Printable View
Ok...with the recent influx of movies with CGI effects, this has been a pretty hot debate, and one I've found myself getting into more and more, over at IMDb.
So, what do you guys think about the great battle between CGI and practical effects? Do you think that CGI is ruining movies? Do you think its the wave of the future? Do you think it's undeniably fake? Do you think it's more grandiose than practical effects?
Basically...where do you stand?
Balance and quality are what needs to be focused on. CGI can be great... if applied appropriately with enough care. Also, practical effects may lack impact if not given enough care with the editing and general thought.
In the end, ANY sort of effects complements a movie, whether it is CGI or practical effects. I couldn't give a damn about either as long as both are done well.
I think CGI is good, it makes movies better. We can do things that can't be done by real people or robots. We can do pretty much anything on computers and make it photorealistic.
We're way beyond Tron :P
I don't like the term CGI
The original term was CG (computer graphics)
CGI is the common gateway interface (a technical internet & networking term), and the acronym got confused with CG
("computer generated imagery" was coined after the fact)
personal preference, but I like "Digital effects"
anyway...
it really depends on how digital effects are used
For non-real (or difficult to achieve in real life) things, digital effects can be quite obvious, which may be a turn-off for people
The recent spate of super hero films sort of highlights this
(you can't realistically film a live action scene with an eight foot green giant)
However, used for the mundane, they're indistinguishable from the real thing, and will go by completely unnoticed (aside from adding realism to the film)
any action film involving people being shot, stabbed, having a leg blown off, etc. is almost always done using digital effects.
Digital effects are used everywhere (and have been for a long, long time)
it's far quicker and cheaper (not to mention more realistic) than explosive charges blowing up blood packs
The Titanic, in the 1997 film was all done digitally
http://www.linuxjournal.com/files/li...494/2494f1.png
It's a boat
but it wasn't real (did you honestly know that? - cause till I read about it, I didn't)
(as a side note, Titanic was the first blockbuster film where Linux rose to the challenge of usurping the older Unix mainframes, providing a cheaper, more scalable software effects platform - http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2494)
So, do I think it's undeniably fake
No, not at all
however there's only so "real" you can make a completely unreal effect
CGI wins when done correctly.
Full stop.
IMO, CGI is great, ONLY when combined with real solid effects, in the matrix they made miniature models of ships and then used CGI to enhance it further, giving it a real look, but with added cgi to make it look even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
When movies rely solely on CGI for characters or objects, they look fake, and we all know it.
I like to use The Lord of the Rings as a great example of CG and Practical graphics working together to make something amazing.
The bigatures of the cities, the robot people used to make the Hobbits look small. Good stuff.
Weta Workshop and Weta Digital are definitely at the top of the game when it comes to effects.
I think it depends entirely on the film. For example if a film is supposed to have a certain style to it, e.g. Sky Captain, Sin City and 300, then CGI can work really well in creating a mood. However, when it is used all the time and in pointless ways then it loses all meaning.
In honesty I prefer the old fashioned way like the first Jurrassic Park film when they used anamatronics ect for the T Rex scene (still one of the most awesome scenes there is in film). Now if that scene was done using CGI then I wouldn't think much of it.
Don't get me wrong, I like CGI, for example the matrix wouldn't have worked with out it but when CGI is used all through out a film and at pointless times when a stunt person could have been used then it loses all meaning.
Elis your right on the money, when practical is mixed with cgi, you get such a realistic combination, you can't ever go back to using practical alone or cg alone.
I honestly hated the CG of the vampires in i am legend, they should of used actors that wear green screen material on certain areas, and they could of used real actors and added CG onto the actors to make them atleast look real, and not so videogame like.
I agree with Elis as well.
Re: Guerilla
The director's reasoning for the CG vamps was he had tried using actors, but they couldn't capture the intensity he was looking for.
I agree, they looked like crap(good graphics, poor design) but it did work in the end.
I see what he means, the speed and and furiousness could not be done with actors I guess
Yea, maybe one day CG will be good enough to fool us, but for now thats not the case lol
I can't wait for the day that CG can create characters to life like you thought they were real actors
It will always depend more on inspiration and execution than available technology.
CGI can be productive where practical cannot work. How do you practically make the Cloverfield Monster. Also, in film like the LOTR series, when massive armies are required to be portrayed, CGI can deliver, whereas practical effects are not feascible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Also I think that we are reaching the point where CGI is believable and to an extent realistic. It can only be up for CGI from here.
I think it's interesting to see the respect that most everyone here has given to CGI (or "digital effects," whichever suits you. :wink:) even if their deeper feelings differ. On a site like IMDb, which is over-run with movie "snobs" and self-defined "critics," you find that a large margin of members take the purist stance of "CGI is the Devil" (etc.)
Personally, I love CG. I believe it deserves no less respect than any other artform. Even when it's not perfect (because, really, what is?), I can accept it, as long as its a good and necessary attempt.
Take movies like The Incredible Hulk. Many people complain because the Hulk was (almost) entirely CG. So many people say things like "why can't they just use a bodybuilder, and super-impose him into the shot as the Hulk?" I was just kind of wondering how differently people here at DV might see the argument. Heh.
When I watched the Incredible Hulk I was sort of put off with him looking like a cartoon. Then again I sort of criticise things too much, just can't help it really. Then again they could have been going for that look to make it more comic book like.
How ever they couldn't use Lou to play the role in this film, it needed CGI especially with the NY scenes.
P.s I'm not saying it looked bad in this film. I think I just have a scema of what the hulk should look like compared with the 2003 film Hulk.
I think digital effects are a good thing, as long as they aren't used just to be cheaper.
Lord of the Rings was a great example of this. They used a load of prosthetics on actors (real effects) and then for the bigger things that couldn't be feasibly made they used digital effects.