Is CGI ruining movies?

[Chuck(G)]

Sure, but CGI's getting cheaper all the time and you don't have to pay big-ticket stars to fill in the scenery. Reminds me of a lot of TV stuff nowadays--big name actors, interesting sitatuion and absolutely crummy writiing.

I hope overuse of CGI is just a fad. I find that the process work that shows the burning of Atlanta in GWTW far more realistic than a lot of the CGI stuff.

[Leland]

Remember Gary Sinise in Forrest Gump? The way they made his legs disappear was no less than genius. That's manipulation, not letting the computer make the whole movie. Leave that to the animation.

It's not the fault of computer graphics; it's the fault of screenwriters, directors, etc., that CGI is used tastelessly and/or without merit.

Jurassic Park was half storytelling and half CGI showcase. It was used to make things happen that are otherwise impossible, and successfully told a story that couldn't be done as well before. But, at times, I couldn't help but think that the movie as a whole was nothing more than a demonstration of ILM's animation talent -- a sort of feature-length infomercial.

Still, it's nothing more than expensive animation. It just looks more realistic than the 2D version. It's not going to replace crews shooting footage on the street.

The worst part is that the "Making Of..." special effects documentaries have become BORING: "Here, we shot the actors against a green background. Here, we draw stuff on the computer. Here, we put them together." Whatever happened to modelmaking, stunts, mechanical innovation, and stuff like that?

[Leland]

... all the fight scenes were choreographed with live actors who spent so many months training with martial arts gurus was amazing. No CGI overglaze or embellishment was used. Just groundbreaking camera wizardry.

That's why I dig almost anything that Jackie Chan puts out. One of his more recent ones opened with a fight that spent a good time underneath some railroad cars... that was wild!

And, even though it had its share of CGI, Hero, too, was simply amazing to watch.

[Doug@GT]

But, at times, I couldn't help but think that the movie as a whole was nothing more than a demonstration of ILM's animation talent -- a sort of feature-length infomercial.

If that's the case, then I'd nail 'em for deceptive advertising. How can Jurassic Park have such realistic CGI, and then 10 years LATER the Star Wars prequels look so crappy? I thought technology was supposed to IMPROVE over time. Or does Geo. Lucas fancy himself a cartoonist?

Anyone remember "The Last Starfighter"? First movie ever to use CGI, and it still looks more realistic than some of the garbage put out today.

Shoot, remember back to the time of Apocalypse Now, where they slaughter a REAL animal. Go figure.

Doug "who thinks westerns would be more exciting if the actors used real bullets"

[Leland]

If that's the case, then I'd nail 'em for deceptive advertising. How can Jurassic Park have such realistic CGI, and then 10 years LATER the Star Wars prequels look so crappy? I thought technology was supposed to IMPROVE over time. Or does Geo. Lucas fancy himself a cartoonist?

I think it's mostly because there were no animated humans in Jurassic Park (well, apart from being hors d'oeuvres). I haven't seen any CGI humans that move correctly. They've been getting close, but they're never quite right.

That's part of why The Last Starfighter looks so good. There's no real-life counterpart to space fighters, so we can't tell whether they're moving the way they're supposed to. Plus, motion blur hadn't been developed yet (didn't even see it in shorts until Pixar hit the scene), so the result was crisper.

Plus, in Star Wars, all the explosions, smoke, and flying dirt are really complex elements that may never be done right in a pure simulation. They certainly don't help to contribute to any realism.

[ThomasDodd]

1/ I admire the technology and those who have the skills and art to use it.

2/ It appears "fuzzy" on the big screen (particularly noticed in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy).

Interestingly, a lot of models were used in those. In places trhat CGI would typically be used today. Watch the extras on the "Special editions" (as well a the missing parts of the movies) and you see a lot more modeling was used than one expects.

Like many other inovations, it get's over used at first. Then people come back to the methods that work better. It's happening with CGI. Not every where, but a lot have decided they don't like the look of CGI, and go with traditional effects. Or a combintion, using CGI where it works best, and practical effects when they are better.

[Dylan King]

The scary thing is with all the advancements in sound font technology, soon CGI would be matched with CGM and put everyone out of work. No more hearing Tommy Johnson on soundtracks, just his sound clone .

Ken F.

Absolutely right about studio players. The gigs in town have been on a downward slope for a long while. Especially in television, where so few shows are using live players.

With orchestral libraries like the VSO, we are able to write and record whole symphonies at our desk at home and deliver them under extreme pressure from directors and producers. Everything is so fast and over budgeted in Hollywood that the composer usually ends up being the garbage man. "Here's the movie, fix it, stay out of the way of it, and make it sound like John Williams. And did I mention I need it all recorded and mixed by Friday morning?"

Of course the pay is great for composers, but the time demands and most of all limited budgets make it impossible to record live bands. And the best we can do keeps getting better and better with technology. The Vienna Symphonic Library has millions of samples of performance techniques from every orchestral instrument. The sounds are endless.

If somebody is going to pay you $20,000 a week to score a TV show, and you can get away with samples, who would dish up the $15,000 it would cost to record a live group?

I suspect it is similar in CGI. Eventually it may take over all together. Charlize Theron can stay forever young and Al Pacino can star in every mob movie, even after they're dead! Once everything is a sample of everything else, what is real?

Nothing in this world is real. Only the Word of the Eternal contains the wisdom man needs for survival and salvation. CGI and everything else that may or may not suck in this world is about to be turned upside down! And then the earth will be re-newed and will will be rid of reality shows and the liberal media bias forever. Not to mention people who drive like retards and stuck up, self righteous trumpet players.