CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

re: CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

Tom Block — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:44:29 GMT

I don't care so much about the "reality" of CGI effects, though when they're too obviously fake (like the Rome of "Gladiator" or the throngs of Orcs in "The Two Towers") it throws me out of the movie. But CGI's primary mission should be to help the story, and not settle for being what passes as "awesome" to potheads and adolescents. (One good example is the set of "Deadwood", where all the hills and trees surrounding the town were seamless CG effects.) The other thing is for filmmakers not to over-rely on them the way they do. Gladiator, Titanic, LOTR, all these goddam superhero flicks--99% of these suck as movies since they settle for providing sensation (and nostalgia) in lieu of a good story and characters. That's fine if that's all you're looking for, but why not get the whole (not to mention a more satisfying) package?

re: CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

adam christ — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:09:42 GMT

excellent feature! +10!

of course there are arguments on the other side, mainly with regard to characters that can't be adequately captured practically. say what you will about ang lee's version and the upcoming reboot, but compare the CGI incredible hulk to lou ferrigno. sure, iron lou was really there, really swinging real truck tires in real slow motion, but he was a just a big dude with green paint. the hulk needed to be massive, way bigger than any suit could do justice to, and CGI was the answer.

and let's not forget marvelous mo-cap work by people like andy serkis. gollum was cool and all, but look at king kong. that movie was a steaming turd by all accounts, except it was elevated tremendously by an emotional kong audiences could genuinely fall in love with.

the '31 version was incredible, it goes without saying, but let's not forget there were no doubt a fair share of luddites screaming back then that you shouldn't use stop motion or minatures in movies because it takes away from the reality of the work.

re: CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

privateivan — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:53:10 GMT

I was watching Zulu on TCM the other night, and when the thousands of Zulu warriors showed up on top of the hill overlooking the British fort, it took my breath away. It was a simple panning shot--no FX, just about 1,000 extras. I looked at that with admiration. Later I thought, thank god they didn't have CGI. If they had, there would have been a flyover the collected warriors, swooshing in towards the screaming mouth of the Zulu chief. CGI-junkies in Hollywood have forgotten that they don't need CGI for everything, and that, if you can get a shot without CGI, then do it that way.

re: CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

Sean — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:53:52 GMT

Amen. I have been saying this since Spider Man was completely ruined for me. I couldn't enjoy it when I realized spidey wasn't actually swinging from webs! There is something organic about real special effects.

You should have mentioned The Never Ending Story. IMAGINE IF THAT WAS ALL CGI??

re: CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

Tom Block — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:49:10 GMT

Terrific post.