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

[Hector]

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.

The CGI Yetis in that awful Mummy movie were atrocious.

[Meule]

CGI done right can be amazing. On the other hand I love watching stop motion pictures (Harryhausen) and it's a shame they don't do that anymore. But I realize those wouldn't work anymore nowadays

[Meule]

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.

I didn't mind the Mummy movies that much, but Hulk was abominable

[Iron_fox85]

not if the CGI is done good.

[HardyGirl]

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.

[palitoy]

It's a tool and Hollywood doesn't have an ounce of subtlety when using it sometimes. We get gumby vampires in "I am Legend" when real people would have sufficed or gumby mummys and of course, Jar Jar Binks.

On the flip side, we get dog fights in the new BSG that are just fantastic, beautiful city scapes on Doctor Who and many other things I'm sure I haven't noticed.

It's a mixed bag, if people showed a little more restraint, we'd be a lot happier with CGI. George Lucas, I'm looking directly at you.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

The two biggest problems I have with CGI aren't inherent to CGI itself, but how people use it. I find there's WAY too much recycling. CGI monsters look the same, spaceship fights are all paced and laid out the same, backgrounds look the same.... It makes recycling popular 'cos it saves a lot of time, and consequently a lot of money.

>We get gumby vampires in "I am Legend" when real people would have sufficed

Yeah, kinda like that; since the vampires were really similar to the Morlocks from the remake of "The Time Machine." (And another recent movie monster I can't recall....)

I also don't like how most CGI shots and designs tend to be really busy. They cram as much detain as possible in, wether it should be there or not. Reminds me of a discussion I had not too long ago: a friend mentioned how cool a new Mad AMx would be, with modern effects> I disagreed, since the story is supposed to take place in a bleak, barren setting. Modern effects would have all sorts of weird stunts, lasers, flying cars, CHUD monsters underground.... The original worked BECAUSE of the threadbare effects.

Don C.

[Gorn Captain]

I am a fan of CGI if the story needs it.
Did "I am legend" need CGI monsters? No. Hence, bad move, and unconvincing. Any guy in prosthetics could have done it, and be much more "real". It spoiled the movie for me.

Did Jar Jar need to be CGI? No. Why go to all that trouble to CGI a character, and then give him a humanoid body, with fairly normal limbs? Why not give him eight arms, and his head up his ***? (I know, he was that anyway, but you know what I mean).

So my rule is: only when it's absolutely unavoidable. Like showing a galaxy, or a horde of 5,000,000 Orcs.

In Jurassic Park, it worked perfectly. It didn't feel cartoony. Good call, well-executed.

I agree with Mike: I yearn for real metal robots, model ships, to make it "tangible".
If all CGI were perfect, I'd be OK with it, but a lot of the time I feel like I'm watching a cartoon. If I wanted that, I'd go and watch Bugs Bunny.
As long as I can SEE it's CGI, I cannot get into the story.

Jackson's Kong didn't convince me. During the Brontosaurus stampede, you could see the actors "pasted in". It didn't work. When Kong walked the streets of New York, he kind of "hovered" over the street, as if "pasted in".
No cigar, PJ!

And what's with the overkill in CGI?
1933 Kong fought one T-Rex, and everyone loved it. Classic scene. But now we can do anything with CGI, so we have THREE T-Rexes, swinging from vines over an abyss.
Hey, people, less is more!
Soon it will be: "You'll believe a T-Rex can fly!"

It's not because you can draw it in a computer, that you should "make it so".

I find most use of CGI "too soon". Get it right before you use it, is what I say.

And hell, I'm a sucker for a guy in a clunky metal suit and a rubber dino costume.....

[palitoy]

Yeah, kinda like that; since the vampires were really similar to the Morlocks from the remake of "The Time Machine." (And another recent movie monster I can't recall....)

The time machine remake was a good example of bad/good cgi (I won't go into the story changes) The future world CGI? Really nice, a big improvement over the original. The CGI Morlocks? Not really so sure about that. It almost seems like it's a status symbol, like using Men in makeup would be a sign of weakness.

One of the things I loved about the original Underworld was it's incredible show of restraint in terms of CGI. When the guy turned into the hybrid, I really expected a fakey CGI mess when it was revealed, I was pleasantly surprised.

It makes recycling popular 'cos it saves a lot of time, and consequently a lot of money.

Well, that's not common to just cgi. I think I have seen Buck Rogers shoot the same ship at least 10 times.

[megoscott]

The last 3 Star Wars movies definitely made the point that too much CGI in the wrong hands ruins a good thing. It was so hard to pay attention to the horrible acting and abominable storytelling because the effects were so constantly distracting.

By contrast, the use of effects in the Lord of the Rings was masterful. You couldn't have told those stories without CGI, but Jackson did a great job of keeping the story and characters in the forefront and keeping things clear. You can actually follow the action in the massive battle scenes, which is kind of rare these days.

[ctc]

>it's a status symbol, like using Men in makeup would be a sign of weakness.

I've been told there's a real push from the top for CGI in movies and tv, and I kinda suspect it's 'cos the producers are dreaming of a time when you won't need them pesky actor-types at all....

Don C.

[GreenLantern9999]

I will say this it just about broke my heart when they put puppet Yoda away and made him all CGI. My favorite part was they saying "Look we put the ear wiggle in just like the muppet!" Just use the Darn MUPPET!!!! I mean the CGI in Hellboy I think was very well done, but I agree that when you know it is CGI it take you out of the moment like in the dark knight when the Bat Pod did the wall flip turn around it was cool but it was so not real.

[Mikey]

I personally think CGI is dumbing down both Hollywood and the general public.

It dumbs down Hollywood because it takes 1 person with a computer to make special effects it used to take 20 people to do.
It dumbs down the public because CGI don't look all that great but for some reason most people think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The video game generation is the ones who accepted it.
They play computer games so much they wouldn't know the real life "feel" if it bit them on their ***.

[Werewolf]

The video game generation is the ones who accepted it.
They play computer games so much they wouldn't know the real life "feel" if it bit them on their ***.

I am a life long avid video game player and I generally dislike CGI effects. For backgrounds, buildings, planets, outer space, fine. But I loath CGI characters in live action movies.

I strongly dislike the over use of CGI in live action movies when make up effects and or animatronics would work far better. In distant large battle scenes CGI works. In close ups it looks terrible.

[Gorn Captain]

Lucas and Spielberg "promised" us old-fashioned "live" effects on Indy IV.

I think not......