Anyone else think that something was lost now that everything is pretty much cgi?
#1
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 3,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else think that something was lost now that everything is pretty much cgi?
all the aliens for the most part and worlds look neat but they look so dull and lifeless. i dont know if its too much cgi or something but i think they lost the fun and magic. the creature Obi-Wan Kenobi rides etc. even the space battles arent really exciting. maybe the cgi not looking realistic, but something was lost when Lucas went nuts with the cgi.
#4
CGI should be used in moderation. I've never been a fan of it but directors now a days use it in every scene. That's ridiculous. I look back to the 90's with movies like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 and ask why was the CGI better back then?
#5
DVD Talk Legend
I only hate CGI in modern horror movies. Given fake computer images and fake prosthetics I prefer actual physical objects on screen. Computer blood is pretty terrible as well.
#7
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: L.A.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By going from miniatures, real props, sets, and puppets to digital pixels everything kind of lost their "hardness" for lack of a better word. When something is real it does translate through the film. It probably has something to do with how real light reacts to real objects among other things. Also some of the background looked too colorful and too deeply saturated with color to look convincing. They looked more like the Maxfield Parrish paintings Lucas got inspiration from, than live action. A lot of the CGI in the Prequels do look great and things like thousands of clone soldiers is difficult to replicate. But LOTR mixed enough of their "Bigatures" and matte paintings along with CGI so it wasn't as noticeable compared to the SW Prequels. And the more things are computer generated the more chances they're gonna come up with things don't look very convincing.
#8
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live.
Posts: 29,834
Received 18 Likes
on
12 Posts
the cg background in ep2 when anakin takes off on the speeder bike to get shmi looks bad. the coloration just isn't right
they should have driven/flown at low altitude through a real desert and blue screened him on a bike into the real footage instead of cg desert
they should have driven/flown at low altitude through a real desert and blue screened him on a bike into the real footage instead of cg desert
#9
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 3,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see in Phantom Menace everything wasnt cgi and it made it more interesting and depth to look at. the cgi in the recent star wars has too much of a glossy look to it, its great that what ILM can do with visual effects but does it make the movie better?when all of the creatures and worlds are completely cgi it loses character and and i agree with IanH saying they lost eh "hardness" thats one thing i have hated in episode 2 and 3
#11
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
see in Phantom Menace everything wasnt cgi
More miniatures than the original SW trilogy combined
Many matte paintings
Background plates of live locations for Kashyyk(Jungle) and Alderaan(Swiss Alps)
On-location shooting for Tatooine
Everything is not CG in ROTS, not even close.
If you didn't like the movie, it wasn't because of CGI. The effects in this film were stunning, and it was a beautiful film to look at. Though I have to say, I wondered when someone would start whining about CG. It's become that cliche.
I look back to the 90's with movies like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 and ask why was the CGI better back then?
#13
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Canada, BC
Posts: 6,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't mind CG, but it seems that Lucas has gone way overboard and made the move look too busy. Like the OT there weren't so many aliens, Lucas has turned the new movies into the muppet show
#14
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
yeah, it made Yoda look terrible.
I think CGI is the easy answer to blame when shit goes wrong in a film.
I think CGI is the easy answer to blame when shit goes wrong in a film.
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Janitor's closet in Kinnick Stadium
Posts: 15,725
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Fok
I don't mind CG, but it seems that Lucas has gone way overboard and made the move look too busy. Like the OT there weren't so many aliens, Lucas has turned the new movies into the muppet show
#16
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at LOTR..things look more real..Unless they were doing really wide shots with hundreds or thousands of characters on screen, things like orcs and soldiers were real people in suits for the most part. In my head within the story I believed those things were 'real.' In the SW prequels, pretty much everything like the troopers and so on were CG. Weren't even all the wookies CG? All that pulled me right out and I noticed each time I was looking at something that was CG.
#17
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if the special effects don't always seem real? Movies have and always will use tricks and effects to bring us into the story. Look back at movies just 10 or 20 years ago, the special effects just aren't as good. Watching Empire and Return of the Jedi again I really do notice the difference, notably what appears to be stop-motion / scale models for the Imperial Walkers, just as an example. CG really is the best tool film-makers have for showing things that would be impossible in the real world, they probably won't get anything else either. It's the future of films; all thats required to enjoy a movie has always been suspension of disbelief.
#18
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"CG really is the best tool film-makers have for showing things that would be impossible in the real world,"
Yes but the problem as has been stated is when you use CG when it's NOT needed. Like for example when I said clone troopers and wookies. Would be more effective to use real people in those situations.
Yes but the problem as has been stated is when you use CG when it's NOT needed. Like for example when I said clone troopers and wookies. Would be more effective to use real people in those situations.
#19
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by mikehunt
the cg background in ep2 when anakin takes off on the speeder bike to get shmi looks bad.
#20
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shady12
"CG really is the best tool film-makers have for showing things that would be impossible in the real world,"
Yes but the problem as has been stated is when you use CG when it's NOT needed. Like for example when I said clone troopers and wookies. Would be more effective to use real people in those situations.
Yes but the problem as has been stated is when you use CG when it's NOT needed. Like for example when I said clone troopers and wookies. Would be more effective to use real people in those situations.
So, no, I don't think anything is lost because of CG. It's just another tool, like paintings and blue screen and puppets and stop motion. And, quite frankly, it looks much better then any of those. If there are good artists behind these creations and a good filmmaker, then great. If not, then not. But the CG itself I don't think is to blame. Take for instance Van Helsing...many of the complaints regarding the film were about the CG. Whereas, imo, the problem with that film had nothing to do with the technical quality and everything to do with bad writing, bad direction and poorly conceived action sequences. So...no, it's not the CG.
#22
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
CGI should be used in moderation. I've never been a fan of it but directors now a days use it in every scene. That's ridiculous. I look back to the 90's with movies like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 and ask why was the CGI better back then?
I don't see why everyone complains about CGI. Really it's all about evolution in the SFX industry, and you have to give them some recognizance when you consider that the technology is so new and quite difficult to master. Most people say that movies that used puppets, models, and other hard props were much better looking, and that's true, but most of those movies - especially the OT - were made at the height of the technology. Think back to those really cheesy 50s sci-fi movies that used models which were homebrewed and the SFX industry was very new....and CGI doesn't look so bad.
#23
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
CGI should be used in moderation. I've never been a fan of it but directors now a days use it in every scene. That's ridiculous. I look back to the 90's with movies like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 and ask why was the CGI better back then?
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that when CGI is used properly it is a big plus no matter how often the director uses it. (i.e. CGI gives Sin City a certain tone through out) I do feel that Lucas is overreliant on CGI to acheive his goals. I felt distracted by certain scenes in ROTS by unneeded special effects. (i.e. Dooku's flipping entrance, all the droids whizzing by when Anakin & Obi-Wan duel on Mustafar etc.)
I feel that something is lost when CGI is misused. For me personally it's that feeling of "How'd they do that?". Now the answer is always CGI. Do I like CGI sure, when it's needed and used properly, but CGI just for the sake of CGI? That I can do without. I think this may have been what the OP was trying to get across.
I feel that something is lost when CGI is misused. For me personally it's that feeling of "How'd they do that?". Now the answer is always CGI. Do I like CGI sure, when it's needed and used properly, but CGI just for the sake of CGI? That I can do without. I think this may have been what the OP was trying to get across.
#25
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
You want to fill up a giant movie screen with a blatantly fake and cartoony Yoda face when there's a perfectly believable puppet from 20 damn years ago that will work 1,000 times better?