I have to add to that.

[electriclite]

You know I was having this same discussion with a guy last night about Spiderman. He said it all looked fake and I said, did you see the Scorpion King at the end of teh Mummy Returns?


I've not seen the MAtrix Reloaded yet, and I did notice the parts that looked a little too CGI, but I'm not thrown off by the movie for it. I still hold movies accountable for their stories not for their effects.

Hell the effects of Army of Darkness are damn near ghetto in this day and age, so are the Terminator's, but I still watch them and I'll still think they're good because of the story. The only real time I HATE CGI is when it is used as a crutch for a completely weak film.

[Jim H]

Hell the effects of Army of Darkness are damn near ghetto in this day and age, so are the Terminator's

I disagree.. With the exception of the fake Arnold head in Terminator, nearly all the effects are fairly convincing in both films. Either way, poor traditional effects almost ALWAYS look better then poor CGI.

[El Bracamonti]

motherfucking spiderman is what comes to mind.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Jim H
I disagree.. With the exception of the fake Arnold head in Terminator, nearly all the effects are fairly convincing in both films. Either way, poor traditional effects almost ALWAYS look better then poor CGI.



REALLY?


May I remind you of the scenes with Ash in (and around) the abandoned windmill. MOST ESPECIALLY when he steps on the little Ash that's holding the nail.

Take a look at that movie again and come back to me and see if you can say the same thing.


But it doesn't matter that the effects were poor..... Ash fucking rocks!

[Jim H]

MOST ESPECIALLY when he steps on the little Ash that's holding the nail.

The only thing that springs to mind is how obvious some of the little Ashes are not Bruce. The nail thing does show a composite shot which is off, but I don't think it is terrible.

[electriclite]

What about when they held his nose shut?;)

[Tom Samborski]

The most ridiculous CGI in a movie award has to go to that annoying monkey in Lost In Space (1998). It literally ruined the movie for me.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by electriclite
What about when they held his nose shut?;)



Give it up, Electriclite. You could be sittting here saying CGI looks better than LAND OF THE LOST, and no one will agree with you, because they just don't like CGI. It represents something evil to them.

What happened to the days when you had to be 80 years old to be hardheaded?


Yes, the effects in ARMY OF DARKNESS look worse than RELOADED.

For Christ's sake! Look at the still I posted from Superman, and people even LIED and said it looked alright.

Lemme post it again, just to hear people say that it doesn't look like a painting matte.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/chris-reeve-movies/stm-railway.jpg



Hey look, Ash is being replicated by Agents!!!

http://www.thefleshfarm.com/aodpic15.jpg

[FeverDog420]

Yes, special effects before CGI look quaint now, but I still prefer the old school way. There's an organic quality that made them feel real, rather than just look real. I shudder to think about what a CGI Audrey II would have looked like in Little Shop of Horrors, for example. And the old, stop-motion King Kong is a helluva lot more believable than any of the chintzy video-game FX in Spider-Man.

CGI pops out at you, reminding you that what you're seeing is fake. I finally saw The Ring recently, and *SPOILER* the obviously fake horse falling off the boat was terribly distracting.

CGI has destroyed a certain component of movie-watching. Nobody watches movies with awe anymore, thinking "Wow! How'd they do that?" Even kids know that computers are always involved. Sad, in a way, that the sense of wonder, and the magic, are gone.

[Jim H]

The one old school effect I miss even more then stop motion is forced perspective shots. This is where they have someone in the background and foreground, but have them both focused on and framed so it looks like one is much bigger then the other.

Nearly all of the shots in Darby O'Gill and the Little People were done this way. It is just mind blowing how well they did it in that movie.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Jim H
The one old school effect I miss even more then stop motion is forced perspective shots. This is where they have someone in the background and foreground, but have them both focused on and framed so it looks like one is much bigger then the other.

Nearly all of the shots in Darby O'Gill and the Little People were done this way. It is just mind blowing how well they did it in that movie.


I think they used it a bit in Gangs of New York to do buidings.

[Jon Lyrik]

LOTR also had lotsa forced perspective.

[Jim H]

Yeah, when Gandalf is talking to Bilbo in FOTR the table is cut in half to do a forced perspective shot. Very well done.

[Silverload]

I don’t really have anything against CGI, if used properly it can be the best thing to ever happen to special effects. But CGI has become so popular it is used when it is not even needed. I hate when movies use cheap CGI just because they didn’t want to waste time on building animatronics or using elaborate real world effects. It is like some don’t ever take into consideration what is the best way to make an effect look real, but instead just say “Ah, this movie requires effects, lets just use CGI for it all”. If CGI is the best way to produce a good effect then use it, if an effect can look better by using some other method then don’t use CGI.

[Jim H]

I agree with that. A lot of low budget movies use CGI for some stupid reason, and it looks awful. The cheap puppets and man-in-rubber-suit effects are infinitly better for low budget movies if properly shot then bad CGI.

People sometimes think it is cheaper to use CGI - this is almost never true.

Probably the only effective fairly low budget CGI I've seen was Equilibriums. They weren't great, but for what they spent on them I think they came out well. Of course, those were just buildings.

[Cronos]

I thought the CGI in Matrix Reloaded was damn good, apart from some scenes in Zion, the rest was excellent, I saw it last night and was blown away after reading some past posts here

[Jim H]

Give it up, Electriclite. You could be sittting here saying CGI looks better than LAND OF THE LOST, and no one will agree with you, because they just don't like CGI. It represents something evil to them.

Me personally, I don't think that. I just think that are still many instances where traditional effects look better, at this point in CGI's development. Motion frequently doesn't look as good. I stand by my opinion that the motion of the spaceships in the original Star Wars movies was better then the motion of them in the prequels. I don't think it is impossible to do better then old effects, quite the opposite, but they just for some reason often can't.

It's not like I think Jurassic Park shouldn't of used CGI or anything like that - MANY of the scenes in that could not of been done remotely as well with traditional effects. Another example is Dragonheart, which just wouldn't of been the same without CGI - a lot couldn't of been done as well.

Oh yeah, and I think the matte paintings are fine. Yes, I notice, and in some movies they can be quite irritating, but I don't think the one in that picture you posted is that bad.

And yes, the dummy Ash in AoD is pretty bad. I thought that when I saw it in the theatres at the age of like 10. Sometimes the graininess of bluescreening in it is pretty bad as well. That shows more the low budget nature of the film then the weakness of the technique - I've seen nearly perfect bluescreening in other movies - such as Star Wars (though the computer touchups for the special edition to remove those black lines certainly help).

[KcMsterpce]

In defense of Army of Darkness, put into consideration a few things:

#1, the budget of AoD is far far less than the budget for Matrix Reloaded or many many MORE summer movies that rely heavily on CGI.

#2, I'm sure Raimi knows the effects in that flick aren't the best. I see it as more of an homage to the old-style filmmaking days when special effects were more crude. He could have made many of the moments in that movie look more 'real', but not only would it have cost more, but it would have been less personal as well.

#3, Bruce Campbell helped propel the fun factor of AoD beyond what was capable by any other actor I can think of. His subtle but oh-so-obvious and energetic slapstick performance in this movie made the special effects take a back seat to the level of humor that he put into the flick.

[robk]

Hell, Jar Jar was obviously CGI-looking, even before he opened that annoying mouth.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Jim -- Come on, man!

For God's sake, Jim, I'm a CGI engineer, not God!

You're stretching here, man. I hear you when you say some of the CGI in Matrix wasn't to your liking, but this statement here.... Ahhhh! It's making my head burn.... My head is burning.... Malfunction! Malfunction!http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/chris-reeve-movies/stm-railway.jpg

I think that is kind of matte-painting-ish, but I'd rather take a couple seconds of that rather than a 7 minute fight scene where all the characters look like action figures.

[edgeofhell]

The cgi in langoliers truly defines "shit"..........and that movie needs all the help it can get