Thoughts On CGI In Film.

[Matt J Heaton]

I was wondering what people think about computer effects in todays films.

I personally think they are ruining them.

It was one of the things that ruined The Haunting. The location and interior sets for that film had huge potential but big monster faces coming out of windows and fireplaces just isn't scary.
If they had been a bit, no, alot more subtle then it would have been better.

Then there's Episode 1. They were never going to go back to the first films crude, 70s effects and sets that we all like. But all the computer nonsense just makes me feel detatched from it all.

It can't be much fun for cast and crew working where a few years back would have been a large, impressive set. But now is just a blue screen.

I liked the effects in Private Ryan as it was just realistic, and I don't even know where computers took over in that film. Were the bullet hits squibs or CGI?


Anyway what do YOU think?

[WUXflooble]

All in moderation.
Digital effects are in the main better used
to tweak and blend images rather than create
totally fabricated ones, unless they are
exceptionaly well done (Which most arn't).
Gladiator is a good example.
Because of its historical setting, it
required a very high level of detail and realisim, unlike say Ep1.
That said, they still had some impressive
sets, costumes and props.
If I was to tackle a project of such scale
I think I'd opt for half and half Mix
minitures, actors, sets, CG, and digital
post as one. At the end of the day its whats
best for the Job.
The coliseum in Glad for example, could have
been a huge miniture, but they went for CG
because its just easier to match all the
camera moves of the live action element in the computer.
Ultimately you have to consider that
building the coliseum from scratch as a
set is just not a realistic option- and the
real thing is now U-S.
You should see the Alien DVD with Commentry
by Ridley Scott. You'd be amazed the ammount
of blags they came up with, from sets to FX.
It's amazing what you can do with a bit of
fishing wire, a bucket of Offal(Hehe!)and a
few old loading palettes.


[This message has been edited by WUXflooble (edited June 06, 2000).]

[miker]

CGI is just another tool.

They are kind of old hat now, and hopefully scripts will now take precedence.

CGI fails to impress nowadays, but I got a real buzz watching The Last Starfighter, since there wasn't really anything like it at the time. That, and SpaceHarrier/Outrun arcade games, now look a bit dated but are still good fun.

[binxalot]

I think alot of the films in the past two years have really suffered because of the special effects.

Episode1 is just one of many films where more time was spent on CGI then the story. Its a shame too. Lots of films really suck because of CGI.

When you play with CGI you walk a fine line between good work and shit. CGI is good, but a good story is better than anything.

------------------
Bonafide Productions

[Mark Jury]

I am not such a fan of CGI either. I was never too fussed with "Jurassic Park" and "Episode 1" was a huge let down. It looked like a cartoon to me.. I even prefer the original "StarWars" movies before the "Special Editions" came out. There's rumour that Spielberg will re-release "Jaws" with a CGI shark. Please no!!! An actor interracting with a puppet is far more real to me than something made on the computer. But ofcourse, the best effects are the ones you do not notice and that are vital to the story.

[tashunka]

I'd have to agree with the general consensus here. It is definitely way overused nowadays. The monsters, aliens and stuff like that which are totally computer generated just don't do it for me. Same as alot of the scenics. There was one shot in Sleepy Hollow which i just watched last night that was really bad I thought. Towards the end a horse and carriage are driving down a country road beside a river. It looked like crap. A real river would've been much better. They did alot of other cg stuff, such as tongues and eyes popping out of skulls that just looked like crap. Claymation would've been better like in Evil Dead.

Everything in moderation. I think it must be a real challenge for the actors doing everything on a sound stage in front of a chromakey screen.

[cash]

dont forget though that cgi makes films more memorable. Came on, the Matrix. It wasn't the best script in the world. The only reason why people remember the matrix was becsause of the gun fight, the rest was the special FX. Same thing with independance day, all effects crap script

www.cashprodutions.co.uk

[cash]

Oh by the way, private Ryan was squib, beacuse a friend of a friend worked on the film and says he has a piece of Tom Hanks in his room

www.cashproductions.co.uk



[This message has been edited by cash (edited June 15, 2000).]

[WUXflooble]

Memorable just because of CGI?
You must have a pretty low opinion
of most stuff if thats your yard
stick for how good a film is.

Spawn:
Up there, possibly as one of the worst
films of all time.

The Mummy:
Forgetable tripe.

Titanic:
Could've all been done with Models
for a fraction of the cost- and
wouldn't have looked shite.
Still wouldn't have saved the film
though.

ID4:
FX are nice on a big screen but try
watching it on your average family TV.
A tedious task, that even small children
have a problem dealing with.

StarWars: Ep1
IT DID NOT HAPPEN. THERE IS NO Ep1.

Twister:
Shite, lame and Shite again.

Lost in Space:
could've have been oh so good, but was oh so
bad. Overzelous effects ahoy.
One that Tim Burton should've directed.

Batman and Robin:
AAAHHHHHH! Joel Schumacher should be cremated
along with ALL prints of this sorry excuse
for an FX cheesefest.

Armageddon:
Will somebody shoot that Jerry Brockheimer
twat. It is impossible to sit through any
of his films (with the exception of The Rock)
without wanting vomit all over the cinema.
Liv Tyler must be somewhat desperate.
Ahhh, Liv Tyler... Those Aerosmith videos,
now they were something else...

Basicaly FX tend to act as the filmic
glue that holds most mass market films
together, and generally compensates the
viewer for a crap film.
Or not as the case seems to be.

[Matt J Heaton]

Those films you mentioned ranged from flops to massive successes.

The average person finds them enjoyable so I think they have their place. I have only seen maybe half of them but they are just harmless, disposable entertainment.

To be honest I didn't think EP1 was that bad. Sure it was a disapointment but it wasn't much worse than the originals.
Yes I am a fan of the trilogy but they aren't THAT good.