In the 50’s, there was 3D, a gimmick that usually gave you a headache after enough exposure. In the 60’s there was Cinerama, a visual effect suitable for birds and other animals with unsychronized vision. William Castle filled any gaps with gimmicks like wire theatre seats, to give viewers a jolt in The Tingler. CGI (computer generated images) is the new cinematic pet rock. In place of any intelligent plot or dialogue, objects are thrown or exploded in your face every 5 minutes. It was originally used to great effect in small doses (Terminator II, Gary Sinese’s legs in Forrest Gump, etc.) but then along came Jurassic Park, and now, every big movie is drenched in the effect. Is there an end in sight? Will filmmaking return to plot and character driven form that gave birth to directors like Tarantino? Or is this the end of the artform known as cinema, and the birth of large screen video games?
jeez, the CGI craze has already pretty much faded out, whats the big deal? the studios soon saw that an unneccesary overuse of it turned people away.
Pirates of the Carribean III, Spiderman III, Die Hard IV and Transformers all in a few months time. It doesn’t look like much of an ebb to me.
His name is spelled Tarantino
those movies you mentioned benefit immensly from CGI and i for one have no problem with that. i know i don´t want to see a new spidey that was made without the help of any PC´s, unless they call it „blooper realâ€
[quote=“Stuntman Mike”]
His name is spelled Tarantino
[/quote]
Owned.
I’m not a big fan of CGI.
yea i hate cgi blood more than any other thing done in cgi i like it squirting and being pumped out.
[quote=“Ify”]
Owned.
[/quote][quote=“Stuntman Mike”]
His name is spelled Tarantino
[/quote] Ladies and gentleman, my new proofreaders. Let’s give them a round of applause.[quote=“Crazy_Hattori”]
those movies you mentioned benefit immensly from CGI and i for one have no problem with that. i know i don´t want to see a new spidey that was made without the help of any PC´s, unless they call it „blooper realâ€
as a viewer i want the final product - the movie - to be satisfying. how they got there and what technical stuff they used i don´t care. of course one can often identify CGI as such, which can be a turn-off. it depends on if it fits the movie or not. it surely wouldn´t fit Death Proof, but it´s not at all distracting or out of place in LOTR, Spidey movie´s, etc.
if CGI would have been around when they made Batman im sure burton would have used some, and maybe it would have looked even better
The point I’m trying to make with this, is sure it looks better, but everything else in the film is sacrificed, usually because they spent it all on the FX. The dialogue is childish, the plot predictable and you leave feeling you’ve seen a cartoon, not a film. Burton’s films have lost their charm since he started indulging in CGI. The last time he made a film that had a cohesive plot was Ed Wood. I do agree that CGI made films like the Rings look better, but can a person with a brain sit through them?
I find the problem with CGI more then the way it looks ( it gets better and better so you pick it up less ) is the way it is used… i mean it really shows off for the camera… Its almost never the case with CGI that less is more, very little subtly unfortunately…
So it looks amazing but the realism is lost… ive always been of the opinion that good special effects in general, dont bring attention to themselves while they augment the film… CGI included… still CGI has to do different things for different types of films… and some films call for its use as the focal point of attention… which it can help… and sometimes its used simply and to great effect eg - the mouth of sauron cut scene from lord of the rings…
but i will say that now its more of an option for filmmakers its used more, for things that could be done other ways and personally i find earlier visual effects at there peak far more appealing to my artistic/ visual sensibilities…
like savini said cgi is fine as long as it is used correctly using it for an entire film is not right if u needed to do something like stick a pole through a zombies head and see a view through the pole then go ahead and use the cgi it will look better but use the makeup fx for everything that will be done better with makeup effects. I have to agree with this too mainly because cgi is weird because i know that there is nothing there when you have a fake cgi severed arm i know nothing is there but when u have an arm made by an fx shop it give you more of a sense of feel to the film.
When Bonnie and Clyde popularized the use of squibs to simulate gunshot effects, every filmmaker with a violent pension got on the bandwagon. Peckinpah turned it into the focal point of Wild Bunch. Now you have a lot of violence in big budget movies with no consequences. CGI blows the hero 100 feet in the air, and he lands on his feet with his hair slightly mussed. Ridiculous!
[quote=“Bone Daddy”]
The point I’m trying to make with this, is sure it looks better, but everything else in the film is sacrificed, usually because they spent it all on the FX. The dialogue is childish, the plot predictable and you leave feeling you’ve seen a cartoon, not a film. Burton’s films have lost their charm since he started indulging in CGI. The last time he made a film that had a cohesive plot was Ed Wood. I do agree that CGI made films like the Rings look better, but can a person with a brain sit through them?
[/quote]
What does CGI have to do with dialogue or the plot? It’s not like the writer is
sitting in front of his computer thinking "Well the studio’s probly gonna use CGI
at one point or another during the film, so I guess I can just half ass my way
through this script."
That’s like saying if that Mathew Broderick Godzilla remake had used a man in a
rubber suit the movie would have been good. Or saying that the man in a rubber
suit versions had more realistic storylines because they didn’t use “cgi”.
And uh, what’s wrong with the Lord of the Rings movies?
[quote=“DexPac”]
What does CGI have to do with dialogue or the plot? It’s not like the writer is
sitting in front of his computer thinking "Well the studio’s probly gonna use CGI
at one point or another during the film, so I guess I can just half ass my way
through this script."
That’s like saying if that Mathew Broderick Godzilla remake had used a man in a
rubber suit the movie would have been good. Or saying that the man in a rubber
suit versions had more realistic storylines because they didn’t use “cgi”.
And uh, what’s wrong with the Lord of the Rings movies?
[/quote] The main problem I had with the Rings movies was that it didn’t explain enough to the uninitiated. The writer’s assumed that everyone watching the films had read the books and knew all the background lore. The first 3 Star Wars films let you know what was going on constantly, so you didn’t get lost. The same problem of writer assumption took place with David Lynch’s Dune. If you hadn’t read the book, you didn’t have a clue. Godzilla, is an inane childish movie based on an inane childish movie. No one ever went to a Godzilla movie with any other expectations than to watch a major city get destroyed. CGI driven movies are not leaving any gaps for more adult serious movies to be made.
[quote=“DexPac”]
That’s like saying if that Mathew Broderick Godzilla remake had used a man in a
rubber suit the movie would have been good.
[/quote]
Ha ha ha… no i wouldn’t have been any better… but it might have gotten a cult following for the novelty…
[quote=“DexPac”]
And uh, what’s wrong with the Lord of the Rings movies?
[/quote]
nothing really… certainly nothing that would out weigh all the positive qualities…
[quote=“Bone Daddy”]
CGI driven movies are not leaving any gaps for more adult serious movies to be made.
[/quote]
Its not like every movie released now is a big CGI action flick… still theres alot of poor use of it like i said…
No, there are hundreds of films released every month around the world that contain no CGI. But you’ll never see or hear of them because they get little distribution, are pulled from theatres quickly and recieve absolutely no advertisement. Any major Hollywood release will have a large dose of the effect.
I hear of them… the ones that interest me anyway… The films are still made ( refering to what you said specifically ) i dont really expect them to get big marketing campaigns from Hollywood…
[quote=“Bone Daddy”]
No, there are hundreds of films released every month around the world that contain no CGI. But you’ll never see or hear of them because they get little distribution, are pulled from theatres quickly and recieve absolutely no advertisement. Any major Hollywood release will have a large dose of the effect.
[/quote]
yea because most of them suck or you would hear of them. Films like S.I.C.K., Dead and Breakfast, MR. JINGLES, and feeding the masses exc., they are horrible peices of shit. Most modern day films that don’t use cgi, also going straight to video, are considered “b” movies. The “B” Movie genre today is at its lowest, it has no good quality what so ever, unlike the old days. With an exception of fullmoon,troma and asian cinema.