zero shift
Banned
Films work the best when they mix practical effects and CGI such as The Lord of the Rings or Mad Max: Fury Road.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't)
- Thread starter Broken Joystick
- Start date
- Status
Lord_Balkan
Member
I should revise what I said.
I dont mind CGI. Though I have a personal bias against it. I make games for a living, and seeing CGI in a movie hinders my enjoyment of it because I know how it works technically. I don't know how a lot of special effects are made. Yeah a puppet, etc, but there are a lot of technical details like what kind of materials, etc. Having that element of unknown heightens my enjoyment for horror movies even if it may look worse than CGI because for me it fits better contextually.
CGI for other genres of movies I don't really mind or care. I know I am pretty unique in this situation and my views probably aren't shared by many, but those are my thoughts on the situation.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Poseidon had some damn good CGI, even if it wasn't a good movie.
That looks fucking godawful.
Elitist1945
Member
Holds the Guinness World Record for most detailed model. 181,579 individual objects.
Many people subscribe to the emotional idea of purity.
CG = artificial....
and so any time that they can detect or suspect CG on the screen, they'll down rate it.
Of course, we've reached the point where except for breaks in plausible reality (i.e. something's happening that clearly isn't possible)... we're not actually detecting most of the CG work that goes on, even when we want to hate on it.
It's incumbent on directors to ensure that plausibility is maximized... and when breaks in reality occur, ensure that the direction is so good that the audience doesn't mind the CG.
CG = artificial....
and so any time that they can detect or suspect CG on the screen, they'll down rate it.
Of course, we've reached the point where except for breaks in plausible reality (i.e. something's happening that clearly isn't possible)... we're not actually detecting most of the CG work that goes on, even when we want to hate on it.
It's incumbent on directors to ensure that plausibility is maximized... and when breaks in reality occur, ensure that the direction is so good that the audience doesn't mind the CG.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
And it looks fucking godawful. Just look at that lighting.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I can't properly convey how dumb that gif is without access to my PC, but trust me it's really fucking dumb.
I think this picture will never stop being relevant.
Yep so true. There are some things that work best as CGI and some things that work best as practical effects.
Elitist1945
Member
Looks way better in motion, but it was also 10 years ago.
Aren't you just a peach. I've contributed quite a bit to the discussion already.
But, fine, you want a more worthwhile contribution?
It's the embodiment, in short-hand, of the fallacy of relying solely on CG special effects to tell a story or a movie at the expense of the human element involved in the prior productions.
The original trilogy, not just through props and models, used tangible, physical actors and puppets to interact with the actors and actresses. They had something to actually see, something they could reach out and touch, something to respond to, something to fight, something to carry, something to act alongside with.
The prequel trilogy, replacing these elements with the endless sea of green screen, resulted in actors speaking into nothing, talking to nobody, responding to silence, and guessing what the "thing" they were talking to and fighting even looked like. The whole ordeal felt artificial because it was. It had countless, nearly infinite small mistakes or quirks that made your brain question what you saw and sucked you out of the experience nearly every single second of those prequel movies.
I'm not saying the original trilogy was perfect, but as an example of using practical effects, props, puppets, and ingenuity, it is a masterclass of doing so much with so little and making an ultimately more believable, emotional, and satisfying product.
The story of the prequels would have still sucked with puppets, but it would have felt largely less artificial with more sets, characters, and props there to ground it in reality instead of the endless cartoony sea of CG and unbelievable artifice.
It wasn't the CG itself... it was how it was grossly misused and served to replace things that would have benefited from practical effects.
There. Satisfied?
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
Kinda reminds me of that Rhino VFX breakdown from ASM 2 where they're giving this information on all the polygons it has and all I can think of it 'and zero impact on the story'
At least your example there's an actual impact on the story.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
What you actually seem to be saying in this post is that you have no idea how many practical effects were utilized in the prequels.
NO.
I'm saying they used it in the wrong places, for the wrong things, where it didn't belong, for characters and scenes that would have benefited from practical effects rather than CG.
It was an over-reliance on CG that became a crutch they leaned too hard upon, and the crutch broke under so much weight.
It doesn't matter if the film was 99% practical sets and props (it wasn't... by far); if they misused CG, it would worsen the film and cheapen the experience. It would be less believable and throw up yet another barrier between the audience and the film itself.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Now that's something I think we can agree with. And that's something that picture you posted earlier fails to say. This is a good contribution.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
And I'd be willing to bet that you, without researching first, could not accurately point out everything that was CG. I know that I've had people tell me "The worst CG in Episode * was *." and picked things that weren't CG.
I think this picture will never stop being relevant.
Yep the prequel trilogy was literally nothing but cg.
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
Yep the prequel trilogy was literally nothing but cg.
My actual fave tidbit is the waterfall in this shot is actually just salt being poured down
Here you go.
Small taste
Code:
[IMG]http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-4/ksar-hadada-ruin.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/8jWuWLZjQAgIkG1ZTGpu2DsyHSDk4bH-rpYisbhIqatoCs9ZPUtNqwR-XgBav6t6E0KMfSfJr1AKMwdZz1UFwINAsukhC5wn/image014.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sep02/brave/images/image1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://s14.directupload.net/images/131229/7lcvwhk8.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140104/dukp3fjd.jpg[/IMG]There's a lot more in the link. Have at it.
I do CG and 3D modelling for a living. I know first-hand the difficulties in making something computer-rendered pass for "real". It's difficult, largely because the human eye can detect fake-ness rather easily.
Some of the CG in the prequel trilogies was effective. I never said it wasn't. I did say that they relied on it too heavily, and that too much CG DIDN'T work as intended.
It doesn't matter if they got 90% of it right and you never noticed... when the other 10% is screaming "fake" right to your face. Someone else could have done a great job... and another artist could have dropped the ball. That's still part of the packaged experience.
Your strawman is in another castle. I never claimed it was nothing but CG. Please re-read my posts. I said the problem was an over-reliance on CG where it wasn't needed and CG that was supposed to work not doing its job.
I'm very familiar with the sets and props that were made. Thanks for the refreshers.
It still doesn't change my opinion one way or the other, however. I personally think the prequels misused CG and they should have used MORE physical props and practical effects. The stuff that WAS practical and physical were some of the most impressive parts of the prequel trilogy, but for every practical effect or set build, they were dwarfed by too many CG scenes and computer clutter.
... And, sadly, the actual sets that were built were rarely filmed in a dynamic way. That's a cinematography issue, not a CG issue, but it's another example of how even with physical sets, the films were directed in a very sterile, un-involving way that lacked energy or vibrancy.
So, to no one in particular, I never said there weren't physical sets or props. I said the films over-emphasized bad CG at the expense of physical sets and props.
Even a physical set and practical effect can be ruined by unnecessary and poorly done CG, after all.
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
Yup, I think back onto Laketown from the Hobbit where I was surprised there's a good portion of it that wasn't CG but the end result looked strange for a lack of better wording:
except when there were humans in the same shot. like when he first arrived in Pandora, or when he was in the army warehouse. that hasn't aged well.
when it was only CGI, like when there were only Navii in Pandora it looked good. but then again the world Cameron created was generic and boring, so it was a bit of a waste.
No they wouldn't. The CG would hold up for a few years max and then look like ass from then on. All of those practical effects have held up over decades.
I completely disagree that practical effects hold up. I also think shitty CGI has always been shitty CGI. Once the novelty of "hey look, they made a puppet that resembles an alien" wears off, the puppet is just a puppet. Same with CGI.
enigmatic_alex44
Whenever a game uses "middleware," I expect mediocrity. Just see how poor TLOU looks.
Forget Davy Jones. Forget Avatar.
The new standard in CG was reached with Smaug, arguably the most incredible on screen depiction of a dragon ever. The detail, his facial expressions, the size/scale, the way he moves, none of that could have been accomplished with animatronics or any of the older movie tricks. CG, when done well, is fantastic. The Hobbit films are far from perfect, but Lord have mercy was Smaug impressive.
The new standard in CG was reached with Smaug, arguably the most incredible on screen depiction of a dragon ever. The detail, his facial expressions, the size/scale, the way he moves, none of that could have been accomplished with animatronics or any of the older movie tricks. CG, when done well, is fantastic. The Hobbit films are far from perfect, but Lord have mercy was Smaug impressive.
No, but it did contribute to some of the terrible cinematography. Limited space for actors to move in green screen sets resulted in many extremely boring scenes.
https://youtu.be/ABcXyZn9xjg?t=1h20m26s
CGI and practical effects are kind of the same thing, they are like magic tricks, you have to know how to show them to your audience and you can't "repeat" the trick over and over so to speak because people will discover how they work, or in other words don't overuse them. The best illusions in film have never been really about the quality of the animatronics or CGI by itself, but how it is used and how it is shown, or in this case, how much it is not shown.
GAF judge my CGI (Going into this I had no idea what I was doing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWR_T0ghs04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWR_T0ghs04
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Forget Davy Jones. Forget Avatar.
The new standard in CG was reached with Smaug, arguably the most incredible on screen depiction of a dragon ever. The detail, his facial expressions, the size/scale, the way he moves, none of that could have been accomplished with animatronics or any of the older movie tricks. CG, when done well, is fantastic. The Hobbit films are far from perfect, but Lord have mercy was Smaug impressive.
He was super impressive.
The banshees in Avatar still come across as more realistic.
More_Badass
Member
I have to say, if I didn't know better, I'd think Smaug here was animatronicForget Davy Jones. Forget Avatar.
The new standard in CG was reached with Smaug, arguably the most incredible on screen depiction of a dragon ever. The detail, his facial expressions, the size/scale, the way he moves, none of that could have been accomplished with animatronics or any of the older movie tricks. CG, when done well, is fantastic. The Hobbit films are far from perfect, but Lord have mercy was Smaug impressive.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/509747/smaug
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I think that video raised one very good point. Perhaps you think most of the cg is bad because those are the one you can catch. great cgi scenes looked so realistic you couldnt tell they are cg, you brushed them as real in the first place.
MrCunningham
Member
I saw the video, and I can't deny that CGI is a powerful tool in film making and can be used to fill in a lot of the blanks that things like matte paintings and forced perspective miniatures used to do. It is also a great tool for compositing shots, which is a massive improvement over the optical effects tricks of the past. Computer 3D can be used for a lot of great things, but at the same time it can be overused and abused as well, making things look outright tacky. Personally I like it when film makers use a mixed blend of practical and computer digital effects.
But for my own personal preferences, I would rather take real physical props and practical effects over CGI if possible. I love the craftsmanship involved in real practical effects, and to me a bad looking practical effect will always be a million times more charming to look at than some bad looking CGI.
[/IMG]
Yep the prequel trilogy was literally nothing but cg.
Well Part 2 and 3 had a lot more computer 3D than the first one. But yeah, Episode 1 had a lot less CGI than people think it did, but with some characters like Jar Jar and other CGI creatures standing out like sore thumbs, it is very easy to think otherwise. Though the later movies, especially the second one, suffered from a lot of lazy directing and camera work from Lucas. The CGI never really bothered me much in those movies.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
The majority of it is CG these days, that is, it's all digitally drawn and painted.
3d, textured stuff is very iffy it if they don't do it right.
There have been a few all 3d CG anime though. I rather liked the appleseed films visually.
Whats really interesting is how you can see 3d CGI in manga. Negima, for example, had a ton of 3d environments that were actual models. I think Love hina and UQ holder do this as well.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I think the difference between practical effects and CGI is that practical effects always look 'real'. They may not look like what they are supposed to be but they have that sense of 'realness' to them which is hard to put into words. It may not be believable blood, but it looks like real liquid. It may not be a believable alien, but it does look like a real puppet.
I think people often forget that there was some pretty abysmal practical effects back in the day, the good examples are stunning but the bad ones can have the same negative impact as bad CGI. It's just that nowadays typically bad effects are bad cgi so for modern cinema goers there's an association.
The problems with CG are the same ones we had with practical effects in the past; directors not understanding the limitations, overuse, budget and time constraints, poor composition, lighting, etc. It's lazy to blame CGI for the failings of the creators for not really understanding the tools they're using.
The problems with CG are the same ones we had with practical effects in the past; directors not understanding the limitations, overuse, budget and time constraints, poor composition, lighting, etc. It's lazy to blame CGI for the failings of the creators for not really understanding the tools they're using.
TrAcEr_x90
Member
And its all rendered in 4k and for print. Which is nuts!
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Using Star Wars prequels as examples of bad use of CG. It's got some great CG moments. CG is the very least of the prequels' issues. Majority of the issues surround the direction and script-writing of Lucas. I say nothing bad about the prequels' use of CG, because I think they were pretty fantastic. Lucas' use of them, however, is terrible.
Chris Nolan, George Miller, Fincher, etc. are some great directors to look to when it comes to balancing use of CG and practical.
Chris Nolan, George Miller, Fincher, etc. are some great directors to look to when it comes to balancing use of CG and practical.
boiled goose
good with gravy
CG is just a medium. It can look great or terrible.
Great CG looks like this:
Terrible CG looks like this:
Haha what a terrible example. That CG is clearly outdated. Lighting looks terrible. Video game level.
More_Badass
Member
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
CGI is great at doing anything. Good CGI is the result of years of work from a incredibly talented team with an enormous budget, budget being one of the biggest concerns because modern day CGI can literally be indistinguishable from real life. But things like horror movies don't have the budget for that. So when you see bad CGI, it's not because CGI is a terrible replacement for practical effects, and let's not pretend like practical effects is the end all be all, there's are hundreds of examples of bad practical effects in film that have aged poorly.
CyclopsRock
Member
This a) doesn't mean anything and b) isn't true. Or, if it is true, Guinness done fucked up.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked