main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

[A Bit of Rambling] Has CGI helped or hindered "movie magic" and our experience of films?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Amphitheatre' started by Esperanza_Nueva, Sep 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Uh, Actually Ford didn't do a lot of his own stunts in Raiders. Several stuntmen worked on the film Ford didn't even do the crawl under the truck. It was Vic Armstrong.

    The LOTR movies could never have been made without CGI.
     
  2. Lord_NoONE

    Lord_NoONE Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2001
    The PT was hindered by its heavy reliance on CGI, IMO.
     
  3. Esperanza_Nueva

    Esperanza_Nueva Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 23, 2003
    I think JohnWesleyDowney makes a really good point that a lot of times what is not seen and what is suggested are often more effective than the most realistic CGI. A single sound, for instance, can conjure the wildest images in the imagination more fantastic than anything the filmmakers might have thought to put on the screen.
     
  4. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    But there really hasn't been a credible argument of why models are better than CG. I bet Spielber would have killed to make his shark CG in Jaws if he had the chance. It's all in the way it was used. Also, you could have never have even filmed the SW prequels if not for CG. Well, you could have, but it would have just made people argue why didn't they use CG?

    Also, film is a visual medium. If we just went by sounds and imagination, we'd all be at home listening to radios.
     
  5. Dal--Intrepid

    Dal--Intrepid Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 13, 2002

    That's the best argument against CGI yet. Good job WC!
     
  6. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Some people here liked the prequels. Not everyone hates them.
     
  7. The2ndQuest

    The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Surprisingly enough, the prequels used a large amount of model work, especially for locations- it seems pretty feasible that they actually could have made the prequels without CGI- it just might have cost a little more, and Lucas would have had to deal with the hassle of having actors in the same scene actually have to be there at the same time ;)
     
  8. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Yeah, the Prequels took really detailed models and inserted the cast filmed on bluescreen in the shots. For the lava on Mustafar they showed clips of how they filmed a real volcano spewing lava and inserted it into the shot.
     
  9. -deeperfasterharder-

    -deeperfasterharder- Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 24, 2007
    CGI of living things - hindered

    CGI of scenery/digital models/non-organic phenomena - helped
     
  10. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Gollum? King Kong?
     
  11. -deeperfasterharder-

    -deeperfasterharder- Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 24, 2007
    King Kong and Gollum are clear exceptions. But as good as they were, they still weren't uniformly convincing.
     
  12. Darth_Omega

    Darth_Omega Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 19, 2002
    Gollum is convincing because of the acting not because of the CGI, Gollum looks out of place in every scene he's in.

    What I absolutely hate is CGI in animation series, that's truly out of place and most of time unneeded as well.
     
  13. Esperanza_Nueva

    Esperanza_Nueva Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 23, 2003
    I think the thing about CGI is that, no matter how realistic it looks, we know it's CGI. We know that the actors aren't seeing what we're seeing...and it loses a bit of authenticity. So, not only is there a disconnect between the audience and the screen, but the audience can also sense a disconnect between the actors and whatever is surrounding them/whatever creatures are acting with them. For instance, perhaps muppet Yoda doesn't look as "life-like" as CGI Yoda, but when we watch the OT, we know that Luke is reacting to the same exact creature that we are reacting too...and it gives it just a little more credibility.

    At least that's the way I see it. I'm sure a lot of people disagree. And I'm not at all saying that CGI should never be used. I'm just trying to point out some of the negative aspects of it.
     
  14. Zaphod Beeblebrox

    Zaphod Beeblebrox Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 26, 1999
    I say the key to it all is what I call "interaction"

    No matter what technique you use it looks bad if you don't feel like the effects really are there.
    Well done CGI is the effects you don't even notice until you stumble across a website telling you how it's done.
    Poorly done effects of any kind can take all the illusion away.
    Sometimes overconfidence is what ruins the effect.
    If a CGI-effect is only good for maintaining the illusion for 5 seconds, you shouldn't show it on screen 7 seconds just because it looks cool.
    Take Gollum, for example. there are scenes where he is masterfully animated and rendered, but badly composited and with no interaction.
    He jumps around dragging sam with him. The rocks under sams feet move because the are disturbed, but the rocks under Gollums feet do not move (at least not in a natural way) and this breaks the illusion.

    My point is that great movie magic appears when the effects and the live action are seamless. (There are scenes in Forrest Gump that i KNOW are fake, but I just can't see it no matter how hard I look)
    CGI din't really change this. In the 80's there were movies with crap-mattepaintings and poor bluscreening, now there are movies with crap-cgi and poor compositing. BUT there are also movies whith amazing effects. Now and then.

    It's not the techniques as much as some peoples inability to use them properly that make things bad.

    Those are my thoughts about it

    (If there are bad spellings, you should know I am a good speller but a bad typer)



     
  15. Zaphod Beeblebrox

    Zaphod Beeblebrox Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 26, 1999
    My postmodernist poetry professor said the other day, "If you can imagine a white stallion galloping across a tomato, then you can grasp what is surrealism. I don't mean a tomato with a horse standing on top, the tomato crushing beneath its weight, but a horse literally galloping freely across the edge of the tomato. It takes imagination."

    About what I mean about interaction:
    The imagery suggested in the quote here, could simply be done by photographing a tomato and filming a horse against bluescreen.
    But if you can't sense the impact of the hooves or see the tremble across the tomatoes surface as the horse crosses it or see the shadow of the horse, it won't matter if the horse is real or CGI. It's not the elements that makes the illusion, but the combination and interaction of these elements.
     
  16. North_Star

    North_Star Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 22, 2007
    I think it depends largely on the skills and talent of the artists involved, especially the director. We have all seen classic films (some dating back decades) which feature special effects that are primitive compared to modern CGI and yet they work perfectly within the context of the film. The "movie magic" in these films does not come from the special effects alone, but from the director making sure that they complement the other elements of the film as well as his overall vision.

    I believe the same principle applies to modern CGI-intensive filmmaking. If the filmmakers do not have the storytelling skills and talent, it won't matter how sophisticated their special effects are. The film will not work and the "movie magic" will not be there.



     
  17. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    I just don't get why CGI use is so negative. Is some fakey monster mask used in the Cantina in ANH any different than some fake CGI monster used in TPM?
     
  18. Zaz

    Zaz Jedi Knight star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 11, 1998
    Take a movie like "Evan Almighty". Hugely expensive, laid ze egg at the box office. The fact is, though, that it might have been a moderate success if CGI had not been its raison d'etre.
     
  19. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    That movie had more problems than Bad CGI. Try bad acting and script.
     
  20. Zaz

    Zaz Jedi Knight star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 11, 1998
    Were they spending so much on the CGI that they didn't pay attention to script et al?
     
  21. JohnWesleyDowney

    JohnWesleyDowney Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2004

    I think it depends largely on the skills and talent of the artists involved, especially the director. We have all seen classic films (some dating back decades) which feature special effects that are primitive compared to modern CGI and yet they work perfectly within the context of the film. The "movie magic" in these films does not come from the special effects alone, but from the director making sure that they complement the other elements of the film as well as his overall vision.

    I believe the same principle applies to modern CGI-intensive filmmaking. If the filmmakers do not have the storytelling skills and talent, it won't matter how sophisticated their special effects are. The film will not work and the "movie magic" will not be there.


    QFT!

    Zaz, yeah, I think Evan Almighty's director lost his balance somewhere along the way.
    Story and characters go first, THEN special effects.
     
  22. Spiderfan

    Spiderfan Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Physical masks and models have a tangibility that is difficult at times to achieve in CG. Granted its getting better but there is an interaction with light that is difficult to mimic and they are still working on that. Where as latex and rubber might jiggle and look fake you still get a good sense of texture.

    I have always gone by the rule that if you can achieve the effect practically do so.

    In some instances the effect of something CG and noticeably so can be used stylistically. In 300 where the entire film was an exaggerated legend told over a campfire and had a very surreal look, the use of CG blood that didn't quite look real, didn't feel out of place. It felt like part of the exaggeration. But ever there they used practical makeup effects for various characters rather than trying to recreate it in CG. Or in Sin City where the idea is to give it the feeling of a graphic novel brought to life, various elements felt right to look surreal.

    In a photo-realistic film that uses CG to enhance what is already there I will agree that its become a crutch to many filmmakers simply choosing to shoot something on blue/green screen and comp in something CGed later. Unfortunately you lose the needed character interaction that would help give the performance that needed nuance (hence why the presence of Andy Sirkis onset of LOTR was often beneficial). If used sparingly to cover wires or expand a city where the integration is seamless I take no issue with the use of CG but when a filmmaker becomes lazy and dependent on the use of it to create something that easily could have been a model or makeup effect, I feel the use of CG simply hinders creativity.

    I am still in love with the use of practical effects though.
     
  23. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    I agree. Blade Runner is a perfect example.

     
  24. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    I challenge you to watch Children of Men and determine which were CGI and which were pyrotechnic effects.
     
  25. Wilderness_Comedian

    Wilderness_Comedian Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Or The Matrix
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.