CGI Opinions

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

This is an excellent visual essay which more or less debunks the idea that CG is ruining films.



Some of the most enjoyable and best films I've seen recently have been heavily dependent on CGI, from Under the Skin and the mysterious 'black room' to Ex Machina, Interstellar and even Paddington only possible because of CGI.

As is pointed out in the video essay, we only really notice bad CGI, with seamless integration of real footage and digital effects enhancing scenes and entire films, just as a great score elevates things you see, whereas horrible music can be very jarring and ruin an entire film.

Where do you stand on films which are at least 80% animated even if they look 'real' (such as the Avengers movies) and would you like to see filmmakers be less reliant on CGI?

[bdc]

I think the whole debate is more complicated than only good (so called imperceptible) and bad cgi...can you spot the difference?

[gag]

Just about every film these days use cgi. Even if its only a small scene, its not a bad thing its good to some degree, love or hate them lets be honest lord of the ring films wouldnt have been made without it, or gladiator, its good if its done right, its not the cgi thats ruining the film imo, its the fact that they concentrate more on action cgi, crash, bang, wallop as much explosives as possible and dont concentrate on a the plot a good story, character building, or in some cases the new robocop the characters are completely dull and boring, hence why so many people complain they dont make films like they use to, years ago they didnt have cgi so didnt have much choice, looking back yes the sets and certain effects looks corny now, but they made the film in a way that that interested, grabbed you and wouldnt let go, the story and character building where good, eg the old dr who series is a prime eg thats why is so cult and people still watch the old episodes, you felt sorry for certain characters etc etc, now some cases you couldnt care less if a character lived or died.
They think if you have loads of action, cash bang wallop and tonnes of explosives, a big budget, lots of famous people and your on to a winner, WRONG you only need to look at the warriors as a prime eg for this on how a film should be made.

[Demoncrat]

Whilst I've been revisiting some 80s actioners over this last week, the refreshing thing was on remarking that "hey, that's a real tanker getting blown up" etc.
But CGI, when it's used properly, doesn't hurt a film. See The Raid. Fury Road, well, you can tell more or less that some of it is "real", but then I do need to get out more.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

The Fury Road clips don't seem as realistic as MM2. It's just too glossy.

[Demoncrat]

At least it doesn't have David fricking Sanborn on the ST
COUGH

[iank]

It's overused, doesn't seem to have come on much in 20+ years and I particularly despise CGI blood and explosions. Blow the f*****g thing up you lazy b******s!

[gag]

here proof of why cgi isn't neccesary or better

Online Petition Seeks Release of 2011 “The Thing” Work Print

[Crimson Blade]

I honestly find films like Sergio Martino's 2019 far more entertaining than any of the modern action films. The effects may be ropey, but i find them far more enjoyable.

[gag]

Never seen the film but yes i agree, hence eg why the old dr who is cult and still enjoyable despite dodgy effects and creatures lol. Old films are best imo, i have a high rate of hatred for at least half of todays films because of week and dull storylines. And mainly interested in cgi crash bang wallop action. Dull characters you couldnt care less about the list is endless. Tonnes of films from years ago praticaly have no action, but because of strong storyline, acting, atmosphere etc is why the older films are better