I've Had it with CGI Effects

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

I'm sorry.....I'm fed up with them. 9 out of 10 times they're badly implemented and simply put in JUST to have them.

They look fake and a badly done CGI effect immediately takes me out of a scene at best, and at worst distracts me with looking for how they did it.

I may be in the minority, but I'd honestly prefer an actual practical effect if it's possible. Something with weight that the actors are forced to physically interact with. It adds realism to a performance.

[Throwback]

Sometimes it can be used very well. Like LT Dan's legs in Forrest Gump.

[J is Thunder Justice]

Same here.

[Deleted]

This is why I like the sudden ressurgance of the 80's action stars sort of making a come back of of sorts..started with the expendables and now Arnold has last stand and Stallone has bullet to the head and a slew of other movies from both of them along with Expendables 3.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

Jan 18, 2013 1:48:41 GMT -5 Throwback said:

Sometimes it can be used very well. Like LT Dan's legs in Forrest Gump.

And there's the 10

Forrest Gump had AMAZING visual effects (Inserting tom Hanks into the historical footage)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok...Full disclosure here.....I JUST watched "The Smurfs" the other night for the first time. Not exactly the paragon of cinematic achievement, I know.

Watch it.....or any other Live Action Cartoon (The Chipmunk Movies For instance)....

The CGI Characters have no weight. They only affect what they HAVE to for a scene. When it comes to inanimate objects it's passable.....but watch them in interacting with human costars; it's more than a little noticible.

Add to that an issue with what SHOULD have stayed a practical effect.....Azreal (Gargamel's Cat). For 90% of the Movie it's a Real Flesh and blood cat....but anytime it "Speaks" it becomes a Fully CGI Cat......and then it also becomes MORE cartoony.....it's face contorting into grimaces and the like.

Babe Won a VFX Oscar for talking Animals, using practical effects. (I firmly believe this as the CGI Studio's Credits include Yogi Bear, Marmaduke and the Chipmunk Movies) These effects looked BETTER in 1994 than the CGI Effects used on Azreal.

[Dat Dude]

Jan 18, 2013 2:01:21 GMT -5 Fiddleford H. McGucket said:

Jan 18, 2013 1:48:41 GMT -5 Throwback said:

Sometimes it can be used very well. Like LT Dan's legs in Forrest Gump.

And there's the 10

Forrest Gump had AMAZING visual effects (Inserting tom Hanks into the historical footage)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok...Full disclosure here.....I JUST watched "The Smurfs" the other night for the first time. Not exactly the paragon of cinematic achievement, I know.

Watch it.....or any other Live Action Cartoon (The Chipmunk Movies For instance)....

The CGI Characters have no weight. They only affect what they HAVE to for a scene. When it comes to inanimate objects it's passable.....but watch them in interacting with human costars; it's more than a little noticible.

Add to that an issue with what SHOULD have stayed a practical effect.....Azreal (Gargamel's Cat). For 90% of the Movie it's a Real Flesh and blood cat....but anytime it "Speaks" it becomes a Fully CGI Cat......and then it also becomes MORE cartoony.....it's face contorting into grimaces and the like.

Babe Won a VFX Oscar for talking Animals, using practical effects. (I firmly believe this as the CGI Studio's Credits include Yogi Bear, Marmaduke and the Chipmunk Movies) These effects looked BETTER in 1994 than the CGI Effects used on Azreal.

All very good points. Most of the time when the CGI is bad it's due to: bad lighting of the character model in relation to it's environment, no collision animation when said model interacts with live-action environment, impossible contortion of the anatomy of the character when moving, pristine models in an environment you would think would cause wear-n-tear, and of course bad texture or bad character models. All things I was taught to focus on during my animation courses.

[Y2M]

You mean to say you don't like CGI Gophers?

[A Platypus Rave]

This is hardly a revolutionary stance you are taking.

[Throwback]

I remember when Toy Story came out I wanted nothing to do with the "new style" But one night while babysitting I was forced to watch it. Ever since then my heart has warmed to cgi. There are some instances where I hate it. Mostly when they try to make things look real like the rat in Cheaper by the dozen 2 or a slew of horror movies where the names escape me right now. But I like it when used in cartoons like Madagascar. I agree with what was said about Smurfs but I enjoy the movie and there are a few scenes where they successfully blended real life with cgi. Like the part where clumsy runs on the toilet paper and falls in the toilet.

I'd still rather see someone go down the Roger Rabbit route and attempt to blend Real life with 2d animation again.

[BoilerRoomBrawler]

Toy Story is detent to me because the entire production is CGI. No, my problem with CGI is that it went from being a new tool in films like Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and Forrest Gump to being used as the entire toolbox. I wish film would return to the 90s in terms of CGI usage; another tool. I will say that it has come some ways though, what with the facial recognition technology from Avatar. I think the ideal would be to use practical effects where possible, then use CGI for things where there is no two ways about it as well a for touching up practical effects to make a stronger overall special effect.

[mjolnir]

Practical effects and puppets are sadly a dying art in Hollywood. I really wish they weren't either, because I love both and I've always preferred them over CGI. I'd much rather see a movie use practical effects over CGI if they can, budget be damn.

[Glitch]

Basically nothing looks as real as practical effects. Miniature scale models and camera tricks are still used today but we just don't notice them since they don't exactly stand out and proclaim themselves like cgi does. The Dark Knight and The Lord of the Rings movies used them.

CGI has become the lazy man's tool for movie making. It's supposed to be enhancement for special effects but is used rather as the entire special effect.
Even though it wasn't that great of a movie, Starship Troopers used it wisely and it still stands up today compared to the cgi in movies today.

[Throwback]

Jan 18, 2013 4:40:43 GMT -5 Glitch said:

Basically nothing looks as real as practical effects. .

For sure. Imagine what this scene would look like if it were made today.

[Corporate H]

Let's just imagine for a second if Django Unchained implemented CGI effects such as blood and explosions..how much worse would that movie has been? I'm sure in some scenes they did use the aid of computers, but that movie seemed for the most part to be made entirely of practical effects and it showed. It was great!

[Push R Truth]

Just watch the SyFy channel for "Bad CGI 101". Every monster eats people and they disappear into a small cloud of blood.


Monster movies totally lose their appeal when there is no "real" entity. Essentially, every movie on SyFy are people screaming at nothing, stumbling around awkwardly and suddenly being deleted from the film.

You don't always have to show the monster (Alien for example), but just image how terrible the Alien would be if it didn't have a real dude in a suit actually interacting with the environment and people. Just dead shots of futuristic looking backgrounds with a cartoon alien moving around on them with piss poor (if any) shadows.

[kidglov3s]

I kind of miss back in the day when what you saw on screen was often what was in front of the camera.

[JDviant]

Blood needs to not be cg. Most things I'm more forgiving on, but it almost always looks terrible and pulls me out of a movie.

[darthalexander]

The puppet versions of Jabba and Yoda look 1000 times better than their CGI versions. The updated Yoda looked kind of ok, but nothing compares to the puppets.

I don't mind CGI sometimes, but having real props is still very special. It also gives actors something to look at. One thing I hate seeing in films are characters supposedly looking at someone or something (that is done in CGI) and you can tell they're looking at nothing or at something else in the back.

[A Platypus Rave]

Jan 18, 2013 8:42:15 GMT -5 darthalexander said:

The puppet versions of Jabba and Yoda look 1000 times better than their CGI versions. The updated Yoda looked kind of ok, but nothing compares to the puppets.

For the original trilogy yes .. but for the Prequel Trilogy Yoda CGI was much better than the puppet they made...

[darthalexander]

Jan 18, 2013 16:40:41 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave said:

For the original trilogy yes .. but for the Prequel Trilogy Yoda CGI was much better than the puppet they made...

I still think that Yoda looked best in ESB. The updated Yoda that corrected the one from Phantom Menace isn't bad though but I still think it pales in comparison.

Now if they could only correct that horrible animation in AOTC when Anakin is riding and tossed off that creature on Naboo.