Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

What movies use too much CGI?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

What movies use too much CGI?

Old 01-26-04, 01:54 PM
  #51  
Fok
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Fok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Canada, BC
Posts: 6,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think there has to be a balance, Once upon a time in mexico was good, he didn't over do it on the CGI. But if you take Ep1 and 2, I think Lucas over used it because of the noverty of it.
Old 01-26-04, 02:38 PM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The middle
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And the Matrix CGI easily beats the crap outta the LOTR CGI...but no one beats ILM!
Someone needs to lay off the cough-syrup!

Interestingly, from an Oscars standpoint, everybody beats ILM as of late. They haven't been the lead effects house on a Best Visual Effects winner in ten years, since Forrest Gump.
Old 01-26-04, 03:20 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Fanboy
AGREED!

And while it might not use too much CGI, I thought League of Extraordinary Gentlemen certainly made overuse of poor CGI. Possibly the worst effects I have seen in a major motion picture in some years.
I think the problem is a lot of people have no idea what CG is, and think every effect is CG. Save for the submarine, the CG work in LXG was actually quite good imo. I can't say the movie was particularly good, but I thought the film looked stellar (the sub could've been fixed up, but it was still fun imo). But the truth is...LXG is mostly model work and prosthetics. I recall a review that said Hyde was the worst CG they had ever seen. Then lambasted the use of CG. I was...confused. The work on Hyde had great CG work...cause it was only used for the occasional compositing and such. The reviewer didn't even realize that Hyde was in fact, NOT CG at all. I see this all the time. People harp on Star Wars and say "they need to use real models and stuff!" and don't even know that those Star Wars films use more models and practical effects than pretty much any film out there.

Seriously though, I just want to know...what is the alternative? Star Wars has been picked on a lot...tell me what the alternative is to creating these worlds? In my opinion, the problem is bad acting. Which separates the actors from their surroundings. You say CG, but how else are we going to get these worlds and creatures?
Old 01-26-04, 03:35 PM
  #54  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally posted by Corvin
While I agree that both of the films use CG too often, and poorly at that, isn't the purpose of CG to do things that cannot be shot in real life?
Or would be too expensive/dangerous.
Old 01-26-04, 04:01 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hah, but still, you can label those under "cannot be shot in real life," either because it's too expensive or just too dangeorus. Right?
Old 01-26-04, 04:24 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Cusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 7,728
Received 44 Likes on 31 Posts
Originally posted by Corvin
Hah, but still, you can label those under "cannot be shot in real life," either because it's too expensive or just too dangeorus. Right?

I was actually referring to some of the impossible things in movies that are suppose to be based in reality. I heard a good reveiw of 2F2F something along the lnes I remember when they used to use cars for car stunts.
Old 01-26-04, 08:59 PM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was reading thru the posts, saw one that seemed to know what he was talking about, looked left, and lo and behold it was jaeufraser.

Again, I agree, and I feel that most people are just hard-core CGI bashers.

They lament a time when movies were all "great" movies, and blame CGI (new stuff) for destroying their precious Hollywood.

Guess what? Most movies have always been crap.
CGI is not to blame for you not liking movies.

And it shouldn't be the scape-goat for you losing your imagination.

There are only a few ways to do things that can't be done with real actors: models, puppets, makeup, CGI, stop-motion animation, and animation (did I miss any?)

Each style has its limitations.
Every one can be looked at and said "Hey! That's an effect! That's not real!", since we all know what's in the real world and what must be an effect.
Years ago, people went to movies and didn't care if C3PO was a guy in a suit.
Old 01-27-04, 01:35 AM
  #58  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up State NY
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought Gollum in the Two Towers looked pasted on, especially when he shared the frame with the Hobbits. In Return Of The King I thought they improved the CG for Gollum a lot.
Old 01-27-04, 03:09 AM
  #59  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
tanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 9,804
Received 907 Likes on 633 Posts
Originally posted by jaeufraser
Save for the effect in the end of MummyReturns, I would say I don't agree with any of these choices. Maybe I'm the only one, but sometimes I like these types of effects work. Many harp on how they should use physical effects, but we need to realize to create these shots that would be impossible. And as a person who at one time thought the Rancor looked awesome, and that King Kong was simply cool looking (yes, the old one) I am more interested in what it looks like than whether it looks 100% real.

Many have pointed to Star Wars as having too much CGI. I LOVE how the new movies looked. I've never seen such an amazingly detailed rich fantastic environment like that. If you have, tell me what movie...cause it doesn't exist save for CGI. And if I have to choose between something where I have to suspend disbelief, and nothing, I'll suspend my disbelief. If the movie is bad, it's bad...but that doesn't mean Phantom Menace has too much CGI. Perhaps it just has bad acting.

Again, this is my preference. Unless the effect is unfinished or so awful (Air Force One crash landing anyone?) then it really does not bother me. Tell me a good story, make a good movie, and do the best you can...and I'm happy. I'm willing to bet if the Star Wars movies had been GOOD this CGI complaint wouldn't be nearly as apparent.

. . .

for the most part. I think that if the scene is necessary, it blends in well, and otherwise can't be done then CG is the way to go.

There are some scenes in certain movies that just shouldn't have been done like the scorpion king and Peter Parker jumping.

Do you seriously prefer stop animation as opposed to CG? Can you imagine Jurassic Park using stop animation.

IMHO LotR is the best example of a good balance of the different special effects available. PJ used miniatures when possible and didn't really use CG when other techniques were possible (ie forced perspective, miniatures, sets, stuntmen). There were also no scenes that were gratuitously CG that didn't add to the overall quality/experience of the film.
Old 01-27-04, 06:17 AM
  #60  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some of ya guys just dont watch the FX doc's do ya? PJ used a lot of minatures for the LOTR movies...well...every FX heavy movie uses a lot of minatures...take the SW Prequels for example...a lot of people like to just claim that its all CG...but its not...most of its models enhanced by CG...its a better marriage of the two forms that LOTR if you ask me..they both work cooperatively to create a stunning visual...but I will say that the LOTR probably uses a few more Miniatures than the SW prequels...but their insanely different film franchises...

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.