Sick of Cutesy CGI flicks - where's the cool stuff?

[spikespiegal]

Went to see 'Over the Hedge' last week with my sister, and before the movie started I saw previews for about half a dozen CGI movies that all looked the same. The typical kiddie flick fare with the subliminal adult jokes, all bright colors, no imagination and sterile looking.

While I give Pixar credit for at least having a good storyline with 'Cars' and 'ToyStory', I've noticed that even my younger nephews and nieces seem bored with the genre'. Crap is all starting to look the same.

Which brings me to my question of why does it all look the same? I realize for marketing reasons you want to make movies that appeal to the widest audiences, but this seems to go contrary to the typical computer animator I've met. Raised on a diet of Japanese Anime', you'd think these guys would start to rebel and push the envelope.

While 'Final Fantasy' was a box office flop and needed a stronger story, we started to finally see CGI push the envelope in terms of environment and effects. Since then the only cool thing I've seen is Gollum in LOTR, or maybe the opening story in 'Animatrix'. Other than that, just nothing amazing. The tpyical full length CGI movie has landscapes that look like they were designed by accountants, and characters meant to give cameos to unemployed Hollywood actors. I watch these films and I can practially code them in my head in C++.

You'd think by now somebody would have put all this computing power to work, and produced a full CGI version of Akira...or anything else.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

You'd think by now somebody would have put all this computing power to work, and produced a full CGI version of Akira...or anything else.

That'd be hawt

 

[thirdeye]

Have you seen FF VII: Advent Children? The story isn't the best but it's decent and entertaining.

 

[HN]

you just gotta weed through the stuff and find things like FF7:Advent Children

 

[Queasy]

Because movie producers have seen what is working and so they copy copy copy until they suck the genre dry.

Pixar is the top of the field, no doubt about it. I don't even both to take my kid to see stuff like Over the Hedge or Hoodwinked because I know instinctively that it is likely just crap.

CGI animated movies are starting to show the same signs as what killed traditional animated movies - films that hope to drag kids and parents into the theaters (double-dipping) but really are rushed with crap stories.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

The more realistic the CGI, the more unnatural and off-putting it appears to the average person. Those cutesy flicks are much easier for the average person to enjoy, which is why they rake in the dough.

People can easily sit down and watch a movie like Toy Story because the brain accepts that it isn't reality. When the animators try to make it look realistic, like in Final Fantasy, it looks unnatural and disturbing to the mind. It becomes distracting, making it difficult for many people to enjoy the movie.

How many people thought the Burly Brawl in the Matrix: Reloaded looked like sh*t? It looked an order of magnitude more realistic than any of Pixar's movies, yet people still complain about it. Ever wonder why?

Uncanny Valley (courtesy of Wikipedia)

 

[destrekor]

Thats why I don't go to see CGI flicks unless they are Pixar. Cars looks like it could be okay, but I loved Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc, and the others before it. Although, I did enjoy Ice Age. 🙂
the cost of animation is probably what keeps it looking like it does and not like Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within. I personally liked that movie, it was a flop because it wasn't Final Fantasy like they said it was. either way, they take what is probably much more work and more money. and the studios think the cutesy style is what draws kids in, and that the style SquarePictures brings to the theaters is something reserved for adults and isn't worth the investment since it probably doesn't help bring in people at that point.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

...

While 'Final Fantasy' was a box office flop and needed a stronger story, we started to finally see CGI push the envelope in terms of environment and effects. Since then the only cool thing I've seen is Gollum in LOTR, or maybe the opening story in 'Animatrix'. Other than that, just nothing amazing. The tpyical full length CGI movie has landscapes that look like they were designed by accountants, and characters meant to give cameos to unemployed Hollywood actors. I watch these films and I can practially code them in my head in C++.

You'd think by now somebody would have put all this computing power to work, and produced a full CGI version of Akira...or anything else.

If you say so ...

 

[Thraxen]

You mean like Star Wars?

 

[Specop 007]

There was a real short CGI I saw some time ago. It was about a guy who went fishing in the dirt (Think Tremors). He had some cool 8 wheeled tank looking thing, he plasma drilled a big hole in the ground then dropped down some bait. Caught a "monster", it drug his tank across the desert floor for w hile, then came up to eat him. He shot it with a rocket launcher as it surfaced.

It was a BADASS video. Cant remember where I saw it though 🙁

 

[spikespiegal]

I've produced some pretty good work with Persistence of Vision and command line scene descriptions. It's sad when a non CGI professional like myself can pick out elements in mainstream CGI movies and brag I could have done a better job with specific elements. Note the camera/workd placements are always static, and viewpoints always move in linear fashion on a straight axis. Even a college film school flunkie can be more creative than that.

Any moron can plant a few light sources in a scene and render characters, and that's what 99.99% of hollywood CGI is.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
There was a real short CGI I saw some time ago. It was about a guy who went fishing in the dirt (Think Tremors). He had some cool 8 wheeled tank looking thing, he plasma drilled a big hole in the ground then dropped down some bait. Caught a "monster", it drug his tank across the desert floor for w hile, then came up to eat him. He shot it with a rocket launcher as it surfaced.

It was a BADASS video. Cant remember where I saw it though 🙁

Rockfish

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz

Originally posted by: Specop 007
There was a real short CGI I saw some time ago. It was about a guy who went fishing in the dirt (Think Tremors). He had some cool 8 wheeled tank looking thing, he plasma drilled a big hole in the ground then dropped down some bait. Caught a "monster", it drug his tank across the desert floor for w hile, then came up to eat him. He shot it with a rocket launcher as it surfaced.

It was a BADASS video. Cant remember where I saw it though 🙁

Rockfish

THATS it. I kept thinking "Rockhound".
Man thats a badass video.

 

[Dubb]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
I've produced some pretty good work with Persistence of Vision and command line scene descriptions. It's sad when a non CGI professional like myself can pick out elements in mainstream CGI movies and brag I could have done a better job with specific elements. Note the camera/workd placements are always static, and viewpoints always move in linear fashion on a straight axis. Even a college film school flunkie can be more creative than that.

Any moron can plant a few light sources in a scene and render characters, and that's what 99.99% of hollywood CGI is.

you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The bolded part is more or less correct. the italic part couldn't be further from the truth.

There's a saying in CG: anyone can make something look amazing, but very few people can make it look amazing and have it render in a short enough time to be profitable.

and that's the catch. these movies still don't use raytracing, global illumination, caustics, or any other of the fancy tricks that come bundled in the $500 edition of softimage - they can't afford the rendertime, even with 6000 core renderfarms. every spiffy effect is faked, or a tool is custom coded for a particular scene - and that takes serious talent and manpower.

The reason why we're seeing tons of movies that look/feel the same is pretty simple: from start to finish one of these movies takes about five years to make. And that's with 6000 core renderfarms and about 500 people working on them. About four or five years ago, there were a few CG movies that made WAY more money than anyone expected (shrek, monsters inc, ice age), and so it was then considered to be a highly bankable genre - what's coming out now is the result of decisions made back then. In the coming years, we'll see a few flops, people will get bored, and things will settle out.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
I've produced some pretty good work with Persistence of Vision and command line scene descriptions. It's sad when a non CGI professional like myself can pick out elements in mainstream CGI movies and brag I could have done a better job with specific elements. Note the camera/workd placements are always static, and viewpoints always move in linear fashion on a straight axis. Even a college film school flunkie can be more creative than that.

Any moron can plant a few light sources in a scene and render characters, and that's what 99.99% of hollywood CGI is.

Haha, the boy renders a PoV scene or two and suddenly he's at the top of the CGI world. LMAO!

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz

Originally posted by: Specop 007
There was a real short CGI I saw some time ago. It was about a guy who went fishing in the dirt (Think Tremors). He had some cool 8 wheeled tank looking thing, he plasma drilled a big hole in the ground then dropped down some bait. Caught a "monster", it drug his tank across the desert floor for w hile, then came up to eat him. He shot it with a rocket launcher as it surfaced.

It was a BADASS video. Cant remember where I saw it though 🙁

Rockfish

THATS it. I kept thinking "Rockhound".
Man thats a badass video.

Meh.

 

[imported_Trippin315]

Am I the only one that thinks that japaese anime is actually really bad. The drawing is not all that good. There is absolutely no detail.
The story lines suck

 

[Rip the Jacker]

Originally posted by: Trippin315
Am I the only one that thinks that japaese anime is actually really bad. The drawing is not all that good. There is absolutely no detail.
The story lines suck

No. In fact, it's the complete opposite.

 

[So]

All of you who want more realism in CGI need to look up the 'Uncanny Valley' on wikipedia. Studios know that they can't transcend it, so they don't tread there. What CGI can do well today is replace traditional animation, and IMO, it has done that well. People don't realize it, but stylistcally, the pixar films differ from 'over the hedge' which n turn differs from the likes of, say, shrek.

Essentially, it is my thesis that CGI is, at least for the forseeable future going to fill the role of traditional american animation, and until there is a breakout movie, nothing more.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz

Originally posted by: Specop 007
There was a real short CGI I saw some time ago. It was about a guy who went fishing in the dirt (Think Tremors). He had some cool 8 wheeled tank looking thing, he plasma drilled a big hole in the ground then dropped down some bait. Caught a "monster", it drug his tank across the desert floor for w hile, then came up to eat him. He shot it with a rocket launcher as it surfaced.

It was a BADASS video. Cant remember where I saw it though 🙁

Rockfish

wow that was great.

 

[Fenixgoon]

they really need to do a CGI starcraft/warcraft/warhammer movie... THAT would kickass....just watch the warhammer: dawn of war trailer (it's the intro video to the game)... it's AMAZING

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
they really need to do a CGI starcraft/warcraft/warhammer movie... THAT would kickass....just watch the warhammer: dawn of war trailer (it's the intro video to the game)... it's AMAZING

I can't speak about warhammer, but SC & WC are TERRIBLE ideas for movies -- the universes are already derived from existing worlds that already HAVE movies.

 

[Imported]

Watch Advent Children?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
they really need to do a CGI starcraft/warcraft/warhammer movie... THAT would kickass....just watch the warhammer: dawn of war trailer (it's the intro video to the game)... it's AMAZING

I can't speak about warhammer, but SC & WC are TERRIBLE ideas for movies -- the universes are already derived from existing worlds that already HAVE movies.

SC : starship troopers ?

warcraft :what movie?

i think an ALL CGI movie would be great for these fantasy/sci-fis, the problem is that people always do 1/2 live action 1/2 CGI, and very often the two do not mix.

diablo cinematics rocked, too

 

[JM Aggie08]

the incredibles was good 😉