Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-07-2013, 19:59
BelfastGuy125
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,616

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.
BelfastGuy125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-07-2013, 20:01
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 44,800
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.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 20:07
BelfastGuy125
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,616
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.
BelfastGuy125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 20:47
L_Roberts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 408
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.
L_Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 20:54
Pink Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,004
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.
Pink Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 22:10
PJ68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,556
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.
PJ68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 22:11
PJ68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,556
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.
PJ68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 22:44
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
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.
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2013, 23:30
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,428
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.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 16:19
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 44,800
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.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 17:02
Voynich
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Scotland
Posts: 13,596
I thought people here would think it was 3D.
Voynich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 17:11
Lawro2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,010
For me Jurassic Park had a perfect balance of CGI.

Most movies nowadays overdo it and not very well either.
Lawro2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 18:12
ChuckyBlackhart
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wentworth Detention Centre
Posts: 2,382
It's the worst thing to ever happen to cinema. Especially horror films.

I absolutely loathe CGI.
ChuckyBlackhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 20:45
jeff_vader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 782
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.
jeff_vader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 21:08
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,457
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.
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 21:25
mike65
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Waterford Ireland
Posts: 6,337
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.
mike65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 22:39
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 14,887
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.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 22:43
f_196
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 9,652
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!!!
f_196 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 22:57
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
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...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 23:19
Spacedone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,380
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.
Spacedone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 23:24
YorkshireKat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 620
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
YorkshireKat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 23:48
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,457
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.
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2013, 00:14
dreamycreamy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 1,507
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.
dreamycreamy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2013, 00:35
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
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/tech...ffects/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.
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2013, 00:57
Bowmani
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kent Coast
Posts: 165
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!
Bowmani is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29.