Are CG Special Effects becoming ordinary and ho-hum?
 

I just saw a trailer for Van Helsing, and while it didn't blatantly look like CG, I felt that it was the same old stuff... Sure, polygon counts are getting higher every day, and the realism is increasing, but there is no "impossible shot" in the world of computers. You could follow a bullet as it impacts, or see strange worlds, all done entirely inside a computer. There are no challenges on sets, locations, makeup, prosthetics, props, pyrotechnics, special effects (non-CG,) etc.

You want a guy falling from 200 stories? Have him jump in a pile of boxes from 15 feet, and CG the rest.

Want a big creature, forget prosthetics and puppetry, use CG.

Is there much that is ground-breaking anymore in the use of CG? To me, higher polygons, smoother motion, new motion-capture techniques, etc., are only to be expected as computers get faster and cheaper.

It seems that the movie-going masses equate lots of CG with a good movie, whether there is a good story, good acting, good direction, etc., or not.

Re: Are CG Special Effects becoming ordinary and ho-hum?
 

They are still miles away from getting the physics and kinematics of most CGI shots anywhere near right. Glitzy CGI certainly is getting ordinary, however consistenty good CGI throughout an entire film has yet to be acheived.

I wish they would attempt to actually work at real hands on effects more of the time,or bad looking CGI:)

So I am pretty sick of the overuse of CG myself,since the majority of it looks terrible.

i really wanna see Van Helsing, but the wolf-man effects look hella cheese... almost Scooby Doo cartoon bad.

prolly still be a good flick... but considering films like LotR being around, they could have done the wolfman in a MUCH more scary way...

j

Well it really does depend on the movie. I just don't find myself ooohing and ahhh-ing over a film that's just CGI work like I used to when I knew they were using real models and real stuntmen to do the work.

OTOH, I was mightily impressed with the CG in Master & Commander which to me at least was pretty undectable and was mixed in with real sets and miniatures.

The next step in CG won't wow you at all, in fact you may not even notice it. The next step is to blend CG effects with real footage to the point where you don't know the difference.


I wouldn't agree with your point that the movie-going masses equate lots of CG with a good movie, whether there is a good story, good acting, good direction, etc., or not. I don't run across too many people who sing the praises of The Mummy Returns or LXG because it had a lot of CG.

It's not so much that they are becoming ho-hum. Overuse of CGI is becoming blatant. It seems every below average story uses CGI as a crutch.

Since I couldn't believe that (At least) one of the clonetroopers in Attack/Clones wasn't a real guy in a suit, there's still hope that *certain* CGI are still able to create the illusion that we're looking at a real-live object. But for the majority of special FX in movies nowdays, we can tell right off the bat when something is CG and this is something that needs to be improved on. And if they can't improve on it, then please go back to guys in suits.

Everytime I see the commercial now, I think the same thing. It's quite sad really. Because if you grabbed someone who hasn't watched any movies in 20 years and showed them some comparison pics of the wolf-suit in Bram Stoker's Dracula and a photo of the Wolf Man in Van Helsing and asked him/her which monster looks more realistic, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she picked the one that doesn't have "new age" special effects.

Speaking of Bram Stokers Dracula...impressive effects & set design in that film.

To bad Van Helsing did not take cue from that? I am not looking forward to that film.

And just think BSDracula used traditional effects.

I like CGIs that are not overtly used, or if so is used to enhance the scene. Examples of such are some techniques used by David Fincher in Panic Room or Robert Zemeckis in Forrest Gump, Cast Away, Contact and What Lies Beneath. I'm not saying these films are masterpieces, but the way the scenes were set up were jaw-dropping.

I truly think Robert Zemeckis is quite a master in coming up with scenes like this. One great scene is in Contact where Jenna Malone is running towards the medicine cabinet to get the medication for ther father.

In terms of the use of CGI in recreating monsters and creatures, it has certainly gotten out of hand. Stephen Sommers (Mummy 1 & 2) and Paul WS Anderson (Resident Evil) come to mind as filmmaking hacks who think they can be the next Spielberg or Cameron by using as much CGI as they can. The problem with these is that it really takes your attention out of the film and think "That was bad special effects."

True,I am far more 'wowed' with traditional effects than I am with CGI. It is more special knowing that alot of real hands on effort went into the creation.

Also in the case of films like B.S. Dracula,those traditional large scale sets truely do add an 'epic' feel to the films. Something no amount of CGI can touch!

Sure people will say that alot of 'hard work' goes into creating CGI since it is really complex. But still,a physical real life set,costume,charecter etc is far more pleasing than a phony looking cartoon trying to pass itself off as 'real'.


The only time CG works,is when it is barely used at all and only for small things,say wire removal & such.


That is also what makes Kill Bill more rousing and 'wow' inducing,is the lack of CG(expect for wire removal),so you know the people are doing those jumps,flips & so forth. Those are real prothetic limbs being hacked off(CG gore always is horrible & no fun!) and it is far more visually impressive than any CGI laden film released this past decade!

I was not that impressed with the Lord of the Rings films. Some looked alright,but far too much was obviouslly CGI.

We don't have to see every little thing in films today. Hence the overuse of CG animating various landscapes & such. Sometimes less is more.

Legend for example takes you into this mystical world with terrific effects,sets,costumes and so on. Despite the camera never panning over the entire landscape in a 360 of obvious CGI. It still feels more wow inducing and worldy than CG in my honest opinion.

The only time CG works is when you didn't realize it was CG to begin with.

I like it when they use a combination of prothetics, make-up and CGI when doing monsters. Those all CGI creatures can really take you out of a film.

what movies used cgi blood and gore?

Rypro,

Takeshi Kitano used CGI blood in his version of Zatoichi. I know that people were very divided into whether it worked for or against the film.

I myself thought it was a bit distracting at first but actually worked for the film and ended up loving it.

The blood isn't created by computer, but what the Japanese did in Battle Royale was shoot real footage of fake blood being squirted out and digitally inserted that footage on some of the characters getting shot. Pretty convincing! In fact,
Although I have heard that the recent Zatoichi uses this effect with slightly less-than-satsfying results. But I'll have to see it for myself.

I still prefer puppets myself. Like the people on the Farscape tv show were saying, it just makes those characters more real when the actors have something physical to interact with. Long live Rygel. :)

Blade 2,as well as 1 used bad CGI gore:)

Also speaking of cool amazing cinematography that would be butchured today if attempted to be recreated.

Remember the cool pan from the woman terrorist driving the car towards the super bowl,which pulls away..and then in a single take goes over the stadium and directly towards Robert Shaw who is on the look out for them in Black Sunday?


That is a truely amazing piece of camera work. I am still not sure how they pulled it off. Was it really one take with everything insync,or was there some trick editing in it?

Either way,it is truely awe inspiring to see. Part of the fun of going to the movies.


Yet I have seen plenty of films in recent years,that try to do those epic scope panning shots,360's etc..only it is all with CGI and it never looks convincing or 'wow how did they do that?' at all.

I personally have no problem with CG these days. While it is true a lot of films go CG crazy, that is because they intend to show things that...you can't any other way. Now, does the Wolfman in Van Helsing look good? Well, it's obvious CGI. Granted, there's no other feasible way to do that character, without completely changing its actions.

But really though, most films that go CGI crazy are...popcorn entertainment to begin with. They are the type of film that, if it had been made 20 years ago, would've still been just a big load of optical effects, big set design, and so on. Now, considering that IMO CG is far more believable than many of the techniques of 20 plus years ago, I like CG. Does Blade Runner look great? Yes! Could Blade Runner be improved with CG? Yes! (I'm not saying they should...no way should they revise...I'm just pointing out).

Nonetheless, the bright side is that bad CGI has never ruined a movie for me. Sure, the awful looking Scorpion King in Mummy Returns looked bad. But you know what? That didn't matter, cause the movie sucked on its own.

I just think CG is a tool, and really isn't anymore distracting than processed shots. And how many older movie's have terrible looking processed shots? Many I tell you, but for some reason that doesn't take anyone out of the movie...but The Hulk does?

Dude, did you see the Sinbad series? Those damn_stop motion puppets took me right out of the story. :rolleyes:

I'm in the same boat as a lot of others are, They are definitely becoming ordinary and a little boring when it comes to huge action scenes or the earth falling to pieces. I would love to see more films use CGI on a smaller, more detailed scale.

a coworker complained about the movie being too violent and brutal, and gave up after 30 min. (i lent it to her since she has an intrest in asian cinema and is the only one other then me that can watch a movie and read at the same time)

perhaps its just me, but ever since the LOTR movies came out i've been very harsh on special effects. if it doesn't look like gollum i think it just looks lame. they set the bar so damn high.

CG sucks!!!!!!