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

[Mikey]

Just wondering ....
Is computer animation ruining the art and feel of science fiction movies ?

It's hard to explain but let me try and give some examples.

The other day I was watching Saturn 3.
Remember Hector the robot ?
Today, he wouldn't exist in real life.
He'd be just computer animation.
But, when I watch him on Saturn 3 I know he's real.
It seems to actually make the movie that much more real and interesting -- even if he isn't as perfect as he could be done CGI.

Also, when I watch older 70's movies with space ships there's just something more REAL about them ... I'm not sure if it's because I know they are real models or is because the modern CGI fluidity of movement just isn't right because the object isn't real.

I think CGI can be a good thing, but I think it's way over-used.

It basically dumbed down all special effects departments.

SFX is no longer an art.

[Hector]

I think CGI can be a good thing, but I think it's way over-used.
.

I can agree with that assessment.

CGI done right...can be truly amazing.

But if it's a tad subpar...it looks horrible.

[Mikey]

I think I look at things differently then most people because I grew up making VERY amateur Sci Fi films when I was in grade school.
Just me, and a few buddies with a cheap silent GAF super-8 movie camera.
Our results were always lame, but i'd give us an A+ for effort.

It taught me to not just look at the conclusion (the finished movie) ... but also look at the steps it took to make it... The conclusion was usually our least priority.

Today, I still look at movies like that.

Gone are the days of arguing with my buddy's ---- "How did they make R2-D2 ?... It's too small for a guy to be in it"

Today every answer to every question is "CGI"

The wonder of Sci Fi is gone.

[toys2cool]

naw I love the CGI,I agree with Hec though it has to be done right

[boss]

the answer is no. poor storytelling can ruin almost anything.

[Hector]

I think I look at things differently then most people because I grew up making VERY amateur Sci Fi films when I was in grade school.
Just me, and a few buddies with a cheap silent GAF super-8 movie camera.
Our results were always lame, but i'd give us an A+ for effort.

You are not the only one...me and my buds did the very same thing, lol.

[Mikey]

One of our best accomplishments was making spaceships glide through space neatly.

No matter what you do, a ship on wires always swings when it's in motion - ruining the effect.

Our junkie camera could not do "backwinding" ie bluescreen work.

We had to come up with something different.

We had this great idea of suspending the ship on wires. But instead of moving the ship, we made this crazy camera dolly with 2 huge arms.

This dolly sat on 2 parallel old Lionel train tracks

In effect the camera and space background (both connected together) move in unison while the model remains suspended and still.

The effect was amazing.

We were quite proud of the end results.

[Hector]

I used to do stop-motion animation with clay figures...and even custom made ones made out of exterior foam (with interior wiring), and even two-dimensional cutouts, lol.

I even stop-motioned live people...

I have them all in these old Super 8 reels...I gotta transfer them to DVDs before they evaporate, lol.

[Captain]

"I even stop-motioned live people... "

...Uhmmm....isn't that sort of, you know, ......illegal?

[Captain]

One of our best accomplishments was making spaceships glide through space neatly.

No matter what you do, a ship on wires always swings when it's in motion - ruining the effect.

Our junkie camera could not do "backwinding" ie bluescreen work.

We had to come up with something different.

We had this great idea of suspending the ship on wires. But instead of moving the ship, we made this crazy camera dolly with 2 huge arms.

This dolly sat on 2 parallel old Lionel train tracks

In effect the camera and space background (both connected together) move in unison while the model remains suspended and still.

The effect was amazing.

We were quite proud of the end results.

Cool!
You should be proud, for gradeschoolers, you guys were pretty advanced!This is similar to the effect John Dykstra invented for Star Wars (and all that followed). Move the camera around the model, not the other way around. I bet he would do double back flips if he found out a buncha school kids beat him to the punch!!

[Captain]

Back to the topic at hand, I believe computer animation is a mixed blessing, in a lot of ways. Yes, if done right it looks great, and pretty much makes anything you can imagine possible. On the other hand, like TIK mentioned, it doesnt look tangible. It looks like cgi! No matter what, it always looks like cgi. Which is to say it looks real...too real.
Models, especially well made ones like the refit Enterprise from TMP-Trek 6, have a presence to them. They have mass, and width and depth. CGI approximates that, and does it darn well, but it never really manages to capture that feeling fully.

Another problem with CGI is it makes the stuff from my childhood look as old hat as the old Flash Gordon serials looked when I was a kid. Natural progression, I understand that, and applaud it, but it still makes me wish I could still watch Trek, Star Wars, or Superman with the same sense of wonder I had when I was 8 or 9. Same problem with Harryhousen's stop motion films from the fifties to the eighties. As a kid they were the most amazing thing I had ever seen....Now, I notice the jerky movements and the fingerprints left behind by the modeller.

[Mikey]

When I watch Classic Trek and see the Enterprise, I know it's real ... It looks real ... Yes it's only about 10 feet long .. but I know I can reach out and touch it because it exists in our universe.

The special edition Trek effects lack that realness (for me)
The Enterprise is for some reason lacks something.

Hard for me to discribe.
Almost like trying to describe what a soul is and why CGI doesn't have one.

[mego73]

I like CGI when it is done well just fine. But as someone who loves looking at movies and deconstructing the special effects in them, the fun of figuring out how it was done is less. You know it just boils down to computers.

As opposed to older films where they had to be inventive in what techniques were available to pull off scenes. Star Wars and Superman:The Movie comes to mind. T1K's description of what he did for his super 8 spaceship scene sounds so similar to Superman's "Zoptic" process.

This is where they put Chris Reeve in front of a rear projection screen with the support for him running through the part of the screen he covered. Both the camera and the projector with the background had synchronized zoom lenses. When the shot was done the camera zoomed in on a stationary Chris Reeve while the projected background dezoomed. The result was a scene where it looked like Chris Reeve was flying toward the camera. The process was created because they wanted to keep bluescreen shots to a minimum for picture quality and costume reasons and wire work had to be hidden by the way it was filmed or painted out.

And by the way, I'm still not sure what they meant by painting out the wires. It could either mean they actually went in and airbrushed out the wires frame by frame (probably on an overlayed animation cel) but I can't conceive of that not leaving some sort of shifting frame by frame (all that can be noticed is a subtle outline and occasional flutter of the wires of these shots in HD).

It can also mean that they draw (rotoscope) a matte around Chris Reeves shoulders in order to hold out the part of the background with the wires and matte in an empty version of the background.

Whatever it is, I am in awe of the work that had to be done, compared to now where they have a computer program to eliminate the wires.

My sense of awe now on CGI is confined to how well they rendered a creature

[UnderdogDJLSW]

If the lighting on CGI work is not done right, then it looks very fake. But I've also seen some really neat stuff. LOTR comes to mind for good stuff.

As was mentioned earlier, though. I don't care which or of what quality the effects are as long as the story is great. 1970's Dr. Who comes to mind for me on that.

[thunderbolt]

Seems like there's a backlash against CGI lately. On Hellboy, Del Toro avoided it as much as possible. The Dark Knight didn't seem to have a whole lot either. When its bad its very obvious, like in any of theBrendan Frasier Mummy movies.