CGI In movies (My thoughts)

[devilk870]

Spending most of my time on internet has taught me something.

There is so much to argue about.

I mean My god there is, just about everything and anything has been adressed or argued about.

So I want to talk about Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) in movies.

 

Pros:

CGI is great for filmakers to make things that either would be impossible, or to hard to create In real life. So for example, "Avatar" Would have not been as good if it was not for CGI. And if they didnt use CGI then you will see a bunch of Blue painted people hopping around tree to tree, which is possible, but you will NEVER be took'n seriously.

 

CONS:

Though CGI is good, there is such thing as to much, or unnecessary amount of it.

Some directors take the easy way and do easy things like a Explosion and make it A CGI explosion which takes away the effect of realism. Sometimes they use it to make stunts or make things like a little alien in which you could do in real life. CGI is used for things like making 12 feet tall Aliens who live on a planet called pandora, or 100 foot robots fighting it out. So in short CGI is used to make impossible things become real, And should be nothing more.

 

Summary- CGI Can be used for things that can be hard or impossible to do with puppets costumes, or Miniature Sets. So I will give exceptions for Independent films who are on a Ham Sand which budget. I enjoy CGI, but I also enjoy Costumes, Miniatures, and things that you could do in CGI but decide to do the hard way. And if you do the hardway then I salute you.

 

So thanks for Reading this thing I call A topic and If you would REPLY AND SHARE YOUR OPINIONS AND STUFF. I WOULD LOVE TO READ THEM. ALL CAAPPPPPSSSSSSS!!!

[Kirkreng]

I actually completely agree with you. If you have a big budget for a movie use it. CGI should only used when necessary.

[Eedo Baba]

I love it when films do things the old fashioned way, with miniatures and stuff, but CGI is an ever advancing field. You say using CGI takes away realism, but this is only when it is done badly.

CGI relies on the artistry of the people involved, as well as the newest advanced techniques.

 

I've definitely noticed some prejudice for CGI before. People seem to think of it as being the easy way out. Budget wise, this is true, but a CG artist takes decades of experience and tons of talent to do something like the sculpting/texturing in Avatar, for example.

[Kirkreng]

When i think of bad CGI, i can't help but to think of the bad guy in Tron: Legacy.

[Nagisa]

hjsZDaXMlpM

Do what the caption says. That's not the kind of thing you should use CGI for, and unfortunately it's becoming more and more common. To be honest if you're going to use CGI, it has to good and used properly. If you can't afford it don't use it.

[Blue]

CGI is the means to an ends.

When a movie is nothing but explosions and 3D models, that's demonstrative of the lack of narrative creativity of the Director, Storywriter or other people who make the story.

 

Why its more common than actual sets and miniatures is because it's cheaper and easier to maintain.

 

Also, Jexius, that was hilarious.

With what little I know about After Effects, I could have done a better "getting hit by a car" than that. http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/advanced_car_hit/

[WonSul]

I think CGI has it's uses. But unless it's masked perfectly by the real footage it is placed into, it's going to stand out.

How to do it pretty well: Jurassic Park 1

how to do it badly: Most low budget movies, ie Poseidon: phantom below, Shark attack, Kidnap, etc

As well as really badly done high budget movies. Wolverine, Green Lantern.

 

the thing is, even mediocre cgi often looks better than choppy higher budget stop motion that isn't done well.

Willow is a good example. that movie would have REALLY benefited from good cgi.

 

Of course bad cgi also has it's pros:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrtqZEobJSg

try not to laugh too much.

[Blue]

I tried

and failed.

[Lux Arbuckle]

I get creeped out by some younger kids out there I've met and spoken to who can't even identify CGI. Like many of you have said, I'm totally in favor of CGI when it is used to create the utterly impossible. I'm a massive horror film fan and I think the horror genre has been hit the worst when it comes to CGI, next to Sci-fi, fantasy and action.

 

I always use this as my example to show how much better practical effects are to CGI

 

This is An American Werewolf in London. It came out in 1981 and it's fucking awesome.

UFLQS12z8K4

 

This is Cursed. It came out in 2005 and it's not very good (it has a moment or two).

lfeboBA72Ak

 

 

Sometimes I use Van Helfuckingsucks as my example, but I didn't have a clip handy.

[The Hamburglar]

I'm not a fan of CGi, it doesn't feel as real.

 

take a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZLumUZicGI

 

This is one of the toughest things to watch for me because of how visceral it is, and I don't think that could be recreated with some flashy CGI effects.

[devilk870]

Also A problem with CGI is the fact that it is taking over Practical effects. I hope CGI does not do that, Because it will Absolutely tedious to go to a action movie and not see A LEGIT explosion, or a LEGIT action scene, It would break my heart. I hope action movies will Be like XXX (Triple X) And try to use as much Practical effects as possible. Triple X is awesome By the way, If you enjoy Action movies this is a movie to see. The only Major CGI moment is when Vin diesel is snow boarding down a mountain while a avalanche (Which is as awesome as it sounds) was happening. That was the single most best CGI moment in the history of movies (In my opinion Of course ).

[Pinkie Pie]

I like CGI as long as it's done right.

[Blue]

When any special effect is done right it's because its invisible; it doesn't draw attention to itself.

In Apollo 13, none of the spaceships, explosions or even the entire launch are using 3D (except for particles like bits of ice), its all done in miniatures, and you wouldn't know it unless it was pointed out to you.

In V for Vendetta, you wouldn't believe how much of cities, rooms and even characters in the scenes weren't actually there, just seamless CG placements.

[WonSul]

In Apollo 13, none of the spaceships, explosions or even the entire launch are using 3D (except for particles like bits of ice), its all done in miniatures, and you wouldn't know it unless it was pointed out to you.

That reminds me of Terminator 1 most of the future scenes were done with miniatures using tiny explosions. lol I kind of freaked out when I saw the making of, since before that I thought it was cgi or something. nope

 

eDE7XolQRtw

[MepsiPax187]

I hated avatar because the cgi made it too unrealistic for me. 90% of that movie was CGI and that's what put me off (among other things in the movie)

[Blue]

Avatar had amazing CG through and through. The story was not strong enough to retain the suspension of disbelief though, so it stood out and drew attention to itself.

[BTGBullseye]

The original 6 Star Trek movies all used a good combination of miniatures and CGI.

 

I am anti-CGI if I can notice it easily. (Avatar, Tron: Legacy, Indiana Jones 4, etc.) I am pro-CGI when it turns out like V for Vendetta, or Star Trek.

[Pinkie Pie]

The only REALLY BAD CGI I saw in Tron Legacy was CLU and young Flynn's face. Everything else was okay.

[Adam Stryker]

Lets add The Green Lantern to this list it looked like hot garbage and the CGI was way to over done.

[WonSul]

Lets add The Green Lantern to this list it looked like hot garbage and the CGI was way to over done.

 

Already added in my first post.

I was thinking the same thing while watching it, bad cgi, and way too much of it to boot.