Is computer animation ruining the art and feel of science fiction ?

[tay666]

Which is why I don't hate CGI in and of itself; I hate what people do with it. I hate when everything looks the same, I hate the excess movement (WHY does everyone in CGI do that bobblehead thing?!?!?) and I hate when EVERY design HAS to be hyper-busy.

You summed up my feelings with that part of your post.
As has been stated, CGI is a tool. Correctly used it is great.
It is the perfect thing for enhancing scenes. Which is why it worked so well in LOTR. They used real models, and people, then enhanced them with CGI.
It is much better than matte paintings ofr backdrops and scenery.
And it is great for scifi TV shows. Without it we wouldn't get so many. It helps keep costs and budgets down. As long as the story is strong and the characters are good, I can live with completely CGI spacecraft and such (Babylong 5, Andromeda, SG1, etc.)

Over use it, or use it poorly and it sucks. And by poorly, I don't mean bad renderings. Cheap CGI is just like cheap effects. It's just plain cheap.
But poorly would be, as was mentioned, too much movement, cluttered scenes, and unrealistic motion.

[Gorn Captain]

Okay, so that's better?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gorn Captain]

You are in that perpetual time machine still stuck in the 70s.

I am stuck in the 70's

That's why i'm on Mego Museum

I should not need to defend classic 70's special effects .. especially not HERE.

God, I miss the 70's....

[Gorn Captain]

In the old days, to film a polar bear attack all they would do is show stock footage of a polar bear snarling ... then a reaction shot from the guy ...
This would go back and forth a few times ......
Finally ending in the fight itself ... which would be 1 second distorted clips of the guy rastl'in around with a white fur coat.
Finally ending with stock footage of a polar bear walking away - usually with a different background then the one used as the establishing shot

I love this post. Takes me right back....

[huedell]

When I saw the previews for Star Wars: A New Hope, I was disappointed. I know that George Lucas wanted to do so much more than technology would allow in those days, but I can't help but think that imagination and ingenuity was what made the original Star Wars saga so great. Just like w/ TIK and his home movies and effects; figuring out how to do things, what works, what doesn't, the mechanics of it all...CGI just somehow takes all that away. Like you said, T1K, no soul.

Hmmmmm....the way you describe it----and the way some of what
Mike describes--- comes off sounding more like a personal psychological issue
than an any fault of CGI----personally, I've seen both versions
of STAR WARS a billion times and wasn't affected in the least by new CGI
effects in the SEs----except to be entertained by the new stuff they
brought to the table.

CGI is just as valid an art form as anything else---I don't see the
legitmacy of the bashing apart from personal preference.

[mego73]

I think it comes down to this:

Even when older special effects were bad, they had "personality"

Now, when cgi is bad, it's just phony looking CGI.

[huedell]

I think it comes down to this:

Even when older special effects were bad, they had "personality"

Now, when cgi is bad, it's just phony looking CGI.

I see that what you stated is what's bothering a lot of people---
----I don't get it though.

CGI doesn't "rub me the wrong way" the way it does many folks

If ANYTHING to me if I see it as "phony" it may annoy me
the same way phony looking practical effects "annoyed" me back in the day.

If anything, I believe, CGI has done more WAY good than not---
heck, I bet there's tons of cool CGI stuff that goes on in movies
that we don't even detect because it's so freakin' nicely rendered.

[Mikey]

I never noticed how "busy" CGI scenes were before I read this thread.

I was just watching ROTS on TV today and man that is right.

They put so much movement in all the CGI scenes (even in the background) your eye's can't relax and enjoy the scene.
It's very distracting

[ctc]

>CGI is just as valid an art form as anything else---I don't see the legitmacy of the bashing apart from personal preference.

In and of itself CGI is fine. My problem is that it grants WAY too many opportunities to get lazy. I see a lot of recycling in movies nowadays, a lot of standardizing and a lot of stuff sort of thrown in.

>Even when older special effects were bad, they had "personality"

For a cheapie production, back int he day, you still had to build your sets, and models, and costumes. So even if they were done on the super cheap by a bunch of hacks there was a chance of seeing something weird. Or at least a bit different. Which is cool by me. I prefer "weird" over "good."

>They put so much movement in all the CGI scenes (even in the background) your eye's can't relax and enjoy the scene.

I think part of the problem is that today a lot of CGI animators train more as technicians than artists; so there's more showing off for the sake of showing off, as opposed to composition. It doesn't HAVE to be that way, but it usually is.

Don C.

[Gorn Captain]

I think it comes down to this:

Even when older special effects were bad, they had "personality"

Now, when cgi is bad, it's just phony looking CGI.

This is the perfect description for me.

And to add to it:
if, during live-action filming they couldn't get something "right" due to the time/money restrictions, they had to make do with what they had (like the Creature showing the zippers on his arms).
To me, if you have an unconvincing CGI effect, and you have a $200 million budget, why not fix it?

And like Mike said, it's often just "too much", too busy. My geriatric brain can't handle it. It's like in comics: these days the panels are so "filled", I can't make out what's happening.
Call me old-fashioned.

But don't get me wrong: in LOTR, we saw lots of great CGI, used at moments when it was indeed NEEDED.
Then again: I wish they had just used a skinny guy in make-up for Gollum.