CGI is destroying movies

ScumLord

Mod note: this thread started out as a discussion of Lucy in the recently watched thread. I've tried to preserve the context as much as possible.

ScumLord wrote: »

I watched Lucy the other night for the first time. I was with it right up until Morgan Freeman stood up and stated that the human brain only uses 10% of it's brain and I realised the whole film is based on a scientific myth. I know Luc knew this but it just ruined the entire film for me. As it went on I just couldn't go along with the nonsense presented to me. Being smart means you can do martial arts without any kind of training, being smart means you're stronger the film just went deeper and deeper into nonsense.

Fysh wrote: »

To be fair, I think you have to approach it as a knowingly ridiculous film. Bear in mind Freeman's pontificating what abilities might be unlocked as people start using more of their brains, which he freely admits is entirely speculative and based on no evidence whatsoever

ScumLord wrote: »

Meh, I don't like having to do the whole suspension of disbelieve with movies anymore. The writers need to put in the effort to make a realistic story not just pluck any old nonsense out of thin air. I find most films disappointing, I'm probably being unreasonable but I'm just completely bored with fantasy, I want realism. Or at least fantasy that makes an effort.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thing is, film by its very nature is a suspension of disbelief. For the language and form of cinema to work you have to give yourself over to what is, in essence, an artificial world, with its own rules and logic.

I think it's limiting to say writers need to adhere to a 'realistic story'. Some films work so well because they dive full in into their preposterous, bizarre internal logic and design - why should filmmakers be tied to boring old reality when they have the opportunity to indulge their imagination? That's one of the great opportunities of cinema after all! Sure, countless films work precisely because of their adherence to something more realistic, or scientific principles, or visual groundedness. Others work best when they do the exact opposite. Naturally, it's possible to go too far in one direction or the other - a film can become disappointingly dry when it sticks to 'realism', whereas others can disappear up their own silliness.

Basically: I think saying all or even most films need to adhere to one form or philosophy is indeed a shortcut to frequent disappointment. Filmmakers always will and should explore the wild and fantastical alongside the more realistic - they'd be wasting many of the opportunities inherent in the medium otherwise

The problem is CGI is destroying movies, its like a cancer on the industry. When talking about realism, its not about being believable, its about feeling like its really happening. When its been made by a computer by a guy on a keyboard and clearly we know that, the fantasy that whatever world that movie has created that might be real, or the suspended fantasy a viewer might have for that hour and a half, that is now taken away with CGI. A key element of film has actually disappeared with the advent of this technology, and has been replaced with computer game graphics. There are no Alien suits, and Alien sets anymore, there is a screen with some graphics.
It reminds me of when the topic of discussion in school was the latest Nintendo game and how 'the graphics are amazing aren't they?". We are talking about film and the fantasy/realism of it. CGI is morphing film into games.

And whats even worse is now when someone tries to shoot a movie with some substance of style, and some intricacy of shots like Mann did with Blackhat, that gets panned too. True Detective season2 is getting panned because of too many sweeping shots of the city according to one critic. CGI is cancerous for film theres no two ways about it, unless your into kids movies which is what comic book blockbusters are essentially

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is CGI is destroying movies, its like a cancer on the industry. When talking about realism, its not about being believable, its about feeling like its really happening. When its been made by a computer by a guy on a keyboard and clearly we know that, the fantasy that whatever world that movie has created that might be real, or the suspended fantasy a viewer might have for that hour and a half, that is now taken away with CGI. A key element of film has actually disappeared with the advent of this technology, and has been replaced with computer game graphics. There are no Alien suits, and Alien sets anymore, there is a screen with some graphics.
It reminds me of when the topic of discussion in school was the latest Nintendo game and how 'the graphics are amazing aren't they?". We are talking about film and the fantasy/realism of it. CGI is morphing film into games.

And whats even worse is now when someone tries to shoot a movie with some substance of style, and some intricacy of shots like Mann did with Blackhat, that gets panned too. True Detective season2 is getting panned because of too many sweeping shots of the city according to one critic. CGI is cancerous for film theres no two ways about it, unless your into kids movies which is what comic book blockbusters are essentially

CGI is the greatest tool at a filmmakers disposal, when you look at a film like True Grit and realise that CGI made that film possible. Huge amounts of the sets, weather, etc was created in a computer and you'd be hard pressed to distinguish what was real and what wasn't. Sure there are some films which put all the emphasis on CGI and sometimes it's obvious that something is created in a computer but even then there's often a charm to be found there.

The only thing destroying cinema are film goers who complain about what is happening in Hollywood but won't bother looking beyond their local multiplex. This year alone we have had dozens and dozens of great films, I'm after putting together an amazon order of a dozen Blu-Rays from this past year and not a single one of them is CGI free but it's used in such ways that You'd be hard pressed to point out the CGI.

OldRio

'CGI is the greatest tool at a filmmakers disposal,'

Good grief, you are not being serious, are you?

Mickeroo

CGI is great, it's revolutionised cinema and has widened the scope of what's actually possible on film. People get too caught up with the obsession with crap CGI and ignore the good stuff, probably because they don't even know it when they see it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

CGI is the greatest tool at a filmmakers disposal, when you look at a film like True Grit and realise that CGI made that film possible. Huge amounts of the sets, weather, etc was created in a computer and you'd be hard pressed to distinguish what was real and what wasn't. Sure there are some films which put all the emphasis on CGI and sometimes it's obvious that something is created in a computer but even then there's often a charm to be found there.

The only thing destroying cinema are film goers who complain about what is happening in Hollywood but won't bother looking beyond their local multiplex. This year alone we have had dozens and dozens of great films, I'm after putting together an amazon order of a dozen Blu-Rays from this past year and not a single one of them is CGI free but it's used in such ways that You'd be hard pressed to point out the CGI.

Yeah those sets used to be real Darko, and being serious Im not hard pressed to point out CGI. I don't consider myself particularly smart because of that, but I don't think its hard to point out CGI at all. You just kidding yourself if you are disregarding the realism argument I made above. The assumption that I dont do anything other then watch hollywood or go to the multiplex is pretty far from reality. Just take a look at my posts in this thread the last few years

And take a look at the scene in Sorcerer and tell me a director would even try to do that nowadays. Things like that have disappeared from movie making.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

CGI is great, it's revolutionised cinema and has widened the scope of what's actually possible on film. People get too caught up with the obsession with crap CGI and ignore the good stuff, probably because they don't even know it when they see it.

Any examples that I might have ignored?

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

And whats even worse is now when someone tries to shoot a movie with some substance of style, and some intricacy of shots like Mann did with Blackhat, that gets panned too. True Detective season2 is getting panned because of too many sweeping shots of the city according to one critic. CGI is cancerous for film theres no two ways about it, unless your into kids movies which is what comic book blockbusters are essentially

A sheload of films with stylistic and formal substance still get made, and still get acclaimed, analysed and celebrated. What of Goodbye to Language, Stray Dogs, Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Ida, Timbuktu, Kumiko The Treasure Hunter, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, Snowpiercer, Whiplash, Under the Skin, Two Days One Night, The Look of Silence, It Follows, Song of the Sea, A Pigeon Sat on a Branch... etc... etc...? Not all of these were widely seen (some were), but undoubtedly they received plenty of attention, even if it was in the enthusiast press. To me Blackhat is sort of an abnormality: I certainly thought it was put together brilliantly, but I also see where many of the criticisms are coming from. Mann is simply a divisive figure, like Godard, and that's reflected in the response to the film.

I haven't seen True Detective season 2 so not sure exactly what that criticism is referring to, but if the complaint is there are too many establishing shots of cities, well then that's a valid complaint as relying on swooping establishing shots is lazy filmmaking. In contrast, look at the deserved attention the first series got for its physical, elaborate, multi-minute tracking shot.

I simply feel the 'CG is evil' narrative is a bit simplistic. Sure, some films suffer from a lack of physicality and CG weightlessness (to a degree I'd suggest, however, many of these types of films simply didn't exist before the advent of CG). And I'm definitely encouraged seeing the behind the scenes footage emerging from The Force Awakens, and its reliance on actual sets, costumes etc... But CG has opened up welcome opportunities for filmmakers: films like Gravity or Mad Max: Fury Road would simply not be possible without CG, and they use it as a tool to enhance and complicate their form and language. Ditto Pixar's work. I'd be the first one to call for a resurgence of much of the technology of a pre-digital world (not least 35 and 70mm film). But for every blockbuster CG 'ruins', there's a dozen other great films with either no or incredibly subtle CG to enjoy. I simply cannot look at the wider world of cinema and feel pessimistic about the state of the art.

OldRio

OldRio wrote: »

'CGI is the greatest tool at a filmmakers disposal,'

Good grief, you are not being serious, are you?

CGI is the greatest revolutionary step in cinema since sound was introduced. Great filmmakers can use the tech to create amazing things. Love is a film shot in the director's back garden and were it not for access to CGI he'd never have been able to make it, same goes for Monsters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiYmAixzpMg

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah those sets used to be real Darko, and being serious Im not hard pressed to point out CGI. I don't consider myself particularly smart because of that, but I don't think its hard to point out CGI at all. You just kidding yourself if you are disregarding the realism argument I made above. The assumption that I dont do anything other then watch hollywood or go to the multiplex is pretty far from reality. Just take a look at my posts in this thread the last few years

And take a look at the scene in Sorcerer and tell me a director would even try to do that nowadays. Things like that have disappeared from movie making.

They used to be real but they cost a fortune, filmmakers can now build half a set and then use CGI to finish it off saving millions of dollars and thousands of hours. Try to distinguish where the sets end and the CGI begins in True Grit and it's almost impossible. Realism is such a subjective thing, you can create truly realistic sets using CGI and with the way the tech is going the uncommon valley is soon to be a thing of the past. It's easy to point out poor CGI or recognise that which is used to create characters and environments which can't be done practically but it is getting to the stage where CGI is almost photo realistic. Hell, the game Project Cars features environments that look better than the real thing.

I wasn't assuming that all you watch is big screen blockbusters, rather pointing out that it's a much bigger risk to cinema as we know it than CGI. You can use Sorcerer as a great example of how they used to do but times are changing and the industry is adapting. There are still filmmakers who will try to do something as bonkers as what was done there but when you can recreate it on a soundstage, is it really needed.

Fysh

The thing about CGI is that, used correctly, you don't know it's there. Knowing when CGI is the right tool and when practical effects willbe better is something that seems to escape some filmmakers, but films like Mad Max: Fury Road and The Raid use CGI sparingly and in conjuction with practical effects so a lot of the time you wont actually know what's CGI as it has been well-integrated into the film.

Bad CGI, to me, is like the Star Wars prequels, or the awful effects in Mortal Kombat. Stuff that's so obviously computer-generated that it just kicks you right out of the scene.

Saying that CGI is a cancer on film is daft. Over-reliance on, and sloppy use of, CGI is a problem, yes. But there's an easy answer - stop going to see films like that - they're easy to spot from their trailers.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A sheload of films with stylistic and formal substance still get made, and still get acclaimed, analysed and celebrated. What of Goodbye to Language, Stray Dogs, Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Ida, Timbuktu, Kumiko The Treasure Hunter, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, Snowpiercer, Whiplash, Under the Skin, Two Days One Night, The Look of Silence, It Follows, Song of the Sea, A Pigeon Sat on a Branch... etc... etc...? Not all of these were widely seen (some were), but undoubtedly they received plenty of attention, even if it was in the enthusiast press. To me Blackhat is sort of an abnormality: I certainly thought it was put together brilliantly, but I also see where many of the criticisms are coming from. Mann is simply a divisive figure, like Godard, and that's reflected in the response to the film.

I haven't seen True Detective season 2 so not sure exactly what that criticism is referring to, but if the complaint is there are too many establishing shots of cities, well then that's a valid complaint as relying on swooping establishing shots is lazy filmmaking. In contrast, look at the deserved attention the first series got for its physical, elaborate, multi-minute tracking shot.

I simply feel the 'CG is evil' narrative is a bit simplistic. Sure, some films suffer from a lack of physicality and CG weightlessness (to a degree I'd suggest, however, many of these types of films simply didn't exist before the advent of CG). And I'm definitely encouraged seeing the behind the scenes footage emerging from The Force Awakens, and its reliance on actual sets, costumes etc... But CG has opened up welcome opportunities for filmmakers: films like Gravity or Mad Max: Fury Road would simply not be possible without CG, and they use it as a tool to enhance and complicate their form and language. Ditto Pixar's work. I'd be the first one to call for a resurgence of much of the technology of a pre-digital world (not least 35 and 70mm film). But for every blockbuster CG 'ruins', there's a dozen other great films with either no or incredibly subtle CG to enjoy. I simply cannot look at the wider world of cinema and feel pessimistic about the state of the art.

I agree the cancer remark might be a bit over the top and there are plenty of example of great films like you mentioned this year. But in other ways the cancer remark is the best analogy because CGI is slowly eating away at the industry. The popular culture that is film and cinema is whats suffering, not the arthouse, the independent, they are still there albeit getting harder and harder to make financially as each year goes by.
And take a look at the first ep of True Detective Season 2, and tell me those shots arent some of the best things about it, how they set the tone and colour for the show.

Deleted User wrote: »

CGI is the greatest revolutionary step in cinema since sound was introduced. Great filmmakers can use the tech to create amazing things. Love is a film shot in the director's back garden and were it not for access to CGI he'd never have been able to make it, same goes for Monsters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiYmAixzpMg

They used to be real but they cost a fortune, filmmakers can now build half a set and then use CGI to finish it off saving millions of dollars and thousands of hours. Try to distinguish where the sets end and the CGI begins in True Grit and it's almost impossible. Realism is such a subjective thing, you can create truly realistic sets using CGI and with the way the tech is going the uncommon valley is soon to be a thing of the past. It's easy to point out poor CGI or recognise that which is used to create characters and environments which can't be done practically but it is getting to the stage where CGI is almost photo realistic. Hell, the game Project Cars features environments that look better than the real thing.

I wasn't assuming that all you watch is big screen blockbusters, rather pointing out that it's a much bigger risk to cinema as we know it than CGI. You can use Sorcerer as a great example of how they used to do but times are changing and the industry is adapting. There are still filmmakers who will try to do something as bonkers as what was done there but when you can recreate it on a soundstage, is it really needed.

In my opinion it is needed. For me it adds to the aura, the greatness, the wow. Somebody with genius and ingenuity has designed, thought out an executed a masterpiece of a scene. I don't get that from anything CGI at all. I dont get the goosebumps when I see something epic on a screen that has been created by a computer. Sure it can be really hard to see the difference, but take Game of Thrones for example. When they show a scene with an army in camp the first line is the set and real people, but the rest of the army is CGI as are the tents, just repeated and mixed up behind the front line. So my awe at a series or director putting together such a magnificent spectacle is taken away. Deadwood and Rome were different. Both very expensive too, but did real sets.
You might counter with the fact that GOT couldnt be made without CGI. I would say it could be with proper ingenuity.

Fysh wrote: »

The thing about CGI is that, used correctly, you don't know it's there. Knowing when CGI is the right tool and when practical effects willbe better is something that seems to escape some filmmakers, but films like Mad Max: Fury Road and The Raid use CGI sparingly and in conjuction with practical effects so a lot of the time you wont actually know what's CGI as it has been well-integrated into the film.

Bad CGI, to me, is like the Star Wars prequels, or the awful effects in Mortal Kombat. Stuff that's so obviously computer-generated that it just kicks you right out of the scene.

Saying that CGI is a cancer on film is daft. Over-reliance on, and sloppy use of, CGI is a problem, yes. But there's an easy answer - stop going to see films like that - they're easy to spot from their trailers.

Sure I can stop going to see films like that. After watching 20 mins of Thor I drew a line in the sand. Still though doesn't mean I can't have an opinion or comment on the state of things! Cancer might sound daft, but I am convinced the industry is slowly dieing as an art form. Theres many counters to that argument with films like Whiplash etc but I see a slow death the last few years taking its hold.

johnny_ultimate

I think a lot of that is very harsh on CG artists. Good CG can be just as impressive as good model work, or a good stunt. Watch something like World of Tomorrow, which is an absolutely stunning example of digital composition mixed with hand drawn art. Some of Gravity's computer-assisted camerawork is equally stunning and seamless. CG does not instantly cancel out an artist's touch (after all, it's an artist at the keyboard - it would be akin to blaming the clay on a deficiency in a film's stop motion), and when it comes to the best examples of the form the latter will always win out. Something the improbably gorgeous 'space dance' in Wall-E is more than enough to drop jaws. And I say this as someone who would be uncommonly cynical about the proliferation of CG in blockbusters particularly.

ScumLord

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I think it's limiting to say writers need to adhere to a 'realistic story'. Some films work so well because they dive full in into their preposterous, bizarre internal logic and design - why should filmmakers be tied to boring old reality when they have the opportunity to indulge their imagination?

The problem I have is that movie makers aren't really using their imagination, it's the same old tired cliches because they know what's popular and won't take a chance on something more off the wall because they want to maximise profits.

Imagination is always based in reality, the problem I have when imagination loses its links with reality is that anything can happen without consequence in imagination land. The hero gets killed, lets just magic him back, films just get more and more improbable to the point I just have no emotional link to the film. I know exactly what's going to happen, there's no suspense, there's no drama because reality will never kick in and bring consequences.

I used to love fantasy but I've lost interest in it. Reality is much better, the constraints of reality mean deeper stories, more immersion and more sympathy for characters.

shazzerman

Cinematic realism is a style - a stylistic feature of a film. Internal coherence of the storyworld is more important than how closely a film replicates the real world. CGI is just another - very useful - tool.

Tony EH

CGI is best used when modeling non-organic material. For use with vehicles and background objects it can be a fantastic tool, but all too often it falls flat on its face when used for modeling people or animals.

Bad CGI can take a viewer out of a film in an instant, in a way that bad practical effects couldn't. There's a weightlessness to some CGI effects that will always be terrible and that has people performing the most ridiculous and unrealistic maneuvers possible that can destroy an action scene in a split second. That's as much a fault of the animator as it is the director, but it happens far too often.

CGI is far from a cancer and it's come on leaps and bounds in the last decade, but it still has a very long way to go. As it is, it is cheaper than its physical counterpart, which is mainly why it is opted for and when used correctly and with restraint and physical logic, it can be wonderful.

FloatingVoter

The "don't know it's there" remark reminded me. The most powerful use of CGI I can think of is the resurrection from the dead of Ollie Reed in Gladiator. Sure, we all knew there was going to be trickery used to raise the dead but it was a gamble worth taking. Many directors who worked with the great man probably wished they'd had that technology to save them the bother of the real deal.

There is a tendency now to produce scripts that read as follows

(10 dragons, 100 orcs, 2 demigods, 1,000,000 extras......MEMO TO 4th A.D.: add dialogue[meaningful grunts will do]).

If Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton or any of the other "founding fathers" were around they'd say "just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done". That would also apply to split screens, flashbacks / flash forwards / 3D as much as CGI superheroes. If a script isn't interesting when performed as a table read with the principals, it won't get any more interesting no matter how many whizz bangs you throw at it. Darth Vader turning out to be a daddy still blew a generation's socks off .... even without the Death Star.

johnny_ultimate

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem I have is that movie makers aren't really using their imagination, it's the same old tired cliches because they know what's popular and won't take a chance on something more off the wall because they want to maximise profits.

I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but above all I think you're inaccurately generalising a whole medium based on only the most commercialised side of it. This has come up recently too, and I simply cannot marry the dozens of incredible new films I see every year with the 'cinema is dead / dying / tired / lazy' philosophies. If you're bored of commercial cinema, well then thankfully there's endless other paths to trek - and certainly if you do want something 'realistic', with dramatic consequences and more narrative surprises, I think Lucy would be pretty damn near the bottom of my list of recommendations

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree the cancer remark might be a bit over the top and there are plenty of example of great films like you mentioned this year. But in other ways the cancer remark is the best analogy because CGI is slowly eating away at the industry. The popular culture that is film and cinema is whats suffering, not the arthouse, the independent, they are still there albeit getting harder and harder to make financially as each year goes by.
And take a look at the first ep of True Detective Season 2, and tell me those shots arent some of the best things about it, how they set the tone and colour for the show.

I'd argue that for every CGI heavy blockbuster such as Age of Ultron you have something like Fast & Furious 7 in which they did pretty much everything practically. Hell, when the film called for cars to be dropped out of planes they did just that. Edge of Tomorrow, while FX heavy also did as much as they could practically. Popular cinema is in flux, as it always has been and CGI is one of the tools which has allowed it to go places no one ever thought imaginable. As for saying that arthouse and independent films are getting harder and harder to make, well that's just not true. The success of huge blockbusters has meant that more and more studios are taking chances on riskier, smaller films and tools such as CGI has meant that many independent filmmakers are no able to make the films they want as the cost is no longer so huge.

Deleted User wrote: »

In my opinion it is needed. For me it adds to the aura, the greatness, the wow. Somebody with genius and ingenuity has designed, thought out an executed a masterpiece of a scene. I don't get that from anything CGI at all. I dont get the goosebumps when I see something epic on a screen that has been created by a computer. Sure it can be really hard to see the difference, but take Game of Thrones for example. When they show a scene with an army in camp the first line is the set and real people, but the rest of the army is CGI as are the tents, just repeated and mixed up behind the front line. So my awe at a series or director putting together such a magnificent spectacle is taken away. Deadwood and Rome were different. Both very expensive too, but did real sets.
You might counter with the fact that GOT couldnt be made without CGI. I would say it could be with proper ingenuity.

Sure it's doable but the cost involved is ridiculous. Look at a film like Heaven's Gate which bankrupt a studio, were you to make that films today you would be able to utilise CGI and keep costs way down. Deadwood looked great and they were able to built the set as they knew they would be using it over and over given that the entire series never really leaves the town. With Game of Thrones you have dozens of locations and the expense of building them would be huge.

There are plenty of CGI heavy set pieces and locations that can only be described as jaw dropping. I go to the cinema to be entertained, it's why on a Friday night I can sit back and watch something CGI heavy and not spend the entire time questioning it. I know it's not real but I don't need it to be. Fury Road is a great example of a recent blockbuster which has a huge amount of CGI and most wouldn't notice it. Sure we can tell what is real and what isn't but for the most part it's so well done and you're swept up in it that you don't notice.

Realism is one of the least important parts of cinema given that cinema at heart is about creating worlds. That some of these worlds reflect ours is a nice touch but it's not one that is needed. I'm just after orderering Pre

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure I can stop going to see films like that. After watching 20 mins of Thor I drew a line in the sand. Still though doesn't mean I can't have an opinion or comment on the state of things! Cancer might sound daft, but I am convinced the industry is slowly dieing as an art form. Theres many counters to that argument with films like Whiplash etc but I see a slow death the last few years taking its hold.

Cinema has never really been about art, it's a business first and foremost and always will be. The industry is changing, it does so every time there is a huge advance in technology and the thing is that it always gets better. We are at a time when access to cinema has never been easier, every week dozens of new films are released and most are just the click of a button away. In the past week alone I've found Amir and Sam, Slow West, R100 and a dozen other smaller films available on Amazon Prime. Five years ago I'd be paying outlandish prices to import them.

Cinema will always be there, sure there's a lot of blockbusters but without Transformers 4 and the like we wouldn't have films like Blue Ruin getting a wide release.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd argue that for every CGI heavy blockbuster such as Age of Ultron you have something like Fast & Furious 7 in which they did pretty much everything practically. Hell, when the film called for cars to be dropped out of planes they did just that. Edge of Tomorrow, while FX heavy also did as much as they could practically. Popular cinema is in flux, as it always has been and CGI is one of the tools which has allowed it to go places no one ever thought imaginable. As for saying that arthouse and independent films are getting harder and harder to make, well that's just not true. The success of huge blockbusters has meant that more and more studios are taking chances on riskier, smaller films and tools such as CGI has meant that many independent filmmakers are no able to make the films they want as the cost is no longer so huge.






Sure it's doable but the cost involved is ridiculous. Look at a film like Heaven's Gate which bankrupt a studio, were you to make that films today you would be able to utilise CGI and keep costs way down. Deadwood looked great and they were able to built the set as they knew they would be using it over and over given that the entire series never really leaves the town. With Game of Thrones you have dozens of locations and the expense of building them would be huge.

There are plenty of CGI heavy set pieces and locations that can only be described as jaw dropping. I go to the cinema to be entertained, it's why on a Friday night I can sit back and watch something CGI heavy and not spend the entire time questioning it. I know it's not real but I don't need it to be. Fury Road is a great example of a recent blockbuster which has a huge amount of CGI and most wouldn't notice it. Sure we can tell what is real and what isn't but for the most part it's so well done and you're swept up in it that you don't notice.

Realism is one of the least important parts of cinema given that cinema at heart is about creating worlds. That some of these worlds reflect ours is a nice touch but it's not one that is needed. I'm just after orderering Pre



Cinema has never really been about art, it's a business first and foremost and always will be. The industry is changing, it does so every time there is a huge advance in technology and the thing is that it always gets better. We are at a time when access to cinema has never been easier, every week dozens of new films are released and most are just the click of a button away. In the past week alone I've found Amir and Sam, Slow West, R100 and a dozen other smaller films available on Amazon Prime. Five years ago I'd be paying outlandish prices to import them.

Cinema will always be there, sure there's a lot of blockbusters but without Transformers 4 and the like we wouldn't have films like Blue Ruin getting a wide release.

Listening to a Bret Easton Ellis podcast with Rob Zombie, Zombie was talking about how it wouldn't be possible to make The Devils Rejects anymore the way the industry is structured.
http://podcastone.com/Bret-Easton-Ellis-Podcast?showAllEpisodes=true

I disagree that transformers is what allows other movies to get made, low budget or independent movies were made throughout the 80's and 90's before this new tentpoling trend.

There is an argument that the advances have allowed much more things to be possible on screen, but that to me has clearly not been beneficial to the art of filmaking. There are examples where I can appreciate it of course, but in the main its led to a decline. Movies in popular culture have declined massively in quality, the writers have become lazy and its regurgitating the same crap again and again. Stack up the blockbusters of the 80's and 90's vs the blockbusters of the last decade or half decade and they don't compare. Both want to make money, one era has at least had some decent artistic input, the other is formulaic and designed to appeal to a mind that can't hold a thought for longer then 30 seconds.

If we talk about the latest mad max that everyone was raving about, for me it was very unmemorable compared to the previous 3. It had clever elements, but it was basically Wacky Races mad max style with a an awful lots of explosions. Sure CGI allows the creation of flame throwing guitarists on the front of trucks, but thats pretty sad if its the most memorable part of a mad max movie.

Heavens Gate went bankrupt probably because of a pretty crazy director which Cimino is/was , sure thats a business risk. Now they dont have the risk, because its a bunch of guys at a computer designing all the shots, so they can get things done in record lower budget time. Sure they are artists too who are very good at their craft, but they have pushed out the previous artists with the ingenuity to design and set things up in a more organic and real way. Cinematographers, set designers, directors, their artistic input has been reduced.

As I've said Im talking about film in popular culture. I would love not to have to stop going to see blockbusters because they are all the same, many of my favourite movies are fantasy and sci fi, but that is sadly the case.
Anyway's we've had this discussion before it will come up again I'm sure, the pro CGI guys are never going to come around to my way of thinking, and vice versa! Back to WHYWR

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to a Bret Easton Ellis podcast with Rob Zombie, Zombie was talking about how it wouldn't be possible to make The Devils Rejects anymore the way the industry is structured.
http://podcastone.com/Bret-Easton-Ellis-Podcast?showAllEpisodes=true

I disagree that transformers is what allows other movies to get made, low budget or independent movies were made throughout the 80's and 90's before this new tentpoling trend.

It's not a new trend, the studios always relied on big films to turn a huge profit so that they could take a risk on smaller ones. The only difference now is that they are playing around with hundreds of millions to billions.

Zombie could make The Devil's Rejects today, he'd just have to go about it differently. He crowdfunded a lot of 31 and that's shaping up nicely and with Lords of Salem being his biggest hit he's actually far better off now getting a project up and running than he was 10 years ago.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is an argument that the advances have allowed much more things to be possible on screen, but that to me has clearly not been beneficial to the art of filmaking. There are examples where I can appreciate it of course, but in the main its led to a decline. Movies in popular culture have declined massively in quality, the writers have become lazy and its regurgitating the same crap again and again. Stack up the blockbusters of the 80's and 90's vs the blockbusters of the last decade or half decade and they don't compare. Both want to make money, one era has at least had some decent artistic input, the other is formulaic and designed to appeal to a mind that can't hold a thought for longer then 30 seconds.

If we talk about the latest mad max that everyone was raving about, for me it was very unmemorable compared to the previous 3. It had clever elements, but it was basically Wacky Races mad max style with a an awful lots of explosions. Sure CGI allows the creation of flame throwing guitarists on the front of trucks, but thats pretty sad if its the most memorable part of a mad max movie.

I hate the dismissive attitude to anyone who enjoys blockbusters. Saying that they are made for people that can't hold a thought for longer then 30 seconds is the kind of nasty and unnecessary comment that undermines any valid point you make.

You do realise that the flame guitar was real and not CGI? Kinda makes your point about being able to spot CGI a little shaky don't you think. What impressed about Fury Road was the level of spectacle on screen, most of it was done for real but there was a huge amount of post done to add a true sense of awe. For me the most memorable part of the film was the manner in which it's characters were defined, sure I loved the cars and the explosions but much like in Guardians of the Galaxy it was the quiet moments I loved.

Deleted User wrote: »

Heavens Gate went bankrupt probably because of a pretty crazy director which Cimino is/was , sure thats a business risk. Now they dont have the risk, because its a bunch of guys at a computer designing all the shots, so they can get things done in record lower budget time. Sure they are artists too who are very good at their craft, but they have pushed out the previous artists with the ingenuity to design and set things up in a more organic and real way. Cinematographers, set designers, directors, their artistic input has been reduced.

Had Ciminio access to what the Coen Brothers had then he would have been able to keep costs way down. CGI could very easily been the tool that allowed him not to destroy a studio. You seem to think that the artistic elements of a set have been reduced but that's not the case. Sure you have rare examples such as Life of Pi where all cinematography was done in a computer but that's rare. If anything, the artistic roles on set are multiplying given the number of productions being made each year.

Deleted User wrote: »

As I've said Im talking about film in popular culture. I would love not to have to stop going to see blockbusters because they are all the same, many of my favourite movies are fantasy and sci fi, but that is sadly the case.
Anyway's we've had this discussion before it will come up again I'm sure, the pro CGI guys are never going to come around to my way of thinking, and vice versa! Back to WHYWR

It's not about being pro CGI or against it but rather recognising that it is a tool. Much like a camera is a tool, so is CGI and it can be used to great effect. Yes, you have lowest common denominator crap but the vast majority of film makers use it as a tool to enhance their film. I bet you're a fan of David Fincher and he's a film maker who uses a huge amount of CGI. Pretty much every composition of his has some level of CGI in order to create it

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a new trend, the studios always relied on big films to turn a huge profit so that they could take a risk on smaller ones. The only difference now is that they are playing around with hundreds of millions to billions.

Zombie could make The Devil's Rejects today, he'd just have to go about it differently. He crowdfunded a lot of 31 and that's shaping up nicely and with Lords of Salem being his biggest hit he's actually far better off now getting a project up and running than he was 10 years ago.

The man himself see's it differently.

Deleted User wrote: »

I hate the dismissive attitude to anyone who enjoys blockbusters. Saying that they are made for people that can't hold a thought for longer then 30 seconds is the kind of nasty and unnecessary comment that undermines any valid point you make.

Only because its offended you. Lets not pretend the most recent blockbusters are made for people with attention spans, because they are not, probably you can dig out some moments from some comic book movie, but overall they are manufactured for a certain audience. The formula of popular cinema is fast cuts, lots of action and pace. It equates perfectly to the social media where people are addicted to fast information, updates, checking stuff constantly. Its very formulaic, and the sad part of it is that the mass public lap it up and love it. That is just the trend. Thats why I say CGI is a cancer on that industry because its has played a huge part in popular culture films going in this groundhog day direction.

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that the flame guitar was real and not CGI? Kinda makes your point about being able to spot CGI a little shaky don't you think. What impressed about Fury Road was the level of spectacle on screen, most of it was done for real but there was a huge amount of post done to add a true sense of awe. For me the most memorable part of the film was the manner in which it's characters were defined, sure I loved the cars and the explosions but much like in Guardians of the Galaxy it was the quiet moments I loved.

A real guy and guitar with a lot of post production. Theres some irony in that given its real since its the only thing I can remember from the movie. What was the plot again? I havent seen Mad Max 1 in 10 years but I could tell you the plot of that, I couldnt tell you much about Max Max 3 I saw a month ago other then a big chase, a cool fire guitar and Charlize Theron.

Deleted User wrote: »

Had Ciminio access to what the Coen Brothers had then he would have been able to keep costs way down. CGI could very easily been the tool that allowed him not to destroy a studio. You seem to think that the artistic elements of a set have been reduced but that's not the case. Sure you have rare examples such as Life of Pi where all cinematography was done in a computer but that's rare. If anything, the artistic roles on set are multiplying given the number of productions being made each year.

Lol Cimino would have scoffed at CGI back then. One of the things he wanted to do was surpass the 1 million feet of footage used for Apocalypse now, a pissing contest vs Coppola. The guy would threaten to stop working if certain women he fancied werent cast in the movie. If a studio wants to hire a guy based off one successful movie to try and make the biggest most expensive production of all time, probably best not to pick a totally unpredictable drug fuelled director like Cimino. They tried it with David Lynch with Dune too and they got the same result. These are not examples of why directors should use CGI, its examples of bad choices by studios of employing the wrong guys for high risk projects.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not about being pro CGI or against it but rather recognising that it is a tool. Much like a camera is a tool, so is CGI and it can be used to great effect. Yes, you have lowest common denominator crap but the vast majority of film makers use it as a tool to enhance their film. I bet you're a fan of David Fincher and he's a film maker who uses a huge amount of CGI. Pretty much every composition of his has some level of CGI in order to create it

I can recognise it as a tool. Liquid Metal in Terminator 2 was some real ingenuity and really clever stuff. But then gradually effects are taking over more and more, dominating more and more to which we have movies like Life of Pi winning Oscars that are made on a computer.
Fincher, I liked Seven and The Game a lot. I can't remember much CGI in those, but if there was and he has seamlessly integrated it then it would be the perfect example of how to use it as a tool to improve a movie. If it is just indeed a tool, it shouldn't be taking over the genre of popular film like it has been, because its ruining realism taking away from fantasy films by always going too far. I'd be interested to know about CGI use in those two films

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The man himself see's it differently.

And he's wrong. Zombie is a filmmaker I really like but he's not a commercial one and as such will always struggle to get his films made. Crowdfunding was made for people like him, it allows him to make the film he wants and not have to change it to appease anyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only because its offended you. Lets not pretend the most recent blockbusters are made for people with attention spans, because they are not, probably you can dig out some moments from some comic book movie, but overall they are manufactured for a certain audience. The formula of popular cinema is fast cuts, lots of action and pace. It equates perfectly to the social media where people are addicted to fast information, updates, checking stuff constantly. Its very formulaic, and the sad part of it is that the mass public lap it up and love it. That is just the trend. Thats why I say CGI is a cancer on that industry because its has played a huge part in popular culture films going in this groundhog day direction.

It doesn't offend me, it merely makes me think that you're one of those cinema snobs who looks down on anyone who enjoys films that you don't. When ever people look down on those who enjoy Friday night blockbusters I'm always reminded of a Q&A with Lenny Abrahmson after What Richard Did where a member of the audience asked a question to the affect of how he felt about morons going to see Transformers rather than films like What Richard Did. The reply was along the lines of, I'm one of those idiots who on a Friday night wants to watch something a little fun.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a blockbuster, sure some of them are utter tosh but many are actually damn fine films but don't let that get in the way of looking down from your high horse.

Deleted User wrote: »

A real guy and guitar with a lot of post production. Theres some irony in that given its real since its the only thing I can remember from the movie. What was the plot again? I havent seen Mad Max 1 in 10 years but I could tell you the plot of that, I couldnt tell you much about Max Max 3 I saw a month ago other then a big chase, a cool fire guitar and Charlize Theron.

Maybe the problem is that your memory isn't what it used to be. I went to see it opening day and can vividly recall so much of it, the plot, characters, lines of dialogue, set pieces, etc. Fury Road was blockbuster cinema at it's best, a stripped back narrative that was all about telling a story visually which is something cinema needs to do more.

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol Cimino would have scoffed at CGI back then. One of the things he wanted to do was surpass the 1 million feet of footage used for Apocalypse now, a pissing contest vs Coppola. The guy would threaten to stop working if certain women he fancied werent cast in the movie. If a studio wants to hire a guy based off one successful movie to try and make the biggest most expensive production of all time, probably best not to pick a totally unpredictable drug fuelled director like Cimino. They tried it with David Lynch with Dune too and they got the same result. These are not examples of why directors should use CGI, its examples of bad choices by studios of employing the wrong guys for high risk projects.


I wasn't using him as an example of reasons for using CGI but rather pointing out that were he to make the film today the costs of doing so would be substantially less given access to CGI. Dune is a similair story with Lynch having miles of desert raked so as to be completley devoid of all sign of life, sure you could do it today but you could recreate the same look in a computer saving millions.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can recognise it as a tool. Liquid Metal in Terminator 2 was some real ingenuity and really clever stuff. But then gradually effects are taking over more and more, dominating more and more to which we have movies like Life of Pi winning Oscars that are made on a computer.
Fincher, I liked Seven and The Game a lot. I can't remember much CGI in those, but if there was and he has seamlessly integrated it then it would be the perfect example of how to use it as a tool to improve a movie. If it is just indeed a tool, it shouldn't be taking over the genre of popular film like it has been, because its ruining realism taking away from fantasy films by always going too far.

You talk about fantasy films and wanting realism which to me seems a little odd considering that fantasy is about showing things that are unrealistic. CGI is the same as colour and sound and editing and cinematography. It's a tool that a film maker has at their disposal. Sure some will use it poorly but that's hardly the fault of the tech.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't offend me, it merely makes me think that you're one of those cinema snobs who looks down on anyone who enjoys films that you don't. When ever people look down on those who enjoy Friday night blockbusters I'm always reminded of a Q&A with Lenny Abrahmson after What Richard Did where a member of the audience asked a question to the affect of how he felt about morons going to see Transformers rather than films like What Richard Did. The reply was along the lines of, I'm one of those idiots who on a Friday night wants to watch something a little fun.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a blockbuster, sure some of them are utter tosh but many are actually damn fine films but don't let that get in the way of looking down from your high horse.

It obviously does annoy you a little bit because otherwise you wouldnt be resorting to the cliched snob remark about anyone who wants a little bit more, and doesn't want to settle for the same old garbage repeated ad nauseum. Because Im having a go at CGI in movies and whats it doing to them, does not mean I look down on people who enjoy blockbusters. But if your trying to tell me the splurge of comic book blockbusters over the last while is good for popular cinema, and these are actually damn fine movies your bar for quality is pretty casual if you ask me. CGI has played a huge part in that splurge, its easy to churn these movies out now, like a factory producing stuff on a production line.
I would take the blockbusters of the 80' and 90's over the stuff of today any day of the week. Without this tool that has basically taken over production far more weight was put on concepts, writing, sets, realism, direction, so many things. Theres any number of outstanding blockbuster friday night films of the 80's and 90's that have infinitely more to offer then these predictable CGI fight fests today.

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe the problem is that your memory isn't what it used to be. I went to see it opening day and can vividly recall so much of it, the plot, characters, lines of dialogue, set pieces, etc. Fury Road was blockbuster cinema at it's best, a stripped back narrative that was all about telling a story visually which is something cinema needs to do more.

The story that was told visually was pretty basic. A cynical view would be wacky races. Why can't we have visuals and substances together? Surely thats what makes the best films. Why can't we have Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to the Future where the stuff going on is pure fantasy but there is brilliance behind it, delivering something long lasting and powerful.
I'm all for visuals that show the skill of a cinematographer and director, I would watch Miami Vice just for that reason. But there is something far more artistic about using natural things to create visuals then constant CGI. The more natural, the more realism.
So not only has the advent of computer images taken away some realism, its made the industry lazy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol Cimino would have scoffed at CGI back then. One of the things he wanted to do was surpass the 1 million feet of footage used for Apocalypse now, a pissing contest vs Coppola. The guy would threaten to stop working if certain women he fancied werent cast in the movie. If a studio wants to hire a guy based off one successful movie to try and make the biggest most expensive production of all time, probably best not to pick a totally unpredictable drug fuelled director like Cimino. They tried it with David Lynch with Dune too and they got the same result. These are not examples of why directors should use CGI, its examples of bad choices by studios of employing the wrong guys for high risk projects.


I wasn't using him as an example of reasons for using CGI but rather pointing out that were he to make the film today the costs of doing so would be substantially less given access to CGI. Dune is a similair story with Lynch having miles of desert raked so as to be completley devoid of all sign of life, sure you could do it today but you could recreate the same look in a computer saving millions.





You talk about fantasy films and wanting realism which to me seems a little odd considering that fantasy is about showing things that are unrealistic. CGI is the same as colour and sound and editing and cinematography. It's a tool that a film maker has at their disposal. Sure some will use it poorly but that's hardly the fault of the tech.

Yes you could do those things at a fraction of the price, but its not real, and so it takes away from the realism of the movie. I want to see impressive things like that done on screen by ballsy directors. Those kinds of scenes are the ones that give you goosebumps, the time and effort gone into creating sets and making them real transport you to that place in the movie, things like Thulsa Dooms Tower. Thats what fantasy is all about, transport yourself to this fantasy world thats at least a bit believable and could be real. If a filmmaker is good enough he can accomplish that with ingenuity and bring the viewer into that great fantasy world. Filling the scenes with CGI and extremely weak narrative as a result, I don't get transported there anymore

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It obviously does annoy you a little bit because otherwise you wouldnt be resorting to the cliched snob remark about anyone who wants a little bit more, and doesn't want to settle for the same old garbage repeated ad nauseum. Because Im having a go at CGI in movies and whats it doing to them, does not mean I look down on people who enjoy blockbusters. But if your trying to tell me the splurge of comic book blockbusters over the last while is good for popular cinema, and these are actually damn fine movies your bar for quality is pretty casual if you ask me. CGI has played a huge part in that splurge, its easy to churn these movies out now, like a factory producing stuff on a production line.
I would take the blockbusters of the 80' and 90's over the stuff of today any day of the week. Without this tool that has basically taken over production far more weight was put on concepts, writing, sets, realism, direction, so many things. Theres any number of outstanding blockbuster friday night films of the 80's and 90's that have infinitely more to offer then these predictable CGI fight fests today.

So when you say that modern blockbusters are "designed to appeal to a mind that can't hold a thought for longer then 30 seconds" you aren't looking down on those who go see blockbusters but rather making a comment regarding CGI. I'm sure everyone read it as such and not as the unnecessary snide comment it is. I have huge issues with how Hollywood churns out the same repetitive nonsense every year but that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy many of them or place the blame at CGI. The reason that superhero films are so bland is because of poor writing and studios such as Marvel who are afraid to take a risk. CGI is just the easy target and even now there's still a lot of interesting blockbusters being made.

Deleted User wrote: »

The story that was told visually was pretty basic. A cynical view would be wacky races. Why can't we have visuals and substances together? Surely thats what makes the best films. Why can't we have Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to the Future where the stuff going on is pure fantasy but there is brilliance behind it, delivering something long lasting and powerful.
I'm all for visuals that show the skill of a cinematographer and director, I would watch Miami Vice just for that reason. But there is something far more artistic about using natural things to create visuals then constant CGI. The more natural, the more realism.
So not only has the advent of computer images taken away some realism, its made the industry lazy.

There was substance there, it just didn't appeal to you. I loved how stripped back that narrative was, that they told a story through visuals and a few words rather than line after line of exposition. Visually Fury Road was gorgeous to look at, anyone who would argue otherwise is plain wrong. It's very easy to name old beloved classics and ignore modern films but there is plenty of modern blockbusters that are visually interesting. Something like Need for Speed for example is absolutely gorgeous to look at and features some truly breathtaking moments that were created without the need of CGI.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes you could do those things at a fraction of the price, but its not real, and so it takes away from the realism of the movie. I want to see impressive things like that done on screen by ballsy directors. Those kinds of scenes are the ones that give you goosebumps, the time and effort gone into creating sets and making them real transport you to that place in the movie, things like Thulsa Dooms Tower. Thats what fantasy is all about, transport yourself to this fantasy world thats at least a bit believable and could be real. If a filmmaker is good enough he can accomplish that with ingenuity and bring the viewer into that great fantasy world. Filling the scenes with CGI, I don't get transported there anymore

The thing is that they look so real it's almost impossible to tell it apart. Using True Grit or Zodiac for example and very few people can tell where the reality ends and fantasy begins. You can write off CGI all you want but you yourself assumed that the fire guitar in Fury Road was CGI, which shows that you yourself can't tell what's real and whats not but you assume it's fake due to an obvious bias.

Wright

If you feel there's too much CGI in movies today, you're possibly watching too much of a certain genre...

Fysh

Just on the Mad Max Doof Warrior material - that was real. A real, working guitar heavily modified to work as a flamethrower. In the end it weighed something like 60lbs and was the reason the guitar was fixed to the hanging mounts - the guy playing that character was actually playing the guitar but would obviously be unable to support the thing for any significant amount of time.

Fury Road is actually fascinating in terms of how its effects were created, and is well worth reading about. This article was particularly interesting, IMO.

Not being hooked into the narrative is one thing, but if you're mistaking actual practical effects work for CGI that's on you and not the film

Evac101

Paraphrasing Darko to a certain extent but since I feel a need to demonstrate support for his points:

If CGI is used to compliment other work rather than as a main stay it's a tool that can be used exceedingly well (Matrix, LoTR versus..the Matrix sequels as a shorthand example)
If CGI is used to convey a stylistic design which would be impossible using practical methods I can understand and support it (Cashern and Sky Captain, both had many issues but the CGI sets were largely imaginative, luscious and conveyed a setting in exactly the manner the director wanted)

There's no defence for bad CGI or bad use of CGI but your all or nothing approach reminds me that some people objected to filters being used originally, where now, used well, it's an accepted practice, with some celebrated scenes using the technique. See also the ongoing war of the aspect ratios.

Sad Professor

I thought Spielberg articulated the problem with CGI quite well when he pointed out how the CGI Spidey sequences looked like a completely different movie from the live-action Peter Parker scenes in Raimi’s Spider-Man. As Spielberg noted, the problem was as much the live-action as it was the CGI, as Raimi failed to reconcile the two so that they seemed like they took place in the same universe. Ironically, despite understanding this, Spielberg went on to make the exact same error as Raimi in Crystal Skull, which indicates to me that making CGI really work within the context of a live action film is difficult.

Fysh

Sad Professor wrote: »

I thought Spielberg articulated the problem with CGI quite well when he pointed out how the CGI Spidey sequences looked like a completely different movie from the live-action Peter Parker scenes in Raimi’s Spider-Man. As Spielberg noted, the problem was as much the live-action as it was the CGI, as Raimi failed to reconcile the two so that they seemed like they took place in the same universe. Ironically, despite understanding this, Spielberg went on to make the exact same error as Raimi in Crystal Skull, which indicates to me that making CGI really work within the context of a live action film is difficult.

I think the increasing availability of both highly portable fully digital cameras and portable systems (including tablets in some cases) that can be used to allow directors to view the day's rushes on-site rather than after packing things up is helping to solve this problem, in that it reduces chances of directors discovering weeks after wrapping principal photography that their lighting or staging was wrong for what they need to do with the visual effects.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So when you say that modern blockbusters are "designed to appeal to a mind that can't hold a thought for longer then 30 seconds" you aren't looking down on those who go see blockbusters but rather making a comment regarding CGI. I'm sure everyone read it as such and not as the unnecessary snide comment it is. I have huge issues with how Hollywood churns out the same repetitive nonsense every year but that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy many of them or place the blame at CGI. The reason that superhero films are so bland is because of poor writing and studios such as Marvel who are afraid to take a risk. CGI is just the easy target and even now there's still a lot of interesting blockbusters being made.




The thing is that they look so real it's almost impossible to tell it apart. Using True Grit or Zodiac for example and very few people can tell where the reality ends and fantasy begins. You can write off CGI all you want but you yourself assumed that the fire guitar in Fury Road was CGI, which shows that you yourself can't tell what's real and whats not but you assume it's fake due to an obvious bias.

So what type of mind are they produced for? The main argument people use when talking about liking these movies is because they go for fun, just to be entertained. So its made for a mind that doesn't have to think. You decide to adopt that mindset on a Friday night to not have to think. If you want to do that and get enjoyment out of it thats good for you, anything we can get enjoyment out of is great. But I think almost all of those movies over the last while are crap. That doesn't make me a snob or snide, I just think they are crap. I think my comment that these films are designed for a non attentive mind is fair and accurate if unpopular.



Miller has said himself there were thousands of VFX shots in the movie, so while there is a guy playing a guitar obviously I'm sure there's a world of post production effects all over it.

My obvious bias as you call it is born out of experience from enjoying blockbuster movies to gradually not enjoying them and looking for the reasons why. CGI is a big part of the reason, its made studios lazy and its taking realism out of movies. If your happy with it and happy to turn off your brain on a Friday night, good for you, your in the masses and I'm in the minority after all.
For every movie that uses it in a subtle way there will be a dozen that wont, and the main blockbusters are CGI festivals. The biggest movies with the most promotion all over the media lack realism in abundance and turn fantasy into an impossibility by going too far to a point where your brain becomes numb to it with the tools they are using.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

Just on the Mad Max Doof Warrior material - that was real. A real, working guitar heavily modified to work as a flamethrower. In the end it weighed something like 60lbs and was the reason the guitar was fixed to the hanging mounts - the guy playing that character was actually playing the guitar but would obviously be unable to support the thing for any significant amount of time.

Fury Road is actually fascinating in terms of how its effects were created, and is well worth reading about. This article was particularly interesting, IMO.

Not being hooked into the narrative is one thing, but if you're mistaking actual practical effects work for CGI that's on you and not the film

I will check out that article. Im obviously not a special effects guru so maybe I don't understand the ins and outs of that particular guy, which by the way was what I said was the most memorable thing in the movie, so CGI or non CGI I thought it was cool.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes you could do those things at a fraction of the price, but its not real, and so it takes away from the realism of the movie. I want to see impressive things like that done on screen by ballsy directors. Those kinds of scenes are the ones that give you goosebumps, the time and effort gone into creating sets and making them real transport you to that place in the movie, things like Thulsa Dooms Tower. Thats what fantasy is all about, transport yourself to this fantasy world thats at least a bit believable and could be real.

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcw2k-7H3k8

Or this?

(not embedding as it's a bit NSFW)

Maybe this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvDba2nMv_U

This is seriously impressive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFCXHr8aKDk

Pretty much this whole damn film - scratch that, pretty much this guy's whole damn career:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYMfEKELveQ

One extraordinary example that would not have been possible with computer assistance as well as the elaborate, complex set work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKW-Gd_S_xc

Just a handful of examples (limited somewhat by examples that work well as isolated scenes, as well YouTube and that whole copyright infringement business), but chosen as a mix of mainstream and indie, American and international, and - above all - CG and practical effects. 'Goosebump' moments are still a regular occurrence for me, I have to say.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcw2k-7H3k8

Or this?

(not embedding as it's a bit NSFW)

Maybe this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvDba2nMv_U

This is seriously impressive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFCXHr8aKDk

Pretty much this whole damn film - scratch that, pretty much this guy's whole damn career:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYMfEKELveQ

One extraordinary example that would not have been possible with computer assistance as well as the elaborate, complex set work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKW-Gd_S_xc

Just a handful of examples (limited somewhat by examples that work well as isolated scenes, as well YouTube and that whole copyright infringement business), but chosen as a mix of mainstream and indie, American and international, and - above all - CG and practical effects. 'Goosebump' moments are still a regular occurrence for me, I have to say.

We are talking about Blockbusters here, which Noah would fall into, and maybe Inception? Inception it works for sure, the Noah scene is like watching a computer game for me and that film for sure was OTT on the CGI big time. For every nice clip you show me I can give you whole movies of Fast and the Furious, Transformers etc. I already said I can see it used well as a tool in movies, its when it takes over which it has done in the most part for big bucks cinema releases is there the problem is. Noah I would put into that category too, what should have been far more memorable with the material there developed into a CGI bore.

Regarding Mosters, which Darko mentioned, and is the perfect example of how small the potential costs associated with CGI have decreased. If I'm right, the entire movie was made with a budget of $100,000. Get that around your head - $100,000 in total, including CGI that looked on par with his later release of Godzilla, which had a budget in the millions of dollars.

OK - can't find an exact number for the budget of Monsters, different articles range from $15,000 - $500,000, which is quite a gap, but is still pennies compared to what the average blockbuster costs to make.

don ramo

CGI has its place in cinema, and its constantly evolving, you look at a film like Avatar and see how to do it right, that for me is probably the pinnacle of what they can do, i cant see how they can push past that visually, then you have indianan jones 4 come along and show how not to do it, and i think it really is down to realism, which just seems to get thrown out the window in this CGI age, nobody takes a step back and ask could we do this if we had a bigger budget and more time, but seeing as they dont have the budget, ive no problem if they do it in CGI, once its within the realms of the universe you have created on screen, it has ruined many films in the last 15 years,

but in saying that, CGI has grown just as fast if not faster than digital film making, which has greatly brought down the cost of making films, and made life 1000 times easier for everyone in general, for every average 200+ million dollar film released in the last 5 years ive seen 20+ films that cost 20-30 million dollars or less that would blow the 200 million film outta the water, and these films can get made cause they can have 5-6 camera setup and get multiple angles in one shot, its make film times a lot shorter, look at looper or ex-machina, 30 and 15 million budgets, whiplash was an unbelievable film and only cost 3.3 million to make, boyhood was filmed over 10 years and only cost 4 million,

so anyone who fears CGI is gonna destroy the industry needs to take a step back and look at whats out there,

just a note, i honestly do not know how a film like mad max cost 150 million, what is it that drives the budgets up on some of these films, i dont see how mad max needed 3+ times the budget of looper and ex-machina put together, and yet somehow it was worse than both of them, just a joke

shazzerman

Deleted User wrote: »

We are talking about Blockbusters here, which Noah would fall into, and maybe Inception? Inception it works for sure, the Noah scene is like watching a computer game for me and that film for sure was OTT on the CGI big time. For every nice clip you show me I can give you whole movies of Fast and the Furious, Transformers etc. I already said I can see it used well as a tool in movies, its when it takes over which it has done in the most part for big bucks cinema releases is there the problem is. Noah I would put into that category too, what should have been far more memorable with the material there developed into a CGI bore.

I think you might actually be making the wrong argument here. I suspect you might side with people like Tom Gunning, Sean Cubitt, and maybe Susan Sontag - all of whom argued around the 1995-2002 period, with varying degrees of emphasis, that narrative cinema was losing the battle with spectacle and that popular cinema was returning to its earliest incarnation as a Cinema of Attractions (Gunning's phrase, I think). So, whereas the great era of classical cinema (say, 1930-1960), and then continuing into the 1970s up to the early 1990s (albeit, with a more postmodern tinge), had a large corpus of narrative-driven popular films, what we get now is a popular cinema in which narrative takes a secondary role to spectacle; endless releases where the narrative is a mere scaffolding for spectacular effects sequences, which, let's face it, is what these films are really selling. It was happening before CGI, I would argue. Technology marches on. And while popular cinema is awash with spectacle-wrapped-in-perfunctory-narrative, there are still plenty of other cinematic delights for us discerning cinephiles (ahem), and...still plenty of opportunities to shout "wow!" at the screen.

e_e

shazzerman wrote: »

that narrative cinema was losing the battle with spectacle

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Narrative is one of, if not the least important aspects to movies.

Look at greats of cinema like Man With a Movie Camera, L'Avventura, City Lights, Passion of Joan of Arc, Tokyo Story, 8½, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Play Time, Persona etc etc. All films where the content isn't as important so much as the very distinctive, refreshing and exciting ways in which they're presented. Even a film like The Godfather has a very simplistic arc when you boil it down, it's Coppola's amazing handling of cinematography, pacing and performance that give the mob story such beauty, weight and intrigue.

Quite honestly I think the problem with a lot of recent blockbusters is not that it's spectacle over plot, it's exactly the opposite. CGI or no CGI, for instance these Marvel movies would be so much more if they focused on really delivering spectacle and giving audiences something they haven't seen before instead of them looking like glorified TV shows where people stand around explaining the plot half the time.

But isn't it so great that regardless of that stuff there's literally hundreds of worthy movies being released every year.

Technocentral

Deleted User wrote:

The problem is CGI is destroying movies, its like a cancer on the industry. When talking about realism, its not about being believable, its about feeling like its really happening. When its been made by a computer by a guy on a keyboard and clearly we know that, the fantasy that whatever world that movie has created that might be real, or the suspended fantasy a viewer might have for that hour and a half, that is now taken away with CGI. A key element of film has actually disappeared with the advent of this technology, and has been replaced with computer game graphics. There are no Alien suits, and Alien sets anymore, there is a screen with some graphics. It reminds me of when the topic of discussion in school was the latest Nintendo game and how 'the graphics are amazing aren't they?". We are talking about film and the fantasy/realism of it. CGI is morphing film into games.

Totally agree, means filmmakers now don't have to worry about story's, cinematography and characters anymore much, watched Third Man and Touch of Evil in flicks recently, going to see Blade Runner tomorrow, zero cg in them and all of them the better for it. The lazy, talentless filmmakers tool imo.

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

Totally agree, means filmmakers now don't have to worry about story's, cinematography and characters anymore much, watched Third Man and Touch of Evil in flicks recently, going to see Blade Runner tomorrow, zero cg in them and all of them the better for it. The lazy, talentless filmmakers tool imo.

That tends to happen when a technology didn't actually exist at the time of the films' production.

Anyway, hope you're balancing those classic screenings with the many wonderful new, CG-free (or very CG-light) films screening at the moment. Isn't it wonderful that one can hop from a screening of The Third Man to showings of The Wonders, or Eden, or Song of the Sea, or Salt of the Earth, or The Reunion, or Dear White People, or P'tit Quinquin, or Love and Mercy - and that's only a few weeks worth

shazzerman

e_e wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Narrative is one of, if not the least important aspects to movies.

Look at greats of cinema like Man With a Movie Camera, L'Avventura, City Lights, Passion of Joan of Arc, Tokyo Story, 8½, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Play Time, Persona etc etc. All films where the content isn't as important so much as the very distinctive, refreshing and exciting ways in which they're presented. Even a film like The Godfather has a very simplistic arc when you boil it down, it's Coppola's amazing handling of cinematography, pacing and performance that give the mob story such beauty, weight and intrigue.

Quite honestly I think the problem with a lot of recent blockbusters is not that it's spectacle over plot, it's exactly the opposite. CGI or no CGI, for instance these Marvel movies would be so much more if they focused on really delivering spectacle and giving audiences something they haven't seen before instead of them looking like glorified TV shows where people stand around explaining the plot half the time.

But isn't it so great that regardless of that stuff there's literally hundreds of worthy movies being released every year.

As I said a bit later,those writers were referring to popular cinema - or mainstream cinema, if you prefer - and not so much films like Persona or Man With a Movie Camera. But most cinema is narrative-based, there is simply no getting away from that. I tend to agree with the bulk of what you say though.

e_e

shazzerman wrote: »

But most cinema is narrative-based, there is simply no getting away from that.

The way I see it the narrative is like the bassline, it lays a good foundation and creates a through-line but more interesting stuff can often happen around it.

When I think of any movie I loved it rarely comes down to the story tbh. Even great classic blockbusters like Alien and Jaws are very barebones in what they do plot-wise. It's why I think a film like Fury Road will live on longer than most because there's a clarity and simplicity to the storytelling that allows the images to be the thing that speaks volumes.

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That tends to happen when a technology didn't actually exist at the time of the films' production.

Anyway, hope you're balancing those classic screenings with the many wonderful new, CG-free (or very CG-light) films screening at the moment. Isn't it wonderful that one can hop from a screening of The Third Man to showings of The Wonders, or Eden, or Song of the Sea, or Salt of the Earth, or The Reunion, or Dear White People, or P'tit Quinquin, or Love and Mercy - and that's only a few weeks worth

Indeed I am, seen Love and Mercy and Salt of the Earth, both fantastic. Actually recent Bladerunner "Final Cut", does have a small bit of cg in it (wire removal, replacing bad stunt double with Joanna Cassidy). To me thats just tidying up, which is what CG should be used for, not for 90% of a film.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

We are talking about Blockbusters here, which Noah would fall into, and maybe Inception? Inception it works for sure, the Noah scene is like watching a computer game for me and that film for sure was OTT on the CGI big time. For every nice clip you show me I can give you whole movies of Fast and the Furious, Transformers etc. I already said I can see it used well as a tool in movies, its when it takes over which it has done in the most part for big bucks cinema releases is there the problem is. Noah I would put into that category too, what should have been far more memorable with the material there developed into a CGI bore.

Fast & Furious 7 did pretty much everything they could practically, they even went so far as to drop actual cars out of planes so as to make it as real as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7XvjOp1qe4

It's obvious that certain posters have an obvious bias toward. After all we have a poster who stated that they can always tell CGI and then pointed out how sad it was that the highlight of the recent Mad Max film was the CGI fire wielding guitarist. That the poster was unable to tell whether or not it was CGI or real says an awful lot. This is the kind of debate which is going to go around in circles as some people have formed their opinion of CGI and will refuse to address it. CGI is like any tool, it can be used to create truly remarkable things and it can be used to create atrocities which should be burnt with fire. Writing it off or trying to say that those who enjoy CGI heavy films are idiots is just wrong and unnecessary. Blockbusters, CGI, fast editing, etc are not the death of cinema but rather a small part of it. There is so much great stuff out there that we are spoiled for choice. Looking that this weeks cinema listings and home releases and there are a multitude of films in which nothing goes boom and CGI is kept to a minimum. All it takes is a effort and you can find the kinds of films like they used to make

Technocentral

Deleted User wrote: »

Fast & Furious 7 did pretty much everything they could practically, they even went so far as to drop actual cars out of planes so as to make it as real as possible.


It's obvious that certain posters have an obvious bias toward. After all we have a poster who stated that they can always tell CGI and then pointed out how sad it was that the highlight of the recent Mad Max film was the CGI fire wielding guitarist. That the poster was unable to tell whether or not it was CGI or real says an awful lot. This is the kind of debate which is going to go around in circles as some people have formed their opinion of CGI and will refuse to address it. CGI is like any tool, it can be used to create truly remarkable things and it can be used to create atrocities which should be burnt with fire. Writing it off or trying to say that those who enjoy CGI heavy films are idiots is just wrong and unnecessary. Blockbusters, CGI, fast editing, etc are not the death of cinema but rather a small part of it. There is so much great stuff out there that we are spoiled for choice. Looking that this weeks cinema listings and home releases and there are a multitude of films in which nothing goes boom and CGI is kept to a minimum. All it takes is a effort and you can find the kinds of films like they used to make

Fair points. Spielberg would have used a CG shark in Jaws if it was available, though the main focus in that film is the 3 lads, even though it was a "blockbuster". Now I feel that the effects are the main focus in modern "blockbusters and the characters and story are minimal, thats my main objection to CG, not how real it is per se though I much prefer physical effects and models).

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Fast & Furious 7 did pretty much everything they could practically, they even went so far as to drop actual cars out of planes so as to make it as real as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7XvjOp1qe4

It's obvious that certain posters have an obvious bias toward. After all we have a poster who stated that they can always tell CGI and then pointed out how sad it was that the highlight of the recent Mad Max film was the CGI fire wielding guitarist. That the poster was unable to tell whether or not it was CGI or real says an awful lot. This is the kind of debate which is going to go around in circles as some people have formed their opinion of CGI and will refuse to address it. CGI is like any tool, it can be used to create truly remarkable things and it can be used to create atrocities which should be burnt with fire. Writing it off or trying to say that those who enjoy CGI heavy films are idiots is just wrong and unnecessary. Blockbusters, CGI, fast editing, etc are not the death of cinema but rather a small part of it. There is so much great stuff out there that we are spoiled for choice. Looking that this weeks cinema listings and home releases and there are a multitude of films in which nothing goes boom and CGI is kept to a minimum. All it takes is a effort and you can find the kinds of films like they used to make

Yeah dismiss 'the posters' variety of points based on one small detail, lots of irony in your snide snob comment now Darko. I should have highlighted your contradiction a bit stronger that you turn off your brain on a Friday and just want fun, yet believe these movies are not made for people with short attentions spans. You also know more then Rob Zombie himself about the movies he's made. And here you are trying to dismiss my whole argument based on one small thing that has a load of post production around it as said by the director himself.
Michael Cimino would have used CGI, how many bull**** points should I bring up to completely dismiss your overall argument that CGI is a useful tool?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Yeah dismiss 'the posters' variety of points based on one small detail, lots of irony in your snide snob comment now Darko. I should have highlighted your contradiction a bit stronger that you turn off your brain on a Friday and just want fun, yet believe these movies are not made for people with short attentions spans. You also know more then Rob Zombie himself about the movies he's made. And here you are trying to dismiss my whole argument based on one small thing that has a load of post production around it as said by the director himself. Michael Cimino would have used CGI, how many bull**** points should I bring up to completely dismiss your overall argument that CGI is a useful tool?

Just because a film isn't challenging doesn't mean that it's made for dumb people. Your comments about attention spans was snide and unnecessary.

As for my comment about Zombie well it's true, The Devil's Rejects could easily be made today, just through different avenues. Zombie is a filmmaker I like but he's not a commercial one which is why he would struggle to raise financing

And by all means put words in my mouth, what I said about Cimino was that had he tech like CGI at his disposal he may not have bankrupt a studio. You can celebrate the merits of spending millions on sets but when the cost is people's careers then maybe it's not worth it

SpannerMonkey

CGI plays a massive part in movies these days but the film industry is relying on it way too much and while it does look great considering its not really there it doesnt look or feel like the real thing and it does show in film

This video shows how CGI ruined Zodiac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sZS8OVyVr4

And here's a video of how True Grit was ruined by the evils of computer created images.
Some of the CGI from True Grit

e_e

Saw a movie today that was 100% CGI and it's one of my top 5 of the year so far.

It's also one that crucially wouldn't have worked as well in live action or even hand-drawn. An example of CG being not only a useful tool but absolutely necessary to the story being told.

youreadthat

CGI can be used like any cinematic tool, for good and bad. The biggest issue is that all CGI, even bad CGI, allows the impossible to be possible, and as such CGI alone with always draw in an audience. In that way it is also a very lazy tool at times. I have no doubt that when in the process of making a film and it goes badly, they have discussions about how much $$ they can throw at CGI to bring the punters in and save the disaster. I bet they even have a formula for CGI$ to audience ratio.

Wedwood

CGI used correctly is stunning. It's when it's used to animate characters that can defy the laws of physics that it ruins 'suspension of disbelief'.

CGI landscapes are just the evolution of Matte plates, so don't see what the issue is there. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a good example of where CGI was used well to make a previously unfilmable epic story.

The Marvel movies and Star Wars prequels are examples of CGI making movies almost unwatchable because of the 'clutter' onscreen.

As the old saying goes, it's the bad workman who blames the tools !

e_e

Relevant to this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24