Anyone else getting tired of CGI?

WiresDreamDisasters

WezV said:

I think some need to remember superhero movies come from comic books . 

 Its really not uncommon in the Marvel/DC universes to have a comic with a massive 2 page spread battle scene.  the comic book equivalent of the CGI battle scenes you see in things like the avengers films. 

Those suck too. Give me TransMet over that tripe any day!

WezV

WiresDreamDisasters said:

WezV said:

I think some need to remember superhero movies come from comic books . 

 Its really not uncommon in the Marvel/DC universes to have a comic with a massive 2 page spread battle scene.  the comic book equivalent of the CGI battle scenes you see in things like the avengers films. 

Those suck too. Give me TransMet over that tripe any day!

I agree, but the point was they are almost true to their source material in the scale of their ridiculousness.   

WiresDreamDisasters

True enough I spoze.

Philly_Q

jonnyburgo said:

Agreed, it took away from the gritty reality of the Hobbit movies.

You make a fair point....   However, even in fantasy films I think you have to have some sense of danger - or simply of gravity.  The jumps and swings and falls and escapes I'm complaining about, in "reality" might have a one in a thousand, or a one in a million, chance of success.  But Jackson makes one-in-a-million the norm, the expected, so where's the excitement?

My dad used to tell me about the cliff-hanger serials he'd watch or listen to as a kid.  An episode would end with the hero facing certain death then the next would begin "with one bound, Jack was free!".  It's not exciting, it's just a cheap trick.

WezV said:

I think some need to remember superhero movies come from comic books . 

 Its really not uncommon in the Marvel/DC universes to have a comic with a massive 2 page spread battle scene.  the comic book equivalent of the CGI battle scenes you see in things like the avengers films. 

Agreed, but to make comic books work on screen they have to be handled a little differently.  That's why Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America etc spend so much time out of costume, so they can actually portray some humanity and depth of character.  And they don't need to end every film with the destruction of half a city.

monquixote said:

My biggest problem with modern action films is "shakey cam". I ended up turning off one of the Transformers films because I simply had no idea what was going on.

The action scenes in the Transformers movies look like a close-up film of a big ball of scrap metal rolling down a hill.

Stuckfast

The single worst use of CGI I've ever encountered is in Horrible Histories: The Movie. Which is a shame because the TV series was great.

Sassafras

Apparently an early use of CGI was to enhance the size of Roger Moore's flares in his James Bond films.

Cranky

They haven't really gotten it right since Trip to the Moon.  Un Chien Andalou was alright, tho, I guess.

crunchman

CGI can be good, and it can be awful - sometimes in the same film

If you look at the Lord of the Rings, Gollum was done really well with CGI.  I don't think they they could have done anything like that without the CGI.  On the other hand, when they had the ghosts climbing all over the city in ROTK it looked absolutely dreadful.

The thing with LOTR was that a lot of it wasn't done with CGI.  For instance they had a 1/4 scale physical model of Helm's Deep.  By the time Jackson got to the Hobbit though, he massively overdid the CGI.  He overdid everything else in the Hobbit as well though.

fretmeister

Sassafras said:

And why are they always about 5 bloody hours long?

I blame Nolan for this.

The Dark Knight could have been 15 mins shorter.
The Dark Knight Rises could have been an hour shorter as it really spends that much doing sod all for the story.

Lebarque

CGI is to films what silicone is to breasts. 

boogieman

Lebarque said:

CGI is to films what silicone is to breasts. 

Stops them being all wobbly?

WiresDreamDisasters

Lebarque said:

CGI is to films what silicone is to breasts. 

Corrects life altering traffic-accident disfigurements and gives people a whole new lease of life?

boogieman

Philly_Q said:

jonnyburgo said:

Agreed, it took away from the gritty reality of the Hobbit movies.

You make a fair point....   However, even in fantasy films I think you have to have some sense of danger - or simply of gravity.  The jumps and swings and falls and escapes I'm complaining about, in "reality" might have a one in a thousand, or a one in a million, chance of success.  But Jackson makes one-in-a-million the norm, the expected, so where's the excitement?

My dad used to tell me about the cliff-hanger serials he'd watch or listen to as a kid.  An episode would end with the hero facing certain death then the next would begin "with one bound, Jack was free!".  It's not exciting, it's just a cheap trick

I remember the Adam West Batman tv series working like that. It was so corny it was actually hilarious. At the end of one episode Batman had been encased in quick drying concrete. Robin had to get a pneumatic drill to break him out. The episode ends. Is this the end for our caped hero!!!??  

The next episode. When Batman finally emerges from a cloud of dust and a pile of rubble, Robin says “Batman! You’re alive!! How did you manage that?” 

“Simple Robin. I just....... held my breath.”

carlos

I just want squibs back

rze99

Totally fed up with it. I just don’t watch those type of ginormous effect films but it’s everywhere. Every sky and background has been faked even on Tele programmes. 

I find I really gravitate toward human dramas these days. 

Cranky

The problem isn't CGI.  It's Michael Bay.

Don't get me wrong, the constant destruction of buildings and whatnot is really annoying, often gratuitous.  But shitty story-telling is the real issue.

BigMonka

I’ve got to admit that I love all the marvel films, even the crappy ones, and the CGI doesn’t bother me at all.
What does get my goat in this type of film is why whole cities have to get destroyed as collateral damage in every single film - and that it never gets mentioned in the storyline that they’ll have to spend a decade rebuilding!

The other major annoyance is how the action scenes are ridiculously loud compared to the low mumbling dialogue so if you’re watching at home you have to keep the remote close to change the volume every couple of minutes.

HAL9000

ICBM said:

phil_b said:

the problem is now it is over used and to try and make things spectacular it goes beyond the laws of physics. 

That’s not the problem - the original Star Wars doesn’t obey the laws of physics either, but still looks great.

phil_b said:

It is like watching wile e coyote step off a cliff and not fall until he realises his mistake. 

See, it’s a common misconception that Wile E Coyote is outsmarted by Roadrunner when actually he’s outsmarted by the laws of physics.

Cols

Massive necrobump.

Smallest Son was asking me about CGI, and I was doing my “I was there, 3000 years ago, when CGI was first used” schtick.

Which I remember as being the Genesis Effect in Wrath of Khan.  Turns out I was waaaay off - it was Westworld in 1973.

https://youtu.be/nILKFlpOZi0 

Brio

Did't see any CGI there. Just low res digital camera shit.