Open Forum Friday: Do Filmmakers Put Too Much Faith in CG?
One of the main problems that I had with Ang Lee’s Hulk back in 2003 was the fact that the main character was entirely computer generated. They actually did a pretty good job of bringing him to life, but in the end it was still extremely distracting to have one massive CG character thrown in amongst a cast of regular people. A few years later, Peter Jackson’s King Kong did a little better, as did Michael Bay’s Transformers (I think robots are a little easier to recreate in a believable way, but that’s beside the point). Clearly, technology is allowing filmmakers to do things that had never before been possible, but sometimes I have to wonder, are they putting too much faith in CG?
I suppose you could say that the ambitious attempts to push the limits of computer animation are what allows the technology to progress. Sometimes the FX don’t end up being perfect, but there is knowledge gained in the process that makes it worthwhile. And yet, I still think there will always be things that can’t be computer animated, or that would be better served using more traditional special effects. The closer we get to realism, the harder it is to close that final gap. I’m not saying that a man in a suit is necessarily better, but maybe a character like the Hulk is just better off staying on the comic book page (I still have yet to see the new Incredible Hulk film, so maybe I’ll be proven wrong). What do you think? Are they trying to do too much with CGI? Does it get in the way of the storytelling when all the actors are performing in front of a green screen? At what point we will stop having to “look past” some of the flaws in computer generated imagery? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (11)
Just got back from seeing The Incredible Hulk and enjoyed it. As for the CG thing, I think there are times when it is relied on too much. But it depends on the movie for me and whether or not it becomes a distraction. With the Hulk, it’s easier for me to accept that the CG monster is just how Bruce looks when he’s all effed up on rage.
Also, this new Hulk movie is loads better than Ang Lee’s. And I was one person who liked Ang Lee’s OK at the time. For me, the CG in this new one isn’t so crazy that it took me out of the action. And they tried to give Hulk some life and emotion that sort of worked. Very similar to King Kong that way.
I think comic book movies are the perfect place for CG. Because if it looks just a little off, it can be explained away as part of that world. CG in every single other movie better be seamlessly integrated or I end up being taken out mentally. King Kong did it pretty well. Indy 4 did it poorly.
Posted by Brett on June 13th, 2008Yes. I agree. Every time I watch Pan’s Labyrinth I think about how movies need less CG.
Posted by Mike on June 13th, 2008Yeah I couldn’t agree more. I find myself reverting back to the good-ol’-days in retrospect…for some reason I prefer the miniatures and wire effects of Paul Verhoeven, early Ridley Scott and the like. The video game-quality CG in I am Legend, Matrix Reloaded, etc. is just too distracting. If I’m going to notice the effects then I at least want that sense of laborious development and construction that comes with old school special effects.
CG definitely has its place, but like Brett said, it’s so much better when it comes across seamlessly. Pan’s Labyrinth is a great example…and off the top of my head I keep going back to Christopher Nolan as well, I think he makes a point to minimize CGI whenever possible and I think it shows, in a good way.
Posted by Stefan on June 13th, 2008I just watched An American Werewolf In London for the first time last night, and all I could think about while watching the man-to-wolf transformation was that if the movie were made today instead of in the early 80’s it would probably look like shit, or at least look a lot less awesome. CG is great in some cases, but I’ll always pine for the old days of hands-on effects.
Posted by Rian on June 13th, 2008The most amazing cg that I’ve seen in the last few years comes from movies like Zodiac. I was amazed when I found out how much cg was used, because everything looked so natural and real.
Posted by scoville on June 13th, 2008I just think CG is used in the wrong places. I Am Legend suffered terribly from this. The shots of the dark seekers running and jumping at superhuman speeds make sense in CG; plus it would look unreal in real life. Same thing with the Hulk. CG for closeups is a whole different story though. They looked completely fake in I Am Legend! Why not just use an actor in makeup? I couldn’t believe my eyes. I loled Jay’s comment on the cheeks rippling as a dark seeker screams.
Posted by Ryan on June 14th, 2008are you kidding…does this question even need to be asked?
CGI IS THE DOWNFALL OF ALL CREATIVITY IN HOLLYWOOD! fucking period.
Once filmmakers realized that could do ANYTHING, somewhere after jurassic park and the matrix, things went almost instantly down hill.
I might sound a little over the top, but when I watch “older” movies, pre-1993 and back, The effects have SO MUCH MORE INTEGRITY…people were trying, they were inventing, they were pushed to film and create in amazing ways, it was beautiful and visceral. PUPPETS, MODELS, MINIATURES, MATTE PAINTINGS, FRAME BY FRAME DRAWN ANIMATION…these things all feel real and give you the sense that film makers put effort and life in to things…CG is so hallow, sure it might looks “better” but in many ways it’s still just as fake looking as the “old ways” and with wayyyyyyy less heart!
proof that CGI is shit and PUPPETS and OLD EFFECTS rule:
A real phobia of puppets actually exists…Pupaphobia…look it up, it exists…human beings while watching poltergiest, fraggle rock, john carpenter’s the thing or even the labyrinth can nigh go into shock with intense debilitating fear…thats the kind of emotion and wieght that puppets hold…HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A CGI PHOBIA? WILL YOU EVER? no!!! because even nerve racked psychos can see how fucking hallow, laughable, and lame it is. No cgi holds any emotional weight, and nothing is lamer then horror movies that try and scare you with a CGI creature…is there anything less affecting? it’s pathetic. CGI is just one of the many new proofs of how much this entire industry of shitty sequels and remakes is in the shitter….but go ahead, be indifferent, respond to this with “I kind of like some CGI” and “CGI is good when its used right!!!” but none of your justifications will cover up the fact that movies were better without it, filmmakers and effects teams used to struggle to create visions on screen…now they just sit there and tell the animator, with a slight hint of indifference, WHAT to do…instead of figuring out HOW to do it and putting in time, effort, thought, and most importantly CARE to make something real…not a fucking cartoon being passed off as real life!
and…breathe…sorry…i hate george lucas. aging film fanboy out…peace.
Posted by Bob The Slob on June 14th, 2008Sorry about all the typos. I was typing WAY too fast.
Posted by Bob The Slob on June 14th, 2008I like the lizard that Obi-Wan rides on in Star Wars episode 3 better than any of the animals in the original trilogy.
I like Docter Octopus.
CGI is fine.
Posted by Henrik on June 14th, 2008CGI is a tool that should be used to whatever extent the director,studio,producer/ultimate decider of all things on project want to use it. If its too much, then thats their choice, if its not enough, again their choice. I think people are too quick to blame CGI on bad films now.
Lots of film fans like to look over the past 70 years or so and pine for the classics but even during those time periods there were terrible films and probably quite a few of them at that. I’m sure we’ll look back upon the mid-90’s to the 00’s in ten years with a little bit more love and respect.
My personal opinion is I like CGI. I like what it allows to create. I like when it turns out more realistic creatures. I like when it turns out cartoony worlds. It really allows for some fantastic things to be done. Speed Racer is a perfect example of this, I feel. We have more films then ever being made. A good 500 films a year are released now. Many of them not even containing CGI.
Posted by Captain N on June 14th, 2008Hmm, a fair question, Sean. How much CGI is too much CGI? In my opinion it is just another tool filmmakers have in their belt to use in order to tell their story. That being said, every trick on screen used to make it look real is still a trick. A stuntman is used so the actor does not get hurt; chase scenes are intricately choreographed; and the camera shakes to give people the illusion of the shaking ground. With all of these techniques it is our responsibility to suspend our disbelief and make ourselves forget that these tricks are being used, in order to enjoy the story being told. So people should stop complaining and remember that all movies are fake, whether or not they use CGI.
Posted by Matt on June 14th, 2008Leave a Reply