CGI or models/puppetry?

[gwEm]

To be honest, I think really good models and puppets can beat even the best CGI. I was watching some sci-fi at the weekend and I'm pretty sure about this.

[_tom_]

Depends how good the model or cgi is..

ie I think ET looks shitee in comparison to Gollum in LOTR :)

[Philly Q]

Models and practical effects for me every time!  Even if they look at bit ropey sometimes, the fact that you're watching the actors engaging with something that's actually there makes all the difference IMO.

When I watch things like the Matrix sequels, Van Helsing ( :x ) or even Peter Jackson's King Kong remake I feel like I'm watching someone else playing a computer game.

Having said that, practical effects combined with subtle CGI can be very effective.  CGI is best when you don't know it's there.

[AndyR]

What?? Van Hesling was cgi?!!  :o

:lol:

I dunno, I find there are other things that have a far greater effect on my enjoyment or otherwise.

Eg. We recently got hold of Indiana Jones IV and Mummy III (whatever they're actually called) for really cheap money. I'd heard varying reports that summed them both up as "@rse, they're nearly all cgi" - so I decided I wouldn't get them until they were under a fiver...

Mummy III - total fecking @rse, even on second viewing, absolute sh1te... Yeah, I can see cgi there but, to be honest, nothing to make me complain, in fact, I thought it was alright in that department... What buggers this one for me is the total lack of coherent/engaging story, characters, actors even, and all the usual things that make a film half enjoyable, or at least good enough to doze through - what were they thinking? :lol: (btw does anybody know how/why Rachel wotsit managed to dodge this particular bullet? and why did they think it was worth making without her??)

Indiana Jones IV - I had very low hopes on this one, but was extremely pleasantly surprised. Are the effects any better on this than the Mummy fiasco? I really don't know and I must admit I don't really care - they seemed much of a muchness to me. The difference was I liked the story (as much as any of them), characters, actors... it romps along like it's meant to, it's daft, etc, blah...


For me, effects are effects. While I'm watching the film, if I can suspend my disbelief, and the effects are good enough not to jeopardise that state-of-mind, then I'm happy, and I'm really not too fussed how they did it. After the event, eg watching the "extras", I can get impressed by folk who don't use computers if they can avoid it (eg Eternal Sunshine) - but it has very little impact on whether I enjoy the film or not...

(Do bear in mind that this is from someone who is extremely happy to use modellors instead of "real" amplifiers because they're cheaper and a lot less hassle... :lol:)

[Philly Q]

Interesting!  I haven't seen Mummy III (and have no intention of ever doing so) but I found the enormous amount of CGI in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (catchy title  :| ) pretty distracting and irritating.  Fortunately(?) the plot, performances and direction were sufficiently cack that at least everything felt consistent.... 

Any film where the presence of Shia LaBeouf is one of the least annoying aspects has got big problems.  :?

[blue]

yeah, i saw Indy IV last week on Sky HD.  i had thought "it can't be that bad, people are just being nasty because it's not the original".  i was wrong, it is at least that bad!  really awful film.  i reckon John Hurt just got utterly stoned to make his character more convincing and so he'd be oblivious to the actual movie! :)  Cate Blanchett's Russian was so over the top it was brilliant.  Hurt and Blanchett are the film's only good points, and only because they were aware they were no more than cartoon characters and played up to it.

i also saw the Mummy one on sky HD recently.  it is utterly daft and pointless, but i think more enjoyable than the Indiana Jones mess.

oh, yeah, this was about CGI versus practical effects.  CGI can be great, but these days too many films are just about those effects with some sort of half assed story tacked on.  if you want great practical effects, watch John Carpenter's The Thing.  absolute masterpiece!!  funny enough, some of the best CGI i've seen is still the original Jurassic Park.

[hunter]

Wallace & Gromit rule for me every day!

[Philly Q]

if you want great practical effects, watch John Carpenter's The Thing.  absolute masterpiece!! 

+1 trillion!!!

The first "X" certificate film I ever saw at the cinema (totally legitimately, l could never have got in underage, I looked about 12).

[mecca777]

CGI can be great, but these days too many films are just about those effects with some sort of half assed story tacked on.

I agree completely. I had the misfortune of seeing the first Transformers movie and I couldn't process what I was seeing for large amounts of time; the robots looked like Magic Eye pictures, no familiar geometry to follow. Whereas the puppetry/animatronics in Aliens and the camera matting effects in Predator still work the same magic for me as when I first saw those movies over 20 years ago.

It's the same when it comes to animation; the story should be the most important part. Pixar use CGI, Studio Ghibli use traditional animation, Aardman use stop-motion, and all three studios produce good films because they concentrate on character and story instead of pointless effects.

[AndyR]

Good call Mecca and Blue - "effects with some sort of half assed story tacked on" and "the story should be the most important part" :)

I guess I really don't mind "how they did it", as long as they're entertaining me. I still get a kick out of both Jason and the Argonauts type stuff and Matrix/Van Helsing type stuff.

Interesting though, Blue, that you found the mummy debacle more enjoyable than the jones one :lol: (I only used them as examples anyway). We watched the mummy one a second time just to see if it really was as bad as we thought, we watched the jones one a second time because we wanted to!

[dheim]

Depends how good the model or cgi is..

ie I think ET looks shiteee in comparison to Gollum in LOTR :)

sure, but Yoda looks definitely better than Jar Jar...

and LOTR itself wouldn't be so beautiful without its million tons of models, miniatures, costumes and props... i hate "modern" movies where every damn thing is rendered in CG... if you watch Jurassic Park today, CGI looks dated, but animatronics kick ass like 16 years ago!

[MDV]

A lot of CGI almost feels like its there because they want to say "look how good our CGI is".

Boring. I dont care. No one has cared since about '95, when cgi did start getting good enough you could replace whole objects with it on screen.

Have a $%&#load of effects and do them with whatever methods you please, but dont do them so that my suspension of disbelief unsuspends!

[Plexi Ken]

Use both and get the best of both  :)

But as above, it's the story, script, acting, direction, etc. the are important. So many studio think they can make a totally sh*t film and 'fix it in the mix' with CG  :roll:

One of the problems with CG is it gives the film maker the ability to place (or move) the camera in impossible ways. The brain immediate sees this and dismisses it as 'fake', removing the sense of immersion. And as Philly says, watching the film is like someone else playing a video game.

[Andrew W]

Use both and get the best of both  :)

But as above, it's the story, script, acting, direction, etc. the are important. So many studio think they can make a totally sh*t film and 'fix it in the mix' with CG  :roll:

One of the problems with CG is it gives the film maker the ability to place (or move) the camera in impossible ways. The brain immediate sees this and dismisses it as 'fake', removing the sense of immersion. And as Philly says, watching the film is like someone else playing a video game.

I agree with all of that but unfortunately the people who watch the most cinema are teenagers and young adults who like that stuff.  Transformers 2 has grossed, to date, $818m and that means even more extreme examples of the same recipe will be made because it's a formula that works. 

I've been making CGI visual effects for a living for over a decade and I strongly dislike all the, "Yeah, can you make this stuff fly through the camera?  Yeah, that'd be cool!" stuff but it's what the client wants.  I kinda think, and I know I would say this wouldn't I, but it's rather unfair to blame CGI for this.  What we should do is blame people with no taste who go to see these terrible films, thereby enabling more to be commissioned.  To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "The people get the films they deserve."

This summer I saw "Star Trek", which I kind of enjoyed and thought had beautiful visual effects but haven't bothered with the rest because they don't excite me as films.  I'm sure the VFX work in Transformers 2 is excellent, ILM seldom disappoints, it's just not my kind of movie, but summer movies aren't made for me, they're made for adolescents.

I'm very thankful that no one has said, "CGI is sh*t because it's done with computers and that's easy." which is a complaint I often hear.  That is the most hurtful comment because it really ain't, and there are some really great artists who toil long and hard to make this stuff.  Sorry, to be a bit ranty, but it's my livelihood and my passion.  I really love digital effects, it can do things impossible to achieve in any other way.  It's not perfect for everything but I think it's capable of producing some really beautiful, amazing images.  OK rant over, I'll get my coat.

[MDV]

Use both and get the best of both  :)

But as above, it's the story, script, acting, direction, etc. the are important. So many studio think they can make a totally sh*t film and 'fix it in the mix' with CG  :roll:

One of the problems with CG is it gives the film maker the ability to place (or move) the camera in impossible ways. The brain immediate sees this and dismisses it as 'fake', removing the sense of immersion. And as Philly says, watching the film is like someone else playing a video game.

I agree with all of that but unfortunately the people who watch the most cinema are teenagers and young adults who like that stuff.  Transformers 2 has grossed, to date, $818m and that means even more extreme examples of the same recipe will be made because it's a formula that works. 

I've been making CGI visual effects for a living for over a decade and I strongly dislike all the, "Yeah, can you make this stuff fly through the camera?  Yeah, that'd be cool!" stuff but it's what the client wants.  I kinda think, and I know I would say this wouldn't I, but it's rather unfair to blame CGI for this.  What we should do is blame people with no taste who go to see these terrible films, thereby enabling more to be commissioned.  To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "The people get the films they deserve."

This summer I saw "Star Trek", which I kind of enjoyed and thought had beautiful visual effects but haven't bothered with the rest because they don't excite me as films.  I'm sure the VFX work in Transformers 2 is excellent, ILM seldom disappoints, it's just not my kind of movie, but summer movies aren't made for me, they're made for adolescents.

I'm very thankful that no one has said, "CGI is sh*t because it's done with computers and that's easy." which is a complaint I often hear.  That is the most hurtful comment because it really ain't, and there are some really great artists who toil long and hard to make this stuff.  Sorry, to be a bit ranty, but it's my livelihood and my passion.  I really love digital effects, it can do things impossible to achieve in any other way.  It's not perfect for everything but I think it's capable of producing some really beautiful, amazing images.  OK rant over, I'll get my coat.

You can just not go and see the films. Theres no need to try and spoil it for the rest of us.

Those of us to whom its niether passion nor livelihood can like films that are mindless fun. Theres nothing to hold me to your exacting cinematic standards, and I wouldnt want them anyway. I actively seek out dumb films. I get more than enough real human drama in my real human life, and if I want to gain any insight into life, existance and the human condition, I'll read it (just embarked on Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio, very interesting so far!). When I want to see giant robots fighting, where else can I turn to?