CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Is CG a crutch for lackluster filmaking?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is CG a crutch for lackluster filmaking?

post #1 of 16
9/24/05 at 6:19am
Thread Starter 
I just finished "The Road Warrior" on Cinemax Whatever, and I must say that being a movie with a relatively small budget, made in 1981, it packs a punch that movies these days just seem to lack. I was a big fan of CG in the early days, and I am studying similar fields in art school. I think many of the effects these days are visually amazing, but no matter how well CG is presented, it is difficult for me to become excited.
Movies like "The Road Warrior" utilize big, sweeping shots with a dozen vehicles, in all manner of destruction, and much of the action is in one take. Nowadays, flashy, quick editing is present everywhere. Who the hell wants to have to guess what the hell is going on in a fight or chase sequence? CG is a tool. It is supposed to elevate a scene much like good lighting. What it has become is an excuse to stray away from live-action sequences and create everything virtually. Take "Top Gun" and "Stealth" for instance. Personally, I enjoyed seeing real fighter jets conducting maneuvers in Top Gun. Sure, I knew that Tom Cruise wasn't in the damn jet but it was still up there on the screen. "Stealth" was just too much damn CG. The mind will always be able to tell what is fake.
If Hollywood were to remake "The Road Warrior" and I'm sure one day they will, it will be a piece of shit because all of a sudden the director does not need to map out and choreograph a massive sequence involving dozens of cars and stuntmen. It will all be done on the computer, and it will not have the same effect on the audience. Am I wrong in feeling that CG is becoming the easy way out? How does everyone else feel about the current state of CG in film making?
Reply
post #2 of 16
9/24/05 at 8:38am
Me!

http://chud.com/sewerchewers/2856
Reply
post #3 of 16
9/24/05 at 8:40am
Its an old debate but still worth...debating. I think CGI has definitely become a crutch for 90% of films out there, even though directors keep saying the same thing and then 5 minutes later directing a film with crappy SFX. Its also cost saving (or maybe effort saving, who wants to organise thousands of extras when you can CGI them up), but I agree with your post in any case. CGI should only be used if its absolutely necessary (i.e - to create images or scenes that are otherwise literally impossible and necessary to tell the story, not just look flashy for no reason).
Reply
post #4 of 16
9/24/05 at 9:32am
Also here.
Reply
post #5 of 16
9/24/05 at 11:18pm
To be honest, I think CG is a problem in one of two cases:

When it's badly done, or when its well done in an otherwise lousy film; a point Devin accurately brought up in his great review of Spider-Man 2.

Lets take the Matrix Reloaded as an example, and it's infamous Burly Brawl sequence. Technologically, that scene was cutting-the-fuck-edge. I'm something of a CG buff, so I was all over the techniques used to bring that fight to life, and let me tell you, no one else was (and to a very large degree, still isn't) doing that kind of shit.

But why did it fall flat with viewers? Lots of reasons. The fight itself had no purpose, it was set up like the final battle of Street Fighter Matrix: Wachowski Turbo, due to the tons of clunky dialogue in the flim, there was no real connection to any of the characters, etc. So all that time, effort, money, skill, goes to waste.

Now lets compare that to Spider-Man 2's train sequence. I would say that both fight scenes are choreographed well. Hell, Spidey's scene clearly uses a hell of alot more CGI than the Burly Brawl did. Why does the train sequence work? The connection the film has forced you to make with Peter (and thus Spider-Man), the sense of "realism" brought to the table by having the scene take place in a recognizable area (yes, any real New Yorker will tell you the R train doesn't run on an El line, but its a conceit that really make no damn difference), etc.

Long story short, its not the CG, its the films being made around them.

Also, because I love you all so much, I used the Matrix instead of Van Helsing as an example.
Reply
post #6 of 16
9/25/05 at 1:19am
It really sounds like your problem is with overediting, rather than CGI. Plane and car chases don't lose much of their punch when they're computer animation.
Reply
post #7 of 16
9/25/05 at 2:50am
Anyone familiar with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

Roger Ebert brought it up in connection with CGI. It's pretty interesting and makes a lot of sense, since we're all reacting to really good--but not quite perfect--special effects much more negatively than we'd react to worse ones.

Whatever, I agree about Spiderman II versus The Matrix. Movies are about suspension of disbelief, and sometimes you've got to suspend disbelief in terms of both what you see and in terms of the story. And sometimes a good story can help sell bad GCI, and vice versa (to a lesser extent.)
Reply
post #8 of 16
9/25/05 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
It really sounds like your problem is with overediting, rather than CGI. Plane and car chases don't lose much of their punch when they're computer animation.
Well, that's different for me. Driving is something that I can do, and enjoy a great deal; the second I see CGI in a car chase, all the wind is sucked out of the scene.

Which is why Ronin is one of my favorite movies.

I have no relation to flying, so Stealth was pretty suspenseful, least to me.
Reply
post #9 of 16
9/25/05 at 6:59pm
Yes and no. It can be, but it isn't always, especially when its used by directors who put up the essentials to generally good filmmaking. Just because you can visualize everything, doesn't mean you should.

And CGI does ruin chase sequences if the whole thing is made up of flashy impossible shots. Like in Van Helsing.
Reply
post #10 of 16
9/25/05 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Clarke
That is an article I reference constantly when this argument arises. CGI should be used for artistic reasons and not because it's there. The Lord of the Rings trilogy used CGI completly in the right way. By combining it with matte paintings and minatures it gave off more of a realistic feel. It was used to make something new and original that we had never seen before, compared to the CGI in Ray (WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU USE A REAL HUMMING BIRD?!)
Reply
post #11 of 16
9/26/05 at 12:49am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
And CGI does ruin chase sequences if the whole thing is made up of flashy impossible shots. Like in Van Helsing.

I completely agree on both counts (fuck Van Helsing) and I think when CG is used in a chase it only draws the eye away from the action and reminds the audience that the danger is not really present. In "The Bourne Identity" the chase in Prague is fun because it was all done with stunt drivers. Yes, they did use some compositing with the interior car shots but it doesn't detract from the action.

Now take the shitfest "Gone in 60 Seconds." You either saw it for the car chases or because you thought Angelina Jolie was going to straddle a gear shift. I was fine with the car chases, hell I would even say I enjoyed a few of them. Until Nic Cage jumped the construction equipment on the bridge. Who's brilliant fucking idea was it to make it CG? I almost turned the dvd off it was so bad. The only suspension of belief that should have been present in that flick was that some asshole parent would name their doomed-to-have-a-receding-hairline offspring Memphis Raine.

As for quick editing, well, that's just me going off on ten different rants at once. I still hate it, but that's my ADD talking.
Reply
post #12 of 16
9/27/05 at 6:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyman
That is an article I reference constantly when this argument arises.
Hey! Cool! It seemed to make sense to me at the time. I'm glad that others like it.

Also, i think the Van Helsing DVD has been infused with addictive chemicals that release when it's played. I keep having urges to watch it again...
Reply
post #13 of 16
10/3/05 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Clarke
Also, i think the Van Helsing DVD has been infused with addictive chemicals that release when it's played. I keep having urges to watch it again...
Ahh thank god I am not the only one. Not only do I own Van Helsing, I have watched it four times since I bought it. It's get a little better each time. I hope the previous remarks do not get my Chewer card revoked, but the truth had to come out sometime!
Reply
post #14 of 16
10/5/05 at 3:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Clarke
Hey! Cool! It seemed to make sense to me at the time. I'm glad that others like it.

Also, i think the Van Helsing DVD has been infused with addictive chemicals that release when it's played. I keep having urges to watch it again...
Same! Even as I type this it's right here....sandwiched between Men in Black and L.A. Confidential........mocking me.
Reply
post #15 of 16
10/5/05 at 5:32pm
Thread Starter 
I found myself flipping channels the other day and the only thing that was about to start was Van Helsing. As I flipped to Starz, the batteries in my remote died. I cursed the television gods and my own laziness for making me sit through this. Luckily my girlfriend came into the room about half an hour later and turned it off. Not before I vomited a little bit in my mouth...
Reply
post #16 of 16
10/5/05 at 5:48pm
This has got to be one of the least thought-out arguments about film ever conceived.

There were good and bad films before the introduction of cg, and that is still the case. There have been plenty of notable film that have utilized cgi to a large extent.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Is CG a crutch for lackluster filmaking?