Stop the CGI
-
Our_Feature_Presentation — 11 years ago(December 19, 2014 01:53 PM)
Jurassic Park used puppets and practical effects more than you may think:
http://io9.com/5890628/an-absurdly-cool-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-jurassic-park-dinosaur-puppets -
JohnL11 — 12 years ago(August 06, 2013 03:35 PM)
As someone who has attempted to make simple animations in my spare time, I agree with JimTheAnimator completely. The problem I see with CGI is that it isn't subtle. A lot of CG shots, while amazing technical achievements, are the equivalent of "overacting," which makes it feel like a cheap trick.
I guess what I'm saying is, animation is a valid art form, but many animators aren't artists. (Just like many actors, directors, etc. aren't good).
My films:
https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/ -
christophermoonlight — 12 years ago(June 02, 2013 07:35 AM)
I'm a huge fan of practical effects, although I have nothing against CGI. It's like oil painting vs. watercolors. They're both valid ways of making art. I do find it funny though, how much work people think is CGI, that is not. The comment that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Part are CGI, while true, is not exclusively true. CGI was only used when no other way would work. They built a full sized T-Rex and almost all the other dinosaurs were built as practical effects and used in camera, yet CGI got all the credit. My suggestion is to keep throwing support being practical effects movies like Evil Dead. Did you know that PFX company Amalgamated Dynamics Inc. is now using Kickstarter to fund their own practical effects monster movie, called Harbinger Down? I pledged to it, because I love the art.
-
seanhumburg-694-542800 — 12 years ago(June 11, 2013 05:03 AM)
Black Crimson Effects Studio was started at the beginning of this year. Between the four crew members within the group, we have years of experience and many talents for the film industry. We deal 100% in practical effects. This year already, we have done many different aspects of the production process for both "Pro Wrestlers vs. Zombies" and "White Zombie."
Are talents cover every single aspect of creating a movie, and now we feel it is our time to do so. So, are you all ready to see a Black Crimson Effects Studio original feature. Learn more about "The Seven," and donate to our film to receive prizes, and a personal thanks in the credits of our new film at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1727068777/the-seven?ref=live. We are the "MacGyvers" of film, and even if we don't get the funding now, we will make this happen, but with the funding, we can make it a masterpiece that everyone will remember. You can learn everything about us, and you can see us in action at www.blackcrimsoneffects.com.Please share this with your friend.
Likes are great, but we need to get this to everyone we can so that we can get this film made as spectacular in reality as it is in our imaginations. Black Crimson Effects Studio: Where we make the impossible possible. -
zeekmati — 12 years ago(July 28, 2013 12:15 AM)
I somewhat agree with the OP. I wouldn't sh#t on the animators,programmers,artists etc who put a lot of work into their craft but the amount of CGI and more specifically, bad CGI, in almost every movie is ridiculous. I remember when CGI was something reserved primarily for the depictions of unwordly things or things that do not exist in real life. Even then, there were animatronics and models used to supplement the CGI. Think about Independence Day. A lot of a that movie is just visual effects with CGI reserved for depicting the aerial battles and space scenes. Same thing goes for 2001:A Space Odyssey. That entire film looked real to me whereas now when I watch Star Trek into Darkness, my mind does not accept the CGI ships as being real. Yes, they glisten and are extremely well textured animated and intergrated into the landscape of space but they look like they should be in a videogame cut-scene or a CGI film, not a live action blockbuster. But the new Star Trek films are good CGI nontheless whereasCGI in Olympus Has Fallen is just awful and out of place for a film taking place on earth in the modern times. I am sure there are reasons that filmakers go the CGI route to depict even the most ordinary things. I imagine money may have something to do with it but I really doubt it because I believe that for every frame of computer graphics there is several hours of intensive work from many people at play.
-
flower-power-11 — 12 years ago(December 12, 2013 11:53 AM)
Movies aren't supposed to be about art. They're an entertainment form, like music or books. I'll grant that there are a lot of movies out there with gorgeous cinematography, like The Lord of the Rings movies, but that doesn't mean that I don't accept cgi too. A few cgi movies are funny and worth my watch.
-
space_station — 12 years ago(February 11, 2014 02:42 PM)
Every 4 yrs. computers become twice as fast & twice as powerful. Yay for CGI. I'd rather see CGI than another guy in a rubber suit with a mask. And yes, movies are constantly & continually about the
ART
of it all from, set design, to costumes, to lighting, special effects, to casting,to music, to choosing what lenses are to be used & everything. Movie making is an art-from beginning to end.
And yes, there very definitely an art to good CGI effects
~
~ -
ComicNerd — 11 years ago(October 18, 2014 02:56 PM)
CGI is a great tool however it has to be used in a way that connects with the audience. I think the biggest downfall of CGI is when a movie shoots the movie in a way that is physically impossible with a real camera.
-
c_hopley-208-276306 — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 06:59 AM)
I agree with Tommy to an extent.
Computer graphics/animation have come very far in technological advancement. It seems apparent that this is some sort of excuse to make redundant the use of other elements such as robotics, costume or puppetry. Whilst you could say that they still exist, some directors are excessively replacing these areas with the use of CG. Peter Jackson is a perfect example.
The abuse of computer graphics causes a scene to loose its sense of realism. This affects the audiences relationship with the created world.
I do believe that there are areas of production, which benefit greatly from CG when implemented properly using the right balance of lighting and color correction in post. There are areas in films, which CG is obviously the better alternative, however, to see certain elements of a film painted in CG when a more realistic replacement (e.g. Costume) could have served better, annoys me.
I do think that both Hollywood and directors should take a step back from its use of CG and blend it evenly with realistic alternatives to create the best result. -
politicidal — 10 years ago(March 11, 2016 03:59 PM)
CGI is just a tool. There's nothing wrong with it in of itself. I can't stand this "NO CGI" whining nonsense. If people don't like it being overused or are going to complain about a movie using it at all, I honestly don't know how to change your mind nor have the patience to.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals. -
AnthonyRocks — 4 years ago(December 29, 2021 07:49 PM)
If it is done well then I do like CGI in Movies although I do like it more when Movies do Practical Effects.
Honestly, When it comes to the Subject of Practical Effects in Movies…..The Best Practical Effects that I have ever seen in a Movie are the Practical Effects that were done in the 1982 Movie "
John Carpenter's THE THING
".