My Problem With Movies These Days.

[Clacker2003]

Movies These Days.They have all these Special Effects,CGI etc etc..There is such a thing as overloading a film with CGI ehh(Star Wars) where Lucas sacrificed Plot and Acting for Awesome CGI of backdrops etc etc.This is a good way to save money from Building MASSIVE sets but Real Sets induce the Viewer and make them feel more Involved..i.e Gangs Of New York.This coming Summer is a Great example..with almost every summer so called..BLOCKBUSTER will be created using mostly CGI.What happened to the Acting.The Direction.The Sets.For fuck sake get of your Lazy ass's and Build a Massive Set...Build a Massive Palace...Just fuckin do it...and not on a computer!!!!

[The Shootin Surgeon]

right on!

I just watched the making of documentray for DANCES WITH WOLVES, which literally built every set from scratch and I think that<s one of the reasons the film was so realistic and compelling... It made it feel more like a story than just a movie, if you know what I mean....

[Clacker2003]

Yeah...people got to put in the time to Build great and Epic Sets..(oh and im not takin anythin away from the Guys who make CGI i know they work their ass's off but....)it makes a movie..just better somehow...

[sleekproductions]

Although some of it was CGI, X2 built a lot of sets. The mansion, the white house interior, Alkali lake base, cerebro, plastic prison, etc. I have to agree, it did make the movie feel more intimate, as opposed to The Matrix Reloaded with its crappy Zion.

[SIREN30]

Right on! There's a reason Ben Hur was so overwhelming. I mean, to think of that coliseum where the chariot races being built from scratch is one thing but add to it that fact that every person in that crowd was an actual PERSON and it's pretty darn amazing!

[Clacker2003]

Yeah BEN HUR was one of the films i had in mind when i made this Post.Its just Realism..and brings the Viewer a more Real and Intimate insight into the Film.

[rushmore beauty]

I agree, CGI is used WAAAY too much. I love movies like Moulin Rouge! and Gangs of New York because they actually built all of the sets for the movie and it just makes the movie seem that much more magical. Legend is a great and fun fantasy/fairy tale because it didn't rely only of CGI and camera trickery. The forrest alone was breathe-taking, as was Tim Curry's make-up, which would've been done fully with CGI had it been made this year.

[Grim H.]

Too true, man. I was wathcing Star Wars: Episode II once, and there was so much CGI I thought my eyes were gonna burst. That's why I like the original trilogy better, it doesn't induce seizures.

[Clacker2003]

Yeah The New Star Wars are Packed With CGI.Lets get back to makin movies the Good Ol' fashioned way..GOOD!!!..lmao..

[bob]

I knew CGI had run amuck when I watched a scene in Spider-Man and realized I was watching a cartoon.

[zeppelin]

Have you seen the commercials for The Hulk? Jeez, talk about CGI over-load...:rolleyes:

[The Shootin Surgeon]

Originally posted by zeppelin
Have you seen the commercials for The Hulk? Jeez, talk about CGI over-load...:rolleyes:


Looks more like an add for Play-Doh than anything else if you ask me...

the one thing more annoying than CGI is... BAD CGI!


I so want to like this movie but from what I've seen to date, I'm really scared I might be headed for Godzilla part deux.

[Tom Samborski]

I agree, CGI can get way out of hand when it is used in movies. They should only use it when necessary in my opinion.

[rupert pupkin]

the famous train crash scene in lawrence of arabia

those were the days if you wanted to film a train crashing.....you had to crash a train......

amazing to this day

[The Shootin Surgeon]

Originally posted by rupert pupkin
the famous train crash scene in lawrence of arabia

those were the days if you wanted to film a train crashing.....you had to crash a train......

amazing to this day


Quite like the bridge explosion in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

Build bridge.
Set up camera.
Blow Bridge up.
Deliver great excitement to fans everywhere.

[Jim H]

In all honesty, I think you shouldn't criticize the Hulk in this regard. The Hulk himself can't be done like in the comics without CGI, at least not nearly as well. Some of the things he does (like throwing the tank) can't be either. And either way, the movie isn't out yet.

But I agree. Many movies overuse CGI. There's just something better, generally, when it is a real bigass set, or real buildings.

Take Equilibrium, which uses a bunch of huge Nazi buildings and stadiums for many of the scenes. That was a great idea, IMO. Cheap way to do it as well.

[Dafixer]

Originally posted by Clacker2003
Movies These Days.They have all these Special Effects,CGI etc etc..There is such a thing as overloading a film with CGI ehh(Star Wars) where Lucas sacrificed Plot and Acting for Awesome CGI of backdrops etc etc.This is a good way to save money from Building MASSIVE sets but Real Sets induce the Viewer and make them feel more Involved..i.e Gangs Of New York.This coming Summer is a Great example..with almost every summer so called..BLOCKBUSTER will be created using mostly CGI.What happened to the Acting.The Direction.The Sets.For fuck sake get of your Lazy ass's and Build a Massive Set...Build a Massive Palace...Just fuckin do it...and not on a computer!!!!

Which Star Wars exactly had tight plot and over all good acting? I guess you thought the old Flash Gordon serial should have been oscar nominees. No one went to Star Wars for the tight plot or the great acting. Hell if most the actors were so great they would have all been in many more things besides Star Wars

Star Wars is about FUN. Period. Mindless fun with a pretense at a philosophy. I mean Frank Oz did the voice for Yoda. Nothing like hearing a serious Snufleuffiguss teach Luke how to float a ship for serious acting.

As for Lucas using CGI, what did you want him to do, go back to doing it the old way? I supposed you hate new versions of Doom because they don't use the old 16 bit graphics, instead of the more newer engines and art? I guess you thing Enterprise should use a ship cheesier then the original Star Trek. Hell, why not just paint on the buttons, so we can have that way-back look.

I agree, CGI is over used. I mean couldn't Shrek have use one real person? What? Its that hard to find a talking donkey? Not if you have enough to drink. And about a Bugs life? Or Antz? Does every Ant speak perfect english? There are no Latino Ants out there? Or French Ants?

I agree that there are times when CGI is used badly, but over used? Its what they got today. It would be stupid to go to the older way just because people love that funny line around the blue screen characters.

[Jim H]

Well, IMO at least, Mark Hamill's performance in all three films is better then any major characters in the prequels. Same with Leia, Solo, etc. Not to say they're great (sometimes it is pretty bad, and some of the dialogue is *quite* weak), it just shows how mediocre and badly directed all the performances are in the prequels.

The CGI is overdone in that there is too MUCH activity in some parts of the prequels. They did the same thing in special edition of A New Hope. They put too MUCH stuff in Mos Eisley, it made it feel less like a real city rather then more.

Oh yeah, and I am still of the opinion that the ships looked and moved "better" somehow in the originals then the prequels, though most of the creatures look better.

[Jim H]

Oops...

[Anonymooo]

The thing is, well... here I go again with my whole "uneducated opinion" rant.

At least Clacker admits that CGI artists work their asses off. It's HARD WORK! There's a reason I switched my major from Computer Design to Cartoon and Graphic Design. It's a bastard of a thing that takes way more patience with a machine than I'll ever give.

But before you say "crappy CGI," be prepared to say "yes, I can do better."

I have called other people's artwork "lacking," but that's when I know I do my job better. Let people do their work, and accept that it's something you can't do. If it's something you CAN do, then you're able to throw down on the subject.

[The Shootin Surgeon]

Originally posted by Anonymooo
The thing is, well... here I go again with my whole "uneducated opinion" rant.

At least Clacker admits that CGI artists work their asses off. It's HARD WORK! There's a reason I switched my major from Computer Design to Cartoon and Graphic Design. It's a bastard of a thing that takes way more patience with a machine than I'll ever give.

But before you say "crappy CGI," be prepared to say "yes, I can do better."

I have called other people's artwork "lacking," but that's when I know I do my job better. Let people do their work, and accept that it's something you can't do. If it's something you CAN do, then you're able to throw down on the subject.

I disagree.

By that logic, no one would be allowed to criticize the work of actors, politicians, athletes, artists or anyone else for that matter...

The goal of an actor is to make you believe that he is someone else, a character... if he achieves that successfully, he's done a good job. If he doesn't, he hasn't. (that is subjective to each person of course).

Same goes for CGI. Their goal is to convince you that something that doesn't exist is actually there. If they do, they're good. If they don't, they're not. (subjective comment applies).

I don't think anyone will debate that creating CGI effects is extremely difficult and painstaking, costly and easily exposed to criticism. SO is building a mega-epic set, so is acting and so are many other things and while "crappy" may be going a bit mean to say about someone's work, it's quite possible that some effects are not quite as effective as intended.

[Anonymooo]

Originally posted by The Shootin' Surgeon
...it's quite possible that some effects are not quite as effective as intended.

See, THAT works. Not "the CGI sucks."

I understand this whole argument about too much CGI in movies, especially when we get irritating fuckers like Jar Jar Binks. However, it's done some fairly cool stuff, for instance, all the webwork in Spider-Man. No sane stuntman would do that. Ever.

[Bloodybitch13]

Originally posted by bob
I knew CGI had run amuck when I watched a scene in Spider-Man and realized I was watching a cartoon.

That's EXACTLY why I don't like live action versions of comic book superheros if you have to use cartoons to make them do these certain things then take Japan's example and animate the whole movie! That way it looks realistic because the whole thing is exactly the same without any obvious jolts.

[Jim H]

Spider-Man wouldn't of made nearly as much money if the whole thing had been animated, and it had retained the PG-13 level of violence. The people in America as a whole don't respond very well to more adult cartoons.

[Cronos]

Some of the CGI in spiderman wasnt very good (when spiderman and mary jane were swinging through the city, he was so static and it looked so tacky, i really hate it and cant watch those scenes)

i thought the fight scene in the matrix was way overdone, it was good at the start then "we need more" and it dragged on for another ten minutes, it was overlong, bored me and i nearly shouted at the screen.......

not all modern films are bad though, ive seen quite a few that are excellent and arent overblown with CGI

[Clacker2003]

Gangs of New York got the blend just Right wit Real Sets and CGI.