Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think back to older movies whose original effects hold up today. Movies like the original 3 Star Wars (before the Lucas computer animation), the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the original Jurasic Park. Now compare them to their computer generated effects later films like the next 3 Star Wars films, the later Jurasic Park movies, and the last Raiders film with the crystal skulls. I can forgive bad effects with low budget and cheesy horror movies. It's like they said, "meh, good enough".
I don't know that special effects have gotten worse. I think that too many directors have become addicted to CGI. Despite its many marvels, CGI still looks fake.
The recent HOBBIT movies are a good example. There were scenes in those movies of characters running across a mountain valley. Rather than spend $20,000 to take the actors into a mountain valley and film them running, Jackson filmed the actors on a green screen and spent $40,000 on a CGI mountain valley, and it looked fake. Some of the scenes in the last two HOBBIT movies looked REALLY FAKE.
Directors need to use CGI to serve the story. But all too often, directors are making the CGI the story.
I just watched Saving Mr. Banks, and in one scene I thought that looks fake - in the Australian storyline where they pack up their bags and march to the train station, then the girl stands in the last car of the train looking back to where they just came from and the camera zooms back and up into the smoke from the engine.
Then there is lazy use of CGI. David Fincher's Zodiac, Washington & Maple St. taxi cab shooting scene. Listening to Fincher's own words during the commentary he says they used CGI blood during the slow motion sequence to save countless hours of cuts, resplattering blood on actors clothes. He redeemed himself in my book with the Neil Patrick Harris arterial spray scene in Gone Girl though.
To me, CGI blood almost always looks fake and needs to stop. One of the first occurrences I noticed was in The Coen brothers' True Grit, when Mattie shoots Tom Chaney and she falls back into the snake pit. And Calvary was chock full of fake CGI blood. A very good film. The overuse of this technique was painful to watch.
I'm looking at CGI as another tool in the toolbox. It can be done well, and it can be noticeably bad. It can be overused. It can detract from the film / story. And it can be groundbreaking and innovative - like the bomb detaching and falling at 1.57.
^
Good comments on CGI. There's certainly both good and bad in its use. Just a note on say viewer reaction.
I remember in pre-CGI days that special effects no doubt enhanced the film going experience .....especially if you were a kid. I mean seeing the effects was absolutely stunning and if it was good enough it probably stayed with you as you grew up. Thing is as the years go on you look at effects and then take a look at what is in the present well you certainly can see the difference. But you still have a love for the film anyway!
I guess the same thing will happen here in this new world of CGI which is always moving ahead because of technology. Thing is we should hope that moviemakers concentrate first on bringing to screen good stories first then talk about CGI rather than perhaps simply pushing the computers first.
SO true it should be all about a good story with interesting character development with CGI merely adding to the film. Today we have many movies that are over the top with the CGI and the characters and the story take a back seat.
We have all seen way too much CGI and it is hard for the movie makers to keep topping it. Instead of being amazed we are now being critical.
Star Wars was so good because up until that time Sci Fi was pretty much low budget "B" movies. When it was being made the actors thought it was going to be a big flop.
^
Star Wars....Still have never forgotten the incredible scene in the theater when the battle cruiser comes into view. With the way Lucas shot I was awestruck ...hehe yeah that's what film is for!!!..;-)...
To me, miniature sets & models should be used as much as possible with CGI used to clean up details or hide wires. Where miniatures and models won't work, try to use a sculpted model for laser scan and put extra effort to make the CGI as realistic as possible. Studios can outsource this work so they can continue filming and reworking the audio. Because film is now digital, the CGI work can be made independently and added later. If it isn't up to the director's standard and the budget allows it, it can be sent back for cleaning up the quality based upon the director's vision. It's obvious certain things like today's movie monsters are totally CGI. That's fine. Bad CGI or special effects can be overlooked with good story, directing, and acting. Fantastic CGI/special effects can't overcome poor story, directing, and acting.
I just don't understand how a movie like the original Jurassic Park was made more than 20 years ago can still be enjoyed today with realistic CGI and yet so many of today's CGI looks so fake?
those old backdrop artists know what they are doing. Awesome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
