• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

I been looking at movies for a while now, and I notice there are a lot more cgi in movies then we need them. I mean cgi make movies look more cool and all and makes you want to go see the movie. But when you see them they turn out to be not so good or garbage. The stories be horrible and makes no sense. I barley go to the movie theater to see movies. I rather sit at home and wait for them to come out on DVD's or t.v. then to go to the movies. I notice I been doing this a whole lot. When I see the movie I been waiting for, "I ask myself do they really need that at all". And some are so obvious that they really don't need them at all. It make me glad that I don't waste my money on them, but the question remain the same, Do we really need them?

What you taken on this? I'm asking you all now.

#1 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

Less. Just thinking of the film 2012 makes me gag on the letters CGI.

#2 Posted by Inverno (13061 posts) - - Show Bio

Way less. Use practical effects once more. They are far more convincing and realistic.

#3 Posted by OmegaDynasty (9184 posts) - - Show Bio

If the original Star Wars trilogy can look good after all these decades, then we should be fine with less CGI.  
CGI should only be used IMO in large scale battles.  

#4 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: Lauging Out Loud

@CaioTrubat: That is so true.

#5 Posted by ComicMan24 (147042 posts) - - Show Bio

@CaioTrubat said:

Way less. Use practical effects once more. They are far more convincing and realistic.

This.

#6 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@OmegaDynasty: That true also.

#7 Edited by Swagger462 (377 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that what ever is best suited should be used. In the movie Repo-Men because it's the future they digitally added in signs and floating stuff all over the city. I thought it was seemless and done brilliantly. Then you see things like a fair few parts of the Star Wars prequels where puppets and models would have worked much better.

#8 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@Swagger462:Yes, But they do go overboard.

#9 Posted by protectyournose (908 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the character to be honest, but good question.

#10 Posted by Mr_riddler (15733 posts) - - Show Bio

A director who uses a lot of CGI is hiding something.

#11 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@protectyournose: Glory to be GOD. You didn't said anything wrong on the other thread.

#12 Edited by CrimsonCake (2669 posts) - - Show Bio

I hate it when they use CGI to make animals.that already exist.

#13 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@Mr_riddler: It is sometimes true.

#14 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@CrimsonCake: Yes, But it probably better then using real animals. It has it good and bad, but something no good at all.

#15 Posted by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

CGI is just a tool, it's very handy for all kinds of effects that would look clunky in real life (unless you are going for that) I do think that a lot of CGI is just there because Hollywood is convinced it's another piece of magic that gets more bums on seats or that the public actively demands more CGI.

Practical effects technology has also progressed in recent years, new materials, new technology and new ways of doing FX are still used daily, but we are programmed to assume whatever you seen on the screen is CGI these days. There was this Philips commercial a few years back for shavers featuring a female robot which was essentially an actress in a costume with some CGI enhancements. I did assume it was CGI until I noticed some weird details like movement and costume parts that didn't align properly.

I think CGI is quite amazing and incredibly useful, but it's not the automatic perfect solution to every problem.

And then there is the CGI you never see, like wire removal, colour correction, digital backgrounds, sign fixing or even digital alterations to actors and actresses to remove blemishes, bad hair and unflattering body shapes.

#16 Edited by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@kapitein_zeppos: Yeah But it isn't for everything. Just like everything was HD and now it Bluray. But most of time it fall and it very easy to see it. I know when I see it and I know when it is not there.

#17 Posted by JonSmith (3990 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd say less, but movies like Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor wouldn't be as good without CGI. To say nothing of the Avengers. I think we're almost at the point where CGI will be completely indistinguishable from reality soon.

#18 Posted by Serinah_Pao (521 posts) - - Show Bio

Less. All of my favorite films used none that I am aware. But then again I am a Fangirl of "Classic Cinema." (TCM)

#19 Edited by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@JonSmith: True, and maybe. But it also fit the monsters movies real well. They hardly ever fail there.

@Serinah_Pao: Good choice with the Classic Cinema.

#20 Posted by JonSmith (3990 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012: Don't know if it's just me, but I classify any movie with the Hulk in it as a monster movie. Maybe it's just that I don't see any movies that aren't Marvel, but I didn't think the use of CGI had gotten worse. As it gets better and easier to use, we're bound to see it used more, aren't we?

#21 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@JonSmith: Yeah, but is it really needed

#22 Posted by JonSmith (3990 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012: Again, I haven't seen a great deal of recent movies. I know the Marvel movies used it really well, so it was just a natural extension of the characters and world rather than a special effect. I can't really speak for some other movies these days.

#23 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@JonSmith: Okay.

#24 Edited by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

Here is the commercial : It's a good example of how to integrate practical effects with CGI.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x64seq_philips-feel-different_lifestyle

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x34bwc_making-of-pub-tv_tech?search_algo=2

I do find the CGI debate a bit odd at times. It's like hating stop motion or the use of miniatures in FX shots. Every technique has their advantage and disadvantages. Some people can't stand the early King Kong because his fur moves constantly and others claim the 70's King Kong was a perfect example of how good suitmation gets ...

If I made films I wouldn't shrink away from using CGI if it proved to be the best solution, even if everything else was done without CGI.

I hate bad or overdone CGI as much as the next guy, but take a movie like the Avengers, and try to make that without CGI ... It would never be as epic and impressive. The Avengers is still the perfect comic book page come to life.

#25 Posted by Swagger462 (377 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012: Oh of course they do. Constantly. I'm guessing that hiring CGI techs is cheaper than using models and stuff, which would be why. But yeah, like I said, I don't think either should be more prominent than the other. They should just look at every scene and really think about what would be best suited.

#26 Edited by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@kapitein_zeppos: True if it the best solution I'm all for it, but when it is not it hard to watch is all I can say. I understand where you coming from.

@Swagger462: "They should just look at every scene and really think about what would be best suited."

Exactly.

#27 Posted by Serinah_Pao (521 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012: We agree on that. I must admit. I am a tad bit snobbish when on the subject of Cinema. I use the word Film only when a picture is shot with it.

I use the word movie for most other visual products as effect of being shot digitally.

Then there is this new wave of movies being shot as if done by means of "home-made" means. Mostly done in the horror genre, which was started with films such as the Blair Witch Project, Clover Field, Paranormal Activity. These such movies give me a headache, and I literally have a hard time watching them. I lose interest almost instantly due to how awful it is to watch.

#28 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@Serinah_Pao: True.

#29 Posted by protectyournose (908 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012 said:

@protectyournose: Glory to be GOD. You didn't said anything wrong on the other thread.

I know, lol Makes me wonder if he was just messing with me or what.

#30 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@CrimsonCake said:

I hate it when they use CGI to make animals.that already exist.

Agreed, that's why I loved Jurassic Park so much.

#31 Posted by JediXMan (29669 posts) - - Show Bio

Less. CGI is a tool, not the very foundation of a movie.

Online
#32 Posted by Samimista (20609 posts) - - Show Bio

Less. I never was a fan of CGI. Always prefer hand drawn cartoons.

#33 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

If it's really called for, then yes, CGI is suitable, but it shouldn't be so completely depended on.

Moderator
#34 Posted by k4tzm4n (36465 posts) - - Show Bio

This makes me wonder how Avatar would look if James Cameron went practical instead of CGI (a la his work on Aliens).

Staff
#35 Edited by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@protectyournose: No he wasn't messing with you, He was just trying to stop something before it gets started. Which he is supposed to do. The only thing could have been offensive is when you said GOD did not created Adam and Steve, He created Adam and Eve, And that is only because people have use it to be offense to them, and when they hear it they taken it to be offensive as they were being attack. Then they think it is religious because of what others have done to them or told them. I thought about this last Night and GOD gave me the wisdom to say it better, here it is. GOD did not create Adam to be with another man and GOD did not create Eve to be with another woman, he created Adam to be with Eve. You just got to say it and write it in a way that is not offensive to them. That way you wont be compromising the truth.

#36 Edited by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@Xanni15: Jarassic Park does have CGI in, unless you was being sarcasm.

@Deranged Midget: Exactly

@k4tzm4n: I know what you mean

#37 Posted by protectyournose (908 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012 said:

@protectyournose: No he wasn't messing with you, He was just trying to stop something before it gets started. Which he is supposed to do. The only thing could have been offensive is when you said GOD did not created Adam and Steve, He created Adam and Eve, And that is only because people have use it to be offense to them, and when they hear it they taken it to be offensive as they were being attack. Then they think it is religious because of what others have done to them or told them. I thought about this last Night and GOD gave me the wisdom to say it better, here it is. GOD did not create Adam to be with another man and GOD did not create Eve to be with another woman, he created Adam to be with Eve. You just got to say it and write it in a way that is not offensive to them. That way you wont be compromising the truth.

ok i got ya.

#38 Posted by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio

More.

#39 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@protectyournose: Okay, But trying saying it in a tone they can understand and see it as if it were attacking them.

@xxxddd: Why

#40 Posted by CrimsonAvenger (1162 posts) - - Show Bio

Having less CGI in films would make it impossible for me to get a job in the Visual Effects field and that would be very very bad.

#41 Posted by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012: Too many live action movies, cgi movies need some representation.

#42 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@CrimsonAvenger: I'm saying take away your work, I'm saying do we really need it at time when we don't need them.

@xxxddd: Okay, But you got to admit the Live action movies are pretty good if done right. Like the ones on youtube.

#43 Posted by protectyournose (908 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012 said:

@protectyournose: Okay, But trying saying it in a tone they can understand and see it as if it were attacking them.

I didn't even say it in a rude tone or anything like that. I wasnt even directing it tords anyone. If people have different theorys than I do, then good for them. Then maybe Gay threads shouldnt exist if they dont like what anyone has to say.

#44 Posted by terry2012 (4813 posts) - - Show Bio

@protectyournose: Okay, And that is true.

#45 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4157 posts) - - Show Bio

It depends on the movie.

#46 Posted by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio

@terry2012 said:

@xxxddd: Okay, But you got to admit the Live action movies are pretty good if done right. Like the ones on youtube.

They are, and I'm not disclaiming that.

I'm saying animated movies need some representation in theaters to(aka their need to be movie cgi movies that go to theaters and are taken as seriously as live action movies).

Like this.

#47 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17605 posts) - - Show Bio

I think CGI should be used less in movies and more practical effects should be used.Though CGI is useful when practical effects cant be used. I know its cheaper but it should be used less.

@xxxddd said:

@terry2012 said:

@xxxddd: Okay, But you got to admit the Live action movies are pretty good if done right. Like the ones on youtube.

They are, and I'm not disclaiming that.

I'm saying animated movies need some representation in theaters to(aka their need to be movie cgi movies that go to theaters and are taken as seriously as live action movies).

Like this.

Thats an awesome trailer.

#48 Posted by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader: That's how cgi movies should be made.

#49 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17605 posts) - - Show Bio

@xxxddd said:

@mrdecepticonleader: That's how cgi movies should be made.

Yeah it is.

#50 Posted by Mattersuit (4270 posts) - - Show Bio

Whatever strikes up a decent balance.