Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
silvercj

Has CGI killed the modern film?

Recommended Posts

A thought struck me whilst entering a thought on the "I am Legend" thread.... has computer graphics killed modern film? I would have to say that it dam well nearly has. (in Hollywood anyhow).

 

To often the film houses are offering up film scripts written by 13 year olds and filling in the gaps with unbelievable computer graphics. Where has the twisted plot or emotionally charged tension of a good storyline gone. Sure its more difficult to come up with new story lines but I'm sure that there are talented writers out there that can put some guts back into a script.

 

What think you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure many good original scripts are written, but they are new, and that's the problem. A production company who is going to put perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars into a film does not want to take the risk with an original script. It might be popular, but it might not be.

 

Then add to this the fact that any film that wants to use military sites or vehicle's has to comply with the desires of a government employed censor. Or the pressure and possible boycott from religious groups (this sort of pressure ruined the Golden Compass).

 

And so on...

 

I don't think it's the CGI that ruins films, but it might seem that way because just about the only decent films released recently are small independently funded films (who couldn't afford to use CGI even if they wanted to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LHH, :)

Had a good listen to the new Yamaha CD-S2000 at TLP, very nice, & with room for improvement as it wasn't fully run in.

When is yours due to arrive?

 

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Halo88;55909 wrote:
Hi LHH,
:)

 

Had a good listen to the new
Yamaha CD-S2000
at TLP, very nice, & with room for improvement as it wasn't fully run in.

 

When is yours due to arrive?

 

 

 

Regards.

 

Well that's good news :D

It should be with me sometime tomorrow if I'm lucky.

I shall update my system thread (with photo's and thoughts) tomorrow evening providing it arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hi LHH,

I liked the slightly retro style, competitive pricing, balanced outputs & the weighty yet clean & detailed sound.

I'll monitor your comments, & may be tempted as an upgrade for my second system.

 

Cheers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to divert the conversation back to CG, but i feel like having a wee moan...

 

I feel this trend of increased reliance on CG, or indeed technology in general is not nessesserily a bad thing, the thing i do think is bad however, is the fact that its effectively augmenting something that is already sub-crap. And as the old saying goes, crap-in, crap-out.

I THink its not just true in movies, but equaly in music, where no talent teeny-boppers' voices are digitally made to sound...well, like very-little talent teeny boppers.

 

grag!, stupid tech trends!!!

 

in conclution, good movies + good CG = Awesome Movies.

 

Crap + Good CG still= Crap

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll join in the moan! :)

 

After immersing myself in the world of Blade Runner courtesy the box set from Amazon, I am in awe yet again of the world that is portrayed on film ... all without a single CGI model. There's just something about filming a physical model that makes it look ... real.

 

CGI has certainly come a long way in a relatively short time. Movies that first used computer effects in (say) the early 1980s have very dated effects by today's standards (yet, if the story itself is compelling, you can overlook the naff effects). Comparing the "Genesis Effect" in Star Trek II or the Lightcycles in Tron (or even the T-1000 in Terminator 2) with the wind blowing through King Kong's hair shows the massive advances that have occurred. Processors have become far quicker and cheaper, putting the power of a film effects studio into a PC.

 

And here, I think, is the problem. It's the old adage -- just because one can doesn't mean one should. We appear to have a generation of film makers that are "wowed" by just how good it all looks on film ... without thinking too much about what the film's actually about. It's all too easy to great good looking "fluff," but the "X-Factor" that makes the difference between a hit and a dud hasn't changed -- and it's just as elusive as it was before colour came along!

 

King_Eddy's "equations" are spot on :) Great CG will enhance a great movie, whereas great CG can't save a bad one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above sentiments - great movie + great CGI = excellent film. However it seems that the producers/directors of the modern era a happy to make "fluff" with special effects and loud scores/effects..... I can't think of too many films of late that have really grabed me.

 

In saying that most are "watchable" and fill in an hour or two, it just would be nice to have that WOW feeling after watching a movie at the theater (especially with what it now costs to take a family along). The last real film I watched at a cinema that really WOWED me was the Matrix - I came out thinking what a cool idea, it was so different, acting a little naf but the story keep you interested and wasn't transparent.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think one of the main factors in having a movie "wow" you is having it have a) an amazing story, or B) really impressive effects.

In bygone years the latter was achievable ironically through the lack of technology, which left room for improvements, an example of this would be 2001; a space oddesy, a film which technologically was WAY ahead of its time, however, dear i say it, had the worst story in the universe.

Howeevr now days the technology has no wear to progress to. CG become so perfect that i, a 90's baby, am basically impressed by no computer effects whatsoever. lol. IMO the most impressive CG recently was in the matrix, and i think that this is because it WAS new, it DID push the boundrys of what the technology could handle. I'm not a big fan of the sort-of quasi-sci-fi genre into which the matrix falls, so it certainly wasnt the story i enjoyed it for...

 

I've kinda forgotten what my point was...but...disscuss. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea ... I'd say that the only factor in having a "wow" movie would be a great story. CG is just the latest in a long line of technological advances in movies. Take the advent of sound -- I'd contend that Metropolis is a much better film than the first movies to make use of sound! Similarly, many movies which (over)use CG are worse than those that proceeded it. I think that, as filmmakers realise that "less is more" in terms of effects, and that it's the story which grabs us, we will start to see more "wow" films :)

 

Don't forget that it's not just overuse of CG which cripples movies -- we have such things as

 

  • Sequel Fixation -- if a movie is a hit, we must make a sequel. (Interestingly, I'd put the Matrix trilogy in here!)
  • Star Power -- if we have the latest Screen God/Godess, it doesn't matter about the script
  • No-Brain Audience -- audiences can never think for themselves, so we absolutely must spoon-feed then everything so they "get" the movie (this is similar to Studio Knows Best, where studio bosses can tinker with a director's movie as much as they want until they understand it ... never mind what the director actually wanted to say)
... and many other factors, of course.

 

I think we could amend the equation and say that Great Story + Great Visuals = Excellent Film. Going back to Blade Runner, I showed it to a friend of mine last week who had never seen it before. He was absolutely blown away by the visuals -- because they were done so well, they drew him into the movie. (And not a CG model to be seen!)

 

I'd also be wary of saying that technology has "nowhere" to develop to ... I think what we're seeing on screen now would have been thought impossible even 10? years ago. Who knows what we're going to see in the next 5? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd also be wary of saying that technology has "nowhere" to develop to ... I think what we're seeing on screen now would have been thought impossible even 10? years ago. Who knows what we're going to see in the next 5?

 

all i was saying in that was that we are at a point now where we can basically create any creature/object/enviroment to the point of amazing realism with CG that i didn't really know how it can get anymore technlogically advenced within the bounds of the current screen tech. (ie, 3D, or surround screens)

 

with reference to the first film with sound, sure this is fairly unimpressive now, in the day i'm sure this was considered the best movie in the world. i suppose it depends wether we are talking about movies with long term wow, or just a short lived "wow that was amazing". The latter is achievable through either great story/script/acting or through fantastic effects. however to produce a long term "wow", the kind of film that will stick in peoples minds as a great film, requires either great script and acting, possibly, but not nessesserily, combined with great effects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an interesting example of so-so story but excellent effects = a film to recommend to people. The film was Beowulf-3D. The story was passable but the Dolby 3D effects blew me away, my last 3d experience was back in the days of red/green paper glasses, I've never seen anything to compare with the Dolby 3D. In this case the effects made the experience and compensated for a weak story line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So many CGI effects, especially of "creatures" look as though they kind of float - I refer to it as wobbly arse animation.

The exception to this was LOTR - they knew what they were doing there!

 

Elsewhere - yuk!

 

Although I will give credit to the BBC "Walking with ......." series, which had amazing graphics considering the small budget compared to a feature film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as where can CGI go from here? They are leap years away from a convincing human......

 

Sadley the day that they can convincingly portray a human is the day that "artistic" films will die (for awhile untill the tech becomes cheaper and the people that are more concerned with producing a story than a profit can afford to get it).

 

Imagine a world where studio owners can make there own actors and copyright them......:eek: No more horendous actors fees..... will this be a good thing or not - time will tell....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Classifieds Statistics


    Currently Active Ads

    Total Sales (Since 2018)

    Total Sales Value (Last 14 Days)

    Total Ads Value (Since March 2020)
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...