# C G I Is It Killing The Movies?



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Is Computer Generated Imagery killing the movies? It seems to be everywhere now

A film that would once have had special effects and stunts now has unrealistic CGI which is more akin to cartoons than film making

Personally I am fed up of it yet I seem to be in a minority according to the industry CGI films gross around 20% more than their "real-life" counterparts!

CGI does have it's uses as a special effect but there is just too much of it

Bah humbug


----------



## rev (Oct 12, 2007)

According to movie experts its cheaper to blow up a cartoon than a real person!

Although I do see where you are coming from!

Andy


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

I have to agree (with a caveat) John. In re-watching some of the major CGI movies which I enjoyed very much in the cinema - like LOTR - the CGI effects are not nearly as impressive and I'm now more annoyed with bad acting, bad editing, bad screen-writing, etc. These CGI boffos do not seem to bear up to repeat viewings









My caveat is that we must suffer through this stage in order to progress to the next and better one. Think of it as the Quartz Age. Soon there will be a mechanical renaissance!


----------



## rev (Oct 12, 2007)

Lord of the rings was total overkill of CGI!

Also toooooooo long!

Andy


----------



## Jonmurgie (Feb 11, 2007)

TOTALLY agree with you... the immediate disappointment and examples for me are the new Star Wars films, utter PAP when compared to the originals. Ruined by too much CGI and not enough thought/effort put into the production IMO

Have to say that Lord of the Rings was surprisingly good and I found the CGI worked very well in those... but they seem to rely on the computers sorting out faaaaaaaaaaar too much of film in post-production.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Most directors use CGI as a tool, and a valuable one it is. Others seems to get carried away with it far too easily.

I've just this minute finished watching M Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water (for the third time) and there is CGI in that, but only enough to supply what Shyamalan needs to portray something that doesn't exist. That is how CGI should be used, imo.


----------



## unlcky alf (Nov 19, 2006)

Yep, too much CGI these days.

Actually the LOTR trilogy was one of the very few which I felt managed to pull it off CGI very well indeed. The only dodgy moments for me were the scene where they were attacked by wargs in The Two Towers and the ridiculous scene in the Return Of The King when Legolas was clambering all over those giant elephants. As for it being too long, If they'd covered the scouring of the shire, it would have been at least an hour longer, and I'd have enjoyed it even more.

A convincing adaptation of the LOTR trilogy wouldn't really have been possible without CGI, however the CGI was used to compliment great acting and writing and an enormous amount of more traditional effects and costume making. Too many films these days are vehicles for SFX, to the detriment of the writing and acting. I blame the computer game industry for a lot of it.


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

It's inevitable that technology will progress and make this stuff look really bad in a few years...and if the story/acting doesn't hold up, what have you got?


----------



## KEITHT (Dec 2, 2007)

Nalu said:


> My caveat is that we must suffer through this stage in order to progress to the next and better one. Think of it as the Quartz Age. Soon there will be a mechanical renaissance!


Ouch!!.... that hurts.

Keith


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Look at the SFX in something like "Jason and the Argonauts" and compare - the difference is phenomenal between "blue screen" "Travelling Mattes" and full CGI - *BUT* if a Director over uses any device, he kills it! And it was ever thus!










Budding "new" Directors need lessons from older masters like Hitchcock through to Spielberg, unfortunately most don't get them, and that's why we see things like CGI taking over the whole movie. Then again, would the Harry Potters have been possible to the same standard say twenty years ago?

I have two pet hates - " we don't have enough money for full SFX so let's make this bit in semi-darkness to cover up the bad SFX" and the other is " let's be arty crafty and do a split screen! " (like that carp 24 thing)


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

mel said:


> " let's be arty crafty and do a split screen! " (like that carp 24 thing)


----------



## strange_too (Feb 19, 2007)

Pixels are cheaper than people & sets and if you can do it on a blue screen production will be cheaper.

Many films that have CGI you don't notice it, because it's a bit of post production to correct an continuity error etc. However CGI ruins a film, when they don't have enough of a budget to do it fully.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

CGI does have it's place in films, some SF and fantasy movies for examples. I have a problem with it's general use though, action films like the Bourne series would have been better with rel-life effects, the exagerated and unbelievable CGI resulted in the films taking on the characteristics of a cartoon


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

i have to agree and disagree with this topic , i agree with the idea that cgi spoils action films such as the bourne franchise (although not as much cgi in it as you think)and like the last bond film the more reality the grittier the film.

but without cgi you wouldnt have had lotr and transformers etc ,i watch alot of films in the pictures and ill watch anything chick flicks action ,foriegn,as long as im entertained i couldnt give a monkeys how its made ,some of the best films recently - nightwatch / daywatch ,sin city ,fifth element without cgi they would have been pooh.

in certain genres less cgi is best ,but in others not enough.

jason.


----------



## sammyboy (Feb 12, 2008)

unlcky alf said:


> Yep, too much CGI these days.
> 
> Actually the LOTR trilogy was one of the very few which I felt managed to pull it off CGI very well indeed. The only dodgy moments for me were the scene where they were attacked by wargs in The Two Towers and the ridiculous scene in the Return Of The King when Legolas was clambering all over those giant elephants. As for it being too long, If they'd covered the scouring of the shire, it would have been at least an hour longer, and I'd have enjoyed it even more.
> 
> A convincing adaptation of the LOTR trilogy wouldn't really have been possible without CGI, however the CGI was used to compliment great acting and writing and an enormous amount of more traditional effects and costume making. Too many films these days are vehicles for SFX, to the detriment of the writing and acting. I blame the computer game industry for a lot of it.


Not to mention of course Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs etc.! They could've made it into a series of 6 films quite easily....

Anyways, back on topic, I agree with you about LoTR with CGI and it being pulled off well except for those scenes you mentioned!

I think it's like a new 'toy' at the moment, it puts special effects into budgets that could never be concieved before. Like many things, if something's overused it can spoil a film.

I am generally a big fan of the CGI effects as long as they're not OTT (Like some sections of the Bourne films), but it's also nice sometimes to watch those old '50s and '60s 'Epics' like El Cid, Spartacus et. al where whatever you saw on screen had to be built, and people had to be real (often recruited from armies where crews were filming), what you saw was what you got!


----------



## foztex (Nov 6, 2005)

I'm with Jason (Jaslfc5) on this one,

I agree badly done CGI is appalling and overuse is bad too, however some great films (and TV, lets not forget Dr Who, Torchwood and Primeval to mention a few) would be impossible to do so convincingly without it.

I think one of the problems is directors using CGI when it would be cheaper, easier and more convincing to do live action. CGI is actually very expensive and time consuming when done properly, another reason perhaps that there is a lot of dodgy looking stuff about. As with everything else if you cut corners it shows.

Andy


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Martha Jones can have the top off my egg any morning.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

It's been downhill ever since Star Wars!


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

dr who is the biggest pile of pooh ,i really dont know what all the fuss is about its crap and it is filmed literally on the next street to me sometimes rubbish .

anyway back to cgi - its only until you see the boundaries being pushed then anything else after that looks ordinary ,case in point the matrix broke so many rules and watching films after that if it didnt have bullet time or stop start action it was very ordinary looking.

other good uses of cgi the beech landing scene of saving private ryan,alot of that was cgi when its done well it makes other films look poor.


----------



## ncon (Sep 14, 2005)

Yes, it is killing films i reckon. The thing is that there is nothing you can't create in a film these days (budget allowing of course!) The CGI tends to be over used to make up for poor script etc. Sometimes it works well, I think 300 and Sin City are good examples of this (to be fair, the script was awful in 300, but it did look fab)

The films I watched with true wonder as a kid were things like Jason & Argonauts and the Indian Jones series, where special effects were used to supplement, rather than dominate what you saw on screen.

Well, that's my tuppence anyway.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

jaslfc5 said:


> dr who is the biggest pile of pooh ,i really dont know what all the fuss is about its crap .....


I agree, it exemplifies much of what is wrong with the BBC


----------

