[quote=“Bone Daddy”]
Gee, the examples you gave average out to about one a year. And how much money did they make. No, the dingo killed my baby!
[/quote]
Oddly enough I don’t have the numbers on hand, but they all did pretty well
as far as I can remember. Borat made huge money. Why does it matter?
[quote=“DexPac”]
Oddly enough I don’t have the numbers on hand, but they all did pretty well
as far as I can remember. Borat made huge money. Why does it matter?
[/quote] Borat had a 400 pound naked hairy guy sitting on the stars face. Who wouldn’t pay to see that? And I haven’t met any dudes who have admitted to seeing Brokeback Mountain, unless their wives or girlfriends made them see it for some perverse reason.
I hate CGI to but i can handle it.
I don’t have a problem with CGI. But I do have a problem with it’s use sometimes. It’s seems everytime there’s CGI there’s some monster film which earns $400 but has zero watch quality. But CGI can be used for great things. Sin City for example.
By the way has anyone seen the making-of documentary of The Thing? Most of that stuff is made without CGI (cos it’s from 1982, obviously), but it’s really creative the way they did it.
Example: the part where the doctor is examining a comatosed guy and suddenly the stomach opens and eats his arms. Here’s how it was done:
[quote=“Dantes Inferno”]
I don’t have a problem with CGI. But I do have a problem with it’s use sometimes. It’s seems everytime there’s CGI there’s some monster film which earns $400 but has zero watch quality. But CGI can be used for great things. Sin City for example.
By the way has anyone seen the making-of documentary of The Thing? Most of that stuff is made without CGI (cos it’s from 1982, obviously), but it’s really creative the way they did it.
Example: the part where the doctor is examining a comatosed guy and suddenly the stomach opens and eats his arms. Here’s how it was done:
[/quote]
I tend to think of the Thing When i think of good visual effects… that and the first 2 alien films… p think i have that documentary as well…
CGI worked in Gladiator and Mars Attacks! because it fit into the movie, but a lot of films are built around the effect.
[quote=“Bone Daddy”]
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?
[/quote]
Some one posted a response to this topic that was spot on! Use of CGI or lack there of does not have anything to do with movie plot, story line or subtext.
Its is absurd for one to make an argument that cgi is replacing solit plots. The two are parallel aspects of one medium and you did not answer DEXpacs question about the fact that removal of cgi froma movie does not automatically strengthen the plot or the story line.
dont confuse visual effects with the script.
yea but i would rather watch a shitty movie with cool make up effects thatn watch a shitty movie with CGI.
[quote=“Jjp”]
yea but i would rather watch a shitty movie with cool make up effects thatn watch a shitty movie with CGI.
[/quote]
Amen.
I don’t want films to all be made on green screen studios and I don’t want CGI to take over, but frankly, all that matters is if the film is good. As an aspiring filmmaker, I would never use CGI myself because I can’t grasp it and it would just frustrate me. But if others are willing to do it, more power to them. I may not like CGI as a filmmaker, but as a viewer, I don’t mind it so much.
The only CGI I really dislike is the shit that Robert Zemeckis has been doing lately. Monster
House and Polar for example. The motion capture shit just seems pointless to me. If you’re
gonna have actors act the thing out anyway why bother? Especially with his new ones like
Beowulf and Christmas Carol. Supposedly the technology is so good it’s photo realistic. Why
do CGI that looks exactly like real humans when you could just use real humans?
With the low budget creature features it makes sense to me cause alot of time you can find
a small hungry FX house willing to create you’re monster for a whole lot less than the cost of
actually building/ destroying it.
yes but the quality goes down dramatically, for low budget films when the CGI is used.
Although I’m not a super-fan of CGI, I am resented to people who seem to hate CGI because they want to be seen as bigger movie geeks or whatever. Kinda like saying your favorite film is some obscure film from Urugay from 1946. If that is your favorite film, that’s fine, but don’t say it because of the status you’re trying to get.
CGI can be a great thing with lots of oppurtunities. Sadly, most CGI movies are not good, but they don’t have to be bad, and it isn’t always the CGI’s fault.
well most of them scifi original movies i watch would be much better if they werent CGI.
[quote=“Jjp”]
yes but the quality goes down dramatically, for low budget films when the CGI is used.
[/quote]
The quality goes down compared to what? It’s not like they’re passing
up something that looks more realistic in favor of shitty CGI. Jurassic Park
had some of the best “practical monster effects” in any movie ever, but
Speilberg still had to use CGI for moments when the dinosaurs did things
like move fast, because it just couldn’t be done realistically any other way.
Back to Bone Daddy’s original post. I agree with you that CGI is overdone
in a lot of movies but it isn’t as black and white as you’re making it out to
be and it certainly isn’t the end of cinema. Sometimes it’s the only way even
if it doesn’t look good.
compared to older straight to tv movies like night of the creeps. in a way you are right that cgi isent all that bad but if its gona be bad cgi, atleast make it bad make up effects it would be a whole lot cooler.
Oh yeah, if it comes down to bad makeup or bad CGI I say go with
bad make-up. I was still going on about the creature features.