I'd probably go to see a NEW special effects movie that advertised itself as being done entirely free of CGI.
You may as well ask movies to stop using color, stereo sound and widescreen framing. CGI is here to stay, like it or lump it. Some filmmakers will use it more, some less. Some will use it poorly, and some well. It's not the technology, it's how well it's used.
Recalled Kurtz, “The opening shot of Star Wars had thirty-six different elements. We redid it so many times because of color and other problems, that by the time we got halfway through, one of the elements in the optical printer would get scratched. It’s inevitable; no matter how careful you are, there is dust. So we’d have to reshoot the element, and then start over. That was one of the reasons it was so tedious.” Added Edlund, “Optical printing was a real sumo match, and we got thrown out of the ring a lot of times.”
—Rubin, Michael (2012-03-08). Droidmaker: George Lucas and the Digital Revolution (Kindle Locations 1539-1543). Triad Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.
Email sucks because it's not ink on paper, so the thoughts expressed are transient and cheap. It's not the people doing the writing. It's the technology that's to blame!
Email sucks because it's not ink on paper, so the thoughts expressed are transient and cheap. It's not the people doing the writing. It's the technology that's to blame!
Some handwritten letters can be a work of art. E-mails, mmm... not so much.
I'd probably go to see a NEW special effects movie that advertised itself as being done entirely free of CGI.
You may as well ask movies to stop using color, stereo sound and widescreen framing. CGI is here to stay, like it or lump it. Some filmmakers will use it more, some less. Some will use it poorly, and some well. It's not the technology, it's how well it's used.
CGI is fine as long as it's finely done.
CGI is not the problem, cheap CGI is, or so much CGI it's over the top (you know it when you see it).
Recalled Kurtz, “The opening shot of Star Wars had thirty-six different elements. We redid it so many times because of color and other problems, that by the time we got halfway through, one of the elements in the optical printer would get scratched. It’s inevitable; no matter how careful you are, there is dust. So we’d have to reshoot the element, and then start over. That was one of the reasons it was so tedious.” Added Edlund, “Optical printing was a real sumo match, and we got thrown out of the ring a lot of times.”
—Rubin, Michael (2012-03-08). Droidmaker: George Lucas and the Digital Revolution (Kindle Locations 1539-1543). Triad Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.
And that craftsmanship and dedication still awes today. It's the difference between an original work of art, and something that feels mass produced.
Solium wrote:And that craftsmanship and dedication still awes today. It's the difference between an original work of art, and something that feels mass produced.
If any of that original craftsmanship can still be seen today! I wish Lucasfilm (or is it Disney, now?) would release a Blu-ray copy of STAR WARS (before it was renamed A NEW HOPE) as originally seen in cinemas in 1977. I think the nostalgia sales would amaze them. Nostalgia aside, the landmark effort put into the original VFX—even though it can be done "better" today—should be preserved.
But that wish has nothing to do with irrationally hating "CGI" categorically. Any technology can be used incompetently, or as a mass-manufactured way to cheaply side-step actual effort and artistic craft. I've seen VFX shots that I thought were CGI, but were not: e.g. Jein's Enterprise and K7 for "Trials and Tribble-ations." The slight specularity (glossy shine) on the model had that "plastic-like" look of early CGI. The original VFX in TREK didn't have that, although the effect is normal for real world things. The shots looked fine, I just incorrectly identified them as CGI. So does that make CGI bad—even though the shots in question were done with practical models? No, it is simply a different aesthetic.
Sometimes I can revel in conspicuous overuse of CGI, such as Neo's fight with hundreds of Agents Smith in the courtyard scene of MATRIX RELOADED. Hyperbole is the essence of humor, and I laughed my butt off. (The bowling pins sound effects helped.)
Digital tools have blurred the line on CGI. Technically, "computer generated imagery" would be like a 3D render. But what about images retouched with "Photoshop" or scene extension (traditionally known as "matte paintings")? Digital compositing has also replaced the generation loss, scratches, increased contrast and grain, and a host of other artifacts associated with optical printers. But maybe we should go back to them because CGI is evil.
Filmmakers can pull a boner in many different ways—a line of dialog that falls flat, musical score where none is needed or the wrong choice of score, "experimental" editing or lighting that misfires and makes the craftsmen look incompetent—many things.
Yet one class of imagery always gets singled out by the uninformed as the bane of modern movie-making.
The attitude it's "evil" is because it's over used. Thus the title of this thread "CGI" burnout. It's a one trick pony, or it's generally used that way.
With old fashion effects, you had in camera, optical, models, multiplane animation, stop motion, life size props, etc. When done well it always kept you interested because they always changed the trick.
Because it was time consuming, labor intensive and expensive it was reserved for special shots or limited but elaborate sequences that enhanced the film.
That's not to say I don't enjoy CGI. Terminator 2 was impressive, Jurassic Park T-Rex was impressive, Gollum was impressive.
For myself it's not just the over use or laziness of CGI, it's the lack of good story, score, and sound effects that adds to a sense of dullness in many block buster films. The sound mix is terrible, the action isn't earned. Yada, yada, you all heard it from me before.
Solium wrote:It's a one trick pony, or it's generally used that way.
Non sequitur. That's like saying all pre-digital VFX are the same, one-trick pony. They're all shot with cameras.
it's the lack of good story, score, and sound effects that adds to a sense of dullness in many block buster films. The sound mix is terrible, the action isn't earned. Yada, yada, you all heard it from me before.
Again, you're lumping the entire production into one, monolithic block. May I suggest that the mainstreaming of mass-produced VFX following STAR WARS—still in the pre-digital era—led to the current state of affairs? The non-creative types in Hollywood who control the money thought the FX alone were the winning formula. So they greenlight lots of tepid movies heavy on VFX—which are now even easier to crank out. Make sure there are lots of boobs, explosions and car chases, and very few one-liners to translate for foreign audiences, and you have a system that will work "well enough."
After Pixar scored big once, then twice and yet a third time, many others figured computer animation was the "winning formula." Cel animators and equipment were dumped and computers brought in, but all that achieved was a bunch of boring, lack-luster CGI movies aimed at kids.
Story is paramount. John Lasseter is a sterling example. If you read about his career and see the before-and-after effects of his influence on the stories, you will see what I mean.
Sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon once said "ninety percent of anything is crud," which is not some previously unrealized nugget of wisdom. It is simple statistics. The top ten percent in any field will still be the top ten percent, even if the entire field gets collectively better.
I'm merciless as a movie and TV critic. I make Mr. Cranky look generous. (Although he's funnier than I am.) I'm very selective of what I will sit down to watch, and will walk away if the production takes too long to get up to speed. I'm also sensitive to the "scripting formula" used by Hollywood.
CGI is not the problem, cheap CGI is, or so much CGI it's over the top (you know it when you see it).
So, you take it or leave it as it comes.
This topic is not about CGI quality, Rory. In this topic, CGI is the problem because it's ubiquitous and wipes out the awe I felt wondering how they did something.
That awe is gone because so many special effects are now CGI, as in my example of JURASSIC PARK PART 19, the fact that actors were actually harnessed and lifted on-set lost its ability to amaze me.
CGI is not the problem, cheap CGI is, or so much CGI it's over the top (you know it when you see it).
So, you take it or leave it as it comes.
This topic is not about CGI quality, Rory. In this topic, CGI is the problem because it's ubiquitous and wipes out the awe I felt wondering how they did something.
That awe is gone because so many special effects are now CGI, as in my example of JURASSIC PARK PART 19, the fact that actors were actually harnessed and lifted on-set lost its ability to amaze me.
Wait a minute... Let me try to understand where you're coming from.
CGI photo-realistic imagery in movies is a "problem" because it doesn't awe you. So, I guess you're missing old mechanical effects and old-style matte paintings and such? Well, I can relate, but there's no turning the clock back, so I don't understand exactly what your problem is -- other than you don't enjoy some, maybe most, modern movies!
WELCOME TO THE CLUB! But otherwise, all I can tell you is either get used to it, or stop watching new movies.
The special effect I mostly complain about with most movies is the most important, yet seemingly hardest to achieve -- a damn fine script.
The problem is that they are using more CG effects than they can achieve well. It can work if it is well done, carefully, in small amounts. Most of this superhero stuff is packed with it, every scene has some amount of it. In the past they would not have attempted it, but now, with technology enabling it, they are smattering it all over the place, and it is transparently fake in even the most expensive productions.
Even when done well their too focused on making "realistic" special effects, instead of "believable" special effects. There is a nuance. Special effects like animation is the illusion of life. An artistic interpretation can often be more satisfying than photo-realism. I would like to see more creativity in the CGI arena.
I remember being amazed about 2 years ago when I learned the clever way they made Seymour grow in a single shot in LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, and made his lips move so fast.
Unless someone does a non-CGI movie*, that amazement is a thing of the past.
*Not an impossibility, since we got a B&W silent film a few years ago that got a lot of good attention!
One of the charms of the Addams Family TV show was seeing "Thing" appear out of a tabletop, etc., even knowing it was a person. In the movie version, seeing Thing just everywhere wasn't as interesting.
But maybe it has to do with me being a teen when I saw the TV show....
I just found SPECIES II for one clam at a library booksale.
I'm looking forward to seeing the special effects, since I think they are more non-CGI than CGI. (I think that was the only way they got Giger to participate again.)
