Anyone else getting tired of CGI?

EricTheWeary

As I understand it I guess it depends what you mean by CGI. If it's simply an image made on a computer that's then used in a film there are quite a few before Westworld. The opening titles of Vertigo in 1958 include computer generated images. 
The CGI used in Westworld was the first to incorporate CGI with live action (as it says under that YouTube clip)and it uses a (just paraphrasing off the internet here!) pixelation process that was developed for the film and became the basis of the next generation of CGI in movies. So it's probably the most important use of CGI. 

viz

Stratavarious said:

You forgot.. ‘lens flare’

Oh God yes, that drives me insane! Why do they all add that? It’s mental. 

rze99

Yes. A long time ago. I avoid CGI films.

jonnyburgo

Terminator 2 was a bit of a milestone in CGI, looks ropey now though, I think it was Jurassic Park that really blew the doors off.

merlin

Narrative. Character development. 

olafgarten

CGI isn't the problem, it's bad story that ruins the movie.

Also, sometimes CGI can make some amazing visuals. Interstellar is a good example, thinking specifically about the Black Hole scene.

The VFX team actually worked with astrophysisicsts to work out what a black hole spinning at the speed of light would look like and essentially built a simulation to create the images.

The only reason the Black Hole was spinning in the first place was because Nolan, the director, wanted 7 years of time dilation on the planet for every hour on earth and the only way to make the physics work was to have a superfast spinning black hole. 

darthed1981

There is no such thing as a "CGI movie" - I guess what people mean is a film where the CG carnage is the draw for people coming to the cinema.

Certainly the Marvel films don't deserve that kind of bashing.  They couldn't be achieved with practical effects, sure, but they actually build their storytelling film-by-film (and TV series by TV series) so they now have a library of reasonably developed characters and storylines they can tug on at will.

The worst offender for making films where the SFX tries to make up for a lack of decent character and storyline is probably Roland Emmerich, and a lot of his films are at least fun, and "Independence Day" is an all-time classic.  He is also the only person in recent years to try and make a war movie in the old style, where it is also a small and slightly-inaccurate history lesson.

When Directors take against CGI, and my absolute favourite Christopher Nolan is in this category, they get just as much bashing for it.  I am firmly in the club (with Quentin Tarantino, so good company) that "Dunkirk" is one of the finest films made in the last 20 years, and what did Nolan get on the internet... "there aren't enough people on the beach"...

What film is really missing these days is films with a middle-budget.  They tend to either shove them in the "costs 200 million dollars" blockbuster bracket - when certain things, including CGI mega-battles are expected, or in the "costs nothing" bracket, where they hope that something clever will make it huge.

Everyone forgets how clever on how many levels "Paranormal Activity" is - the sequels are shit BTW - but the original works as an innovative horror movie, a study of toxic alpha-male behaviour (the film wouldn't work at all if the male lead wasn't trying to confront the demon like an idiot) and a comedy about a demon trying to get by while everyone screws with it, ok maybe not the last one but watch it with that in mind and try not to laugh.  Cost 300k to make!!

Long story short - lets not exaggerate how much film has apparently gone downhill - there have always been bad big-budget action films.

sinbaadi

I find Special effects of all kinds absolutely fascinating and definitely a career path that I wish I had realised existed when I was in my teens.

CG stuff can be absolutely painstaking and unnoticeable or incredibly janky and in your face.  There's also a lot which you immediately know must be CGI because of what it is, but it's utterly photo realistic.

Watch The Corridor Crew on YouTube.  They have a great series called VFX artists react.  It's brilliant insight, and I really enjoy it when they try to figure out how something was done.

Philly_Q

@darthed1981 Good post, I gave you a wiz, even though you almost ruined it by saying Independence Day is an all-time classic.

Sporky

darthed1981 said:

There is no such thing as a "CGI movie"

Slighy dick answer, sorry - Pixar's output?

Again, sorry. 

darthed1981

Sporky said:

darthed1981 said:

There is no such thing as a "CGI movie"

Slighy dick answer, sorry - Pixar's output?

Again, sorry. 

Haha - don't worry that's a fair point, but ya know what I mean!

Sporky

darthed1981 said:

Haha - don't worry that's a fair point, but ya know what I mean!

I do. Hasn't stopped me trying to come up with counter examples, even though I understand what you meant and agree with it.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow had no physical sets if I remember correctly. (sorry again).

I'm repeating others when I say that I have no problem with CGI where it supports a ripping yarn.

bertie

I miss strings on the space rockets 

darthed1981

Sporky said:

darthed1981 said:

Haha - don't worry that's a fair point, but ya know what I mean!

I do. Hasn't stopped me trying to come up with counter examples, even though I understand what you meant and agree with it.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow had no physical sets if I remember correctly. (sorry again).

I'm repeating others when I say that I have no problem with CGI where it supports a ripping yarn.

I'll be honest I fucking love Sky Captain... "Polly... lens cap ...".

Going back to my OP though what I meant is I don't agree with the idea of "CGI movie" to describe films developed as blockbusters as an insult.

Yes whole films have computer generated backdrops and sets, most famously the Star Wars prequels which were shot almost entirely on green screen, but that isn't what I meant by "CGI movie".

Sky Captain is a steampunk fantasy movie, the SW prequels are Space Opera, the Pixar movies tend to be character dramas, those are what they are, CGI is how they do the SFX.

Greatape

I've also noticed that it doesn't matter which period of history you look at - be it the medieval past or the far future - all the martial arts choreography is the same. And ridiculous. 

darthed1981

Greatape said:

I've also noticed that it doesn't matter which period of history you look at - be it the medieval past or the far future - all the martial arts choreography is the same. And ridiculous. 

I think sometimes it's deliberate, they want it to look good on screen not actually hurt people, and they don't want kids killing each other in the playground.

There is quite a fun series of YouTube videos with experts going through films and analysing how accurate they are.

Greatape

darthed1981 said:

Greatape said:

I've also noticed that it doesn't matter which period of history you look at - be it the medieval past or the far future - all the martial arts choreography is the same. And ridiculous. 

I think sometimes it's deliberate, they want it to look good on screen not actually hurt people, and they don't want kids killing each other in the playground.

There is quite a fun series of YouTube videos with experts going through films and analysing how accurate they are.

There's a particular grappling takedown you see all the time - protagonist wraps legs around assailant's neck and uses a pivoting motion to drop them. Which is pretty dangerous to both parties. 

And then people with swords kicking at other people with swords. Which is nonsense on every level. And the best way to lose a foot.

Then there's the truly crap fight choreography like Iron Fist. 

And best of all, lightsabre fights in Star Wars. These guys are supposed to be expert, über-disciplined, ascetic swordsmen and women... 

Philly_Q

Greatape said:

And best of all, lightsabre fights in Star Wars. These guys are supposed to be expert, über-disciplined, ascetic swordsmen and women... 

I always think with lightsabers it would be next-to-impossible not to lop off bits of your own anatomy.  Especially that one Kylo Ren has, with the extra little "blades" at the sides.  They just cut far too easily.

Greatape

Philly_Q said:

Greatape said:

And best of all, lightsabre fights in Star Wars. These guys are supposed to be expert, über-disciplined, ascetic swordsmen and women... 

I always think with lightsabers it would be next-to-impossible not to lop off bits of your own anatomy.  Especially that one Kylo Ren has, with the extra little "blades" at the sides.  They just cut far too easily.

It seems to be based on Japanese swordsmanship. Kenjutsu as opposed to sports like Kendo was, I think, much more of a mind game and much less dramatic than an American director might want, I guess. 

Yes, I think you're right about the 'self-danger' side. You'd think the Jedi would evolve a sword style that revolved around avoiding the possibility of chopping your own bollocks off. 

TeleMaster

Philly_Q said:

Greatape said:

And best of all, lightsabre fights in Star Wars. These guys are supposed to be expert, über-disciplined, ascetic swordsmen and women... 

I always think with lightsabers it would be next-to-impossible not to lop off bits of your own anatomy.  Especially that one Kylo Ren has, with the extra little "blades" at the sides.  They just cut far too easily.

That's a hilt.