Does anyone really like CGI?

Or is it a generational thing. NC's Aliens thread got me thinking. I think CGI is absolute crap. No matter how goo they make it look it still looks like a cartoon to me. Make up, stop motion, puppets, whatever will always be better IMO. Phone Post 3.0

I fucking love CSG! 

I like CGI as well unless it's way OTT, like the Superman movie from last year. That was CGI overload which kind of ruined it for me. Phone Post 3.0

Ironically, the best CGI was when it was first introduced and used sparingly in Jurassic park.  And it was used pretty effectively in the first three lord of the rings trilogy.  But these days it's just churned out like vomit.

I remember as a kid being fascinated by special effects and would always watch in awe and wonder how they did it.  I would run off and by a Starlog magazine where they would explain some ingenious technique they used to bring the magic to the big screen.  Now when you see a special effect, there is no wonder or awe.  You know it's just a drawing on a computer no matter how real it looks.  Which most of the time it doesn't look real anyways. 

Even with the Lord of the Rings saga, the first three 14 years ago looked better than the Hobbit movies.  It looks much more like a cartoon now.  The technology is regressing.

There is a TON of CGI that you are never even aware of. Probably most of it at this point. It's made story-telling cheaper & easier, & we have all reaped benefits from that. Naturally, it makes shitty story-telling cheaper & easier, too.

Good with the bad; singer, not the song.

BarkLikeADog - There is a TON of CGI that you are never even aware of. Probably most of it at this point. It's made story-telling cheaper & easier, & we have all reaped benefits from that. Naturally, it makes shitty story-telling cheaper & easier, too.

Good with the bad; singer, not the song.


yea, I would say the best use of CGI is where you don't even realize it's a special effect.  Like adding buildings or structures to a scene.  That definitely saves money and time for needing to shoot on a certain location.

Soup and Beer - 

Ironically, the best CGI was when it was first introduced and used sparingly in Jurassic park.  And it was used pretty effectively in the first three lord of the rings trilogy.  But these days it's just churned out like vomit.

I remember as a kid being fascinated by special effects and would always watch in awe and wonder how they did it.  I would run off and by a Starlog magazine where they would explain some ingenious technique they used to bring the magic to the big screen.  Now when you see a special effect, there is no wonder or awe.  You know it's just a drawing on a computer no matter how real it looks.  Which most of the time it doesn't look real anyways. 

Even with the Lord of the Rings saga, the first three 14 years ago looked better than the Hobbit movies.  It looks much more like a cartoon now.  The technology is regressing.


THIS

BarkLikeADog - There is a TON of CGI that you are never even aware of. Probably most of it at this point. It's made story-telling cheaper & easier, & we have all reaped benefits from that. Naturally, it makes shitty story-telling cheaper & easier, too.

Good with the bad; singer, not the song.


That's my thought.


It's like breast augmentation. When it's done really well, you don't even notice, and everybody loves it. When it's done poorly, it's distracting in its fakeness, and nobody likes it.

*waits for spin* Phone Post 3.0

Can't stand CGI.

I like it Phone Post 3.0

BarkLikeADog - There is a TON of CGI that you are never even aware of. Probably most of it at this point. It's made story-telling cheaper & easier, & we have all reaped benefits from that. Naturally, it makes shitty story-telling cheaper & easier, too.

Good with the bad; singer, not the song.
Going unnoticed is the plus side.
Cheesy looking animation is the down side.
Some movies are just carried away with it.
Had this discussion last week. Mostly Lord of the Rings vs the Hobbit. Tons of cgi in both but the use of the sets in LotR made it more visually pleasing.
The problem is when cgi is a distraction and for me it usually is Phone Post 3.0

When done right, no can defend.

Example: The number of major motion pictures that don't use CGI to clean up backgrounds - especially day-for-night, night-for-day, & weather continuity - is close to zero.

I REALLY like that I never see a boom mic fall into the shot anymore.

You shouldn't be watching the Hobbit critically anyway. It's a piece of shit money grab & you already knew that going into it.

lordbreakdown - Or is it a generational thing. NC's Aliens thread got me thinking. I think CGI is absolute crap. No matter how goo they make it look it still looks like a cartoon to me. Make up, stop motion, puppets, whatever will always be better IMO. Phone Post 3.0


Yes, but keep in mind movies like Aliens were done in close quarter rooms (like hull of a ship).  You can use puppets for scenes like this, but do you remember how bad it looked when they blew up a model/toy building and tried to film it as if it was real?  Those scenes looked worse than bad CGI scenes.  

^Correct. The Hobbit wouldn't have even been considered due to the technical limitations 25 years ago.

I wonder how much money it really saves anymore. You still see these movies with crazy budgets. They're paying teams of people-per hour in either case. Phone Post 3.0

^Paying a couple guys even something stupid crazy like $100 an hour for several months to composite a blue sky over a cloudy day is WAAAAAAY cheaper than keeping a Tom Cruise or an Angelina Jolie & the rest of the crew waiting for a blue sky to surface.

It's still a really big deal.

Theres a lot of stop motion animations from the 80s that looks like shit too. Star Wars and Robocop being two examples. CGI can look awesome when done right, like District 9 for example but can look like crap when done lazily. Phone Post 3.0