My Theory on Why CGI Looks Bad
 

Although there are examples of good-looking CGI, I'm sure we can all recall examples of when it momentarily took us out of the movie as we realized we were watching fake-looking computer generated effects. Whenever that happens, I sort of wonder to myself, how did the creators of this movie not notice how ridiculous that looked?

Well, I may have an answer. I was watching Die Another Day on a 32 inch TV screen - smaller than my usual set. I first noticed that in widescreen, it doesn't exactly have the same panoramic view as in the theater.

Anyways, I was preparing myself for the horrid CGI stunt of Bond parasailing on a tidal wave. When the scene finally arrived I paused for a moment. To my surprise, I didn't think it looked that bad. Honestly, I'm not so sure that if I didn't already know better from having seen it in the theater, I would now know it was CGI.

I remember the same thing happend when I watched Spider-Man. I think I enjoyed it more the second time because the effects looked less flawed. (Although it could just be because I was seeing it for the first time without the benefit of the Johnson Family commentary provided by the kind folks that sat behind me in the theater.)

So maybe I'm on to something here. When the special effects team creates these scenes on their computers, they probably see it on a smaller screen, and most likely in its OAR, where it looks fine at that point. But once it is blown up larger than life at the local cineplex, all the flaws at last become apparent.

But then, nothing can justify stuff like at the end of Air Force One That still looks bad to me, so I guess the special effects guys created that one using a five inch monitor. -smile-

Waddaya think?

I didn't see Die Another Day in theaters, but at home I found the parasailing scene laughably bad. Anybody remember when this series used to pride itself on doing practical stunts?

I don't think it ALWAYS looks bad, like anything else, its all about the implementation. For example, Gollum in TTT looks sweet, and fits in well with the scenes/actors around him. But that scene in TFOTR where the fellowship is walking over the mountain and we see close ups of there faces one by one, i can see the "outline" around them and it looks really fake.

Or take the newer star wars movies. In TPM, I don't really think the CGI characters look fake or hokie at all (see the pod race or final battle scenes). In AOTC, the elevator scene at the beginning looks really fake, but things like the clone war scene and the whole kamino scenes look great.

I think overall, it just depends on how they implement. Sometimes they use CGI unneccesarily and it makes things looks fake, and other times it enhances.

I am a fan of CGI in general and as the technology continues to grow I hope directors will use it and use it well. But only when they need to, not just "because the technology exists" .

I was disappointed in some of the scenes of Spiderman. Just the ones where he is web-shooting around the city, it is just obvious it isn't TM in the costume. The worst is that shot where he is holding KD that they used in all the trailers.

But good and bad can exist in the same movie, like huh? pointed out with LOTR. Another, AOTC. Yoda = good, Anakin riding that beast in the field with Padme = bad. It is obvious that the animation dept. spent more time on one scene vs. the other.

I have tried to keep myself from seeing what the Hulk looks like before I see the movie, but of course that lasted until last week. Now the more I see him, the more fake he looks. Looks like Shrek on steroids. I think this will be one that hits big opening weekend then dies a quick death the following week.

I just hope this is not the beginning for more CGI use in Bond movies. You're right- James Bond movies used to pride themselves on practical stunts. Yes the stunts in the movie were very outlandish, yet SOMEBODY (human) did them. Lets just hope this movie marked the beginning and the end of CGI stunts. Lets leave James Bond alone with the cheap CGI garbage… isn’t that why we have XxX?

I have a few oppinions/theories on CGI as well. First I feel as though CGI is still a developing art form that will continually improve as time goes on. Look at how far it has gone in the past 10 - 15 years. Even at its peak; however, it is no substitute for the real thing.

I also must defend CGI in some aspects when it is trashed. When CGI is used to portray an event that we have seen or can happen (such as a cheesy looking plane crash or a fall off of a building) then I also complain. But I feel that when it is used to portray events that we have never really seen (ex. Some of the Matrix fight scenes that people gripe about) we cant really say if that really happened if it would look like that or not (I human flying around in real life would still look fake/ out of place because the human eye has never seen it). This theory doesn't apply in all scenarios (ex. the Mummy Returns) but in some cases I feel that it is applicable.

I do agree that The Mummy Returns is an example of "CGI Gone Bad." Jurassic Park would be an example of when it works perfectly.

Sadly, though, I fear we will never see movies ever again like John Carpenter's The Thing. One of the reasons why it seemed scary to me was it looked real. (As opposed to the giant cartoon snake in Anaconda which made me giggle like a school boy.) So I say we need to prepare a time capsule someplace in the arctic to preserve The Thing for future generations.

CGI is only bad, IMO, when it is used too much and for its own sake. For example, Blade 2 has a fight scene in it where it is quite obvious the two characters are CGI. They look so CGI, that it makes you believe they did the scene just to have an excuse to use the effect, as one can do a good fight scene without CGI characters.
Coming to the Hulk's defense, it might make up for with story where it lacks with CGI. Don't know if that is effective on summer audiences though. :(

Re: My Theory on Why CGI Looks Bad
 

I actually feel 180 degrees opposite. I find that CGI that looks stupid in the TV commercial often looks significantly improved on the big screen. The Perfect Storm looked terible in ads and looks terible on DVD but the water/wave effects looked very good in the theater.

The explanation is very simple: lack of artistic merit, and physics.

A model exists physically, in three dimensions, and to an extent obeys physics. Binary data in a computer does not.

As for the first point, the tools are no substitute for intent and talent.

No one with a straight face can tell me that the ship and city/space environment effects in Blade Runner and Return of the Jedi have been surpassed by the far more sophisticated technology we have today. It's not true.

Why? Because the people who made those films were the elite experts who made those shots from the ground up, through trial and error and innovation. And they understood artistic principles that sometimes get overlooked in today's industrial environment.

When you have a computer that is literally capable of rendering anything and the constraints are gone, you can end up with something that looks and feels 'false.'

there's so many variables to consider when doing cgi.
what i think makes cgi most noticeable is the inability to duplicate the flaws of reality.
bad cgi moves too smoothly or is too clean visually.
it's extremely difficult to duplicate everything from rough skin textures to random movements to visual lens distortions to film color/grain to... the list goes on and on. and as humans we may not be aware of the specifics but we notice when they aren't correct.

as someone that does a lot of photoshop work for a living i find myself focusing more on duplicating the flaws of things than trying to eliminate them and it really gives the finished work a sense of believability.

however, when it comes to cgi of things like the hulk there isn't too much that can be done to make it realistic. they can use all kinds of information based on reality to construct how the hulk moves and looks but there is no actual model to base it on so it's going to seem unrealistic to us.

Did anyone see the "making of" special feature on the DVD of The Mummy Returns? They have an entire half-hour where they do nothing but brag about how "sophisticated" and "cutting edge" their CGI is... especially the segment at the end with the Scorpion King, where they essentially "glued" the Rock's face on their CGI monster. He-hee. Hee-hee-hee.

Good times...

CGI deserves to get some props. When used well, in other words, when necessary, it's great, e.g. T2, Jurassic Park, True Lies.

HOWEVER, since the mid 90s, primarily b/c of George Lucas it seems, CGI renderes and directors/producers have been "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didnt stop to think if they should."

Lucas always claims how he's trying to break new ground with CGI, but he never slows down to perfect the current CGI. It's always the next new thing, but they never perfect the older thing.

IMO, the directors who use CGI to the best is Spielberg and Cameron. Look at Abyss, T2, Jurassic Park, True Lies, Titanic, A.I., Minority Report.

The 'CGI revolution' needs to slow down and perfect the so called simpler fx, before tackling the more complex ones.

Agreed. It's a shame there are a lot more bad examples of CGI than good ones. It needs to be used sparingly. These directors can't possibly think this stuff looks good, do they?

Agree in spades. This is probably my least favorite CGI moment ever, just because the sheer pointlessness coupled with the fact that it's not well done.

As much as everyone hates the CGI in Mummy Returns, I thought the original was much more awful, just because they just HAD to make the main mummy character a phony looking CGI thing when they could've done a kickass makeup job instead.

CGI has made some filmmakers lazy... just because it's out there and it's easy, does not mean it's the endall of special effects. And just because it's new does not mean it's necessarily better than makeup, animatronics, or other older effects methods. Sometimes it is, sure, but there are plenty of 80s movies whose effects look better than the Mummy or other CGI terrors...

CGI is not easy.
The fact that it takes so much time and sometime comes out looking very bad reflects on poor planning and design and not lack of time and effort.

The animation/cg on the original empire strikes back vhs, looks really bad, so I was glad that they re did it.

One of the worst uses of CG to me has to be The Mummy Returns. When those wolf head creature are attacking the city, it looks like a cartoon and the Rock at the end looked totally fake, and it was made worse when they did a huge close up of the Rock's face and it was CG when it couldve totally been a real face shot.

Yeah, so is the CG in the original Planet of the Apes. I mean, I can clearly see why they redid that one too. :D :D :D

I saw the Hulk comercials and thought it looked really crappy. Got to see the movie tonight (Thanks to Volition.com) and it was great. I really thought the whole movie was excelent and I would give it an oscar for best cinematography.

This is definately a movie to see in the theatre and not on DVD at home.

PS, Security at the Advance Screening was way more than usual. They even had people with night vision peeping the croud during the movie. Making sure no one was video taping the movie.

Here's my take on what causes bad CGI.

Lack of time and money. Was that simple enough?

I say only use computers for 2 things:

1.Compositing - A computer composite of models looks AWESOME as opposed to optical. Just watch Independence Day and realize just how good it looks.

2.Liquid effects - Understandably, this cannot be done with physical models well.

EVERYTHING ELSE - MODELS! Models invariably look better than their CG counterparts for the mere reason that they ARE what CGI is trying to become...

Real.

EDIT - Oh yeah, CGI can also be used for Dinosaurs, but that's it!

...also for breaking someone's arm and having the perpetrator's head caved into a fleshy pulp with a fire extinguisher.

To echo several here, I think it is just simply overused. And used in places where other effects could be used to better create the desired effect. LOTR, TPM, AOTC, even TMR are all guilty of it.

The effects in Bruce Almighty were terrible in my opinion.

But what do I know? I've never made a film.

stoolie

I think one of the most recent films that used CGI in a great, great way was Minority Report. I mean everything there was beautiful but it wasn't there as a substitute for the real thing. . .it helped to make everything believeable, not un-believeable.