CGI, the good, the bad, what do you think.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

CGI is the recent past, its the now, its the future.

It comes with a cost. Supposedly it is cheaper to use CGI than it is to use conventional effects, but with soaring budgets that is obviously a lie.

I for one am not that fond of CGI, but I know it is the future and that the primitive effects now will only get better. So what are the good and the bad of CGI.

Good.

Gladiator, some really good effects here, showing the past is sometimes harder than showing the future.

Cast Away, when Hanks looks down the cliff, at the ocean, he was really seeing the parking lot.

Jurassic Park, wow. still the best use of CGI and conventional effects to this date

Terminator 2, wow t1000 was real to me

Abyss, wow.

TPM, incredible.

Titanic. excellent.

Young Sherlock Holmes, one of the first CGI effects and still damn good

Tron. the first CGI?, primitive but still effective.

Bad,

Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings, both films were special effects disappointments to me,

Deep Blue Sea, horrible horrible effects. looked cartoonish.

Air Force One. These were so bad someone in the audience said out loud "HOW FAKE" when the plane crashed and it wasn't me.

Ghost and the Darkness, how could so many people have been eaten by those fake lions?

Spiderman, sorry guys liked the film, but thought he was always just an effect.

The Mummy and the Mummy Returns, ok I put them here because they are bad, but were they bad for a laugh, or were they just bad.

An American Werewolf in Paris. did someone do this on an old Commodore computer or what. yuck.

this doesn't mean that these films had no successes, some did, but overall these films had bad effects.

What are your feelings and your good and bad CGI?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What effects in FOTR looked fake to you?

Stefancos- who thought that film had amazing FX's :?:

[Morn 8]

I think harry potter and lotr have decent CGI.

Cast Away? I think that shot looks rather fake.

Jurassic Park? CGI is used extremely well in it, thanks to Spielberg. But some shots like when we first see the dino's looks quite fake.

And what about AI? It had perfect useage of CGI. Spielberg knows how to use CGI better than anyone.

[Ollie 1,059]

I think alot of it has to do with how well the film is. A great or good film can help poor CGI effects. Spiderman is a good example, a pretty good plot and good acting helped the weak visuals. Sometimes you can have too much CGI and it becomes way too obvious and hurt a good film. As with all visuals I think CGI has reached certain stages where it has become dated but then another film comes along a few years later and does something a little different and takes it to that next level. ILM has managed to do different things with CGI and improve on the effects every few years with each project they work on. ATOC has improved what TPM started but there are some glitches that I imagine Episode III will improve upon. Jurassic Park has great CGI use but with each film the Dinosaurs have gotten more realistic each time out.

If I'm not mistaken ILM should be doing the next Harry Potter film, now that was poor CGI and it made an already disappointing film even worse. LOTR didn't have the best effects either but the film was well acted and overall well done so that helped out the visuals.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

What effects in FOTR looked fake to you?

Stefancos- who thought that film had amazing FX's :?:

The masses of armies,

The rock cliffs breaking where so bad, they reminded me of Airforce One.

Its been a long time since I saw the film so I can't name them all, but I thought LOTR and HP both had weak effects for such big films.

Stefan, I think you love the film so much, you will not fault anything about it.

Joe, who dislikes Gladiator but put it on his good list. By the way LOTR's is at my dollar theatre so I will try to see it for a buck again.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Joe, i love the film, but i admit there are a few flaws, most notably in the way Merry and Pippin are handled, although i'm sure they will be better used in the next 2 films.

The massing of armies looked great, much better then that cartoon looking massing of armies in TPM, and i cannot see anything wrong with the bridge scene.

Also, there are a lot of scenes in FOTR that contain CGI, but are so well done that you can barely notice it.

I think FOTR even beats AOTC in some ways.

AOTC had great effects overall, but several of the CGI characters looked awfull, like that Dex guy, and even Jar Jar.

Stefancos- who thinks that scene with Dexter must be the most inappropriate scene for an SW film ever shot.

[Lurker 5]

Joe, who dislikes Gladiator but put it on his good list. By the way LOTR's is at my dollar theatre so I will try to see it for a buck again.

"I'd be happier with the dollar."

-C. Montgomery Burns

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

You me, I will give a movie I don't care for several chances. I saw A.I. 3 times and still don't like it.

A.I. did have some good effects I admit, but nothing ground breaking.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Jar Jar and Dexster More fake that FOTR?? Sorry but The hints of Gollum were funny. The armies were a try-to-surpass TPM, wich failed TPM TPM has not cartooinsh effects. And only 5 months separate FOTR with AOC, so do not try to surpass a movie that was made 3 years ago (and fail )

CGI kicks ass, but only if its ILM (i have not seen HP, but i'm sure they are better than many non ILM movies)

[Sandor 797]

Oh no, not again!

We've had this topic before, haven't we?

In the history of film there have always been GOOD special effects and BAD special effects. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CGI!

From the days of stop motion, go-motion, blue screen, green screen whatever many effects simply sucked.

But I'd take bad CGI over bad traditional effects any day.

But foremost; I care about the GOOD and not like some, about the BAD.

Bye,

Roald

[Figo 2]

What an extraordinarily negative post! LOL

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Oh no, not again!

We've had this topic before, haven't we?

No, we haven't had it like I put it this time.

But I'd take bad CGI over bad traditional effects any day.

you would take those awful effects in Mummy Returns over some convential effects, I find that hard to believe. Imagine some stop or gomotion effects would look in place of that phoney looking scorpion king. Alot better thats for sure.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

I think the big one right after Jurassic with plenty of CGI was Jumanji. Man! those are horrible effects!

[Sandor 797]

you would take those awful effects in Mummy Returns over some convential effects, I find that hard to believe.

This is not what I said nor implied. I said I would take bad (Mummy Returns) effects over BAD convential effects any day.

Oh, and CGI has been around succesfully for over ten years now. It has become just as convential as any technique that came before.

Bye,

Roald

[JoeinAR 1,949]

ok, that makes sense.

i still like the combining of effects, the best of both worlds, like JP.

[Sandor 797]

Oh, and The Fellowship Of The Ring had amazing visual effects. Sorry.

Bye,

Roald

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

LOTR had okay effects... I don't complain... in Harry they were okay too.

P.S. Bye, Roald!

[ChrisAfonso 186]

Oh, and The Fellowship Of The Ring had amazing visual effects. Sorry.

Bye,

Roald

Copy that. Can't understand what would be bad about FOTR's effects

-Chris

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

I think FOTR even beats AOTC in some ways.

In *some* ways? FOTR has to tbe the best-looking movie I've seen that relies so heavily on CGI effects. Gollum and the Cave Troll are obviously CGI (though extremely well-done - except for the bit when Legolas jumps on the troll's back, that looks like crap). The Balrog has to be, though it's barely noticeable. But aside from that, I honestly couldn't tell what's real and what's CGI. From what I've read, the foremost fighters in the battle scenes are real persons and the background is CGI - I couldn't tell the difference, neither on the big screen nor on the SVCDs.

Quick note on Potter: The fx are poor (except for the chess board), but at least they didn't do gratituous CGI stuff - all effects served a purpose.

Marian - who thinks it should be noted that FOTR also mixes CGI with conventional techniques, e.g. extremely advanced forced perspective techniques to shrink the Hobbits.

Superman

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

I didn't like the way that a*hole Elijah Wood looked in those effects... pretty irregular ...

Hector - who despises Wood, and it doesn't have to do anything with why he sometimes was uncomfortable seeing the midget Wood [puke]

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

I didn't like the way that a*hole Elijah Wood looked in those effects... pretty irregular ...

Ehm...what effects? Chances are that they were not CGI.

Marian - who has no problem at all with Wood.

[Lurker 5]

Marian - who has no problem at all with Wood.

No Viagra for you then.

Neil

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

Well, whenever someone gets on their knees to make someone look shorter than the other, that is an effect... when something is placed closer to the camera to make it appear larger than it really is, opposed to something farther, for that purpose, that is an effect.. a visual effect... it makes you think that's the way it is...

Hector - who does have a problem... he doesn't like the a*hole... looks like a jerk

[Harry Potter 0]

I have to agree that Jurassic Park had an awesome combination of CG and puppeting. Everytime I see the movie, I still am amazed at what was accomplished. I only wish I were old enough when it came out to see it in a theater and appreciate it there.

~Harry

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Quick note on Potter: The fx are poor (except for the chess board), but at least they didn't do gratituous CGI stuff - all effects served a purpose.

Marian - who thinks it should be noted that FOTR also mixes CGI with conventional techniques, e.g. extremely advanced forced perspective techniques to shrink the Hobbits.

It should be noted that Harry Potter uses forced perspective as well. The chess board sequence in HP was designed to look like an old Harryhausen style effect, and it shows.

Joe, who thinks that the European MB members seem to like LOTR better than most others on the board.

[hhssoccerplayer 0]

Sorry I believe that Harry Potter and LOTR special effects were good, but I'm not Mr. Picky so most are fine for me. Spiderman was good but at first the special effects bothered me, but I got used to it and although it wasn't the best special effects they worked for the movie. (It was great)

Brandon

[Morn 8]

i still like the combining of effects, the best of both worlds, like JP.

AI combines traditional methods and CGI as well Spielberg = the master of special fx direction

I thought both LOTR and HP had decent fx. Not great, not ok, not bad but decent.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

For me, in Harry Potter, every CG effect with Harry flying or being thrown around by a troll looks terrible. Well, it would look great on an animated version of Potter, but not a real life movie. His face looked so cartoony.

Conidering the popularity of Potter and the money that franchise makes, I hope they can improve on those effects. I saw that trailer for the new one and they looked better (at least in the little clip).

AOTC effects disappointed me a little. When they were riding the Reek during the end battle... those scenes were pretty bad. And some of the alien Jedi didn't look like Jedi masters. They looked very clumsy (probably because of those alien costimes and not CG's fault). The rest of the film (especially the asteroid field chase with those bomb effects) were certainly triumphs though.

To date, I think that Jurassic Park 1 & 2 (the Raptors in TLW were freakin' awesome! I could watch that scene with Malcilm being chased around the gas station over and over again), and TPM and AOTC overall had the best effects (minus a point or two for cartoony Gungans in TPM and some cartoony looking Anakin & Padme on the Reek in AOTC).

-Chris, Who was pleased on Yoda's CG. I didn't think that they would make it look that good....

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

To add to the above post, I think that CG can get animals and animalistic aliens down, but simulating humans seems to be the part that isn't completely mastered yet. And I haven't seen Final Fantasy, but in the clips that I saw, those are the closest CG humans I've seen to date.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

that is an effect.. a visual effect... it makes you think that's the way it is...

Of course it is. I thought you were referring to CGI.

he doesn't like the a*hole... looks like a jerk

He looks like Frodo!

Marian - who thinks he was very well casted.

[Morn 8]

CGI is a visual effect!, it's visual isn't it? And the effecting is done by the computer.

[Uni 306]

Like anything else, there's good and bad CGI. I can deal with just about anything, though, except for when they attempt to mimic human movement. They can pull off animals and aliens better; for instance, in everyday life, we don't see large animals like elephants (upon which many of the JP dinos were based) on a regular basis, and we never see aliens. It's easier to portray new and unfamiliar movement as being realistic. However, we're intimately familiar with almost every aspect of human physical behavior, and every attempt to fool me with an animated person has been worse than bad, it's been awful - especially if there's a lot of movement. (Say, a hormonally distraught Jedi teenager trying to surf the galaxy's fattest cow.... :roll:) And I was less concerned with who was trying to curse Harry's broomstick than I was with who was transmogrifying him and the other kids into flabby blobs of gelatinous goo.

The other big hangup I have is with this new trend toward updating classics with new graphics. CGI is, in many ways, fast becoming the Colorization technique of the new generation. Fifteen years ago, we grimaced as we watched our favorite old-time actors struggle with jaundice and pastel fashions; nowadays, if we want to partake in the wondrous experience of watching E.T. in the theaters, we have to swallow his "new and improved" makeover.

That project failed, I think, for the same reasons they have such a hard time with humans. After 20 years, we're as acquainted with the little guy's facial expressions and movements as we are with our next door neighbor's. The original animatronic puppet didn't look completely real, no - but that's a tremendous part of what made him so endearing. He was an alien; he wasn't like us, so we could accept that he didn't move like us. The occasional jerky movement, the awkward flexibility of the fingers, the stiffness of the lips, all of it was just what made E.T. who he was. Giving him etiquette lessons so he can move with the smooth grace of a swan takes that away from us. He also got a facelift while they were at it, and if anything, that was an even worse trial to endure. The ol' pulsing lobes and sweaty wrinkles reminded us that he wasn't just another stuffed toy in Elliot's closet, in spite of his success in fooling Mom into thinking so. (A local sportscaster put it best, I think, when he called him "our little bacon-faced friend.") In the new version, he looks like a walking product placement for Oil of Olay; all the wrinkles are filled in with a pasty, white substance, the worst makeup job Hollywood's seen in years. Then they go and digitally add a series of mini-trampolines to make his jog back to the ship look like a Summer Olympic tryout for the long jump. Sheesh.

Every time we observe this nonesense going on, we can see the computer nerds poking their heads in and grinning at their own cleverness. They may as well just have digitally created a thumb at the edge of the lens. You wanna deck out the ship a few extra Christmas ornaments, fine; but please, please leave our favorite characters alone. As the movie proceeded, I had a growing sense of dread that they were going to redo E.T.'s face again in the forest scene, when he looks down at Elliot and smiles. When the scene arrived, I was overjoyed to learn the makeup artist had taken that day off....and my reasoning was reaffirmed. You simply cannot improve on poniagncy that runs that deep.

I have only one more gripe with CGI, though it's a slight one: I miss the days of being amazed at the creativity of SPFX - not just at what we saw, but at how it was accomplished. Each of the middle films in the two SW trilogies has an asteroid sequence; while I was enthralled with the content of the one in AOTC, I was much less impressed with its craftsmanship, because I knew it was pushbutton. Back in 1980, they had to film real rocks - one at a time - and then film real ships dodging around nothing, and then put it all together later. They had to plan it out in detail, they had to painstakingly endure the process, and when it was over, the first dailies were met with raucous applause. Somehow I don't think the effects wizards took the time to clap when the most recent sequence was complete; it was just another computer program, one of countless others in that film alone.

I think the days of true effects wizardry are over. The Microwave Generation has taken over Hollywood, and things will never be the same. :confused:

- Uni

[Morn 8]

Each of the middle films in the two SW trilogies has an asteroid sequence; while I was enthralled with the content of the one in AOTC, I was much less impressed with its craftsmanship, because I knew it was pushbutton.

Pushbutton is not as easy as it seems. It is very hard to paint it so it looks real and it is very hard to make things move in a realistic way. Is a painters job easier than a sculptors job? I doubt it.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

Good pounts, Uni.

Also, to add to the point of CG humans... certain animators can get it better than others. Some good animators (such as Disney and Japanese Anime for example) can create very realistic human movements, even if they are often over-flamboyant, they still make them fairly realistic and have a grace and style about them. All too often, the CG humans look too jerky and stiff. They make even a very clumsy real-life person look extremely graceful.

It shows me that the animators can get better. They may have mastered the ability to manipulate a computer program, but not yet animate graceful human movements. They simply aren't good enough yet.

[Uni 306]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that creating CGI is a breeze (I know I couldn't do it), or that I'm not often impressed with the results. I'm just saying it's not hands-on anymore, and to a certain degree I think it shows.

It's the same thing with set-building. Time was when our jaws hung agape at the sight of worlds that had been created by hand, places where actors could cavort around convincingly because they were really there. In the new SW films, actors play in front of bluescreens. Does it work? I suppose so, at least visually. But when Ewan McGregor said recently that he was having a blast "playing Star Wars," just like when he was a kid, only it was for real now, I had a hard time believing he had more fun than the actors in the original films, who actually got to run through the halls of the Death Star or strut around on the Millenium Falcon. That, I think, would have been the better of the two.

- Uni

[Morn 8]

I agree that the hands stuff on stuff is cooler because of all the neat ways they come up with of doing things, but I don't think it's any harder than CGI, they have to invent new ways of animating as well...

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

CGI is a visual effect!, it's visual isn't it? And the effecting is done by the computer.

Hector complained about the shrinking effects, and I assumed he thought they were CGI (because this thread is basically about CGI pros and cons), so I just pointed out that at least most of them weren't CGI.

Marian - who feels misunderstood.

[King Mark 3,631]

Lots of sets in AOTC weren't CG,and some ships were models.

I wonder if the "Death Star plans briefing" in Star wars ANH counts as the first cg effect.

K.M.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Lots of sets in AOTC weren't CG,and some ships were models.

I wonder if the "Death Star plans briefing" in Star wars ANH counts as the first cg effect.

K.M.

If it is or if it isn't, I HOPE they substitute it in the super special edition, it could be cool back in 1970, but not now.

And speaking of the Death star sets, well some of them Look to much fake. And the other day i realised that bad mate painting on the cell shootout, ugly

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I wonder if the "Death Star plans briefing" in Star wars ANH counts as the first cg effect.

I don't know, but in my The Making of Star Wars book from 1977 it says: [picture of miniature filming] This is how an X-Wing is filmed with the special Dykstraflex-camera. It even requires a computer.

It even requires a computer. Hehe.

P.S.: There are even some nice things about the composer for the movie, named John Williams. He was introduced to George Lucas by Steven Spielberg [who?] (from 'Jaws') [aah].

[Quintus 5,399]

I'd take bad CGI over bad traditional effects any day.

Roald

Lord no! I'll take a marquette or a model over any horrible Babylon 5 style cgi.

AOTC and TPM, incredible.

I personally think the cgi in AotC to be amongst the most vulgar digital work ever commited to film. CGI for the sake of it is as bad as sfx get.

[A24 4,331]

The Good: A lot of effects are only going to be convincing by using CGI.

The Bad: No matter how convincing CGI is, it lacks emotional impact.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

I dunno, Pixar has certainly impacted me on an an emotional level, as did Weta's Gollum.

[A24 4,331]

I'm talking about CGI effects in live action movies, not Disney animation. The CGI worlds and vehicles in the new Star Wars films illustrate my point. GCI can't hold a candle to analog effects such as the long belly shot of the Emperial Cruiser in Star Wars, the mothership in CE3K, the opening shot of Blade Runner, the spacecrafts in 2001: A Space Odyssey ...

Alex

[222max 1]

The Peter Jackson King Kong is some of the best CGI I've seen so far. The Hulk some of the worst. Maybe the lousiest CGI effect I can remember in a big-budget movie is the Scorpion King at the end of The Mummy Returns.

Benjamin Button has some amazing CGI in the virtual acting of the old Benjamin.

[Henry B 50]

One oft overlooked problem with CGI is not the animation itself, but the use of computerized cameras. Those artificial swoops and pans are so jarring and remind me more than any animation that what I'm watching is nothing but a bunch of ones and zeros. Look no further than the

(oh, God, please don't let this tampering make it to the Blu-ray release of the film).

I once mentioned how fake the CGI shot of Indy & company entering the warehouse in KOTCS looked. Turns out the actors and immediate set were in fact real, composited with extended digital backgrounds! I couldn't believe how digital it looked. I'm fairly certain that the camera is to blame: it pulls back in such a strange and unrealistic way (that is, somebody is taking the real footage and just holding down "zoom out") that it actually makes real footage look animated. Amazing.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

my goodness this is an old thread, I know I started another thread on this same subject more recent than this.

[Richard Penna 3,686]

Some of the lousiest I've seen is in Mummy Returns and HP:PS. I felt the quality varied throughout both, but particularly in MR, there are areas where I laugh at how bad it is. Honestly, couldn't Sommers have used the real Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) for the final sequence? And the opening battle with those dog-sphinx things... meh.

I think Doctor Who also has some horrendously bad CG sometimes, particularly in the last Xmas special.

Some of the best:

T2

Jurassic trilogy - you can't tell what's a puppet and what's CG, and the DVD commentary on JPIII reveals that a heck of a lot more CG is used than just the dinosaurs, and you never notice any of it

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I agree, HP had some horrible effects but so did LOTR, gollum looked so fake, still does. So did those tree things. It all looked so flat.

they seem to have managed to solve some of that flat look these days.

[Quintus 5,399]

When I saw him, I thought Gollum was the best cgi since cgi sliced bread. Still do really. Treebeard too, wow.

King Kong himself only betters that stuff. Cloverfield had a lot of good work in it as well.