Is CGI the worst thing to happen to the action/adventure genre?

BelfastGuy125BelfastGuy125 Posts: 7,515
Forum Member
BTW I mean overt CGI, not little touches to enhance something.


For example that awful garbage After Earth. I mean that rubbish wouldn't have been made if CGI wasn't as available. It was just a no effort, no heart or love cash in that was easy to make. Its the same with so many action movies and adventure movies. Completely soulless.

Action movies were always just glorified 2 hour shoot outs. But at least when they were shot on location with the likes of Arnies etc, there was a realness to them. Now they are plastic and artificial.
«1

Comments

  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    The worst CGI i've seen recently was on the initial chase scene in Lockout.
    It just looked low budget and cheesy - The rest of the CGI was fine.
  • BelfastGuy125BelfastGuy125 Posts: 7,515
    Forum Member
    I should also add, the worst thing to happen to those genres from the point of view of the watcher. I can see why the studios love it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 414
    Forum Member
    Absolutely. Films such as GI Joe,

    On the other hand, it has been instrumental in the superhero genre. Marvel Universe films prosper from it, but it's still overused. I'd take the effects in Man of Steel over Superman 1-4 though.
  • Pink KnightPink Knight Posts: 24,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BTW I mean overt CGI, not little touches to enhance something.

    For example that awful garbage After Earth. I mean that rubbish wouldn't have been made if CGI wasn't as available.

    After Earth might be improved if it was just CGI without Will Smith and his son in it.

    CGI used well and not all the time is good.
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    when CGI first started being used i was amazed by it - the abyss, willow etc. however it's overuse now just makes films look like cartoons.

    the action films that i think have stood the test of time - the early bonds, t2, total recall, raiders etc - all had proper stunts and there was an artistry to them. nowadays any old hack thinks they can make an action film. im so bored of seeing supposedly normal people defy all laws of gravity in fight scenes.

    CGI characters are ALWAYS obvious too, whether it's someone jumping onto a horse (which ive seen as CGI so many times) or falling off a building..

    and what about location work and sets? i used to love reading about how X was filmed at this or that location etc, now everything is CGI. the problem is we've gone from "how did they do that??" to "there is no way someone actually built that city, it's all CGI" which immediately takes you out of the film.

    it's made directors very lazy - eg using it for breath coming out of peoples' mouths in cold weather. it never looks real.
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    so many times i see something and think "why couldn't you have just used a stuntman??"

    i am legend is a good example. the CGI vampires ruined that film, they didn't look 'there'. seeing as they were all humanoid shaped and sized, why not just get people in make up to play them..?

    there's no sense of threat with CGI characters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    I'd say it depends on the quality of the CGI. Some of the good stuff, like the work done by Peter Jackson's Weta is incredible/ But when it's bad, it's terrible. Like 2008's The Incredible Hulk which I was watching this afternoon, some of the CGI was good, some of it was awful, and it did take me out of the film. But thankfully I have good suspension of disbelief skills.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,894
    Forum Member
    Yep, about 80% of films which contain some CGI wander off into effectively being an animated feature due to the laughably un-lifelike nature of cgi human movement and interaction with the physical world.

    The only films that just about get away with it are those that use it extremely sparingly.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    PJ68 wrote: »
    so many times i see something and think "why couldn't you have just used a stuntman??"

    i am legend is a good example. the CGI vampires ruined that film, they didn't look 'there'. seeing as they were all humanoid shaped and sized, why not just get people in make up to play them..?

    there's no sense of threat with CGI characters.
    I watched an interview the other day (can't remember for what) and they were lauding themselves over the fact that they did many of the stunts with stunt people and even the cast did some of the stunts.

    It was like a lashback over the use of CGI and they were doing it the good old fashioned way.
  • VoynichVoynich Posts: 14,481
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought people here would think it was 3D.
  • Lawro2Lawro2 Posts: 1,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    For me Jurassic Park had a perfect balance of CGI.

    Most movies nowadays overdo it and not very well either.
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's the worst thing to ever happen to cinema. Especially horror films.

    I absolutely loathe CGI.
  • jeff_vaderjeff_vader Posts: 938
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's the worst thing to ever happen to cinema. Especially horror films.

    I absolutely loathe CGI.

    Spot on. Exhibit A: Carpenter's The Thing. Yes, it's dated but I think the fx are still superb every time I see that film. I did admire that they tried to use some practical fx in the prequel as well, rather than all-CG.

    I like CG when it's used well (LoTR trilogy) but was strangely bored (jaded?) by its use in The Hobbit and the last act of MoS.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, shakey hand-held zoomy camera-work is. Good CGI is fine, when it is over-used it jars, I still prefer real stunts though.
  • mike65mike65 Posts: 11,386
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CGI, shaky cam and "porno-editing" (aka music-vid) are the unholy trinity of modern techniques that have rendered action set pieces unintelligible and dull.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's just a tool. Obviously routinely misused nowadays.

    It's the people in charge of the US studios that are at fault. They think that budget and visuals is enough, for a time it obviously was but world-wide audiences are getting sick of such empty films.
  • f_196f_196 Posts: 11,829
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It wouldn't surprise me if we see a fully human CGI character in a feature role before long, if the Audrey Hepburn Galaxy advert is anything to go by.

    In my 26 years on this earth, I have never come across her, so didn't even realise she was dead - and wasn't a real person in the advert!!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    f_196 wrote: »
    It wouldn't surprise me if we see a fully human CGI character in a feature role before long, if the Audrey Hepburn Galaxy advert is anything to go by.

    In my 26 years on this earth, I have never come across her, so didn't even realise she was dead - and wasn't a real person in the advert!!!

    Too late, Clu in Tron: Legacy was a completely CGI version of a young Jeff Bridges. Not sure it's what you'd call a feature role...
  • SpacedoneSpacedone Posts: 2,546
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jeff_vader wrote: »
    Spot on. Exhibit A: Carpenter's The Thing. Yes, it's dated but I think the fx are still superb every time I see that film. I did admire that they tried to use some practical fx in the prequel as well, rather than all-CG.

    I think before CGI came in the writers/directors really had to think about how to scare people. Take Alien for example. The HR Giger designed alien was a masterfully creepy design and the scene where Dallas goes into the pitch black tunnels looking for it still makes me jump even now and all it really is is a split second shot of the creature appearing in the tunnel behind him and a minute or so of tense build-up.

    Nothing is more scary than what people can imagine in their heads. The more you show the less effect it has and sadly CGI had made it easy to show anything.
  • YorkshireKatYorkshireKat Posts: 690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PJ68 wrote: »
    so many times i see something and think "why couldn't you have just used a stuntman??"

    i am legend is a good example. the CGI vampires ruined that film, they didn't look 'there'. seeing as they were all humanoid shaped and sized, why not just get people in make up to play them..?

    there's no sense of threat with CGI characters.

    I agree the CGI in I am legend ruined that movie, when CGI is done well it's great but I really do miss the practical effects of old, can't beat legends like Rick Baker and the late Stan Winston or Rob Bottin whose effects for The Thing were tons better than the remakes CGI creations.

    Think the practical effects work they was originally going to go with for I am legend would have been better.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j22RthvabUM
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Spacedone wrote: »
    Nothing is more scary than what people can imagine in their heads. The more you show the less effect it has and sadly CGI had made it easy to show anything.

    HP Lovecraft novels are great for not describing monsters exactly and allowing your imagination to create them...had some stonkingly creepy dreams while reading the stories.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,541
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Too late, Clu in Tron: Legacy was a completely CGI version of a young Jeff Bridges. Not sure it's what you'd call a feature role...

    I thought Jeff Bridges played that role, they just CGI'd his face to make it look younger, the rest of the body was JB, so effectively it wasn't all CGI.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    I thought Jeff Bridges played that role, they just CGI'd his face to make it look younger, the rest of the body was JB, so effectively it wasn't all CGI.

    Having done some research it appears they motion captured Jeff Bridge's face. Filmed the scenes with a younger stand in actor. Overlaid a wireframe model over the stand in actor's face and then used to motion capture to CGI younger Jeff Bridge's face on to the wireframe model.

    I think I may have found an entirely CGI character (and a proper one this time). Apparently Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen is all CGI, because they didn't feel motion capture would work very well.*

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/visual-effects/4307537


    *It's arguable that Jon and Dr. Manhattan are the same person making it a 90/10 CGI-live action split. But that debate is irrelevant really, seeing as this proves the technology exists and is in use.
  • BowmaniBowmani Posts: 188
    Forum Member
    CGI will be bombarding us soon: Avatar 2 & 3, Star Wars. I love CGI look how great Gollum turned out. Yoda in Empire worked just right with a puppet so there are times where puppets excel. Lets not hate CGI though folks, after all without it we wouldn't have Toy Story, UP, Dobby or Jar Jar Binks!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Bowmani wrote: »
    CGI will be bombarding us soon: Avatar 2 & 3, Star Wars. I love CGI look how great Gollum turned out. Yoda in Empire worked just right with a puppet so there are times where puppets excel. Lets not hate CGI though folks, after all without it we wouldn't have Toy Story, UP, Dobby or Jar Jar Binks!

    CGI in animation is different to CGI in live action. Nobody's begrudging Toy Story...
Sign In or Register to comment.