PDA

View Full Version : ANOTHER article about how "lackluster" CGI seems these days


Array
07-26-2003, 04:35 AM
http://www.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/entertainment/features/0727cgi.html

this one is packed full of uninformed quotes. enjoy.

Fasty
07-26-2003, 01:39 PM
While reading it I had to check that I wasn't reading an article from the Onion.com. Sadly not.

Chewey
07-26-2003, 03:34 PM
Loose the audience?

Indeed.

og_reborn
07-28-2003, 02:17 AM
WELL,

I agree that a lot of that article was written in a very uninformed way... BUT I agree with the point. CG is very overdone.

I think in a place like CG talk it's easy for us all to get stuck in a little bubble and all marvel at how wonderful CG is...and how every major CG remake of something is like a big victory for the industry.

I know it's never a good idea to use myself as an example, but I work at a grahphic design department that--until I started--hasn't touched 3d. It has been very difficult for me to convince any of my department to let me use Maya for anything. Their top concern is whether or not my finished work looks GOOD, not just how cool the visuals are. Because of all the shitty CG in movies right now, everyone I work with is convinced that 3d is not something they want to see on our channels. It's a narrow-minded opinion for them to have, but my point is: if these people are so convinced that 3d is gonna make the channels look like shit, something's wrong. CG in movies is their only point of reference.

I think it's very easy for us to forget that most of the public are starting to get really sick of cheaply slapped together CGI. The box office is proving it. Whether or not that article was written by a hack, it doesn't change the fact that what the article says is worth taking into consideration.

ahhh I'm sure I'll regret posting this in five minutes, but AH WELL!!:D

show
07-28-2003, 02:50 AM
I agree with what og_reborn said about the article quite a bit there.

I can see how people might take offense to people slagging off the special effects industry with their misguided comments but although I might just be a bit naive, i think its a good thing that the press is starting to write about it. Maybe the suits will put more money and time into the hands of the effects studios instead of constantly pushing for it to be cheaper and cheaper. Probably not thought :/

Personally I hope i get to work at a studio where 'story is king'.

Gentle Fury
07-28-2003, 04:20 PM
omg, ok, not all cg in movies is supposed to look photoreal!! It is amazing how in a movie like Spy Kids and Matrix you will have these people that have NO CLUE about the creative process or artistic vision will say......ehh, it looks fake. These same people won't even bat an eye when there is a really ellaborate piece of CG in a scene that isnt impossible.......cuz they didnt know it was there!

People dont seem to realize that most movies today.....be it comedy, drama, action, sci-fi......has been digitally touched in some way. The only time it's noticeable is when it is so over the top that it was something that couldnt have really happened.

To actually see that people are complaining that the FX looked too "Fake" in Spy Kids 3D is just getting silly.......it is a 3D MOVIE!!!!!!! It's basically an animated feature with people in it!!! Thats like saying "I didn't really like shrek, it just didnt look realistic to me..."

How many people realized that the whole freeway scene in the matrix was all artificial.......there werent any real cars there!!! You think the camera man can get run over and live?? No, what people notice is when someone jumps from car to car......well obviously that can't be real. But that was one of those movies that had more by way of fx than anyone could possibly realize.

Kind of like Fight Club. There is so much CG in that movie its not even funny......but all anyone noticed was the blatant scenes.......like the bomb and the kitchen.........but there was SO much more!

I just wish armchair critics would take some time to just watch a damn movie to watch a movie and not rip it apart because they have no clue what went into it!!

What right does someone have to bitch about a fictional movie that is not supposed to be based in reality as unrealistic???? It's like someone looking at a picasso and saying......that just doesnt look like a person to me...........

Peter Reynolds
07-28-2003, 05:48 PM
well lets not forget fake sound, fake lighting, fake writing, fake acting, etc.

But if you want to get serious, what about a lot of "news" coverage and reporting that's fake, manufactured, biased and contrived?

Lets point the finger back at em.

:o)

NanoGator
07-28-2003, 10:35 PM
I think an unfortunate factor in this topic is that we're pretty much at a point where any scene can be done. There's really no more "how did they do that?" I have a feeling that that factor alone has caused some of the problems people are complaining about. It doesn't help when there are artifacts on the screen that clue one in to it being digital.

I find it interesting that they didn't bring up T3, tho.

raz-0
07-29-2003, 04:32 AM
They did bring up T3.

I think a large part of the problem with CGI, and effects in general in movies today, is that you can do whatever you want, and you can spend as much or as little on it as you'd like.

Just because you can, should you?

I can watch the orginal star wars to this day,a nd really enjoy it. The sets are great. However, hand Lucas as much money as he can burn, and all the effects technology he can imagine.. and you get crap. There was no more sitting down and having to judge what was worth spending time and money on to have.

Then you have things like LXG. Where they did an increadible ammount of effects on a relatively small budget. But the effects and sets often times look the product of the lowest bidder. We've passed the era where someone though up something very cool, but impossible sounding, and went to a very creative bunch of folks and said, how big a pile of money do I need to do this? SOmetimes they'd say I don't know if you can, sometimes we got something we never saw before.

We are seeing the equivalent of people who without outside pressure make things badly, people who's creative ideas really should have been told that costs too much but are told sure thing by someone willing to do a less than top notch job, and people who should have been told that it could be done, but not well.

It's not so much bad CG, it's just poorly utilized and overly invested in to make a film. hollywood needs to take a breather, get back to making interesting stories, and give the writers' imaginations time to exceed the industries grasp again.

hyped1
07-29-2003, 09:37 PM
Its all sad but true! Forget the story, acting, plot, message, or even making the movie entertaining; lets just throw CGI at it! It's the cure all for boxoffice crap! Sadly the effects should just be that, effects but they are not in most cases they are the whole point of the movie. I love paying $9 to go see demo reels!

I love what can be done with CGI! I want to very soon be part of that world, but if the studios, or directors have no story to tell everything falls flat cause most people can see "reality" in their own world and fantastic or unbelievable is moreso with a good story or reason to exist.

At this rate movies will be throwing in dinosaurs, lightsabers, and mutants from their default library at random movies...just because they can!:scream:

Boone
07-30-2003, 09:10 PM
I bought Jurassic Park III last night and I think it is a triumph because Stan Winston & ILM worked together to create the best special effects...insted of competing with each other.

I think too much CG can kill a film - but we've already gone over this ground.:hmm:

eliseu gouveia
07-31-2003, 12:03 AM
I still get depressed when I hear people screaming how the multiple Agents Smith in the burly brawl were SO obviously CG when in fact most of th time they were real LIVE actors posing as Smith.

raz-0
07-31-2003, 05:50 AM
eh, pretty much ever scene in the burly brawl with less than like 20 agents was great (except where they walk away.. should have given them wigs so your exact copies don't have 20 different hair colors). Grafing the actor's face on all the extras was really slick.

But when it was LOTS of agents, it was... lacking.

I still enjoyed watching it, but it was more cartoon than realistic doubling of live actors.

R.Cade
07-31-2003, 07:17 AM
I will agree with the article and the point that... if you can tell it's CG, then it's bad CG.

I also thought The Hulk was horrible, not even close to 10 year old Jurassic Park standards.

hyped1
07-31-2003, 08:01 AM
Oh c'mon the Hulk was great! For a completely CG character, who's 15 feet tall, and interacting with the world (and destroying it most of the time) it was pretty good! There was no Stan winston puppets in this one so you have to hand it the ILM guys for making it seem real enough!

eliseu gouveia
07-31-2003, 02:06 PM
If there was ANY other way to make a 15 feet tall hulking green muscled mass of pure rage, they would have thought of it.
It just HAD to be CG and ILM acchieved that with flying colours.
Problem is that people are growing more and more nitpicky over CG, most of the times pointing their misinformed fingers just for the sake of looking cool by trashing other people´s work down; they will rip a Hulk apart but will completelly believe that a Balrog and a Tree sheppard is real and there. Biaised.
They will see CG agent Smiths in a burly brawl in shots where they are actually LIVE human actors. Biaised.

astrofish
07-31-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by hyped1
At this rate movies will be throwing in dinosaurs, lightsabers, and mutants from their default library at random movies...just because they can!:scream:

Mutant Dinosaurs with Lightsabres! Wow, that'll be great! When can I see it?

(Just kidding)...

Cheers - Steve

Dominique
07-31-2003, 06:41 PM
Just another Talking Article,

The Hulks Story is Bad, (that poor kid story fighting against his father ain't atractive) Reloaded story ain't as good as the first one, T3 ain't T2 (a bit too much the same).

SO only Fans and effects people go see the movie.

It just makes more than CGI to make a good movie, CGI itself ain't the problem, ..., directors just forgot to tell a good story and how to tell it, (not lasseter, he knows better).

Except one thing, to go and see a TRex eating humans, or a big boat going under, now here we have a big and amazing spectacle that could be real!!! (Dinosaurs aren't mutants or ETs, a Titanic ain't the Enterprise)

dharmabum
07-31-2003, 09:21 PM
Don't blame the CGI, blame the badly written scripts and greedy executives who only want to make movies that cater to idiots and are to afraid to try anything new so they'll just keep remaking the sam old shite over and over again except with bigger FX on tighter budgets and in less time. It's a vicious cycle.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 06:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.