CGI is not always special --- or effective

[Baryonyx13]

"CGI is not always special --- or effective
August 15, 2004
Jimmy Stewart, who had a way of getting to the heart of the matter, expressed some consternation way back in 1985 about the way the movies were changing.

"It's sorta like the whole picture business is being run by the special effects department," he observed at the Cannes Film Festival.

Almost 20 years later, the only thing dated about Stewart's comment is his use of "special effects," a term that sounds almost quaint in these days of the punchier, techno-sounding CGI (computer-generated imagery). Or, in Hollywood's even shorter version, simply CG.

This year alone, we've seen Spidey and Doc Ock clobber each other all over New York City. Will Smith save the world from legions of renegade robots. Viggo Mortensen outrace a giant sandstorm. Tidal waves in Manhattan. Garfield.

We've also seen the rerelease of the original "Godzilla," and no, nobody wants to go back to the days of a guy walking around in a potbellied lizard suit.

What discriminating moviegoers do want is a more judicious use of visual effects (as eternally behind-the-times Oscar calls it). All the technology in the world can't make "The Chronicles of Riddick" a good movie. CG can goose a so-so movie like "The Day After Tomorrow." But after you've seen a submarine parked on Fifth Avenue outside the New York Public Library a couple of times, the awe wears off and you're left with some decent actors struggling with the indecent exposure that comes with trying to make a wretched script work.

Horror masters like Alfred Hitchcock or famed '40s producer Val Lewton knew the value of suggestion. The shower scene in "Psycho." The snarling, unseen beast circling a dark swimming pool in the original "Cat People." There's more dread in the dark corridors of "The Others" than in the entire "Friday the 13th" series. And there's no comparison between Robert Wise's hushed, tingly 1963 ghost story "The Haunting" and its loud, overdone 1999 remake.

Before it falls apart in its second half, "The Village" is a fine example of the power of suggestion --- in this case, as it works on the characters in the picture as well as on the audience. In the remote, Amish-by-way-of-Disney village where the film takes place, certain colors must be avoided (red), certain words must not be uttered ("those we do not speak of"). Or else whatever-the-heck-it-is in the woods will come calling.

Unfortunately, the more we know, the less afraid we are. As "The Village" gropes its way to the much-hyped, ultimately laughable final twist, it steadily loses its grip on us. The surprise ending is like finding out that the reason you shouldn't go into the woods at night alone is that the teddy bears are having a picnic.

Granted, CGI isn't the culprit here; actually a few computer-generated somethings would've helped. But the suggestion of what's out there is so powerfully conveyed by M. Night Shyamalan and his cast that the ending seems triply disappointing. Sort of, "The Village of the Darned."

"Open Water" is certainly the most unsettling movie of the summer and, perhaps, the year. Yet it doesn't have a single CG effect. Based on the true story of a couple accidentally left behind in the open sea by their scuba-diving boat, the movie simply plops its two stars in the middle of the ocean for real. The circling sharks are real, too, not automated thingies in Bruce the Shark drag. A glimpse of a fin cutting the water or, worse yet, just knowing something down there, underneath, wants to hurt you is more chilling than all the monsters in "Van Helsing" combined.

That's not to say CGI can't be our friend. Think of the wonder of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. The spectacle of "Gladiator." The knock-down-drag-out fun of the "Spider-Man" movies.

But all the computer-generated movie magic in Hollywood can't match the splendor of David Lean's desert vistas in "Lawrence of Arabia."

If Lean made his movie today, his dunes would probably be digital. More cost-effective that way.

Just like Dorothy and her pals, we have to pay attention to the man behind the curtain after all. He's the one running the show."

Just a news article I found. It's quite interesting, thinking about how the best movies never need CGI. Nowadays, Hollywood is just too dependant on it.

[Goji Son]

I agree with everything that article says, it's a shame how badly the industry relies on CGI more than anything else now because they think they can create anything with the upmost realism which is bullocks. It really is a shame you never see movies like Vertigo or 8 1/2 or Seven Samurai, films that strive on the actors performances. I think Tom Hanks said it best when he referred film as a directors medium, meaning the actors themselves are just as important as the useless props or the CGI effects. It never used to be like this but sadly, everyone thinks it's easier to create a beautiful vista with and iMac rather than go across the world and capture all that beauty and grandure on film.

[Tokyo VigilanteX]

I belive Stomp Tokyo quoted it best...

To much CGI can kill a Monster

[Raptor]

I think the AUDIENCE has also gotten suckered into basically cyberspace instead of being able to let their imaginations provide real terror, horror, emotions, etc. Films now have to have more (and bigger) explosions, ever greater threats to the planet that usually come off as looking fake as all get out (10.5 anyone?) before the average action fan will even consider showing up at the theater. On top of that, Hollywood takes characters out of their original mediums (Hulk, Garfield, Scooby Doo) and DIGITIZES them to the point where no amount of suspension of disbelief is going to make watching them enjoyable. Can't anyone come up with an orginal character that could be CGI AND BELIEVABLE? Maybe these guys should get their "inspiration" from GRIDMAN instead...

Look at kaiju eiga while we're at it. How many posts demand more monster action and less humans? Maybe they would be happier with a video game than a MOVIE which should tell a STORY (and believably, at that!)

[SandwormPhish]

CGI is a form of special effects that has revolutionized the industry. It can present some truly fantastic things onscreen that practical effects really just can't handle. One of the best film innovations of all time.

That isn't to say though that it makes a good film. All teh special effects in teh world CGI or otherwise can't help some films (like say... House of the Dead or Catwoman.. no amount of practical or CG effects could salvage those) and there are indeed some directors who shamelessly abuse it (We're all looking at you George.. I'm trying to remember the last time I saw an actual set on a behind the scenes look at a Star Wars flick instead of a lot of blue screen and two or three props).

[Tokyo VigilanteX]

Although I do think CGI has changed the way of movies intirly,its the main reason that I enjoy older films more.It just seems like more effort was put into it,besides hitting a few buttons on a Keyboard.

[Burkion]

CGI...Only to be used when it can NOT be done in the Real World. Even then, only if it's COMPELETLY NESSESARY! Damn you Hollywood! Damn you all to hell! *This rant has been cut short to save your brain cells.*

[Dark Warrior]

I have to argee with that article.CGI has gained promince lately,and unfortunately,it isn't being used in a good way.In my opinion,CGI is best used to assist in a movie,via enhancing certain effects instead the effects themselves being totally CGI(unless the only way to present the effect is to have it totally CGI).Don't get me wrong,CGI can be good(LOTR*,The Hulk),but it can be pretty dire aswell(the trailers from Catwomen show this).

And coincidently,my favourite special effects of all time are from John Carpenters The Thing.

*I believe that the best CGI in LOTR was the Balrog.Guess thats just me being wierd,but I really do think that.

[Mothraleo]

CGI one of the reasons that Critics and people look down on Godzilla and kaiju films as worthless crap, with overly out dated FX's. Yet, they never think twice about putting off some of the :**ities fims due to the fact the have great SFX, which is usually ****ty cgi.

[PyrasTerran]

"hitting a few keys"..

That is exactly the same disrespect given to most all computer artists. We see an artist paint something, then we see a CG artist make a picture of same merit and calibur as the first one, but then people start hating the CG artist's piece because he used a computer to do it, and because the ordinary artist spent many many hours of his time working on his. What's the difference? They're both creating art(which comes from the mind, not the mouse nor the paintbrush), it doesn't matter what medium is being used. Just because they don't use sculpture-work and spend hours handcrafting suits doesn't mean there isn't any effort going on in the work of CGI. First you have a multiple layers to be worked on to make the image as real as possible, and when it comes with creatures, then there's the process of making it act like it's alive. Do you know how bloody difficult it is to make a creature in CGI look alive??

Of course CGI doesn't define the greatness of a movie, but don't go on a campaign to ban it, it's helped many more times than it has harmed("Well, the movie's story sucked, but at least it looked pretty"). Would you please tell me how a crew of sculptures and animatronics experts could have possibly made the entire kingdom, architecture and animals of LotR within a time that wouldn't have us already with children who are in highschool before the film finally set in?

It's not that there isn't effort being put because the TRUE effort is in the MIND, not the tool!

You might as well shun the CGI movies like Toy Story and Shrek, because they obviously had much less work to do than the cel-shade cartoonists of old.

Being a CG artist, though, I apologize for speaking harshly..

[Emperor Violenjiger]

Actors in monster suits who are stepping on city sets, looks more real than CGI. And even stopmotion Dinosaurs made of clay can sometimes feel more real then CG. I liked how things were done in the 80s (I am looking at the film, "Mad Max," "Godzilla 1985," and "Godzilla vs. Biollante" among other great films). Special effects weren't all CGI, done on a blue/green screen. And the best part was, the films and the stuff in them actually looked real. We had improved from the earlier era... then came the late 90s and the new millenium... and less realistic CG came into place...

On the other hand. I love the CG use to enhance the scenes and monsters in GMK. I was atching the film, and viewing screen shots. So far, when it comes down to the buildings being crushed, the sets, and the mighty monsters themselves. It looks like they stuck a camera in real life Tokyo and filmed all day... and night.

[PyrasTerran]

Exactly.

CGI has many perks. The simple problem is that it at times isn't used right(no need for a CGI modern city when miniature works much much better), but it doesn't mean it should be totally looked down upon(CGI can help for a fantasy world, as well as bits of usage here and there, the flapping of a suited actor's wings, etc.).

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by PyrasTerran

"hitting a few keys"..

That is exactly the same disrespect given to most all computer artists.

Like any medium, there are true artists and then there are outright hacks.

Of course CGI doesn't define the greatness of a movie, but don't go on a campaign to ban it, it's helped many more times than it has harmed...

It's when it does what it's intended to do REALISTICALLY that it is most effective, especially in fantasy situations. I for one am tired of seeing explosions in TV movies that have a black outline, bad matting in this day and age (often do to such a simple thing as SCALE) and human characters (super or otherwise) jumping around like they were in a video game.

It's not that there isn't effort being put because the TRUE effort is in the MIND, not the tool!

And the mind controls the keyboard. If the director (or graphics crew) has no concept of depth, scale, color, beauty, composition, etc., all the graphics software in the world isn't going to make a "pretty picture".

You might as well shun the CGI movies like Toy Story and Shrek, because they obviously had much less work to do than the cel-shade cartoonists of old.

This is where CGI doesn't need to make any excuses IMO. ANTZ, CASPER and about any animation imaginable can be realized that just wasn't possible with cel work. Either the characters/settings "fit" or they don't. GARFIELD didn't. Fantasy worlds such as LOTR are BELIEVABLE because that's what they are to begin with. A "living" creature just seems to demand a certain degree of "substance", I believe, which is often just not there. "Bad" CGI is a blot (if not an outright BLIGHT) to the American film industry IMO.

[PyrasTerran]

Like any medium, there are true artists and then there are outright hacks.

So you take me for a hack, then?

And the mind controls the keyboard. If the director (or graphics crew) has no concept of depth, scale, color, beauty, composition, etc., all the graphics software in the world isn't going to make a "pretty picture".

And the graphics crew does have a concept of depth, scale, color, beauty, composition, etc. It comes with the package. To get into computer animation and effects, you have to study art and architecture, animal and human anatomy and behavior, physics, you have to know how to draw or sculpt, you must have art in your heart to make CGI in the movies, there's no way around it.

[Shadow]

All this talk about CGI and no one has brought up "The Matrix"!? I'm shocked that no one has found a way to work this into their opinion...

[Baryonyx13]

Hey hey hey, this article and topis isn't bashing CGI at all, it even names some of the best movies that use it (like Gladiator). It simply states a fact, which is CGI is often used and looks just dumb (Scooby Doo) and and all too often uses uses CGI to make up for a horrible script, plot, ect.

CGI, like most things, is best when used correctly. It can be overdone and used as a cheaper alturnative, which never helps. No need to get offensive PT, everything has it's ups and downs, even though some people have been a little harsh on CGI effects in this thread.

[Baryonyx13]

And I don't think she was calling you a hack, just saying that some people who make CGI do it badly.

[Enshohma]

Although GCI has granted a freedom which was lacking in effects before then, ultimately like any tool it can also have its limits and surprisingly CGI has some pretty significant ones at that too, despite what Hollywood propaganda suggests other wise.

The main limitation is money and time. Several well known directors like Ridly Scott have gone on to say its always less of a pain in the butt or hole in the wallet to do effects psychically as opposed to in post production. It's quicker and less expensive. Why would a minor CGI light effect costs more then an A-class prop? One of the main reasons is that the majority of the effects are done in facilities outside the main production house and with that said prices are upped more so then if they were done in house. Its like looking at the difference of repairing a VCR or buying a new one. They both end up costing the same amount in the end, but in the case of the damaged product, you paying a lot of money for very little. This was one of the main reasons the Lord of the Rings films were not only able to do all three films on a decent budget, but also more effects between all three because they bought the technology and did all in house, as well as equally relaying on physical, hence cheaper effects to create the many wonderful images on screen. However had the LotR films been made through traditional Hollywood / major studio means outside WETA, it would have relied more on CG and send the needed work over to other companies, like ILM, and the ending result would have been far more expensive films and longer production time. ILM has even admitted that it takes years for them to do even 5 minutes of CG effects because of the above mentioned process, the most outrageous example was the Spinosaur / T-Rex battle from "Jurassic Park 3" a battle which although spectacular, was incredibly short and took almost five years to complete alone, one of the main problems behind this was waiting for budget payment from the main studio to continue, as well as shipping extra needed elements to be worked on to other CGI based facilities that were either ILM related or not! Many of the more drawn out effects scenes from LotR, most notably Tree beard and Gollum, were done in house and use tried and true psychical techniques and film making tools to complete the scenes far better and in a much shorter amount of time along side many other effects work, as in the case of the Ent, CGI grafted to a large prop to complement each other and in the case of Gollum, lots of actor references. Another company that works as efficiently as Weta and offers equal amounts of screen time and quality in their CGI is Pixar.

These bureaucratic type problems with budget and time now leads me to the other major limitation of the tool, or more precisely, a cop-out cheat used by many US productions because of which. Ever notice why most CGI effects seem to be far and few between each other? Or why the unlimited visual effect is always being obscure through elements of or darkness, low lighting or rain? Why did "Godzilla" 1998 take place in a heavy rain storm to begin with, or mostly at night and fog for that matter? Because its easier and cheaper then trying to do the effects in full view or in daylight. By using elements to obscure the main image, you can build the main image cheaply and thus not realistically. The said elements hide the fact and saves money as well as time. Although a rather weak film, I commend ILM and there work in the Hulk for having long CGI shots in broad daylight. But (and this is a big BUT), as seen in even the film's DVD extras, the more complicated sequences that were originally meant to be longer and more elaborate were scaled down and obscured with elements to save money, time and because they were just to darn hard to begin with. The most insidious example is the Hulk Dogs. Sure, the fact that the creatures are rather silly to begin with is bad enough, the sequences, which in the beginning was to be a major centerpiece of action for the film, was shorten greatly and obscured so heavily with darkness that through just about every format the film played in, DVD included, it was always hard to determine what exactly is going on. Or in a better way of looking at it, lots of details to the fight are lost. This cop-out happens way to often in big budgeted effects films, again I complement Weta and Pixar for really trying not to go in this direction, as well as the production companies behind the truly impressive "Walking with Dinosaur" programs. If you think the situation is bad with theatrical film projects, try TV!

Even more so, another reason this visual cop-out is so common place is that CGI is not perfect onto itself as well. It is in its early stages, but even it has weaknesses and probably may still have weaknesses as it advances, much like lesser effect tools like guys in suits and stop motion. My knowledge on the subject is good enough to know that the best effects execution happens when multiple tools and techniques are used skillfully together in complimenting each other. When this method is used, at lowest the results are as colorful as "Gamera 3" and "GMK" and at highest are as amazing as the "Lord of the Rings", but ultimately both examples in both extremes are just plain appealing and satisfying. However with that said, who can the work of Pixar which is fully CGI compare. Is it an example that CGI truly is the best in the end. No, first off the CGI in Pixar productions are still cartoons as compared to the strive for reality of other works. And secondly, it really comes down to the people behind it and their grasp on story telling and artistry, something that goes way above the tools, regardless if they are the right one to use or not. Pixar does so well because their stories are top notch and do a heavy amount of research to improve the artistic intent. Their really craftsmen with what they do, which I must admit I can't really say with the Shrike films, whose visual appeal is slightly below Pixar's, but worse the heavy contemporary cliche's to the story have a half *** effort feel to them. The Pixar stories come off in more universal terms and can be enjoyed more again in repeat viewing, while the pop-culture reality TV style humor of Shrike uses it after a while. Maybe I'm being harsh on them for the horrific "Singing Eveta Local", or however you spell it, at the end of "Shrike 2", but compare that to the down played, easier to accept endings to "Finding Nemo" and "Monsters Inc" and you get the idea where I'm coming from. Art comes in all forms and when done well with intelligence, effort and love, the results are amazing, wither in be in story of special effects. But when both work just as well together, its even better.

[Tokyo VigilanteX]

"hitting a few keys"..

Oh.Sorry Pyras,but I jst see that there was much more effort put into films like The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.I do agree that there are some truly stunning peices of CG work(Doc Ocks Tenticles.Samuel from Hellboy).
Iam not saying that CG is easy,its probably very challenging,and difficult.But there is some of it thats not so hot.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by PyrasTerran

So you take me for a hack, then?

Of course not, Pyras. You mentioned what computer graphics specialists need to know and have to offer, which makes me wonder about certain directors and producers. We're well aware of the ones who got their next shot based on their latest one-shot blockbuster and their next films (and them) fall flat on their faces. Instead of "art" in their hearts, I'd say it's dollar signs in their eyes and false pride in their bellies instead of a fire to create true visual entertainment.

[PyrasTerran]

Again, I apologize. The reason I blew was because of the "hitting a few keys" comment, nothing more.

Oh.Sorry Pyras,but I jst see that there was much more effort put into films like The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.I do agree that there are some truly stunning peices of CG work(Doc Ocks Tenticles.Samuel from Hellboy).
Iam not saying that CG is easy,its probably very challenging,and difficult.But there is some of it thats not so hot.

The thing is, the Rhedosaurus was not exactly difficult to make nor to place on screen, but it did take a very very long time to do. The thing with CG such as Doc Dock's Tents is that these are not there on the screen. The most one can do is put markers to see where they would go, but to give the tents all dimensions when they're not there, and to make it believable, that is more difficult than some people seem to understand, while as for Rhedosaurus, it is much more effort-consuming to make him entirely in CGI than his clay counterpart, seeing as unlike the stopmotion version, which was built from a concept sketch, a team of sculptors, and the crew responsible for its moveable skeleton, the CG version requires the concept sketch, the sculptors, then scanning the sculpture into the computer, adding its joints, its textures, the muscles, gloss for the inside of the mouth, separate blinking and self-moving eyes/eyelids, the list goes on and on.

Of course not, Pyras. You mentioned what computer graphics specialists need to know and have to offer, which makes me wonder about certain directors and producers. We're well aware of the ones who got their next shot based on their latest one-shot blockbuster and their next films (and them) fall flat on their faces. Instead of "art" in their hearts, I'd say it's dollar signs in their eyes and false pride in their bellies instead of a fire to create true visual entertainment.

Alas, Directors and Producers can ruin just about anything. Take Tatopolis(sp?) for example. I believe hearing that he had actually come up with a concept design for GINO that looked alot like the Godzilla we know. It was D&E's decision to hawk it and start from total scratch.

[kent]

I think Sandwormphish said it best. And like another member said, money is the main reason why CGI is used more often today. Most of the time, it's cheaper to CGI a waterfall than to spend several thousands of dollars going to a place that has beautiful waterfalls and take the necessary equipment to set up the shots of the waterfall and then to capture it and then travel back to the states.
I hear some people who are 40+ years in age and they toatally despise films that use CGI. I tell them money is part of it plus the CGI actually helps the film. Some are still in their state of mind that CGI is bad for a film and that any film that uses it is trash. There are many great movies that don't use CGI and there are also many great movies that do use CGI.
Some people mentioned Scooby Doo being one of those bad examples where CGI was put into use. I am by no means a fan, but SD was not supposed to look realistic. He was supposed to look more cartoonish. Both films have taken a cartoon approach to it as well since that's what they were based on.

[Morgoth]

I think the main reason CGI is getting such a bad rep actually has nothing to do with CGI. It is the directors and producers. Directors like Sommers who are such talentless lackwits that their stories have no substance, pacing or style and who couldn't cast a film with decent actors if you stuck a gun to their head. Producers like Emmerich who decide that the only way to make money off a slovenly script is to overburden it with effects shots, most of which will be CGI. There is also very much a conception that CGI is cheap. I don't care what anybody says, but CGI has to be cheaper than physical effects and let me explain why. #1 - You are not building anything 'real', all of your resources are entirely within a computer with the exception (on better films anyway) of 3d maquettes to scan and use as reference. #2 - The proof is in the pudding. Monster costumes used to be the medium of low-budget films because they were quick and cost effective. Now, the preffered effect is CGI. Look at Sabretooth, Python, Dragonstrike or any of the other half-dozen 'made for Sci-Fi' fiascos that manifest every few weeks. All the effects are CGI. And bad CGI at that. You can't tell me they chose to do it that way on that type of disposable film unless it was the cheapest option open to them.



CGI, when used well and when the artists behind the effects are given the time and money to do things properly, can be astounding. When it is rushed, the results are disgusting, making one almost long for the super-imposed insects of Bert I Gordon. Good CGI also tries to ensure their creations are anchored in reality. Take the air strike on the arachnids in Starship Troopers as an example - they filmed a real explosion, then added the bugs and aircraft in with the computer, and the result was a pretty convincing scene. Now compare it to any battle sequence in the SW prequels, where EVERYTHING is done in a computer. You may as well be watching a cut scene from a video game.

[Melkor]

I fully agree with the article. CGI is so commonplace nowadays that much of the magic it once possessed is now gone. And most CGI laden films are pathetic, to begin with-- no matter how much SFX a film has, they are just technical merits and are insignificant compared to the plot, acting, direction, all integral parts of a movie. It's really sad to think that CGI, which once perfected the film, has now taken a turn for the worse and is the major cause of hoopla now.



Peace,



Melkor

[RexRaptor]

This dude is absolutely right. CGI is great for IMPOSIBLE SHOTS. But thats it. Take LOTRs, when the armys were about to hit. Theres no way they could get that many actors. So, CGI being our FREIND, gives us millions of orcs, goblins, yadda yadda. And in Spider Man. They actualy MADE the animatronic arms for Doc Ock. And they work. They used CGI for when they were going up buildings, or when Spidey was flying through New York. Remember the scene were he went a truck? Well, they actualy had a cammera do that. Then they added CGI Spidey, and the Truck. And hell, the actors wanted to do there own stunts.