Anyone else getting tired of CGI?

TheMarlin

Emp_Fab said:

I'm far less bothered by the overuse of CGI clichés than I am with this recent American obsession with "superheroes".  Every other fucking film these days is about some fantasy crime-fighting hero dressed in primary coloured lycra with a 'perfect' body, perfect teeth and a unique 'power'.  What the hell is that all about ?  I'm sure the philosophers can offer answers.  

They tried a few, they made a lot of money, they tried more, they made even more money. 

That’s how it works. It will eventually lessen, though never go away.  Much like the glut of Spaghetti Westerns in the 70’s. 

munckee

TheMarlin said:

Emp_Fab said:

I'm far less bothered by the overuse of CGI clichés than I am with this recent American obsession with "superheroes".  Every other fucking film these days is about some fantasy crime-fighting hero dressed in primary coloured lycra with a 'perfect' body, perfect teeth and a unique 'power'.  What the hell is that all about ?  I'm sure the philosophers can offer answers.  

They tried a few, they made a lot of money, they tried more, they made even more money. 

That’s how it works. It will eventually lessen, though never go away.  Much like the glut of Spaghetti Westerns in the 70’s. 

As long as people have been around there have been tales of gods and super strong heroes. 

It’s only been the recent past where they could relatively cheaply make the films. 

EricTheWeary

Emp_Fab said:

I'm far less bothered by the overuse of CGI clichés than I am with this recent American obsession with "superheroes".  Every other fucking film these days is about some fantasy crime-fighting hero dressed in primary coloured lycra with a 'perfect' body, perfect teeth and a unique 'power'.  What the hell is that all about ?  I'm sure the philosophers can offer answers.  

Because CGI. 

fob

For me, Terminator 2 was the first 'oh my God how are they doing that?' film. Not really been bettered in 30 years I'd say.

axisus

I don't mind CGI if the story is good enough, but some films clearly lack storyline.

I'm slumming it as the moment and really enjoying old Classic Doctor Who. I bought all the Jon Pertwee DVDs. The effects are, well, downright appalling in places but the storytelling is very good and I find I can put up with the effects.

DiscoStu

fob said:

For me, Terminator 2 was the first 'oh my God how are they doing that?' film. Not really been bettered in 30 years I'd say.

And the first Jurassic Park. It still looks phenomenal.

EricTheWeary

I have done the same - complained about modern movie making, that’s it’s just all CGI and no story, the films are all too long,etc. But I also realise that Hollywood has been targeting these at a fairly low common denominator for the last thirty years; I am not a 14 year old in Nebraska or Beijing so none of this is targeted at me so I don’t really have a right to complain. 

There is grown up story telling, it’s just not in the Marvel or similar universes. French cinema has remained more adult and doesn’t have the budget for CGI, the BBC and to some extent Netflix and other on demand services have made grown up programming so it’s out there. I think the best thing I’ve watched this year has been the Talking Heads remakes, made on a budget less than they spent on coffees making Venom. 

Watching Star Wars or Spider-Man is revisiting my inner 14 year old but actual 14 year olds don’t want the same thing that I wanted back then. Twenty minutes from the end? Huge pointless CGI fight levelling a city? Time for a pee break. 

Rowby1

Yes, too much stuff that looks like a kid playing a game. Not enough good stories.

Cirrus

Jurassic park is the classic example for me. The original was done with actual models, and CGI was used sparingly. It holds up today, 27 years later. The most recent ones are all CGI and look monumentally fake amid all the colour correction, fake depth-of field, lense flare, hyper realistic textures etc.

I'm also not massively into superhero movies, the formulae doesn't interest me. Once it gets beyond a certain level of CGI enhancement, I start just seeing the green screen, totally shatters the illusion.

PolarityMan

Tbh I quite like cgi for the sake of it sometimes just depends on my mood.Sometimes I want something I can get my teeth into a bit more, sometimes I just want to see pointless flashy stuff. I kind of think with marvel specifically the sheer quantity might have fatigued some people...I deal with that by jsut not watching them all. 

Axe_meister

The movie industry now has to contend with the long Streaming series popularity where you can do good story telling. Think Game of Thrones (although the last series was a bit of a CGI mess). In a three hour film you don't have the same time for character development so you have to resort to the wow factor.
Why so long? Lord of the Rings. Now that had to be long, bacause it came from a great book that spent the time developing the characters, that gave the go ahead to produce long films, keep the punters feeling like they are on a rollercoaster for 3 hours by overwhelming the senses they come out feeling a rush no matter how bad the movie actually is.

ESBlonde

No I'm not, but then I don't sit down to watch modern films very often. If I watch a film it is likely to be a classic. Otherwise I consume lots of home made youtube content.

DiscoStu

One of the reasons The Mandalorian looks/feels so good is the use of old skool models as well as CGI. They shoot against a giant video wall too rather than green screen.

This Razor Crest video should cheer you up:

Cols

CGI has allowed some fantastic films to be made which simply wouldn’t have been possible with practical effects.  Without this technological advancement there would’ve been no Jurassic Park, no Terminator 2, no Fellowship of the Rings.  No Pirates of the Caribbean (the first one, screw the rest).  No MCU films either, and while there have been some ropy ones in there we’ve also had some real gems.

The problems arise when the film becomes about the ‘big CGI scene’ rather than the film.  All of the above films are, when you strip away all the special effects, fundamentally good stories.  In contrast, something like Avatar was visually outstanding but, under all of the glitz, was a deeply average plot and script.

At the end of the day CGI is a tool to aid storytelling, and like any tool it can be wielded skilfully, clumsily or overused.  If it’s used well the audience will be thinking “Wow, how are the Avengers going to get out of this one?”  If it’s used badly, the audience will be thinking “Wow, those are some impressive special effects.  Bet they were expensive”.

fields5069

With CGI, there are 2 possibilities in my opinion. 1) It enhances the film - in this case I would say either the director or audience are being lazy. 2) It's necessary for the film to make any sense. The film's probably not for me.

dtr

I love CGI.  I'm a sucker for westerns and those are full of CGI, from the bear attack in the Revenant to pretty much every landscape in the Ballad of Buster Scruggs.  I love the way directors can use CGI to realise their visions of worlds that no longer exist (at least in the state they want to portray).  I get that not everyone likes westerns.  My wife likes period dramas (which also make amazing use of CGI) and my kids like superhero movies.

I'd say that in each genre CGI has enhanced the way directors can tell the stories they want to tell.  I find the superhero movies my kids like about as boring as they find the kind of glacially slow, elegaic westers I like.  I've always figured it's because we enjoy different genres.  They did win me over with Thor Ragnarok though - I thought that was lots of fun.

I'm also hopeful that the more the technology is used, the cheaper and more accessible it becomes, and the greater the creative risks directors will be able to take.

Kalimna

Without going into the pro/con aspect, it is rare that practical effects are seamless. However, they *tend* to be used to the limit of the technology and not beyond. However, probably the scene that most impresses me (still) of the artistry that can be CGI is the small part in Forrest Gump when Lt Dan sits on the side of his boat and swings over the edge. It is perfect, and absolutely could not be done practically.
Another, oft discussed, scene is the steadycam shot in Contact that seamlessly merges two sequences around a mirror that couldn't be achieved without CGI.

And then we have The Scorpion King. Shudder.

Cols

fields5069 said:

With CGI, there are 2 possibilities in my opinion. 1) It enhances the film - in this case I would say either the director or audience are being lazy. 2) It's necessary for the film to make any sense. The film's probably not for me.

To take an example from pre-CGI days, there's the ending scene in Raiders Of the Lost Ark where the ark is sealed into a crate and wheeled into a vast, cavernous warehouse.  It's an iconic scene and a brilliant end to the film.

The scene was done by matte painting; the alternative would have been to rent or build a massive warehouse and fill it with crates for one scene.  Watching it, I wondered why they don't still use matte painting; then I watched a 'making of' and found out that it took the artist 2 months to paint it.  These days it would undoubtedly have been done with CGI to (hopefully) achieve the same effect.

http://https//thumbs.gfycat.com/SkeletalDevotedCondor-mobile.mp4

Philly_Q

I don't blame the CGI, I blame the people who misuse it.

jonnyburgo

Big movies nowadays are just homogenised junk food.