Is CGI in movies today getting worse instead of better?

[NFS4]

I remember seeing Jurrasic Park when it first came out and was wowed by the CGI in the movie. It just "looked" real and even when I watch the movie today it still holds up. The models just integrated nicely with the backgrounds and the lighting looked just right.

Now I see all of these new movies today with CGI effects for people/animals and it just looks fake as hell. New movies coming out like King Kong and even with Spider-Man 2...the CGI just looks, well...FAKE. They just all have that processed look to them.

Idunno, maybe I'm just crazy

 

[jfall]

I like CGI if it's done right. The problem is that it's often abused and over used. Kind of like adding too much techno into a song

 

[iroast]

depends on the company working on the cgi. hardware + artist = product.

 

[daniel1113]

The quality of the CG depends more on the story than the technical skill and artistic value placed within it.

 

[Czar]

before directors used cgi where they needed it
now directors use cgi just because its trendy, so its everywhere

 

[eelw]

Yeah, I would have to agree. Blue/green screen scenes are just generally not well made. The actors are just floating in space over the CG background.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: iroast
depends on the company working on the cgi. hardware + artist = product.

Exactly.

Every time I watch the spider-bots in in Minority Report, I'm blown away.

 

[purbeast0]

i also think it had to do w/the fact that some of the dinosauars that were fully CGI in Jurassic Park moved very very slowly and didn't have very difficult animations to model.

IMO, its the CGI creatures that are moving very fast and the animations that seem unnatural that make it look done poorly.

 

[yobarman]

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886&siteID=123112

probably worse after this news

 

[Queasy]

If you want to see some truly awful CGI, check out this past Monday's episode of 'Surface'. The final scene was so bad I was laughing.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Jurrasic Park had something like 1.5 minutes total of CGI in the entire movie - the rest was done with models and such. Well done models can easily beat even average CGI when done right. But well done CGI allows for things you'd never see with models (a great example being the interaction with Gollum in LOTR). The main issue with CGI as I see it is that it is overused, but this has been an issue with all FX based stuff for as long as the concept of special effects has been around. Nothing is able to replace a good story with good characters - good CGI should be used as a complement to these, not as the main focus of the flick.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Queasy
If you want to see some truly awful CGI, check out this past Monday's episode of 'Surface'. The final scene was so bad I was laughing.

qft

 

[BD2003]

Its a lot easier to do dinosaurs without fur cloth all that etc.

But year, jurassic park still has some of the best CGI ever.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its a lot easier to do dinosaurs without fur cloth all that etc.

But year, jurassic park still has some of the best CGI ever.

Also we are seeing lower budgeted flicks use CGI. They don't have the cash/time to pay for excellent CGI and so we get mediocre attempts (see The Mummy Returns).

 

[ironcrotch]

I dunno, but Final Fantasy Advent Children is amazing.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Czar
before directors used cgi where they needed it
now directors use cgi just because its trendy, so its everywhere

I would think they use it everywhere because its much cheaper than models.

 

[AdamSnow]

Jurassic Park was awesome back in the day... and still awesome today

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
I dunno, but Final Fantasy Advent Children is amazing.

True, but FF wasn't trying to make something photorealistic as you would see if you walked out into the real world. You could still tell that it wan't supposed to be "exactly" life like.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: eelw
Yeah, I would have to agree. Blue/green screen scenes are just generally not well made. The actors are just floating in space over the CG background.

one of the worst offenders is skycaptain and the world of tomorrow, imo.

absolute garbage.

 

[Linux23]

Episodes I, II and III. All aweful.

/thread.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Linux23
Episodes I, II and III. All aweful.

/thread.

:laugh:

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: eelw
Yeah, I would have to agree. Blue/green screen scenes are just generally not well made. The actors are just floating in space over the CG background.

one of the worst offenders is skycaptain and the world of tomorrow, imo.

absolute garbage.

god, i rented the DVD and I walked out of that movie. However, Sin City used CG and Blue/Green screen technology very well for the most part.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Linux23
Episodes I, II and III. All aweful.

/thread.

No, sorry, you're drawing the wrong conclusions. The problem with I, II, and III was that Lucas went from relying on models for most of it to relying almost solely on CGI.

CGI on the whole is getting better every year. Example: Spiderman I vs. Spiderman II.

NOW...

/thread

 

[Riceball]

The quality of CGI only gets better, how it's implemented and polished is another story.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Linux23
Episodes I, II and III. All aweful.

/thread.

No, sorry, you're drawing the wrong conclusions. The problem with I, II, and III was that Lucas went from relying on models for most of it to relying almost solely on CGI.

CGI on the whole is getting better every year. Example: Spiderman I vs. Spiderman II.

NOW...

/thread

Spider-Man flying through the air on his web in Spider-Man II through the city...fake as hell