I Hate CGI

n0x23

Well-Known Member
Is it just me?

I mean sure, being able to count every pore and pimple on Shreck's butt is impressive at first, but after that, I completely lose interest, the novelty is gone.
I also understand that trying to pull-off Yoda's, Jackie Chan fight scene with the traditional methods would have been a logistical nightmare and his facial expressions were far more expressive and "realistic", but, it wasn't Yoda.

There's nothing tangible with CGI, stop-motion may look a bit wonky, but it's made by human hands and it has life, sure, the Stormtrooper's armor was held together with gaffer's tape, but it was real.

I appreciate CGI for what it is, a tool, I wish that's all it was used for.

So, is it just me?
 
CGI is a tool and it creates a look. If that's what the director wants then it's the right tool.

However CGI is very quickly becoming the cheapest tool so it's getting overused. CGI has the potential to do nearly anything. Eventually develpment will catch up and you won't be able to see significant differences with what they want to do. (Assuming they are developing for that goal.)

However it sounds like you are saying that stop motion and puppetry have character. I will agree whole heartedly that they do. However that character is largely based on things directors consider "flaws". I've heard people make similar arguments about Vinyl records vs CDs. It's true that Vinyl creates a different sound because there are harmonics present that never existed in the real performance. Does that make it better? Technically that's a flaw, but some people really like it.

Personally I like CGI, I'm the type who suspends disbelief easilly and gets swept into a story. I'm not usually checking out the fine details when I'm paying attention to the story.

Andy
 
I cant say i hate it
but i do hate bad cgi like in gi joe, the aircraft textures were awful
but i also hate it when they just fill a film with breath taking cgi and then there is no story.
oh talking of breathtaking cgi, anyone else think that avatar was just cowboys and indians in space to be exact custers last stand.
nutcase general leads his men into a fight with the native and gets his ass kicked ..... perhaps its just me. :)
 
I don't hate it.
But when a film like Moon comes out that successfully used miniatures for much of the film. I was in heaven. That says something I think.


CGI also often allows them to be too comfortable with going too far into the ludicrous.
Too much of a good thing sometimes. Less is more should be the rule.
 
Not just you, believe me.

I miss miniatures and models.

CGI can look really great but most of the time it doesn't.

I'm sure a lot more will chime in and agree with you.

Neil

Is it just me?

I mean sure, being able to count every pore and pimple on Shreck's butt is impressive at first, but after that, I completely lose interest, the novelty is gone.
I also understand that trying to pull-off Yoda's, Jackie Chan fight scene with the traditional methods would have been a logistical nightmare and his facial expressions were far more expressive and "realistic", but, it wasn't Yoda.

There's nothing tangible with CGI, stop-motion may look a bit wonky, but it's made by human hands and it has life, sure, the Stormtrooper's armor was held together with gaffer's tape, but it was real.

I appreciate CGI for what it is, a tool, I wish that's all it was used for.

So, is it just me?


Nope, right there with you both. Getting sick of everything being CGI and mostly bad CGI at that. Now District 9, I feel, has gotten it right. It blends realistically within the scene and looks "natural". Movements were believable within what we know as reality and the reality of how things should and do move. Avatar on the other hand, while it looked good, still looked like a cartoon. If you want to make a cartoon, fine, I'm good with that, I love cartoons....but don't try and "fool" me into believing it's real when real actors can't look into the eyes of these characters and they don't fit within the scene. At least puppets are practical effects that real people can react with and they are actually in real space with those characters. Sure they have their limitations, what doesn't, but I honestly prefer them over CGI.
 
I hate it!! I think of it as a tool, and it is abused!!

Sure, the films look slick and flawless, but it is overdone.

And don't get me started with the "dead look in the human eyes".

Traditional animation and stop motion had an slight amount of inaccuracy. That is not a bad thing, it was just the way thinigs were, since you could not be as accurate as a machine. In that slight bit of inaccuracy, you had life. The lines shook ever so slightly, or the surface of the stop motion moved a little. That was why in feature animation, you never wanted a still drawing held. It looked dead. You needed to cycle 3 or 4 drawings, staggering them on camera, so you got some breathing to the lines. Sometimes computer loses that quality.

Now don't get me wrong, Toy Story, Cars, flms like that were great, and I think Pixar pulls it off well. They have a great combo of story, animation and subjects that work with the medium. But when you have so many live action films abusing it, it really does get to you.

What really saddens me is the generations of animators who were let go from their jobs when studios like Disney, made the decision to stop all 2-D production back in the early 2000 market, to focus on 3-D. Alot of families were left to fend for themselves... unless they could pick up computer skills real fast.

Some did, but for many it was tough. You are talking about skilled artists who went to school for hand drawing, where there was no computer tarining at that time. But when let go from their career, they had to learn the stuff, then fight for jobs with newly graduated students who had killer reels from 4 years of studying the medium.

It really was sad...... and so the company that was built on 2-D animation, the art form that was it's bread and butter, and their highly acclaimed character is the backbone of its merchandising and theme parks.... turned their back on everything. In my opinion..Walt Disney would be pissed.

Sure, I think he would embrace change, as he always looked to advance things, but i believe he would have never let the whole medium go. He would have found a way to do both.

Now I am glad they did The Frog Princess in 2-D, but it didn't make the numbers they had hoped. So the real question is.... how many more times will they put the funds into 2-D before they just say.... throw together another 3-D POS and call it a day.
 
Stop motion was more difficult, so only very few really did it and they were skilled at creating characters and life. You don't get that with a 3D animated character. It's dead... and unless the animator has the skills to bring life into it, then it stays dead. Pixar are able to create life in their creations.

Disney... yes... they are seriously making some ass-hat decisions. Sure... their animation may not be huge hits in the cinema, but the dvd sales is a big market. I wanted to see The Frog Princess but it was nearly impossible to catch a viewing in English and subtitles as I absolutely HATE Danish dubbing as their voices screech and sounds horrible.

Most CGI is over used... and no matter HOW well the characters are animated, if the animator isn't a good enough "actor" to act through the creation, then it falls flat and becomes raunchy independent movies quality.
 
I hate bad CGI (as has already been mentioned)-

But I watched "Zodiac", and then (after watching the extras) discovered I had absolutely no clue as to how many shots in the film were actually CGI! :confused :wacko

I was utterly fooled and didn't think for one second that it was an effect and not live action. Mind you... I'm not a CGI artist (at all). So it's not like I know all the "tells" and nuances to look for. :rolleyes

Anyhoo- I too miss the days of 10ft long models made to look like 800ft long starships. :(


Kevin
 
I know the question was really not a question but - It is not just you, but it sure isn't everyone either.


I don't hate or love CGI any more then any other Special Effect. I just dislike any Effect that looks unreal and takes me out of the movie moment - The trend toward more realist is always a plus to me and so I think overall CGI is a great benefit for film making.
 
Good CGI supporting a good story is wonderful.

Good CGI supporting a crap or mediocre story is...meh.

Bad CGI standing in for a crap or mediocre story is despicable.


I find that the latter two categories tend to be FAR more common. I also get the sense that -- as was true in the past -- people use f/x to cover up the other FAR more glaring flaws in a film (like, story, direction, acting, etc.).

The thing is, even a year or two later, the f/x looks incredibly dated, so not only do you have a crappy story, but you also have dated, crappy-looking CGI.
 
I'd like to see a car chase scene with out CGI.:unsure CGI is the death of movie sets & props for action movies & Sci-Fi.
 
I know the question was really not a question but - It is not just you, but it sure isn't everyone either.


I don't hate or love CGI any more then any other Special Effect. I just dislike any Effect that looks unreal and takes me out of the movie moment - The trend toward more realist is always a plus to me and so I think overall CGI is a great benefit for film making.


When it works well, yes, I'd agree. The thing is, most CGI is NOT well done. It lacks attention to detail, and it's most often not properly lit. CGI stuff looks too crisp, shiny, and "flat." CGI stuff doesn't appear to have real volume or weight unless a particular shot is supposed to be blatantly conveying it.

The best example I can give is in the Edward Norton Hulk movie. There's a sequence where the Hulk is carrying the girl into the forest. The ground's wet, you can clearly see the forest floor. And here's the Hulk: several TONS of gamma-irradiated muscle. But does the Hulk leave a footprint? Nope. Does his foot sink into the mud the way the T-Rex's foot did in Jurassic Park -- MADE OVER A DECADE EARLIER?! Not a chance.

That's just lazy, bad CGI. I might as well play a video game where at least it won't look out of place because the entire world is "fake."
 
CGI is excellent if not used for the human form. It is alot cheaper to generate a city backdrop than it is to shoot on location. Many cities and countries are upping the fees and taxes that now forces studios to go to cheaper countries that provide incentive to film (Canada aka Vancouver). Sometimes some foreign cities just cannot pass for US cities.

Also if you are setting up a shot that requires pyro, destruction, etc. I don't think the US Parks Service is going to allow you to blow up the Statue of Liberty OR blow off the dome in Yosemite. CGI will allow that.

Besides if CGI was scrapped than wonderful companies like Pixar, WETA, ILM, etc. would no longer be with us. Not to mention the wonderful new technologies that are being developed since the early years of the mid 90s.

CGI is wonderful if used properly. Just improve on the human form and I will be happy. And I don't mean the scary human form like in Polar Express!

Like any movie a CGI shot should go through a continuity check just as a live shot would.

Best CGI forms that I think so far were in Avatar and Davy Jones and crew / ship in POTC 2/3.
 
I agree 100% on whats been said here. It's funny even though it's an aspect that could be part of the job (when I get one again) I still hate it if it's used improperly.

Moon and District 9 like said are the perfect examples to me of doing it right. Never saw Avatar so I can't judge but based on what I've seen and heard don't really want to see it.

Claymation and puppetry I like to watch just for the novelty of it. I really like Nightmare before Christmas, Corpse Bride, and Coraline since you don't see those types come out anymore which is a shame IMO.
 
Where were you guys when I was the only one saying the CGI in D9 was poor?:lol Let me regress, the ships/mechs were great, but the aliens looked 'plasticky'. My suggestion would have been to have actors on stilts wearing real costumes with CGI arms and heads for close ups. It would have blended better as the CGI rag tag clothing was the biggest 'tell'.

This is the case with most current CGI. It has risen to a level that artists can reproduce items such as cars, spaceships and buildings that the human eye cant tell the difference. But when it comes to live creatures, my brain can still easily pick it out. I think that as CGI evolves, humans skins, features and textures will become more lifelike. The CGI Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button comes to mind. In Avatar the scenery, buildings and ships looked real no problem. The Navi (sp), as good as they were, still had a CGI look to them. From an artist standpoint, drawing human hands and faces is still the most challenging, so I get it. Making realistic living things is going to be the last to make it into the eye correct world. Just a matter of time.

Basically, if my brain immediately says CGI, then it could have been done better.

Can someone re post that youtube collage of the really good use of CGI in TV background shots? That was a "No Way!" vid.
 
Last edited:
But..... it is cheaper than paying a model maker, camera opperator, animator, effects team, etc.... to make a one minute shot, when a team of 3 or 4 can do it in an office. The turn around time is so much quicker as well. So I can see why they opt for it.
 
As said here many times, it can be used well or used poorly. It should also never replace a story - we've seen it all before, and the spectacle is not worth paying for!

In regards to what was said about vinyl up above though: Vinyl lovers don't love vinyl because of some strange harmonic that it adds that wasn't there in the performance. To begin with, every studio album you've ever listened to has recorded, mixed, and mastered the original performace. Everything from the type of microphone to the rackmount units to the mixing board to the shape and size of the room affects the sound that came from the performer - not to mention the tastes and ears of the engineers and producers. What vinyl lovers appreciate about records is that records represent a broader range of frequencies than modern media. Tapes cut that range even smaller, CDs smaller yet, and mp3s crushed it even further before adding hideous compression artifacts. What records have going for them is a sound that more closely represents the original master recording, not a sound that adds something that wasn't there!
 
Back
Top