All the current threads are either "What is this movie?" or Spammers so we need a real one...
How about this the current situation with putting CG in everything until it's ears explode? What do you think about the departing from the physical special effects using wires and stuntmen and leaning more towards using a computer to generate anything that makes you go wow in a movie?
Good call Turk - time for some pontification. Now I'm a child from the 80s, so when blockbusters came out, the bar was set pretty low. That is, the technology of the Vic 20 or the Commodore 64 could only do so much with special effects - and I ain't complaining. When the aliens come for L. Ron Hubbard and his disciples, what do you think they'll be watching in the mothership - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' or 'The Mummy'?
Don't get me wrong, the 'Spiderman' flicks would have SUCKED unless they spent a lot of coin on the FX - but because of crap like 'Toy Story' filmakers are using it as a crutch. I mean, if you watch the original 'Star Wars', 'Silent Running' or even '2001: A Space Odyssey' the special effect are still pretty damn good, even for today's standards. Why? Meticulousness. Back then, they HAD to spend days and days with models and slow photography. There is an eerie realness to these movies. These new CG flicks almost look too artificial - but then again how 'genuine' can you make the X-Men or the Jedi?
I agree somewhat with Marc Daniel re: the reasons for old movies conveying realness and the unlikelihood that moviemakers will return to that. That said, as computers advance in complexity, we will see better stuff. I personally thought Gollum was great and the computer effects nearly transparent in places, and I know it was obtained with absolute state of the art technique at the time. I hope for better CG stuff in the future. Jar jar sucks.
Which is why Lucas said he wanted to wait on the first three episodes of Star Wars cause he said the technology wasn't up to snuff on how he wanted to do the movie. It would be interesting to see what the first three would be like if they made them back in the 70's/80's. Or if they made the second three today. How would the story change? I think Star Wars is a great example of technological advances in film and CGI because it's essentially one story, made over 3 decades.
We could easily say (and I thought this to myself) that filmmakers are using CGI as a creative crutch because they're too lazy for the alternative (prime examples: crowd scenes a la Gladiator, LOTR, etc.). While the effects put in those films are more than capable, I think just the fact that we know that they took "the easy way out" (not to insinuate that the CGI work is easy) takes something away from any remaining "realness" in such films. Instead of being in awe of such effects, I find myself looking for gaffes.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have the grandiosity and pure creativity spawned by the example to end all examples - The Matrix. Those effects enhanced the story.
Even things as blasphemous as The Pariah Formerly Known As Jar Jar shows creativity - compare the detail and work that went into his character to such IV-VI creations as the Jawas and Ewoks and it's light years better (only from the creative aspect, mind you).
Other effects (such as the "shrinking" of the hobbits or the sinking of the Titanic) are put to excellent use, and would probably not look nearly as good had they been attempted using "natural" effects.
Or would they? Michel Gondry used forced perspective in the kitchen/Mommy scene in Eternal Sunshine just fine - in fact, almost everything was "natural" in Eternal Sunshine - and was probably more effective and better looking than any computer generated effect could be?
Suffice it to say that CGI effects are good and bad, or both, depending on the user, the frequency, and the context.
(This concludes my attempt to write a post even 1/3 the length of a Mebossy post. Speaking of which, where have you been?)
Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi
I thought the thread said "we need weed"---butIhaven't hotboxedmy pipe in5minutes so I re-read bout computergraphics.
yeah--overdone but its cheap. andfake lookin. I though the fakeyist computerabination stuff was TRON.abunch offblue men running around--thatwholemuvee was strange
I could barely stand you before and now this? This for christ sake I'm pretty sure TRON was the FIRST movie to use computer generated effects wrap that around your addled mind THE FIRST. Plus what made it believable in my book was all the effects took place while inside of a computer and that is entirely made up so it could look like anything it wanted to... a total fictional local. I think the non-realistic effects added to the movie a whole hell of alot. If they made it just jeff bridges running around in jeans and a sweat shirt it wouldn't have been near as good.
I'm still about 90% you are just a made of character of one of the regulars and if you are you are keeping this joke running for quite some time.
fyi, this board was starting to to get on my nerves what with all the dumber than dumb postings going on. And right now I've sort of been in Peter-PArker-after-MJ-gets-kidnapped mode i.e. "there are bigger things happening here than you(movie board) and me".
But I remember this topic discussed here in the past several times in different forms, mostly in regards to The Matrix movies.
What can I say about the dangers of overdependence on CG that we're not already aware of? CG engineers call it the "magic" of digital computer technology, but magic is only magic in the hands of a true magician. And like so many things when it comes to making movies the mentality tends to be "why bother learning to be a great magician when you can just buy the magician's wand yourself with enough studio provided production dollars to wave it around all you like"? In the past moviemakers had the right concept, they knew what they wanted to do they just didnt have the technology. NOwadays its the reverse; they have the technology and dont know what to do with it or how to use it to the ideal benefit of a film.
Before I get into CGI in movies in general I just want to bring up one thing about the Matrix and how or why CG was particularly used so well in that movie. First off, If you get right down to it, there really wasnt THAT much CG used in the film. Everything that produced the "wow" factor in the Matrix was mostly old school film tricks used in a very original way. Thats why the first Matrix seems to me a more substantial, more real film as opposed to the two sequels which were more like elaborately dressed cartoons. You'll notice when you compare the sequels with the original, that the fight scenes in the first film are more exciting yet less elaborate. They are faster paced, better cut, shot at better angles and dispersed throughout the film in a fluid timely manner. The sequels were one reckless fight scene after another, inserted with an awkward abruptness of timing, almost all of them being exaggerated perversions of the original's.
ANyway back to the CGI part of the matrix. MOst of the great visuals I remember from the first film were not CGI. And Flounder was correct about wire fighting to be the best usage of CGI at least for this film. Thats because its actually computer generated ERASING rather than imaging in this case. It doesnt fail by being overly obvious because there's nothing there for us to notice as obvious.
Consider the fight scene from the sparring program where we see the first eye opening kung fu fight scene that would forever influence the style of fight scenes in every movie made afterwards. Even though we are explained to by Morpheus that the room is a computer program with bent and broken rules, we still have no reason to expect CGI from this scene if for no better reason than that from the outset, we already have accepted the preconcieved notion that these are just two regular unarmed men fighting hand to hand combat in what looks like a traditional sparring room. The brilliance of using CGI in a fight scene like kung fu is that at the time there was no real history of CGI being implemeted before in a simple hand to hand combat scene. Before the movie was made one might have wondered just what are you supposed to DO with CGI in a scene with two guys barefoot and dressed in pajamas fighting without any weapons?
And then Neo does that flying scissor kick.
ANd lo and behold that magic of wires is introduced to the western world. We watched that kick and did a double take like "what the hell was THAT?" It wasnt too much, just enough wire work to make us aware that gravity was just defied, and just fast and NATURALLY graceful enough to make us believe it was a real kick. A kick that Bruce Lee could not have done was just executed by KEanu REEVes? The fact that the film made us believe THAT proves how effective the wirefighting aided by the CGI was in that film.
Like the sparring scene, much of the CGI in the film is only an aid to something else. Just like the erasing of the wires is meant to bring our attention to the fighting not the "erased wires", so the rest of the CGI in the movie works to bring the other non-CGI stuff to the foreground. One example is the shot in which Tank uploads "lots of guns" for NEo. The CGI images of the gun racks is not so impressive. YOu cant even really tell what they are until the next shot where they are no longer CGI anymore. But its the IDEA of millions of guns suddenly generated at your disposal that put the "wow" in that scene, plus the way the scene was shot with NEo and Trinity strategically standing symmetrically from each other in the wide shot as the racks shoot in between them from the horizon on out towards the camera. Its that element of "impossible efficiency" when the gun racks are shot that way that makes you believe these are things from a computer generated world.
Shoot this is way too long and Ive barely gotten started.
I think a lot of what determines CGI "working" or not in a film depends on whats being CGIed. I mean, theres a reason Twister was the first big studio film to rely solely on CGI work. Tornadoes are probably one of the easiest things to render through CGI imagery. They are indistinct, hazy, most people have only seen them on tv recorded by some meteorologist through a bad camera anyway so theres not much reference point for comparing live and memorex. In a tornado everything is chaotic, clouded, indeternimanable, objects flying around in a vortex of dirt and wind.
CGI gets best results when the image is not a solid three dimensional stagnant image. Our human eyes after all can only depict what is "real" in reality for so long; darkness, distance, and speed of motion can make even a real object look blurred and lacking in substance and CLEVER directors realize and take full advantage of that to sell their CGI pitch in a movie. Bob Zemeckis is the master of it. In Cast Away during the scene when the plane goes into the ocean theres a CGI shot of the plane sinking. HAd the shot been in broad daylight it might have been a stretch but in the shroud of nighttime with heavy rain, thunder and lightning, you couldnt get a more real looking plane sinking.
The reality factor seems to follow a step ladder of complex forms. Elements like gas, fire water are pretty convincingly done with CGI. Inanimate objects are the next easiest. Non flesh organisms are more difficult and animals and of course humans are hardest of all.
THe best CGI isn't "state-of-the-art-does-it-look-real-enough?" work. ITs sleight-of-hand-you-dont-even-realize-its-CGI work. Forrest Gump: the erasing of Gary sinise's legs, What Lies Beneath, the shot of HArrison FOrd and Michelle Pfieffer through overhead car mirrors. A camera superzooming Hitchcock style through a bridge into a car Pfeiffers driving.
anyways Flounder, here are some non-wire-fu CGI hits:
STarship Troopers: the space stuff was standard issue. But those bugs were excellent CGI work. One thing that helps is that bugs are exoskeleton not flesh so they are easier to render as living moving things without worrying about how bones shifting inside skin will come off convincingly through CGI in every scene a la Jurassic PArk. Plus I think director Paul Voerhooven did a way cool job withem designwise, they look much better than Peter JAckson's Shiloh from ROTK and that was updated and more expensive CGI work too.
Minority Report: color grading covers a multitude of sins but still Spielberg fused CGI really well into this film even if the noir-film quasi b&w filtered look of the picture prevents really fine detail to be picked apart on the screen. Besides, that face-shape-shifting closeup shot with Tom Cruise was genius.
The aforementioned Zemeckis films, Cast Away, Forrest Gump, What Lies Beneath and Contact. The most invisible and thus most successful CGI work is done by this guy.
The last post is very technical, and brilliantly written. I won't even try to top it. I will simply agree that CG effects when not over-done can make for a very effective use of technology.
In Forrest Gump, the scene where Forrest is running out of the jungle carrying Bubba and Lieutenant Dan wasn't that effective in my opinion. That scene has become like a cliche these days. It seems to be used in just about every action film I've seen recently where something blows up in the background just as the protagonist miraculously escapes merely being singed slightly. He (usually) goes running through a glass window just as the entire house/building goes POW!!
I would agree however, that the use of CG on Lieutenant Dan's legs in Forrest Gump is brilliant. Though I am one of the few people who actually liked TIII, the car chase scenes were way too over-reliant on CG effects. I'd take the chase scene in TII over any of the CG induced pyrotechnics in TIII any day.
Recently a lot of the CG effects I see in films don't look at all real. I thought the technology was supposed to get better. Instead what I'm seeing is stuff that looks like it is part of a video game instead of a movie.
Azusa - right on the money. WAY BACK in March of 1999, this girl and I begrudgingly went to 'The Matrix'. I say begrudgingly, because I vividly recall saying, "Its gonna be a piece of crap. Its gonna be a really expensive CD-ROM movie." And I was wrong, and I admit that. However 9 outta 10 times - they ARE crap (granted, I also have soft spot for Voerhooven's sci-fi flicks - they are so delightfully violent and satiric at the same time) But drivel like 'Wing Commander', which was just ridiculous and 'The Phantom Menace' (both that came out the same year as 'The Matrix') could have easily just been a XBOX game alone.
Personally, I prefer the subtlety of CGI. For instance, the ONE thing I was really impressed with in 'Jurassic Park' was early in the film when the brontosaurus was feeding and the tree gave to and fro. See? Subtle.
What I don't understand is how producers will spend over a 100 million bucks on effects if they are certiain the film is gonna be slapped with an 'R' rating - yeah, I'm talkin' to you Mr. Joel Silver! There is no way, the movie is gonna make back it's budget that way (which is why I kinda forgive 'Chronicles of Riddick' for being PG-13')
Lastly, MeBoss also made a good point. Last week I was watching my DVD of 'The Way Of The Gun', and on the commentary the director said he rewrote a scene to have some violence 'cause nothing was really happening for 20 minutes or so. Indeed, that is 'Matrix - Reloaded' in a nutshell. "You don't really know someone, until you fight them." HAH?!? That's what 11 year olds say on the kickball field. Ugh.
You guys are all on. Everyone has good stuff to say, and points that I find I agree with. I'm not quite knowledgable enough about moviemaking or CGI, but I can assess the final effects as well as the next guy, and I think you're right (Matrix issues, subtlety, etc). A good friend told me Starship Troopers was based on this weird comic book that was reflective of (parody of?) WWII and Nazi Germany? Anyone know more about this?
'Starship Troopers' is actually a bona fide novel (not a graphic novel like 'Road to Perdition' or 'Sin City') written by Robert Heinlein, whose more popular work is 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.
I remember back in '97 there was the slightest uproar over 'Starship Troopers' because it kinda glorified a totalitarian regime and some allegories toward Nazism. Personally, that REALLY pissed me off as those that protested the film obviously did not read the book nor did they understand the subtext of the movie.
At some colleges, as a matter of fact, Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers' is required reading for some English classes. In the novel (and its sorta explored in the movie), women were not only equals in the military, but more often than not, they were deemed more capable than men in many aspects. Moreover, the satirical commentary regarding the ramifications of fascism is more clearly addressed in the novel. Its a good, fast read - I'd pick it up.
This message has been edited by sadowsmd on Apr 18, 2005 12:20 PM
You know I have a special spot in my heart for StarShip Troopers. This movie was the first movie I ever didn't like. It kind of defined my taste and made me realize that, "Hey yes there are bad movies out there and yes I do believe this is one of them" Now, I have since grown to like starship troopers a little more, after finding out that there is actually some substance behind the movie... But I'll still remember that shining moment when I watched and sayed honestly "That Movie Sucked"
There was a bit of good comedy and tongue-in-cheekiness in Starship Troopers - like when they were 'dissecting' the bugs and just pulling out wads of green slime that would have fit right in on Double Dare. That was great. Nice 'dissection'
Starship Troopers brings back memories. I was seriously dating this girl at the time and we went to see that movie. About an hour into it, she had to get up and leave because she couldnt stand the violence and gore. No joke, she was in tears. I remember seriously contemplating whether or not to follow her, because I was actually enjoying the movie. Needless to say, the relationship didnt last very long.
hey if u fucking agree to a three page bore fest then say i agree stop putting ur own shit in the mix, damn it gets old reading about the "over use of cgi in movies" and how it is "dulling the creative minds of hollywood" its boring.
And Hey! mebosse, go get mary-jane and fuck her in the ass for me okay? cause god knows u need better things to do than write long ass shit like all of your articles on some lame ass movie board.
thank you and in the modified words of ron Burgundy... "go fuck yourself, movie board members!"
It's boring to talk about movies on a movie board shit lets talk about guns blowing up then having vin diesel jump over it with a dirt bike screaming "I'm gonna F*ck you up sucka!!!". Just a little tidbit of information but if you go to a god damn movie board expect to talk about movies, you little shit.
Perhaps you think coming here and baiting regulars for writing interesting posts is fun. I for one am not going to take the bait. In my opinion you are a bored person who has nothing better to do than take snipes at people who post here. If you have nothing positive to contribute I recommend you to go elsewhere. If you want to write a post filled with obscentities and innuendo about me or my mother that would confirm to me and most anyone else who posts here your status as a troll or just plain ass-hole.
It felt pretty darn good not to take the high road for once and call the "Punisher" what he really was. Ahh now I can go back to my regular light hearted comments.
