|
|
|
|
Are computers really a blessing for film makers, or are they really the bane of the cinema? Custom PC casts the cold, hard light of the real world on computer-generated special FX
'We are moving into a different era in terms of cinematic experience,' one famous Hollywood director said when discussing the powers computerised special effects were giving to the film maker. 'I liken it,' he continued, 'to the move from painting frescos in the mid-15th century - when you had to finish that piece of plaster that day otherwise you couldn't go on. Now we've moved into the era of oil paintings,
which gave the artist more control and more time to think about what they're doing.'
That film maker was George Lucas...
CGI certainly gives film makers new powers, but new powers, especially without being held in check, are not always such a great idea. I’ve had enough of people telling me that I just need to suspend my disbelief and watch the film. Bad CGI effects are a blight on the movie industry, to the point where I’m considering boycotting CGI-heavy movies. I’m not for one minute saying that CGI effects are all crap. In fact, they often do their job perfectly. The CGI effects in ‘The Crow’ blend seamlessly
into the film, because they’re not overdone, and they enabled the film to be finished after Brandon Lee’s death. Similarly, the liquid metal CGI effects in ‘Terminator 2’ were not only unbelievably cool at the time, but they also added
to the plot.
Nevertheless, a lot of the time CGI effects spoil a perfectly good film with floating animals, overly shiny spaceships and monsters that shamelessly interact with the virtual camera. Heck, if you’re really honest with yourself, the award-winning Gollum didn’t get it quite right either. This is an impassioned plea to the film industry to go back to using real scenery and models, which can then be cleaned up digitally, as opposed to creating unbelievable crap
entirely with computers. There are ten good reasons why it should do this, and they’re all listed below.
I can't help but think of the TV show "Spaced" when reading all the Star Wars parts. I am not a great CGI fan - IMO if you can tell its obviously CGI, then they should've found another way to do it. CGI done well is something you don't even notice in a film, it's tasteful and does its job well and as such doesn't make you notice that it is CGI, just that there was an effect or something cool there. The film makers just need to learn how to be subtle and effective, rather than add constant "wow" factor that is now fast becoming boring and making all films have the same feel.
Yet I couldn't agree more! GL really did a number on us with the prequels and "remastering" the OT! Let's hope they get it right for the TV-Series: LESS IS MORE! It doesn't take much for someone with a lightsaber to be cool, it doesn't have to include quad-wielding, smoking 40-a-day, geriatric Cyborgs... Two words: David Lynch (pwns!)
Movies now just seem to be 90% CGI 10% story, this is very worrying! Studios seem to think that just chucking loads of effects in a film, will disguise the fact the story has been demoted in importance such as matrix, the first one had a great story and the effects fitted the plot whereas the third one just seemed to have \\
Have you actually wondered, in that fighting scene, why the graphics was so wonderfully done (graphics were well done for the whole 3 matrix movies) then suddenly, the smiths started flopping around like jelly dummmies? I reckon it was done on purpose to illustrate how easy it is for Neo to knock one Agent Smith out 'like a dummy', hence the satire. It was done to mock the Smiths. This contrasts the huge difference between the 1st and 2nd matrix movies, in which the first movie, Neo was not capable of beating Smith up like a dummy. I reckon CGI is good as long the movie justify its use. A perfect example of a pointless and dumb use of CGI, Die Another Day (I am a fan of James Bond), which James Bond surfs on huge blue icy waves, now that was extremely disappointing.
I could watch this film time and time again just because it is CGI. The passion put into the work merits a second look.
I could watch this film time and time again just because it is CGI. The passion put into the work merits a second look.
The extra footage of Jabba the Hut with Han Solo just made the film for me.
CGI is amazing in my opinion, ok so it's really bad when done wrong (I'm specifically on about bad fx) but those days are pretty much gone (new technology and more great animators/modelers about), how would've they done Lord of the rings without CGI? I'm guessing not as easily or well
yeaah sigh unfortunatly though the big hollywood blockbuster type things are marketed to idiots so as to make the most money and unfortunatly idiots in focus groups like that sort of thing. looking at the crow now though you can see the lines a little but what it doesnt need is the crow to have a cgi younger brother that is cute and falls over alot.
I love Star Wars. I agree on the whole shiny thing. It sometimes seems as if things look more shiny than they are supposed to be as well. It is getting a bit ridiculous practically making whole films from cgi, like transformers. At least make the collisions etc. look realistic. I agree.
Yeah, but come on Lev. U571 was a huge great steaming pony turd of a film. It would need a lot more than good SFX and CGI before you could start to compare it with Das Boot.
If you want proof why CGI isn't the be all and end all of movies, just compare Das Boot (1985) to U571 (2000). The first has a sense of realism as you never once look at it and go "that's fake", the second has lots of obviously fake CGI. I rest my case.
Make a Comment