CGI

[Brazoo]

"Moon" was one of the best sci-fi movies in years. It was all done with models and old school effects, but the main thing is the story doesn't rely on the effects - it's just there to enhance. The movie is character driven.

Same thing for me watching "District 9", it used tons of CGI, but the story and characters were the focus.

[bondtoddbond]

The guys using CGI can't control themselves. I mean Alien and Predator had just 1 creature in each and were as scary and menacing as could be. They make sequels and suddenly there has to be thousands of aliens and Predators. They lose the power they hold as a single character and just become a pile of junk to shoot down or explode. They've done it time and again in Star Wars and Star Trek too. One ship is all it took before, now they can fill all usable space with junk. Give me models and costumes over CGI anyday!

[Meule]

Give me models and costumes over CGI anyday!

And a guy in a Godzilla suit

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

My problem with the CGI thing is that it never seems to get used for effect: it seems more like it's done for the sake of doing it. Hence a lot of pointless detail and sloppy, busy designs. (For example: the Transformers movies. So.... you've been at war for a really long time, and can alter your forms.... but choose skeletal structures that leave your mechanisma all exposed? Er....) And the cost pretty much ensures that the studio can't get too inventive; for fear of scaring/confusing/repulsing viewers.

But effects are easier to quantify than abstracts like "depth" and "inventiveness" so they're what the "knowledgeable" fans lock on to. It's easier to quote costs and technology so as to look smart. (So I blame the fans for crappy movies too!)

Don C.

[mego73]

Okay, I'm sure I am being dense here but what the heck does CSO mean?

[The Bat]

I've become jaded by CGI FX. It takes a lot to impress me now. For me, it's all about the story(CGI 2nd)...if you don't have a good story with interesting Characters...you have NOTHING!

[jds1911a1]

Okay, I'm sure I am being dense here but what the heck does CSO mean?

OH sorry no you aren't dense it's just a term you hear so much on commentary for older sci fi I forget no everyone knows

CSO is Color Separation Overlay - aka Bluescreen shots
The camera is coded to ignore a specific color (in Dr who it was yellow) so the feed from a separate camera can be inserted to expand the vista of the show. In film it was blue for years and now with cgi it's green but the idea is the same you have a blank canvas and insert something over it electonically

[Gorn Captain]

CGI should be a "last resort" tool.
First you try it "in camera", on the set, with all means available.
Next step is models, matte paintings, whatever.
If that doesn't work, try CG, but don't make it look like a cartoon. If it does, try to work around that scene and USE YOUR IMAGINATION. That's what they did in the old days.

Movies like Avatar look like a cartoon from the start. I can enjoy them, but I'll never really be "sucked into" the story.
Once CG can perfectly replicate reality, then it'll be more acceptable.

And I might be the only guy in the world, but I wish Gollum had been just a short skinny actor, and NOT CG.
It wasn't necessary, just like it wasn't in I am Legend, for example.

Same for Crystal Skull: the CG ruined it for me.

[palitoy]

"I am Legend" was a really good example of CGI being used properly and improperly.

City Scapes- Good, maybe even Great!
Rubber-pires- Movie Wrecking

You couldn't get me to see Avatar on "have a movie date with Bettie Page circa 1959" day, I just look at the commercials and think "enough".

[ctc]

>Movies like Avatar look like a cartoon from the start.

I disagree; most cartoons aren't that busy 'cos it'd be too expensive and time consuming. And that's my problem with a lot of CGI stuff: no composition. It's a lot of stuff crammed on the screen, but without feel. There's an escallation to see who can fill more visual arc with colour, but it never seems to be towards any end. Again; the first Transformers movie was bad for that: stuff was all over the place, there was very little continuity between camera changes in the big fights, and in a lot of scenes the figures didn't interact properly with the backgrounds. (Like in the parking garage, when the robot seemed WAY too big for the ceiling, but never hit it's head. An homage to the crappy animation of the original cartoon maybe?)

>Rubber-pires- Movie Wrecking

THAT bothered me a lot! They were CGI, but other than a couple of odd jaw stretching shots they did NOTHING that a guy in a suit couldn't have done! In half the time for 1/5 the cost! (Although I HAVE been told that a lot of movie execs push for CGI in anticipation of the day they don't need actors any more.)

Don C.

[mego73]

OH sorry no you aren't dense it's just a term you hear so much on commentary for older sci fi I forget no everyone knows

CSO is Color Separation Overlay - aka Bluescreen shots
The camera is coded to ignore a specific color (in Dr who it was yellow) so the feed from a separate camera can be inserted to expand the vista of the show. In film it was blue for years and now with cgi it's green but the idea is the same you have a blank canvas and insert something over it electonically

Oh yeah, I call them process shots, bluescreen shots, sodium yellow shots, chroma key, etc. I knew that is what you were talking about, I just couldn't figure out it being referred to as CSO

[Hector]

CGI is hit and miss.

Like some of you said...if it's overly done and poorly made...it's horrible.

But if it's used wisely...and top notch stuff...it's truly amazing.