Is CGI Ruining Movies ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheHig
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 11
  • Views Views 2K

TheHig

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
1,927
Reaction score
1
Points
38
i09.com said:
Today's big budget movies have the technology to create worlds and characters unlike anything we've ever seen before... but is that really a good thing? What if CGI just distracts from all the important things about moviemaking?
More worryingly, CGI has given free rein to the worst, most-OCD elements of moviemakers' imaginations. Whereas, before, worldbuilding would have meant coming up with the strongest stories and performances in order to pull audiences in, now both of those seem to often take backseats to the spectacle of the spectacle itself (Think of this summer's Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, which didn't appear to make sense, or again, the Star Wars prequels, where Lucas as a director was clearly more in love with the technology responsible for the worlds he was building than the actors and dialogue he was populating them with). That James Cameron has created languages, flora and fauna and hundreds of elements for Avatar's Pandora that we may not even really see in the finished product is, at once, both an impressive and incredibly frustrating feat: Good for him for being so dedicated, but without a good story, it'll be the most expensive window dressing for a store that no-one wants to shop at.

Read Full Article here http://io9.com/5411842/does-cgi-ruin-movies

Its from last year but the article is still relevant today, I agree with it on the whole. I often choose 60s/70s/80s sometimes 90s films over new films were CGI has been overused.
 
I think Avatar and Inception are great examples of why this is wrong. Those films may not have the class and style of a Usual Suspects or Pulp Fiction. But they are the new way, and I am not complaining.
 
Most films nowadays contain CGI of some form for green screen shooting. Some use it more than most. It dont really bother me as I enjoyed Avatar as it pushes the boundaries of how far we have come with technology and CGI.
 
The main problems with films these days, imo, is that they almost all tone themselves down to PG-13/12A standards, tend to have **** writing and are just too refined and glitzy. CGI is fine when used in moderation, done well and as required (excluding things which need lots of CGI, so LotR, Avatar etc).
 
The main problems with films these days, imo, is that they almost all tone themselves down to PG-13/12A standards, tend to have **** writing and are just too refined and glitzy. CGI is fine when used in moderation, done well and as required (excluding things which need lots of CGI, so LotR, Avatar etc).
my problem with CGi is when the film becomes more aboout the special fx rather than the actual premise of the film itself. good plots seem to be harder and harde to come by
 
I have to agree CGI is fine its just too many films nowadays rely simply on the visuals to sell copies rather than the quality of the script/acting. Personally I thought Avatar was ridculously boring after you got over the fact it looked quite nice.

My main bug bear with films is 3D though, for me its just annoying it brings nothing extra to the film, the tickets cost more and i have to wear those silly glasses which after a while start to get quite painful (I have a huge head... compared to most people it seems).
 
CGI is fine as long as there is a good back bone for the story plot and obviously, if it looks nice (E.G. Avatar)

My main bug bear with films is 3D though, for me its just annoying it brings nothing extra to the film, the tickets cost more and i have to wear those silly glasses which after a while start to get quite painful (I have a huge head... compared to most people it seems).

Yeah 3D is the new bane of cinematography because movie makers seems to follow the adage "If you can't make a great film, make it 3D" more and more these days.
 
I wouldn't say it is ruining movies. 3d is ruining movies, I see no point in it, it's a cheap trick that got boring after one or two kids films.

I think it also depends on the kind of film you are trying to make.

The new Star Wars movies is a prime example as was Spiderman 2 & 3 or most super hero films I guess.

Avatar is different because the world was the main storyline, He wanted the audience to grow attached to the world, it was a decent (if not common) plot. My only concern was that it felt like I was watching an animated movie or playing a computer game.
 
I am not the biggest fan of CGI but for some movies it works to have CGI like Avatar mentioned above.

My main gripe with CGI is when its done poorly and you can clearly see its been badly done.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVq5QwMlaII"]YouTube - George Lucas & Special Effects[/ame]

Sums it up pretty well... shame he didn't listen to his own advice as well.
 
I value acting ability, character development and plot lines more than special effects. I hated Avatar and Inception was a bit of a let down.
It takes an awful lot to get me to the cinema these days.
 
Avatar was simply a rehash of Pocahontas with smurfs added.

But I think we should go back to Roman-style effects. I. e. if your character gets a sword rammed through his gut, the actor does too. Much more realistic!
 
Back
Top