Media Megaforum

Why does CGI suck so badly?
glenfx at 9:14PM, Jan. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 64
joined: 5-25-2007
re-reading all my resent posts here and on a couple other forums… it seems im a grumpy guy ^^

Not really intended, just in case, I apologize if I get a bit out of tone in my replies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
Hawk at 10:02PM, Jan. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
glenfx
re-reading all my resent posts here and on a couple other forums… it seems im a grumpy guy ^^

Not really intended, just in case, I apologize if I get a bit out of tone in my replies.

Grumpy? Who cares! I agree with everything you've said so far.

You know, I was thinking about this topic a while ago, and I realized that CGI has really expanded the scope of cinema. There are things that the movies are pulling off right now that nobody would have even attempted twenty years ago. And sure, somebody can whine about how they can tell it's CGIwell duh. Do you think they built a real Optimus Prime? Honestly, a lot of the more outlandish and incredible things you see in movies you'll get through CGI or not at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
ozoneocean at 10:50PM, Jan. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
glenfx
So every single movie from the last 17 years is bad? ^^.
I dunno… if you think they are I suppose. I just said you have a lot to choose from in that time frame if you're looking or bad cgi,
glenfx
Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 which i think are really great movies and the effects where amazingly well done.
If you think so. The bits with the cgi aren't well meshed with the rest in my opinion, rather unnecessary and crude, in most cases.
glenfx
star trek and babylon both suck, but you have to consider the time they have to do each episode, yet each has a small amount of cg and lots of traditional effects
They're ok for what they were. Shows like Farscape had the same limitations and did it better. A good example of a clever use of all the types of effects (including lots of CG), with an extremely high level of expertise. That's what make the difference ;)
glenfx
What is your expectation for cgi anyway??
to be used well and not over-extended. If you can't do something well, perhaps you shouldn't do it at all? That's always been a wise limiting factor in quality productions.
glenfx
If you just dont like cg
I never said that, and I don't know what “bloodrayne” is, not that I'm interested. I simply say that a lot of CGI is used badly. Not that all of it is and not that it's an inherent problem, but when looked at coldly and without the bright dazzling goggles of suspended belief and childlike wonder, there are a lot of very disappointing cgi effects muddying up otherwise tolerable films.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
glenfx at 12:40AM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 64
joined: 5-25-2007
Someone
The bits with the cgi aren't well meshed with the rest in my opinion, rather unnecessary and crude, in most cases.
I think i understand your point, but is not the fault of cgi per se, its more about the final composition that isnt done well and with a bit over bright screen they will show significantly… yes this has bothered me as well in a few movies.
You can fix this by adjusting your TV to have more contrast and youll see this will help blend the composition…doesnt help on a theater though ^^

T2 and JP where really well done in this though.

Farscape was great, though they had much more time to create the episodes as well as a higher budget.

Someone
If you can't do something well, perhaps you shouldn't do it at all?
I disagree because the same can be said with the comics we all make and see here in DD, if we get the “If you can't do something well, perhaps you shouldn't do it at all” then whats the point of telling stories if your limited to the graphics only?

While we create more, the better we get at it, if you never do a thing youll never be able to do something.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
ozoneocean at 3:56AM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Yep, the same could be said for comics here, but the key difference is the investment of several million dollars and the work of a massive team of people. The result should at least reflect what goes into the project. That's why I say “if it's not done well, don't do it”. We can feel pretty safe in judging multimillion dollar film projects to a different standard…

But I don't mean the whole film, I just mean the SFX. :)

TV shows are different again. Not as much time and money goes into them so I'm not as harsh. One of the few episodes of the new series of Dr who I saw had horrendously badly done cgi dragons in it, but I can forgive that a little since being Dr Who it would've had dodgy models instead if it wasn't cgi anyway.

But the time/budget argument you've got there isn't that solid. Star trek had just as much resources as Farscape, just not the same pool of creative talent in their SFX artists. But that was ok, they generally stuck within their limitations and did things very well because of it. It was only when they attempted CGI aliens that the gaps stared to show. -they handled their space effects with great aplomb!

The redoing of old episodes of Red Dwarf is another good example of things CGI not being worse than the alternative because of budget and time, just because it wasn't done as well.
The models of the ships and their explosions in the early episodes looked quite good. the later versions in CGI however all look like nothing but toys.- the cg models are made ok enough, the texturing isn't that great, the rendering makes them look a little plastic, but he animation of them, the effects and lighting are all way bellow par.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
Bekefel at 6:05AM, Jan. 2, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,457
joined: 10-15-2006
Transformers shows how good CGI can be.

Beowulf shows how bad CGI can be.
Please, please, you give me too little credit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:19AM
glenfx at 3:26PM, Jan. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 64
joined: 5-25-2007
Star Trek (if i remember correctly) made an episode a week or two a month, while farscape made an episode a month. (but you can correct me if im wrong :) )

Dont know about Red Dwarf or Dr who though, never heard about that series ^^

In the end ive driven you to say not all cgi is bad ^____^


Bekefel Beowulf had great CGI… but badly animated faces… well it was mocaped. the good thing with Robert Zemeckis is that he is evolving an important aspect of the cgi and i could bet that in about 2 or 3 more movies of his, the cgi and the mocap technique will be highly advanced, cost effective and faster to produce which i think is great, mean while they have to do trial and error until they achive that goal.
If you do a comparison of the Polar Express to Beowulf youll see their cgi as well as the mocap made a quantum leap in quality.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:37PM
Ziffy88 at 7:57PM, Jan. 2, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
I didn't like the effects in Alien you can tell they looked a man in a suit:evil: how's that for pointless.

Actually when you think about it, compare older Dr. Who compared to the older episodes the special effects are much better now when they mix CGI with props.

Actually I think the best use of CGI has been the remake of Battlestar Galatica. I think the space fights are better…plus they are shot better too.

Actually I thought the CGI for Jurassic Park was done really well. They mixed the puppets and the CGI smartly. I would have hated if they used puppets for the running raptors because then it would even more fake, stiff, and lifeless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
ozoneocean at 4:56AM, Jan. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
glenfx
In the end ive driven you to say not all cgi is bad ^____^
I was always saying that…
My first post that started off this thread:
I don't say ALL CGI is crap, but most of it tends to be.
:)
The whole point of the thread was about how even though CGI isn't always bad, it's become the predominant type of effect and unfortunately there are a lot of bad examples out there; more and more now that the other types are less used.

… people always see issues and arguments as being two sides; for and against, with compromise in between. I don't think that way. My ideas are more complicated. :)
—————————-

Dr who, is simply a good showpiece for very amateur CGI. The less said the better really.

And Jurassic park? Seriously? omg…

The problem here is that I'm saying that there ARE examples of REALLY, really well done, highly skilled, beautiful examples are the use of CGI out there (best when you don't even know), but you guys keep bringing up crap like Jurassic park…? heh, next you'll be saying how great that fat floaty fake snake was in Anaconda. T_T
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
Steely Gaze at 6:09AM, Jan. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
ozoneocean
And Jurassic park? Seriously? omg…

The problem here is that I'm saying that there ARE examples of REALLY, really well done, highly skilled, beautiful examples are the use of CGI out there (best when you don't even know), but you guys keep bringing up crap like Jurassic park…? heh, next you'll be saying how great that fat floaty fake snake was in Anaconda. T_T

Heh, I didn't want to be dragged into this again, but I do want to just say something to Ozone here.

It seems to me that you're in the minority when it comes to Jurassic Park. I thought it did a brilliant job with the CG it used. It wasn't perfect, but they used it only when necessary in my book.

Also, here's one movie that I felt CG ruined and couldn't really be saved because of it: Live Free or Die Hard. It ended up looking like a cartoon.

Well now I think I'm going to slink back into the shadows and see how long this thread continues to live. :)
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:57PM
Ziffy88 at 11:20AM, Jan. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
Yeah Ozone you're really in the minority here. Thought the more I think about it the more I realize JP had a pretty weak story.

As for Dr. Who no it's pretty good for TV. I wouldn't discredit it as being amatuer I think they did really good.













Sure they may not be the dogs bullocks but they're pretty good

also BSG remake is so much better with the CGI though I miss the old cylons…it's kind of bad ass


compared to


last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
Ziffy88 at 7:26PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
You know what? forget CGI look at these transformers/ :)

last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
ozoneocean at 8:15PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
A few people like Jurassic Park. Meh, it was a kid's movie, kids liked it. To be expected ;)

Dr Who? No, you have to ignore the fakeness to like it. I mean, that's what Dr Who has ALWAYS been like, but now it's just moved to computer generated models rather than ones made by a bloke in a workshop, same diff in the end.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
Ziffy88 at 8:37PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
Well I can't ignore it and alot of times it looks pretty good. It helps increase some of the more epic stories. But what do you mean by ignore the fakeness? It's a story about time traveling aliens in a police box
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
ozoneocean at 9:16PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
The way effects look; That's the subject ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
Ziffy88 at 9:27PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
then that's going to be very subjective and this whole conversation is meaningless thanks for increasing my level existentialisms…
No but I understand that they don't look but to me it's good enough…there's always going to be that nagging voice in the back of your head that's telling you it's fake, I ignore mine and named him Dead Fred
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
ozoneocean at 11:26PM, Jan. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
For me it's not nagging, it's bored and tired of the same poor efforts. It doesn't nag; it heckles. :)

I AM happy to see the good stuff though.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
alexhatzia at 5:05AM, Jan. 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 3-5-2006
personally i feel that if you look at any recent disney movie they are all rushed and pretty much the same feel. all are basically comedies that are focused around any conceivable thing that is NOT a human.
disney has done a good job to team up with pixar and create cookie cutter films that will have no life come 20 years. the only ones that really stick out in my mind are toy story and finding nemo.
think of how many classic animated films made in the past (before the recent cgi craze) that you went to see in theaters, and possibly bought it to watch over and over at home. the lion king, beauty and the beast, aladdin, the little mermaid, the jungle book, peter pan, tarzan, pochahontas. the list goes on and on.
hopefully disney will come back to their senses and try to create a film that will have some depth to it, rather than another generic comedy about furry little animals.

last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
alexhatzia at 5:06AM, Jan. 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 3-5-2006
oh, one more thing.

long live jim henson and fuck george lucas.

last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
isukun at 12:30PM, Jan. 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
didn�t say it was the first 3d ever, but (if you really know about 3D) you should know that the requirements for feature film are way much higher than what is needed for tv, so you cant do a comparison of toy story with something like reboot.

Production standards may have been higher, but techniques were the same between TV and feature animation. You still used similar software and animated characters the same way. My point was that people were familiar with animating in 3D already. Do you honestly think any studio would have stepped forward to make a feature film if they were not already confident that they could make something at least somewhat convincing visually? Also, why do you think Toy Story was the first feature length film done entriely in CG? A lot of it had to do with the subject matter of the film. Even Pixar admits that their early attempts at human characters were pretty weak and they chose the toy theme because of the visual limitations of CGI at the time.

So, lets say Pirates of the Caribbean would be better if the other characters where hand drawn and had lots of stretch and squash… cool, the era of the roger rabbit wannabees.

Way to not read what I wrote.

Apart from the Pixar films, I find that the vast majority of fully 3D animated movies use the same book of shortcuts when it comes to animation.

Even so, though, most animation created for live action films these days seems to be using more exaggeration and fluid motion than your average fully 3D animated film. Believe it or not, there is exaggeration and squash and stretch in Pirates of the Caribbean and the CG characters do look more life-like for it. I have to seriously question your knowledge of animation in general if you don't even know the basic principles of animation and what they mean.

in my oppinion its way wetter in 3D than in 2D or even the real life movies.

And it really is your opinion. I found the first film to be visually superior, personally. The mix of live action and puppets made it less cartoony and easier to relate to. Plus the animators chose the 3D medium so they could go more over the top. In the end, it felt more like the TV series than the comics or the original movie which felt more grounded in reality. I found the fight scenes more enjoyable in live action and the caracters a little more likeable while the whole film felt more dramatic. Some of this is due to writing, but a lot of it also relates to the visual presentation of the film.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Ziffy88 at 1:50PM, Jan. 5, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
I thought the Davy jones effects were amazing I actually thought it was prosthetic
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
Hawk at 9:42PM, Jan. 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
alexhatzia
personally i feel that if you look at any recent disney movie they are all rushed and pretty much the same feel. all are basically comedies that are focused around any conceivable thing that is NOT a human.
disney has done a good job to team up with pixar and create cookie cutter films that will have no life come 20 years.

I guess if you feel like The Incredibles and Ratatouille were “cookie cutter films” that's your own opinion and you're entitled to it. But both were critically acclaimed and happen to be among my favorites. The only feature-length animated film Disney has released since buying Pixar has been Meet the Robinsons, which wasn't perfect, but I still enjoyed it. And it wasn't about animals. But Pixar's influence on it was somewhat limited since it was already partway through production when Pixar got its hands on it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
alexhatzia at 11:58PM, Jan. 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 3-5-2006
well yea the entire topic is subjective. if we were to argue worldwide audiences and the total amount each movie made (90's vs. now) they're pretty even so that's pointless. i guess time will only tell to see which movies last longer :)

last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved