Media Megaforum

CG ruin the best of movies and cartoons??
Jsketchies at 5:08PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 16
joined: 7-14-2009
so yeah, i talked to a friend about the special effects and cg used in movies
nowadays, and personally i miss the old classics like back to the future, indiana jones, forrest gump, and yes, even robocop and spy kids.

My friend, also agreed the same thing, after he watched 2012 ( i heard it was an alright movie) but he said the effects and carnage really put the audience almost outta focused of the actors…acting…

In fact even cartoon shows are being effect by it, instead of saturday shows dominated by 2d cartoons, most of which are replaced by 3d..things…

so for a nostalgia moment, what do you guys think?

are movies today, usign too much CG? or are they the right amount and should be left alone..

also what was your favorite saturday morning show?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:11PM
Gillespie at 7:11PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 2-23-2009
I'm a vintage junkie. I'll never ever forget Bugs Bunny and the traditional process of animation.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:36PM
Jsketchies at 8:20PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 16
joined: 7-14-2009
Gillespie
I'm a vintage junkie. I'll never ever forget Bugs Bunny and the traditional process of animation.

oh man i loved bugs bunny, though the only recent movies liked that starred looney tunes and the gang is definetly Space Jam. too bad they dont make anymroe shorts like they used to eh?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:11PM
BffSatan at 8:46PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
I don't so much mind CGI in live action films, but I HATE 3D animation. 3D animation is a technical skill where as 2D animation is an art.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM
Erad at 9:27PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 390
joined: 10-29-2009
Just want to say that I feel Live Action ruins cartoons (specifically anime type shows).

Examples:
Street Fighter
Dragon Ball
and so on
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:22PM
usedbooks at 10:05PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,607
joined: 2-24-2007
I hate to see 3D rendered or live action versions of cartoon shows. There is a certain expressiveness of 2D animation that simply cannot be captured by other media.

Aside from that, I see no problem with making use of the latest technology when creating a film. The catch is, if CG effects are done properly, people shouldn't know or care that they are CG. They should enhance and bring the story to life, not dazzle people to distract them from the shortcomings of the actors or story. If effects are upstaging the story, something is wrong. A lot of movies are just visual roller coasters with no substance. I avoid those movies myself. It's a shame that so few movies these days are well-written and acted action adventures with or without good effects. I guess they have to cut corners somewhere, and shiny CG makes for better trailers.

These days, I always check out Metacritic before I waste the cash on a movie. They do a pretty good job of separating wheat from chaff.

Someone
also what was your favorite saturday morning show?
I remember Looney Toons and Muppet Babies. We also watched Bill Nye every week. I think it was my favorite. – Oh, and I watched Tin Tin for a short time, but my sister thought it was stupid.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
DAJB at 11:23PM, Nov. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
3D/CGI is just a tool for the movie makers to use. It doesn't necessarily make a film any better or worse than it would have been using more “traditional” techniques. If a 3D cartoon is bad it would have been just as bad in 2D. If a live action CGI-laden film is bad, it wouldn't have been any better using models and stop-motion photography.

There are a lot of mediocre 3D/CGI shows and movies out there just now. But on the other hand, Star Wars: The Clone Wars is one of the best animated shows currently on TV, 2D or 3D. And CGI can't really be blamed for ruining live action movies when it gave us The Lord of the Rings. The script, the plotting and the characterisation (not to mention the editing, music, directing and acting!) are what makes for a good film, whatever techniques are used to put the shiny visuals on the screen.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:04PM
ozoneocean at 1:34AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
DAJB
3D/CGI is just a tool for the movie makers to use. It doesn't necessarily make a film any better or worse than it would have been using more “traditional” techniques
It can when the 3d is done badly- The original Starwars movies looked way better with the model shoots without the 3d crap added in later.

Red Dwarf looked way better with the original model shoots than it did when they re-edited all the old episodes with 3d shiz.

In both cases the 3D made the projects worse, but that was because the 3D was not of sufficient quality. -When those were done it wasn't really possible to make 3D footage as highly detailed or as smooth as actual model footage so the CG stuff looks like animated toys in comparison.

…the technology simply hadn't come of age by that stage.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Voltarrens at 7:29AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 10-4-2009
In some films and cartoons, the CG animation is just overrated and more of a: “Wow! look what we can do with computer graphics” which is rather annoying as it detracts from the story/plot. In the rare few it just works out well, all those things you couldn't do with 2D or with regular special effects and stunts, and works in rather seamlessly.

There was once great 2D animation being done, a lot of skill and inventiveness, which seems rather lacking in some of the more modern offerings.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Hawk at 8:18AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
As people seem to be saying already, it's not about how much CGI is being used… it's whether or not it's being used well. The times you feel like you hate CGI have probably been brought on by the times it was used poorly.

You'd be surprised at the places CGI is being used and you didn't realize it. And when you saw what that CGI was substituting you'd be glad they used it. CGI has been used to create the backdrops for vast, ancient cities… before, these stunning backdrops would have either been static paintings or not have existed at all. Tell me you couldn't see exactly where the Yellow Brick Road turned into a painting in Wizard of Oz.

CGI has also been supplementing 2D cartoons since The Black Cauldron. It only came to the forefront at Rescuers Down Under, and since then has been shown to blend nicely with 2D animation if done correctly.

So no, I don't think CGI is ruining movies OR cartoons. It's just a tool some people aren't using properly. Puppets and scale models can be used just as poorly, and I don't think they deserve excuses just because they're hand-made.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ozoneocean at 8:38AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Hawk
You'd be surprised at the places CGI is being used and you didn't realize it.
That's as it should be: Now that it's fully come of age as a technology it's fine for live action.

Back when they re-did Starwars, it wasn't ready for movie quality live action- at least where it was supposed to look “real”. Even in Jurassic park, they tried VERY hard (harder than Star Wars) but it still looked fudged to me back then.

We could accept the obvious undetailed, overly smooth and floaty stuff in TV projects like Hercules and the legendary Journeys, Xena Warrior Princess and Babylon 5 because that was TV, but not for movies.

Although in some movies they made the obvious aspect work- The silver terminator in T2, the water aliens in The Abyss (exceptional, and better than most later stuff), or the obvious toy-like 3D city scenes in the more recent Around the World in 80 Days.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
lothar at 9:09AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
ypu ever seen the CG in telletubbies that sh*t is gotta be the worst ever !!
then there was reboot , that was a goood show ,
but overall CG is crap and they should go back to using clay and live iguanas like real men !!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
PhilWrede at 9:14AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(offline)
posts: 83
joined: 10-26-2009
Reiterating what has come before: Anything in a movie that's done badly will ruin the final product (until it hits the right point on the “so bad it's good” curve, and becomes awesome). Since there currently is, and has been, this CGI glut in movies, it's easy to blame it (not that such a thing is unwarranted, mind you. I just think that saying, “CGI sucks, period,” is uncalled for). There's shitty CGI (much of it), and awesome CGI, just like there are god-awful-bad practical effects and amazing practical effects.

New contribution: I rather love the HD/CGI remasters of the original Star Trek episodes. Never too much, just enough to update it. Kind of the antithesis of what Lucas did with the original trilogy (but even parts of those I liked).

And, as long as we're on the subject of amazing, The Tick ruled.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM
isukun at 11:33AM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
CGI has also been supplementing 2D cartoons since The Black Cauldron.

What was CG in the Black Cauldron? Disney credits the Great Mouse Detective as being their first movie to use CG effects or backdrops. I remember the live action effects, but not any CG.

I'm a bit divided on the whole CG issue. For live ction movies, I think they can bea good substitute for older techniques if done properly. Stop motion and animated effects in those old films really weren't any less jarring than modern CG alternatives. You could always immediately tell when something was stop motion or animated by hand, even in the big budget productions like Star Wars and Batman.

On the flip side, though, CG has done a real disservice to the animation industry. Theatrical animation has just about been reduced to exclusively being CG films because of studio execs placing emphasis on the wrong elements in the film-making process. The people with no artistic input look for whatever gimmick will sell a movie these days. Disney started out with CG, but now most studios are moving to 3D as the next big gimmick. In the meantime, we're ignoring the real issue at hand, the writing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Amelius at 1:37PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
Haha, I'm gonna rant, don't take it personally I'm just a fangirl ^_^
Jsketchies
oh man i loved bugs bunny, though the only recent movies liked that starred looney tunes and the gang is definetly Space Jam. too bad they dont make anymroe shorts like they used to eh?

Actually, they have made a few shorts in recent times, they don't get much publicity because they really stink. They tried to bring the shorts format back as a feature before films (the way they started out of course) but after Looney Tunes: Back in Action didn't meet expectations (it was better than Space Jam, granted, but one that's not hard, and two there's a big fat Walmart ad in the middle of it, which absolutely disgusted me and just didn't gel with LT characters. I suppose they figured it was an equal tradeoff, replacing one horrid soul-sucking monstrosity (Lola Bunny) with another (Walmart))

But yeah, the shorts they've made are just recycled jokes from when the cartoons were well written and the writers gave half a rat's butt about the quality and originality (even if they were heavily referencing everything that was popular at the time!) so if you think you see an original joke in the new shorts, you'll find out it's from a classic you didn't see yet. Happened to me watching “Carrotblanca”, which is a perfect example of what's wrong with these new ones…trying to cram every character, flanderized to the extreme, into one short to do their famous gag and leave the scene. I noticed one joke that actually was funny and I hadn't seen before…until I watched the Chuck Jone's classic short “The Dover Boys”.

So it begs the question, do you want to watch your beloved LT character harass the likes of Paris Hilton and Angelina Jolie and Tom Cruise, or would you like to be assaulted with flat jokes that you've seen a million times before in much better produced cartoons?

I'm of the opinion that the masters are dead, the spirit of it all has gone along with them. There was a time that I was upset that they weren't doing more with Bugs and crew, but when I saw what there was to offer (Bugs and Elmer dancing to record scratch music in a theatre) I'm glad they lay off it a bit. Or we end up with crap like Loonatics Unleashed. The closest anyone has gotten to recapturing the magic of the old classics was Tiny Toon Adventures, which like it or not was the best approach to “new” Looney Tunes cartoons without ruining the integrity of those who came before it, and the fact that the classic cast interacted with their “expys” made it even better!

Also, these days people forget that LT was written for adults, not children, so not only do we get recycled jokes, but bowdlerized versions of them!

Um. To the topic at hand!
Yes, CGI is getting to me lately especially because it is taking place of the vastly awesome-r Muppets, to the point that Jim Henson studios hardly makes anything Muppet related, just a bunch of crappy CGI garbage with Jim Henson's name plastered over it. Sid the Science Kid? Dinosaur Train? Blue Elephant?!! Gaah, it looks awful! Bring back Muppets! They were so innovative with puppetry and what they could do with it, that CGI seems like such a big step backwards for the company. Sorry but CGI no matter how good just does not impress me as much as what they had accomplished on the Muppet Show. I don't find myself wondering “How did they DO that?” when I watch a Pixar movie, for example.

As for other cartoons, I just don't like it. The only CGI cartoon I liked was Reboot, and that was a long time ago!
CGI just doesn't have the same range that 2d has right now. You can't get the same expressions you can in 2d where things are already abstract. Sure you can have that rubbery squash and stretch, but certain face-faults just can't be done in 3d.

And CGI unfortunately has brought us a ton of lackluster productions like, did anyone see that Space Chimps movie?(I didn't) or Monsters vs Aliens perhaps? Looked like a lot of overdone jokes to me.

last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
Hawk at 1:38PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
What was CG in the Black Cauldron? Disney credits the Great Mouse Detective as being their first movie to use CG effects or backdrops. I remember the live action effects, but not any CG.

I believe it was a cloudy, magic-filled sky near the end. Yeah, not 3D like most people would expect when you say “CGI”, but it was computer graphics. In the more common use of the word CGI, The Great Mouse Detective was the first.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
Freegurt at 2:28PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 331
joined: 11-24-2007
BffSatan
I don't so much mind CGI in live action films, but I HATE 3D animation. 3D animation is a technical skill where as 2D animation is an art.

THIS. OH MY GOODNESS SO MUCH THIS. I love 2D animation (which is probably why I got so excited when I saw the news for Disney's new princess movie). I'm so sick of 3D movies, everyone is doing them and for the most part, most of them suck. I just wish 2D would come back, I miss it so.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
Dark Pascual at 4:10PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 498
joined: 1-5-2009
It's like say that today novels sucks because writers use Windows Word instead of an old fashioned typewriter…

As we remember it, 2D animation will never come back. Even if Movie studios decide to do 2D movies once more, there will be pretty much all done in CGI, since is cheaper and faster than use traditional forms… You can tell the difference between the newest Disney princess movie and Little Mermaid… The look is much more clean but a little bit less… “organic”.

Moviemakers will use and abuse of CGI to made FX and Animated movies because not only a cost and time issue, but because you can get pretty amazing results and there is no boundries to what you can do.

Yeah, 2012 (that would have been almost impossible to do during the Golden Age of Disaster Movies) was a pretty crappy movie as storytelling goes and without the AWESOME FX, it would be a complete snorefest. But isn't as much a matter of “CGI ruin movies” as much as “crappy writers and brainless executives ruin movies”…

Of course, since I have a 3D Webcomic and half of my income comes from doing 3D graphics, my opinion is highly biased…

PS:
BffSatan
I don't so much mind CGI in live action films, but I HATE 3D animation. 3D animation is a technical skill where as 2D animation is an art.

I STRONGLY BUT RESPECTFULLY disagree with this statement…

Pixar movies are terrific examples of great movies done in CGI, since are both very well written and the CGI is great.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:07PM
Hawk at 4:19PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
BffSatan
I don't so much mind CGI in live action films, but I HATE 3D animation. 3D animation is a technical skill where as 2D animation is an art.

Sorry, I missed this my first time through the thread, but I can't let it pass. To me, this is the most incorrect thing anyone's said in this thread so far. To claim that the people who design and create the visuals for a 3D film aren't making “art” is a slap to the face and an insult.

Are you under the impression that a computer made everything you see in a 3D film? That somebody hit the “make a middle-aged ex-superhero” button and Mr. Incredible appeared? That actual artists didn't slave away on paper first as they worked to make the visual in Horton Hears a Who match Dr. Suess' art style?

Come on, man.

You're free to your opinion about which type of animation you prefer, but don't say stuff like that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ozoneocean at 6:53PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Amelius
The only CGI cartoon I liked was Reboot, and that was a long time ago!
Loved Reboot :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
isukun at 7:54PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I believe it was a cloudy, magic-filled sky near the end.

I looked into it some and the only thing I've found is that they used a computer to put together the little ball of light that followed the princess around in the castle. I don't generally consider that one, though, since it's not really the kind of thing that's being discussed here. The discussion is more about the 3D effects rendered to bring realism and a sense of depth to movies and TV. If you're willing to consider the effect in the Black Cauldron, though, then really, anything that uses computer coloring these days would be considered CGI films, since that's basically what they did.

The cloud effects were taken from live action footage and then the animation was superimposed over it (poorly, I might add). They did a lot of experimentation in that film in the ten years it took them to make it.

But you're right, it's not what most people would think of when they think of CGI, even though it is technically generated on a computer. I think that may be why Disney typically gives GMD that credit.

To claim that the people who design and create the visuals for a 3D film aren't making “art” is a slap to the face and an insult.

I wouldn't necessarily say so. There is artistic talent needed in the design process, but I know many people who can model, texture, light, rig, block, and animate 3D models, while barely being able to draw stick figures. There is a reason most jobs in a CGI studio somehow involve the words “technician” or “technical”. I'm not saying the person who said that is right but I can kind of see where they are coming from.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Hawk at 8:58PM, Nov. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
To claim that the people who design and create the visuals for a 3D film aren't making “art” is a slap to the face and an insult.

I wouldn't necessarily say so. There is artistic talent needed in the design process, but I know many people who can model, texture, light, rig, block, and animate 3D models, while barely being able to draw stick figures. There is a reason most jobs in a CGI studio somehow involve the words “technician” or “technical”. I'm not saying the person who said that is right but I can kind of see where they are coming from.

It's true that some people can get by in the CGI animation industry without knowing how to draw, but the same is true for the 2D animation industry as well… these would be the people who run the cameras, punch holes in the paper, or make the photocopies.

Really, CGI is just a medium and it requires the same artistic sensibilities as traditional animation. The word “technician” comes from the fact that this medium just happens to be on a computer.

I can tell you from experience that the best modelers and lighters are the ones who can also draw.

And I do think it's insulting to say that CGI films aren't “art”. I fail to see how the medium used has any bearing, as if something painted in acrylics is art, but not something painted with oils. Buy a book like The Art of Kung Fu Panda and imagine telling any one of those guys they're not artists.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
Jonko at 12:00PM, Nov. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 377
joined: 2-9-2007
Dark Pascual
As we remember it, 2D animation will never come back. Even if Movie studios decide to do 2D movies once more, there will be pretty much all done in CGI, since is cheaper and faster than use traditional forms… You can tell the difference between the newest Disney princess movie and Little Mermaid… The look is much more clean but a little bit less… “organic”.

Actually I can think of one animated film that makes an exception. Its Japanese, but Ponyo bosts that it didnt use any CGI animation during the whole film making process, and you can definitely tell. The animation almost reminds you of a child's drawing and is a perfect touch to the story.

I personally find myself enjoying 3D animation, I mean, the actual movies are funny and entertaining, but in terms of artistic style, when stop motion movies like Coraline come out they make you realize what's missing in mass produced 3D movies today.

I guess they've helped in some ways because they make the styles we grew up with really stand out. I just wish more producers would choose to not use 3D in order to do so, for our enjoyment.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:11PM
mattboy115 at 12:32AM, Nov. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,121
joined: 6-9-2009
Has anyone seen that new Garfield show on CN? It sucks ass! Garfield was another cartoon that was never meant for CG!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:55PM
ozoneocean at 1:30AM, Nov. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Jonko
I personally find myself enjoying 3D animation, I mean, the actual movies are funny and entertaining, but in terms of artistic style, when stop motion movies like Coraline come out they make you realize what's missing in mass produced 3D movies today.
The stop motion thing is interesting. Ever since 3D stuff became popular I always just naturally assumed that people would start making them look like cool old stop motion animation- only better because they could do more things and make it smoother… But almost no one ever did that -_-

There's a lot of good cartoony 3D stuff around- Stuff like the incredible for example is a nice natural extension of the 2D medium. Those are shapes, expressions, and characters that you would normally design for 2D, but now they have another dimension. Same with the animated promos for Team Fortress 2.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Hawk at 2:48PM, Nov. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
mattboy115
Has anyone seen that new Garfield show on CN? It sucks ass! Garfield was another cartoon that was never meant for CG!

Sorry man, but Garfield's gonna suck no matter what medium they use.

Though I will admit, he does look particularly bland in Cartoon Network show you mentioned.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 6:07PM, Nov. 25, 2009
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
isukun
I wouldn't necessarily say so. There is artistic talent needed in the design process, but I know many people who can model, texture, light, rig, block, and animate 3D models, while barely being able to draw stick figures. There is a reason most jobs in a CGI studio somehow involve the words “technician” or “technical”. I'm not saying the person who said that is right but I can kind of see where they are coming from.

And I can draw cartoons and don't know shit about modeling. So what's your point? Are we supposed to assume that 2d is better because it's traditional? Personally I don't mind the 3d shows as much as 3d effects. You can always tell when they used cgi in a movie, and it sucks because in my opinion effects looked better before it. Meanwhile, Pixar films are obviously an art greater than you and I can hope to achieve.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
isukun at 3:44AM, Nov. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
And I can draw cartoons and don't know shit about modeling.

Apparently, you're missing the point. You probably don't know shit about building a nuclear reactor either. Does that make it an art? I never said anything about 2D being “better”.

Pixar films are obviously an art greater than you and I can hope to achieve.

That's an awful defeatist attitude. One I don't happen to share.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
skoolmunkee at 11:03AM, Nov. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,058
joined: 1-2-2006
On a related note, the first Star Wars was on TV here the other night. I haven't seen the movie in ten years or so. It was embarassingly easy to pick out the parts they fixed up. Some of them were good changes (like the tatooine city scenes) but others were just terrible. Aside from not fitting in visually, some of them definitely felt tacked on scene-wise. (And now i understand the “Han Solo fired first” comments.) Bad use of CG. >:[


I do get annoyed with people who say they don't like CG because it brought in a lot of terrible movies. Maybe they forgot about all the terrible movies that existed before computer animation?
  IT'S OLD BATMAN
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:43PM
Jonko at 11:17AM, Nov. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 377
joined: 2-9-2007
skoolmunkee
On a related note, the first Star Wars was on TV here the other night. I haven't seen the movie in ten years or so. It was embarassingly easy to pick out the parts they fixed up. Some of them were good changes (like the tatooine city scenes) but others were just terrible. Aside from not fitting in visually, some of them definitely felt tacked on scene-wise. (And now i understand the “Han Solo fired first” comments.) Bad use of CG. >:[

Have you seen the “Special Edition” where they added a whole scene of Hans Solo talking to Jaba the Hutt?

I remember the South Park episode when the kids got so pissed at George Lucas for changing the movies so much, that I think they broke into his house. I wish we could do that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:11PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved