# Why are people still complaining about cgi??



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Its so weird.. I mean about a decade ago people used to complain about computer visuals in film a lot (probably rightly so because the technology was still pretty new then) but a quick google serch reveils that a lot of people, including critics, are still complaining about the use of cgi as opposed to practical effects.

Any ideas why this is? Or do you agree with them?


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

CrimsonTrigger said:


> People whine too much. Simple as that.


Haha yeh! I just add to it by whining about the whiners


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Because it doesn't look as realistic and the cost to create most CGI is really not that much different that if they used real props. If it isn't realistic, the audience can't relate to it so that the film doesn't resonate as much as if they had just used real props and actors.


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

I think movies rely on cgi too much nowadays.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Noca said:


> Because it doesn't look as realistic and the cost to create most CGI is really not that much different that if they used real props. If it isn't realistic, the audience can't relate to it so that the film doesn't resonate as much as if they had just used real props and actors.


What about in situations where an effect could not be achived by practical effects?


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

shyvr6 said:


> I think movies rely on cgi too much nowadays.


Did pre-cgi movies not rely on practical effects so much?


----------



## creasy (Oct 29, 2012)

CGI has done wonders for environmental effects. Creature effects are where it still frequently fails though. Even with how far the technology has come, the brain can still differentiate between cgi and a physical object. Seeing the two interact with each other can look awkward and really pull the viewer out of the film.

I mean for fantasy and sci-fi movies, it's a great asset. But horror and action...no. Unless it's on a smaller scale where it isn't noticeable.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Because games these days focus too much on the CGI over the gameplay. Games aren't as fun as they were years ago. I like to play video games to play video games, not to watch a movie.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

creasy said:


> CGI has done wonders for environmental effects. Creature effects are where it still frequently fails though. Even with how far the technology has come, the brain can still differentiate between cgi and a physical object. Seeing the two interact with each other can look awkward and really pull the viewer out of the film.
> 
> I mean for fantasy and sci-fi movies, it's a great asset. But horror and action...no. Unless it's on a smaller scale where it isn't noticeable.


there have been some pretty amazing creatures done on computers though, look at gollum and davy jones. I think creatures are harder to pull of than say, metal objects and explosions because organic things are more familiar to us, so its easy to see when something is wrong.



nubly said:


> Because games these days focus too much on the CGI over the gameplay. Games aren't as fun as they were years ago. I like to play video games to play video games, not to watch a movie.


I think you mean good graphics in general, as every video game in exsistance has visuals made on computers. I guess Im on about in movies really.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> Its so weird.. I mean about a decade ago people used to complain about computer visuals in film a lot (probably rightly so because the technology was still pretty new then) but a quick google serch reveils that a lot of people, including critics, are still complaining about the use of cgi as opposed to practical effects.
> 
> Any ideas why this is? Or do you agree with them?


In certain aspects, I understand CGI, superhero films in particular. But when I see horror films that use it....I'm like where is your freaking creativity? I me the make up artist/did more with less in the 80's and 70's.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

theseventhkey said:


> In certain aspects, I understand CGI, superhero films in particular. But when I see horror films that use it....I'm like where is your freaking creativity? I me the make up artist/did more with less in the 80's and 70's.


Do horror films even tend to use cgi much anyway?


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

Its because CGI is way too over-used for some movies. There are many things that CGI still can't do better than live action.



Droidsteel said:


> Do horror films even tend to use cgi much anyway?


Definitely. I think Horror movies suffer the most from poorly used CGI effects.


----------



## Kascheritt (Mar 7, 2012)

I hated the use of CGI in The Thing prequel released this year. Carpenters movie effects were the best!


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Adversary said:


> Its because CGI is way too over-used for some movies. There are many things that CGI still can't do better than live action.
> 
> Definitely. I think Horror movies suffer the most from poorly used CGI effects.


you aren't referring to the nightmare on elm street remake by any chance?


----------



## Fanta can (Aug 13, 2011)

CGI is overrated and overused. Like Noca said, it doesn't look as realistic, and while it is cheaper, it isn't significantly cheaper. Major films have 100+ Million dollar budgets now. They could afford to have real special effects if they wanted to. 

I love Star Wars, but it's the perfect example of CGI being overused. The original trilogy had incredible special effects. A lot of people may look at the Yoda from Return of the Jedi and say it looks like a cheesy muppet, and that's basically what it was, but at least it was a real, tangible thing. The CGI Yoda from the prequels just looks like a cartoon painted over real life, like something out of Mary Poppins. With a movie like Star Wars Episode III, it's not just the characters, either. It's everything. The whole thing is one giant CGI. The acting is non-existent and they're not shooting on real locations. Everything is green screen, and you can tell.


----------



## creasy (Oct 29, 2012)

FrozenCube said:


> I hated the use of CGI in The Thing prequel released this year. Carpenters movie effects were the best!


That came to mind when I entered this topic. It isn't a bad movie, actually it's pretty good, but the poor cgi really detracts from the horror and isn't nearly as gripping and nightmarish as the effects in the Carpenter version. Then again I'm not sure anything could be.

Also I'm not the biggest fan of Christopher Nolan, but I respect him for his insistence on using real effects as much as possible.


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> you aren't referring to the nightmare on elm street remake by any chance?


I am referring to current horror films in general. Have you not seen any mainstream horror movies lately? They all use CGI.


----------



## creasy (Oct 29, 2012)

LowKey said:


> I love Star Wars, but it's the perfect example of CGI being overused. The original trilogy had incredible special effects. A lot of people may look at the Yoda from Return of the Jedi and say it looks like a cheesy muppet, and that's basically what it was, but at least it was a real, tangible thing. The CGI Yoda from the prequels just looks like a cartoon painted over real life, like something out of Mary Poppins. With a movie like Star Wars Episode III, it's not just the characters, either. It's everything. The whole thing is one giant CGI. The acting is non-existent and they're not shooting on real locations. Everything is green screen, and you can tell.


The one advantage of cgi Yoda is that he's able to convey emotion better.






You're right though, much more cartoony. The prequels get away with the cgi (most of it) because the battles and landscapes are on such a large scale. It wouldn't be as intense with practical effects. Plus it's Star Wars. Realism is exactly a trademark of the series.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

LowKey said:


> CGI is overrated and overused. Like Noca said, it doesn't look as realistic, and while it is cheaper, it isn't significantly cheaper. Major films have 100+ Million dollar budgets now. They could afford to have real special effects if they wanted to.


You couldent afford to pay several thousand extras to be an army no matter how big you budget was.

Also cgi is tangable, the best cgi effects are scans of exsisting textures anyway.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> Do horror films even tend to use cgi much anyway?


 Look at todays horror, for instance on the SYFY channel everything is damn near CGI. The blood, beheadings, everything they use the hell out of it today, where back in the day real artist like Greg Nicotero, Stan Winston, or Tom Savini would come and create the special FX.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

theseventhkey said:


> Look at todays horror, for instance on the SYFY channel everything is damn near CGI. The blood, beheadings, everything they use the hell out of it today, where back in the day real artist like Greg Nicotero, Stan Winston, or Tom Savini would come and create the special FX.


That really is lazy. I don't watch a lot of horror so I woulden't know.


----------



## Ali477 (May 7, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> *You couldent afford to pay several thousand extras to be an army no matter how big you budget was.
> *
> Also cgi is tangable, the best cgi effects are scans of exsisting textures anyway.


You would be surprised back in the days before CGI they had to use thousands of extras just to get a few single scenes for a movie take the film Spartacus for example they employed 8000 people to represent a whole army, and this was all back in the 60's now days film makers have much larger budgets than they did back then.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Luke688 said:


> You would be surprised back in the days before CGI they had to use thousands of extras just to get a few single scenes for a movie take the film Spartacus for example they employed 8000 people to represent a whole army, and this was all back in the 60's now days film makers have much larger budgets than they did back then.


Oh yeh ive seen a ****ton of extras used in battle scenes before. Waterloo and zulu spring to mind.

But there is no way it could be done on the scale of some films, especially for shots of the whole army. The return of the king for instance, good luck producing costumes for 350,000 orcs and finding 6000 hore riders to play the rohirrim.

And in 300, the persian army is shown to be a similar size to the historical army, whereas in an earlier film of the battle of thermopolye, they could only show about a hundred of them at a time.


----------



## shammie (Oct 31, 2012)

How old am I? I read CGI and thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface


----------



## Luna Sea (Apr 4, 2012)

It just makes things look fake. When I saw the trailer for The Hobbit, the dwarves looked like they were from a Pixar movie about Snow White. And in I Am Legend, the mutants completely broke the suspension of disbelief by looking so unreal.

CGI can be really useful for things like epic battles and stuff, but it should only be used for things that *need* it. If something can be done with prosthetics and makeup; do it.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

TristanS said:


> It just makes things look fake. When I saw the trailer for The Hobbit, the dwarves looked like they were from a Pixar movie about Snow White. And in I Am Legend, the mutants completely broke the suspension of disbelief by looking so unreal.
> 
> CGI can be really useful for things like epic battles and stuff, but it should only be used for things that *need* it. If something can be done with prosthetics and makeup; do it.


Odd that you say the dwaves looked cgi, they are just actors in make up. Most of the effects for the lord of the rings were practical and it looks like it will be the same for the hobbit.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

shammie said:


> How old am I? I read CGI and thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface


Haha! Maybe I should have put computer generated imagery.


----------



## TheExplosionist (Apr 13, 2009)

Just compare The Thing (1982) with The Thing (2011).
CGI just looks fake and unconvincing compared to practical effects.


----------



## Nada (Dec 19, 2004)

Personally I really like modern computer generated effects, it can be pretty realistic and adds a whole lot more content vs other means. However not all movies put out good visual effects whether it be computer generated or movie props.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

It seems like people just don't like the wrong use of it, because stuff like blood and flesh will always look better done practically.

personally I think the cg in the thing is pretty similar in quality to the origional effect. But I guess there wasn't any reason not to do it practically.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Nada said:


> Personally I really like modern computer generated effects, it can be pretty realistic and adds a whole lot more content vs other means. However not all movies put out good visual effects whether it be computer generated or movie props.


The thing is, there are some pretty awful practical effects out there too, but no one ever complains about them so it just comes off as people grumbling about how it was 'better back in their day' and it makes it difficult to take that seriously.

Plus I coulden't imagine something like the avengers without cgi. The hulk would have to be a big guy painted green and any time iron man flies there would be a crappy scrolling sky behined him instead of an actual cityscape.


----------



## Luna Sea (Apr 4, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> Odd that you say the dwaves looked cgi, they are just actors in make up. Most of the effects for the lord of the rings were practical and it looks like it will be the same for the hobbit.


If that's the case, they need to do some serious work on them because some look completely fake, and some look like they aren't even wearing makeup. I still find it pretty shameful that they aren't real dwarves though.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

TristanS said:


> If that's the case, they need to do some serious work on them because some look completely fake, *and some look like they aren't even wearing makeup.* I still find it pretty shameful that they aren't real dwarves though.


I definatly agree with the bolded, I am mostly happy with how they look but one or two of the designs look nowhere near 'dwavey' (is that a word?) as they should.

What do you mean about them being real dwarves?


----------



## Luna Sea (Apr 4, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> I definatly agree with the bolded, I am mostly happy with how they look but one or two of the designs look nowhere near 'dwavey' (is that a word?) as they should.
> 
> What do you mean about them being real dwarves?


They're all played by normal-sized people made to look short by special effects and camera angles rather than hiring dwarves to play them. I don't understand how this is any different to hiring white people to play black parts or native americans. It's tough enough for people who don't fit most hollywood roles (because there's no chance they'd ever be hired to play a normal-sized person with angles used to make them look taller), but now it's okay to steal parts that are supposed to be dwarves?


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

TristanS said:


> They're all played by normal-sized people made to look short by special effects and camera angles rather than hiring dwarves to play them. I don't understand how this is any different to hiring white people to play black parts or native americans. It's tough enough for people who don't fit most hollywood roles (because there's no chance they'd ever be hired to play a normal-sized person with angles used to make them look taller), but now it's okay to steal parts that are supposed to be dwarves?


I don't think people who's limbs and heads are out of proportion with their bodies are the look they wanted. Actual dwarves do play a part on set though, some of the shots will need to use smaller doubles so each character has a mini-me version of themselves who plays the character for those shots.

It's a little restrictive to say 'I need a person who is x height that is perfect for the role' as opposed to saying 'I need the actor perfect for the role, whatever height they are.'

And also Hollywood (sadly) has never been about giving people opportunities. Everyone who got there probably had a ****ton of luck to go with their determination.


----------



## Luna Sea (Apr 4, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> I don't think people who's limbs and heads are out of proportion with their bodies are the look they wanted.


I think that's exactly the look they wanted. The dwarves in the film generally have quite large heads, and their limbs are kind of irrelevant, since all the dwarves will undoubtedly be pretty much entirely covered throughout the film

Can you imagine the outrage if they cast white people in all the roles in 'The Help' because "they wanted the actor that was right for the role, whatever colour their skin is"? It's sad that racism is completely unacceptable (as it should be), but discrimination against those with disabilities is okay because they don't have a big enough voice to complain. An actor with dwarfism already has the amount of jobs he or she can get limited to dwarf parts, and now they can't even get those. And all of this applies to 'Snow White & the Huntsman' too.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Droidsteel said:


> You couldent afford to pay several thousand extras to be an army no matter how big you budget was.


yeah, they were good times.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

TristanS said:


> I think that's exactly the look they wanted. The dwarves in the film generally have quite large heads, and their limbs are kind of irrelevant, since all the dwarves will undoubtedly be pretty much entirely covered throughout the film
> 
> Can you imagine the outrage if they cast white people in all the roles in 'The Help' because "they wanted the actor that was right for the role, whatever colour their skin is"? It's sad that racism is completely unacceptable (as it should be), but discrimination against those with disabilities is okay because they don't have a big enough voice to complain. An actor with dwarfism already has the amount of jobs he or she can get limited to dwarf parts, and now they can't even get those. And all of this applies to 'Snow White & the Huntsman' too.


i wouldn't call it discrimination, they weren't actively trying to ruin the lives of vertically challenged people. They just wanted people who could act. Martin freeman who's playing Bilbo is normal sized, he is the only character they will be around most of the time. If no-one else is around to compare all the short people to, its easy to just have them bigger.

Its different to the skin color issue in that it is easily possible to ignore the height issue, whereas the looks of different ethnic groups are impossible to fake.

Actors get cast in roles that differ from themselves all the time, look at the most recent superhero movies, tons of British and Australian actors playing American parts. It is acting at the end of the day.

And like I said before about Hollywood not caring about giving people opportunities, they aren't going to cast a deaf-blind cripple as a deaf-blind cripple just because its the only role they can play, they are going to cast an actor perfect for the role.


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> The thing is, there are some pretty awful practical effects out there too, but no one ever complains about them so it just comes off as people grumbling about how it was 'better back in their day' and it makes it difficult to take that seriously.
> 
> Plus I coulden't imagine something like the avengers without cgi. The hulk would have to be a big guy painted green and any time iron man flies there would be a crappy scrolling sky behined him instead of an actual cityscape.


People actually do complain about the practical effects in movies all the time. Much more than CGI. I don't think you realize the scope of things that practical effects cover. Literally every special effect that's not CGI can be considered a practical effect. Its just that almost no one calls it that.

I can't imagine Avengers without CGI either. What only matters is if the CGI is used effectively. Have you seen the Xmen Origins: Wolverine movie? Now that's a good example of terrible use of CGI effects.


----------



## Yellish Ta (Nov 15, 2012)

The most photo-realistic cgi I have ever seen would be War of the Worlds (2005). 
While I agree that there were some shots that didn't look very convincing realistically, there were a few with the tripods(when they came out of the ground and water) and the aliens(when they went downstairs to examine the basement) where I could not tell the difference between cgi and the actual real footage. 

Prometheus did it well imo, the blend between cgi and traditional effects was incredibly seamless. The Ships and scenery were hyper-real. 

Avatar looked like a freaking video game, though all the cgi was realistic in a physical sense. 

Technology is improving so god damn fast, I imagine that in less than 10 people will not be able to distinguish cgi from real life footage in movies. Gaming? maybe 15-20 years before we are literally playing real life.


----------



## Fanta can (Aug 13, 2011)

Droidsteel said:


> You couldent afford to pay several thousand extras to be an army no matter how big you budget was.
> 
> Also cgi is tangable, the best cgi effects are scans of exsisting textures anyway.


That's not true. Movies like Ben-Hur had tens of thousands of extras all wearing historically accurate clothing.

Look up ambitious films from the silent era. D.W. Griffith's_ Intolerance _ had incredible, massive sets, thousands of extras, and hand made props but was made on a fraction of Avatar's budget.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

LowKey said:


> That's not true. Movies like Ben-Hur had tens of thousands of extras all wearing historically accurate clothing.
> 
> Look up ambitious films from the silent era. D.W. Griffith's_ Intolerance _ had incredible, massive sets, thousands of extras, and hand made props but was made on a fraction of Avatar's budget.


well I mentioned 350,000 digital extras were used for one army in the return of the king. If you can name a film with that many extras...


----------



## Fanta can (Aug 13, 2011)

Droidsteel said:


> well I mentioned 350,000 digital extras were used for one army in the return of the king. If you can name a film with that many extras...


According to google, _Gandhi_ has the world record for most extras with over 300,000.

The scene you're describing from _Return of the King_ and any scene involving massive armies aren't the best example to support your argument. You mentioned earlier in the thread that the best CGI effects are the ones utilizing scans of real images, which I totally agree with. If they clone real actors, mix them up, and alter them slightly, that's a little different. Those aren't the CGI effects people are complaining about. It's when that have those plastic looking, cartoony effects right in the foreground that's annoying. Animating some CGI warriors in the background is fine with me, but even then that's not necessarily something that couldn't be done without CG. Film makers were using primitive visual effects to make clones and copies of real actors long before computers. If they really wanted to, they could have had 500,000 people on-screen at once in Ben-Hur, but it would've have been pointless and unrealistic.


----------



## shammie (Oct 31, 2012)

Cgi like Beowolf I love. Artistic, and not pretending to be something it's not. 

Cgi I dislike includes Day After Tomorrow, Avatar, where it's trying to be photo realistic and ever so slightly fails. 

With cgi, it's best not trying to be too 'real' as at best it feels sterile and clinical, at worst it's plastic people.

And all modern Alien movies, argh! They looked so much more real and menacing with a man in a suit and good lighting.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

shammie;1060529347modern Alien movies said:


> You have to be joking...
> 
> The end of the first alien movie just had me in fits of giggles, even as a small child. I don't see the problem with trying to be realistic?
> 
> If a modern film used cg aliens, people would complain, If everything was a guy in a suit, the audiance would be screaming for their money back.


----------

