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

[ctc]

>It dumbs down Hollywood because it takes 1 person with a computer to make special effects it used to take 20 people to do.

Well.... currently CGI is pretty labour intensive. That'll decrease as the number of prepack skins and vectors increases, but for now it takes at least as many technicians to do a film nowadays as it used to.

>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.

I don't disagree; but I don't think it's a new phenomenon. I can't count the number of times people poo-poo'd my taste in old monster movies "cuz the effects are SOOOOOOO bad...." CGI lets you ramp up the spectacle, but the spectacle is only PART of a movie. Except as far as most people are concerned. There's been a push for the bigger fight, more explosions, badder aliens for a LONG time. CGI excess is the next step, but it's not the cause. It's that constant quest for the ultimate eyeball massage that pushed the proliferation of CGI, AND resulted in a million shallow, empty movies since time began.

It's a symptom.

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

I think that's just as bad 'cos they're marketing the technique and not the result.

It all kinda reminds me of comic books back in the 90's; when there weren't any writers.... at least as far as anyone seemd to care, since you never heard about them. Just "hot" artist after "hot" artist, and unreadable drek clogging the shelves...

Don C.

[megoscott]

I was reading a story about LOST recently. The producer was really gung ho to NOT use CGI to do the polar bear attack. So they shot the whole thing with an animatronic puppet and had to scrap it because it looked so bad.

[Mikey]

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

[megoscott]

Okay, so that's better?

[Mikey]

Okay, so that's better?

Funny thing is ....
It's not worse.

Stuff like that used to scare the heck out of me as a kid. ... so it did it's job.

As far as pleasing adults, it worked good enough, I guess.

Unlike CGI which has an underground audience that truly believes it's the devil incarnate ...
Bad SFX never had that problem.

When people see bad CGI it makes them furious..
When people see bad SFX, they just chuckle.

[Hector]

Stuff like that used to scare the heck out of me as a kid.

...and there lies the problem with you.

I also like eating my own buggers as a kid...it was lots of fun.

Doesn't mean I like doing that now.

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

[D-McMEGO]

New Technology scares Old people.

[Hector]

.

As far as pleasing adults, it worked good enough, I guess.

I detect self-doubt.

[Mikey]

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.

[mego73]

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.

Indeed

[Hector]

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.

I enjoy 70s nostalgia...but I'm certainly not stuck in the 70s...I love technology too much.

...and sure you need to defend 70's special effects...that's why you created this thread...so some of us can bring down the smackdown on you.

[ctc]

>Bad SFX never had that problem.

If you look at them over a long period they do. There's always a standard that people use as the meter stick. For better or worse. Anything below that is bad, anything newer is good. Wether it ultimately is or not. There's very little playing for effect; even though there SHOULD be. (Human beings are really bad at putting things in context, they sorta measure stuff as separate "events." I forget the technical term for the process, but there is one.)

I always find it sad, 'cos for so many people there are so many films they CAN'T enjoy 'cos the effects don't measure up to their personal standard. The effects are a PART of the show, not the whole show. The effects on Max Headroom look really cheesy today, but it doesn't lessen the moral of each episode; which was the REAL point. The original Outer Limits had really poopy effects, but it doesn't make the IDEAS behind the monsters any less nifty. (Giant ants with human faces, that are the exiled criminals from another world.... eeeewwwww....) That sort of thing SHOULD count for something, but for most folks it doesn't. I luck out, 'cos seeing the wires, or the zipper, or the bluescreen doesn't bother me. And I never feel that a show can be improved by moderning up the effects. They are what they are, warts and all.

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. 'Course I hated all the Bela Drac imitators over the years too.

I think part of it has to do with what I mentioned in one of the music posts a while back: that people NEED a "winner." If you're pro CGI you're pro all the way, and it's OF COURSE the greatest thing that ever happened to the entertainment industry. If you're against it, it HAS to be a scourge that's gonna destroy all movies.

Don C.

[hobub]

I haven't read all this thread but in reply to the initial question. It is a little too hyped. I enjoy watching old stuff (I rent it from netfix) because it depends on solid writing rather than special effects to entertain the audience (me). Twilight Zones, Star Trek, etc. I've even got my wife on board with it. We just watched Captain Blood last night with Errol Flynn. Excellent special effects but the movie didn't depend on them. Besides, Hollywood of the past wasn't as groteskly fat rich as they are now. I'm pretty much disillusioned with the whole Hollywood Idols/ Sports Figures thing. The amount they make is a gross disproportionate of what someone makes who really does somehting to benefit society (rather than pretend, play and look good). Look folks, we literally make kings and queens of these people. And yet at the time of the late 19th/early 20th century, they were held at little more regard than mere prostitutes. It's pretty much bass-akwards anymore.

As for cartoons, the same, I enjoy old fashioned 2D cartoons, however I think since 3D animation, it's pretty much a lost medium.

[MIB41]

I think CGI has reached a stage where the stop-motion effects were in the 70's. The novelty has worn off and viewers have raised the bar for more convincing visuals. I imagine it will always be that way. No matter how good you get at a process, fans will always want more, even if the change is only to be different rather than better.

[YoungOnce]

Put me down for practical effects over CGI...

What did you like better... the first three Star Wars or the last three?

The first three Indiana Jones or the last one?

The Evil Dead movies... Ray Harryhausen... 70's Superman... Alien... Predator... Total Recall... Back To the Future... all practical effects.



Not to say that CGI doesn't have a place...lot's of movies wouldn't get made without it... but I'm just another one of those waxing nostalgic for the movies where everything that's on the screen was really physically crafted.