Sometimes I wish characters in new movies weren't all cgi

[nitro28]

Don't get me wrong, I think its amazing what we can produce with todays cgi, but it still bugs me a little bit that every movie company relies so heavily on it sometimes. You take the original Star Wars creatures for example, even though they were essentially muppets or guys in makeup they still felt more real sometimes because they actually shared the same lighting and set as the other characters. The cgi characters just are not there yet for me. They are good, but just not seemless for me as a movie goer. They just still look like they are moving in front of the environment and not within it. I miss good old animatronics for big creatures. I realize that computers can make the creatures move in amazing ways, but still it feels a little too much like animation.

The other thing that has annoyed me a little lately is that no one appears to use real fire anymore. You watch a tv show like Terminator or a movie and the houses that are on fire are clearly computer generated. Even a random fire in a trashcan is cgi. I realize this is safer and more cost effective, but lessens the realism in my mind.

Sooner or later cgi will become impossible to distinguish but for now it is not quite there. Its not like I don't enjoy the movies, I just find my self saying, why didn't they just use a real so and so there? I do realize that cost and safety are big motivators to use the computers but is it affecting the quality of the project? Does any of this stuff bug you guys?

 

[newb111]

They need the practice to get it good enough that it isn't noticeable, so I don't mind.

 

[Injury]

It's purely situational for me, but for the production companies CGI is probably much cheaper than animatronics and the movements are pretty much limitless.

5 years ago I could have totally agreed... you'd get frequent comments about some films where the CGI totally sucked, but on the same token a lot of old movies had horrible animatronics.

A lot of things you see in movies nowadays are only possible BECAUSE they can be done digitally.

 

[mugs]

Eh, if you go back and watch older movies the fire and explosion effects look just as fake as CGI, because they used miniatures and/or high speed photography (to lengthen an explosion).

 

[EGGO]

Mine is a bit of a different rant. The same thing goes for videogames. That's why I left the scene. nobody cares about what really makes these things entertaining. It's not who it's made by or who stars in it. I never cared as a little kid and still to this day.

I want good imagination. I don't want eye candy. You don't need to give me eye candy. Don't rely on that crutch. Make it that, first.

After that, I have to get used to "movie magic" being done in a small room with a couple of people rather than a big set. Cheaper? Just barely. Safer? By a buttload. Oh the poor poor occupation of stunt doubles.

 

[GoatMonkey]

Movies are supposed to tell a story. If CGI is the best way then that's fine. Entire movies could be made with no actors or egos involved, just pure storytelling.

It wouldn't bother me at all if there was no more Oscar red carpet crap. A CGI actor would not thank anyone or show up at the event.

Actors involved in politics, as if this person who reads a script to us an moves around in front of a camera is better at judging who should be in office. You don't get that from a CGI actor.

No CGI actors have ever been in rehab.

CGI actors do not get knocked up, involved in mysterious deaths that are discussed for months (ala Anna Nicole Smith), never get into fights with paparazi, etc...

 

[Soccerman06]

I'm sure Transformers 2 will have animatronic robots for all sceens.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: mugs
Eh, if you go back and watch older movies the fire and explosion effects look just as fake as CGI, because they used miniatures and/or high speed photography (to lengthen an explosion).

Fun thing: In Star Wars: ROTJ, when Han blows up the shield generator, on the left side of the screen, you can see a big chunk of debris bounce off of what I assume was some kind of blast window in front of the miniature.

I thought that Gollum/Smeagol was integrated pretty nicely into the scenery, and sometimes they used CGI main characters. For example, when the gang is crossing the rocky bridge of Kaza-Dum (sp?) to escape the Balrog, there's an overhead shot of them all running over the bridge. I didn't know that was entirely CG until I read that it was.
It all depends on the budget and the attention to detail that the animators have.
LOTR also used CG elsewhere, in ways that made it have a more epic feel. You got to see a few hundred thousand soldiers staged outside a fortress. You got to see a huge troll interacting with other characters. You got to watch thousands of horses storming an army - not just small clips of a few guys with the implication that yes, there actually is a big battle going on involving more than just five or six people. They also used CG horses to allow for the inevitable casualties that they'd incur in battle.

 

[TruePaige]

Remember Final Fantasy The Spirits Within? Best CGI ever.

It was so close to real that it really invoked the psychological "Uncanny Valley" effect.

Was Crazy stuff.

 

[nitro28]

Remember Final Fantasy The Spirits Within? Best CGI ever.

Yah its too bad that movie didn't do better at the box office. It might have paved the way for virtual actors. Like I said, I like where the cgi is going, I just wish it would get there faster. I forgot about Golum. He did work better than other characters but budget was def. a factor. and Andy Sirkus adding the realistic movements made him move more like a real being. My guess is the hobbit will take it up another notch (if its ever made). A few more years and even lower budget movies will probably catch up I suppose. I absolutely agree with the cgi environments. It is amazing what they can create.

 

[Flammable]

For example, the superbowl

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: nitro28

Remember Final Fantasy The Spirits Within? Best CGI ever.

Yah its too bad that movie didn't do better at the box office. It might have paved the way for virtual actors. Like I said, I like where the cgi is going, I just wish it would get there faster. I forgot about Golum. He did work better than other characters but budget was def. a factor. and Andy Sirkus adding the realistic movements made him move more like a real being. My guess is the hobbit will take it up another notch (if its ever made). A few more years and even lower budget movies will probably catch up I suppose. I absolutely agree with the cgi environments. It is amazing what they can create.

And your original post mentioned the "a tv show like Terminator" - I'm guessing that this is a new series based on the movie? In any case, a TV show will be limited by time and money. They can't wait a month for a render farm to finish working on a really nice CG sequence. And they probably can't afford to pay a huge team of animators to get movie-grade effects. Give it another 10 years, and maybe we'll finally have the technology to make really good particle effects on cheap computers. The consumer market only just got the PhysX processor a few years ago, and it's not commonplace yet. That's just for basic physics, which is pretty important to get realistic-looking effects. Granted, movie makers probably have more sophisticated stuff, but they're still going to be limited by their budget and time constraints.