Does CGI Ruin Movies?

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
Good editorial here:

Does CGI Ruin Movies?

Today's big budget movies have the technology to create worlds and characters unlike anything we've ever seen before... but is that really a good thing? What if CGI just distracts from all the important things about moviemaking?
I recently saw Cameron hyping Avatar by enthusiastically pointing out that all the characters in his movie aren't animated but are real actors animated by motion capture! Woohoo! Then he went on to show his wired-up actors riding wire-framed creatures for the ultimate in realism.

Does Cameron realize that this isn't new technology? That audiences have seen motion capture before in movies such as Zemeckis' Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, two movies that underwhelmed audiences and critics with its motion capture tech? That Lucas attempted to wow audiences with this same gimmickry and ended up making the disappointing SW prequels?

Thinking along the same lines:

More worryingly, CGI has given free rein to the worst, most-OCD elements of moviemakers' imaginations. Whereas, before, worldbuilding would have meant coming up with the strongest stories and performances in order to pull audiences in, now both of those seem to often take backseats to the spectacle of the spectacle itself (Think of this summer's Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, which didn't appear to make sense, or again, the Star Wars prequels, where Lucas as a director was clearly more in love with the technology responsible for the worlds he was building than the actors and dialogue he was populating them with). That James Cameron has created languages, flora and fauna and hundreds of elements for Avatar's Pandora that we may not even really see in the finished product is, at once, both an impressive and incredibly frustrating feat: Good for him for being so dedicated, but without a good story, it'll be the most expensive window dressing for a store that no-one wants to shop at.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
730
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
I think 2012 is a good example of CGI hampering a potentially good movie; the acting-apart from Woody Harrelson-was spare and took a back seat to the admittedly stellar special effects.

Of course, my kids raise their eyebrows when I tell them Star Wars (ep IV) was a major leap in movie effects "back in the day"...
 

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
What is so frustrating is that while we bemoan the awful state of cinematic sci-fi, it has proven to be very profitable. Look at Transformers 2, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It generated well over $400 million despite awful reviews. Can anyone fault Hollywood if they perceive the lesson to be that CGI is more important than a story?

We have nobody to blame but ourselves (well...not me. I rent everything. :)). As long as knuckleheads show up for every piece of garbage Tinsel Town shoves out there, nothing will change.
 

kawaiku

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
73
Location
Mars... the planet
Country
llUnited States
Want to moan some more?

"Avatar" sets audiences on epic, visual ride

PARIS — James Cameron's long-awaited "Avatar," one of the most expensive films ever made, takes off this week in an awe-inspiring display of Hollywood power that has revolutionized cinematic special effects.

At a cost of about $400 million to make and market "Avatar," the Oscar-winning director of "Titanic" has created a lush world of dense forest, floating mountains and tremendous creatures in a computer-generated spectacular that transforms much of the cast into giant, blue-skinned humanoids.

The movie, which premiered in London on Thursday and begins landing in theaters worldwide next week, represents a huge risk for the 20th Century Fox studio that backed it and is being watched closely in Hollywood for its impact on the future of movies, special effects and expansion of new 3D technology.

"It's absolutely cinema, but I think cinema redefines itself every few years with new techniques," Cameron told reporters in Paris before the film's launch.

Beyond dazzling audiences with visual effects that plunge the viewer onto the planet Pandora 4.4 light years from Earth, "Avatar" provides a familiar mix of romance, action movie thrills and an old-fashioned battle between good and evil.

"The more fantastic the subject ... the more recognizable and universal, the relationships and people need to be," Cameron said.

"Avatar" shows the forest-dwelling Na'vi fighting for survival against a rapacious colonial mining operation bent on moving them away and stripping their planet.

A crippled ex-Marine is chosen to make contact with the mysterious people as an avatar, a remotely controlled body, which allows him to move freely in the alien world where he falls in love with a Na'vi princess.


SCIENCE FICTION TECHNOLOGY

What makes "Avatar" stand out, however, is the appearance of its three-dimensional forest scenery and the seamless interaction of the human cast with the animated world.

Rigging his actors with specially developed cameras to register every gesture and facial expression as they moved about a bare stage, Cameron and his technical team blended their images into the computer-generated world of Pandora.

"The science fiction of the technology was more science fiction than the story," said Sigourney Weaver, star of Cameron's film "Aliens," who plays a scientist in "Avatar."

"You're aware that a lot of work is going on around you, but you, the actor, just have the responsibility of being in the moment and being in the world," she said.

Cameron, who created many of the special effects with "Lord of The Rings" director Peter Jackson's studio WETA Digital, said the most daunting problem was to ensure the effects did not overwhelm the film and disconnect audiences from the story.

But in Hollywood, performances matter less than results at the box office, and the film industry is closely watching "Avatar" for its impact on film costs and the expanding of 3D technology.

For Fox, a unit of News Corp, the movie represents a huge risk because typically big-budget movies have a fan base from books or other material, like the "Harry Potter" movies.

"Avatar" has no built-in audience, and its effects are costly. A Fox spokesman said it required $237 million to make and $150 million to promote.

When Cameron made "Titanic" for Fox, he drew sharp criticism for its high cost, but the 1997 film made $1.8 billion at global box offices and remains the highest-grossing film of all time.

Last month, Fox studio boss Jim Gianopulos told Reuters he had "no doubt" of making a profit.

If "Avatar" is a big success in 3D, industry watchers expect more theaters to install the new technology quickly and more directors to make movies in the medium.

Early reviews are strong. Show business newspaper The Hollywood Reporter called it a "jaw-dropping wonder."
This was draw dropping for me when I was younger; Skeleton Fight. As much as I want to see Avatar (and I most likely will), I'm expecting something like Transformers 2... Ie. bad story but good fight scenes. Though I'm not sure why people are emphasizing this whole 3D thing imo. If ticket prices go up because of the success of this "new" technology, I wouldn't be surprised. After-all, terrible movies with huge budgets need to make a profit too.
 

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
Ugh. :kotz:

I don't mean to be so down on Avatar but what is galling me is that now that we have the technology to make our sci-fi dreams come true, we are getting one movie after another that squanders the opportunity. There are so many novels out there that have great plots plus amble opportunity to utilize CGI to its fullest (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, any of the Honor Harrington novels, The Lost Fleet, Hammer's Slammers, any of Ian Banks' stories...on and on and on), but Hollywood is instead giving us retreads of retreads of retreads of super-soft sci-fi. Not to sound like a gaming fanboi, but I want a movie that captures the essence of GalCiv, Sins of a Solar Empire, EvE Online or X3. In other words, I want a movie that takes place in outer space; that deals with politics on a grand scale; that focuses upon relatable human characters who are trying to make it in a big, dangerous universe. Instead, we're getting sci-fi movies that have more in common with fantasy than with science fiction (i.e., we get furry Ewoks and Avatar's cat creatures, and Transformers and jungle adventures). When I think of sci-fi, those themes don't make the list.

I had faith in Cameron; I was expecting The Abyss in space (in many ways I find that The Abyss presents the most accurate interpretation of life in space, despite the fact that it takes place under water. From the claustrophobic environs, to the ever-present water [think the vacuum of space], I think The Abyss is begging to get translated into an outer-space movie). Instead, I get a retelling of the Ewoks on Endor.

As for this 3D craze, it's happening for two reasons. First, from what I understand, all these 3D movies require movie theaters to install very expensive equipment that just happens to also be a digital distribution platform. The big studios are very keen to get this tech out there as it eliminates a big chunk of the piracy problem.

The second reason is that 3D is just another way of ramping up already ramped-up CGI FX. Movies are becoming less about plot and acting and more about an indoor fireworks display.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Other than powerguns are more like lasers than gunpowder weapons, I would enjoy seeing any of the Hammer's Slammers novels done to the SPR or BoB level. You might have to CGI out the wheels/treads of the hover-tanks/-jeeps, but they are worthy of doing in film.

Or a novel called Armor by John Steakley. It's a powered armor infantry vs aliens theme, but with the dark undercurrents of "everyone is expected to die by their 5th drop". The flashbacks to combat from the "present day" make the book a bit difficult to follow, but it's a good story IMO.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
[QUOTE='Ol Fezziwig;1235457
Of course, my kids raise their eyebrows when I tell them Star Wars (ep IV) was a major leap in movie effects "back in the day"...[/QUOTE]

I watched it recently, and I think it still sets a high standard. There something about those clapped-out grimy spaceships that feels right, especially compared to shiny CGI ships.
 

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
I watched it recently, and I think it still sets a high standard. There something about those clapped-out grimy spaceships that feels right, especially compared to shiny CGI ships.
Exactly right! That is why I also love Alien. The Nostromo looks like a real working vessel, not just on the outside but on the inside, too!
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,410
Reaction score
2,120
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Exactly right! That is why I also love Alien. The Nostromo looks like a real working vessel, not just on the outside but on the inside, too!
That was my impression of 'Serenity'. A very human-centric story supported by real characters.

Hey I just saw 'A Christmas Caraol' and enjoyed it.

Don't think I could take 'Avatar' at almost 3 hours long. Haven't even seen 'BraveHeart' yet for that very reason.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Exactly right! That is why I also love Alien. The Nostromo looks like a real working vessel, not just on the outside but on the inside, too!
I agree to some degree, but I think the passageways and open areas were a bit too big in some places. Spaceships should be every cubic meter at a premium, along the lines of a submarine, or at the very least a surface vessel trying to squeeze every last ounce of cargo space from the whole hull. I think the lifeboat had the spacing right, but some of the mechanical and storage areas seemed a bit to "open".
 

Scott Tortorice

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
7,663
Reaction score
99
Location
The shadows
Country
llUnited States
I agree to some degree, but I think the passageways and open areas were a bit too big in some places. Spaceships should be every cubic meter at a premium, along the lines of a submarine, or at the very least a surface vessel trying to squeeze every last ounce of cargo space from the whole hull. I think the lifeboat had the spacing right, but some of the mechanical and storage areas seemed a bit to "open".
Yes! Yes! Yes! I agree! For some reason, Hollywood loves to portray spaceships as floating warehouses in space. I guess the reason is because most of these spaceships are probably warehouses to begin with. :) But yes...I totally agree with your opinion. Das Boot provides a better depiction of what I would consider the average space vessel to look like inside than just about any other ship I can think of.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
482
Reaction score
46
Location
SW Indiana
It may be a matter of taste, but CGI just doesn't cut it for me anyway. For example, I have never seen any CGI nearly as real-looking as Tora!Tora!Tora!, which used actual airplanes and ships (or at least full-scale models). The reason seems pretty simple to me.

As far as the previous discussion in this thread goes, I would have to agree that CGI enables a lot of poor filmmaking in general.
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,410
Reaction score
2,120
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
It may be a matter of taste, but CGI just doesn't cut it for me anyway. For example, I have never seen any CGI nearly as real-looking as Tora!Tora!Tora! , which used actual airplanes and ships (or at least full-scale models). The reason seems pretty simple to me.

As far as the previous discussion in this thread goes, I would have to agree that CGI enables a lot of poor filmmaking in general.
Compare that to 'Pearl Harbor' to prove the point. :p
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
How about the fact that Zeros (or any prop plane) will lose their lift if they fly between obstacles at ground-nap altitude for several hundred yards?

Call me a button-counter, if you must.
That's the problem with knowing things. You see something wrong in a movie and you just can't swallow it. It was the level bombers dropping bombs straight down instead of in a ballistic arc that poked a stick in my disbelief. I grew up seeing M60's pretending to be Tiger tanks, so I could swallow the anachronistic ships. But bad physics irks me, and I never understood why the Japanese did their attack planning outdoors.

On the other hand, watching the planes take off from the carrier decks into the early dawn in Tora, Tora, Tora was sublime - a beautiful piece of moviemaking.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
482
Reaction score
46
Location
SW Indiana
That's the problem with knowing things. You see something wrong in a movie and you just can't swallow it. It was the level bombers dropping bombs straight down instead of in a ballistic arc that poked a stick in my disbelief. I grew up seeing M60's pretending to be Tiger tanks, so I could swallow the anachronistic ships. But bad physics irks me, and I never understood why the Japanese did their attack planning outdoors.

On the other hand, watching the planes take off from the carrier decks into the early dawn in Tora, Tora, Tora was sublime - a beautiful piece of moviemaking.
I recently watched the Collectors' Edition. The director pointed out that those were actual planes flying off an actual WWII carrier (albeit an American one, not Japanese).

For lack of a better analogy, old Jackie Chan movies still impress me more than current SFX spectacles. (Jackie has sold out a bit in his old age, but that's another story.)
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
For lack of a better analogy, old Jackie Chan movies still impress me more than current SFX spectacles. (Jackie has sold out a bit in his old age, but that's another story.)
It doesn't hurt that he's such a funny guy.
 
Top