PDA

View Full Version : Is CGI ruining film?


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


James Barclay
April 10th, 2002, 03:20 AM
It's all very well, and fabulous technology but for me, it's vast overuse in a growing number of films is a worry.

Phantom Menace was a poor film hiding behind CGI. BladeII similarly. Seems to me, too many directors are starting to use these zappy effects obsessively and ignoring the little things - like plot, character, cinematography, screenplay...

I have more to say on the subject but won't right now - views anyone?

kassimir funk
April 10th, 2002, 03:28 AM
"Phantom Menace was a poor film hiding behind CGI. BladeII similarly. Seems to me, too many directors are starting to use these zappy effects obsessively and ignoring the little things - like plot, character, cinematography, screenplay..."

I would like to add "acting" to that list. The plot for Phantom Menace seemed to revolve around showcasing the special effects rather than any kind of wonderous tale.


Da Funk

saintjon
April 10th, 2002, 06:21 AM
Well I don't think I saw one part of the preview for the Time Machine that didn't have a whole lot of CGI goin' on. Now that we know what to look for CG seems a little cheesy now.

What cosmic force will come and save special effects?

Barbarossa
April 10th, 2002, 06:40 AM
Are there poor films that try to hide behind good (or not so good) effects?

Certainly!

Is this a new phenomenon brought by CGI?

Not really, there have been movies which built their box office solely on effects as long as there are movies. The kind of effects used changed with time, but the phenomenon stays the same. One reason we don't remember those older effect spectacles all that much, is that effects age very fast, while good stories, good acting and good dialogue are timeless.

James Barclay
April 10th, 2002, 07:46 AM
Agree with you Barbarossa, showcasing new technologies has been the raison d'etre behind many a film through the years. But I feel it's reaching a peak with CGI.

Interesting that when the original Star Wars trilogy came out the effects developed by Industrial Light & Magic were new but Lucas didn't overuse them. They weren't perfect films but there was a 'reality' to them that Phantom Menace, for instance, simply does not have.

LOTR as another example, attempted (mostly successfully) to blend CGI with live action and scene. It's all about balance and some just aren't striking it, to hte detriment of their productions.

Alucard
April 10th, 2002, 08:58 AM
Visually speaking here (because no amount of effects or money will make up for bad acting and a shitty story), my problem with cgi is when the film relies upon it. Because, as of yet, Cgi is still lacking in the texture department. For effects, CG is great. But for anything that is supposed to appear tangible, they just aren't there yet. They still look sterile and lifeless......like a comoputer made them. It's coming along, but I can't say it's there yet.

My favorite style is when people still build the sets, make the costumes, use models, etc., and then use CGI to improve on them. For example, Tim Burton's sleepy hollow. This movie's visuals blew me away, and it was because the two techniques were used so well together. The CGI was used to make the scenes more gloomy (via color enhancements), or to add to atmosphere effects, but it didn't rely upon it. Episode 1, on the other hand, did rely on CGI, and the movie looked very...dead. I guess it's just a personal taste thing, but there's mine.

fluffy bunny
April 10th, 2002, 09:02 AM
Someone tell the hollywood brains that effects should add to the film, but mot be the film (Lucas listen up)

Indrapramit
May 5th, 2002, 06:34 AM
Hello All,

I think that CGI is a great thing for film makers that know how to use it. The Phantom Menace, agreed, looked plain and simple gaudy and sterile at the same time. But LOTR....now that's CGI used like it should be-the Balrog and the cave troll and the best CGI beasts I have ever seen. CGI can be a good thing.

Alucard
May 5th, 2002, 02:50 PM
I agree that cgi, when used properly, can be great. And not just for flashy effects. For example, the film "Oh Brother Where art thou" (a fantastic film) got that great sepia look via filtering tools on computers. So, I'm not against computers. I just don't like it when it's depened upon too much, and it ends up looking like episode 1 . . . pretty, but obviously computer generated.

Qin
June 3rd, 2002, 05:40 AM
Once upon a time, acting, story, and dialogue were the most important aspects of a film, while the cgi was used minimally to enhance the mood or tone of a particular location that could not otherwise be constructed.

Nowadays, acting, story and dialogue are used minimally to enhance the cgi film, and the quality of the acting, story and dialogue has only worsened, as more and more directors focus more on visuals and less on content and depth.