When is too much too much? Computerized effects in movies....

[CNIZZ]

TweetIdea for this thread came out of the conversation in the I Am Legend thread, at what point do you guys draw the line in using CGI effects in film? Coming from my love from the horror genre, I have never been a fan of any effects that could not be performed within the frame of the camera; it is much more impressive to me to see amazing makeup and special effects performed on screen or at least with physical elements added in by computer.

The most classic example for me is the original Star Wars Trilogy vs the prequels: Star Wars had groundbreaking special effects, amazing costumes, and beautifully hand crafted sets. The Rancor may have been added in digitally, but at least it was a hand crafted puppet. The Death Star was created out of thousands of plastic car models glued together on a piece of ply wood, yet the end result is an epic scene in movie history that IMO has yet to be topped in the Sci Fi genre. Seemingly every scene and 'set' in the prequel series appeared to be 90% if not entirely CG. For me, this took away from the preceived reality we are supposed to receive from watching the film. The CG characters that were added, though amazing as far as CG is concerned, still felt more cartoony.

Where do you guys consider drawing the line for digital effects? I believe if you can effectively acheive an effect without the need for digitalization, the CGI should be left out. There were numerous sets in the new Star Wars that were entirely computerized that easily could have been created on a sound stage and would have given the movies more integrity and believability. Where I feel CG is adventageous is in movies like Spider-man, where the majority of the effects that can possibly be done in make-up and on set are used, but impossible or impractical stunts like web-slinging or maneuvers that are not humanly possible are added in. Spider-man is probably going to end up being a bad example since the sequels took more liberties with the effects *cough Spider-man 3* but I am interested in anyone else's opinions.

On another side note, I enjoy the CG work employed in 300 because it was used as a stylistic device continuously throughout the entire movie to create a surreal painting like quality to the film, much like the effects of Sin City. Is there a difference between using CG to this extent, or is that being hypocritical?

[Rado]

TweetI could care less how it's done...I do agree with your post...A movie is a movie...Did you like Transformers? I loved it...But I loved it because it's something I played with when I was a child, not because of the graphics...The director made my favorite toys come to life...I Am Legend is not something I'm raving about...Is it a good movie? Sure...But I'd rather watch Hostel/Saw movies...That to me is fun...I enjoy watching people scream for their lives.

[CNIZZ]

TweetThe wife wouldnt watch Transformers in theaters so now im just waiting for it to drop in price, everyone has said the movie is amazing so I am looking forward to it, but that is another great example of where I feel CG does need to be employed because there is no way to make a Transformers movie without CGI unless it came out looking like Mighty Morphing Power Rangers!

[FUZO]

Tweet

I could care less how it's done...I do agree with your post...A movie is a movie...Did you like Transformers? I loved it...But I loved it because it's something I played with when I was a child, not because of the graphics...The director made my favorite toys come to life...I Am Legend is not something I'm raving about...Is it a good movie? Sure...But I'd rather watch Hostel/Saw movies...That to me is fun...I enjoy watching people scream for their lives.

HOSTEL AND SAW MOVIES ARE MADE LIKE SH IT.LEGEND WAS MADE AWESOME. AND THOSES SCARY MOVIES ARE SO UNREAL AND FAKE ITS PATHETIC. DAY I'LL TAKE A BLOW TORCH TO A GIRLS EYE AND LET IT HANG OUT. THEN HAVE THEY GUY CUT IT OFF WHILE HANGING AND THEN START RUNNING . YEAH RIGHT. WOOPIE FUN. RUN ASIAN GIRL WITH ONE EYE

[daved150]

Tweetthey can make the whole thing cgi for all i care. come up with a whole cast of charectors!! maybe then they could get on with a THOR movie, lol. i really dont care as long as its a good story...

[mandarb11]

TweetI agree daved150 the story is by far the most important aspect of a movie. CGI gets annoying in certain genres, in transformers it was a must but in movies like I am legend I was not impressed (I liked the movie just not all that impressed with the vampires). Now I agree with fuzo, I can't stand those stupid horror movies that are not about suspense or drama, just about how sick and discusting they can make it. That takes little imagination to make a movie like that, I honestly can't believe they are even popular. torturing people, how does that get to be fun? lol

[Klash]

Tweet

Idea for this thread came out of the conversation in the I Am Legend thread, at what point do you guys draw the line in using CGI effects in film? Coming from my love from the horror genre, I have never been a fan of any effects that could not be performed within the frame of the camera; it is much more impressive to me to see amazing makeup and special effects performed on screen or at least with physical elements added in by computer.

The most classic example for me is the original Star Wars Trilogy vs the prequels: Star Wars had groundbreaking special effects, amazing costumes, and beautifully hand crafted sets. The Rancor may have been added in digitally, but at least it was a hand crafted puppet. The Death Star was created out of thousands of plastic car models glued together on a piece of ply wood, yet the end result is an epic scene in movie history that IMO has yet to be topped in the Sci Fi genre. Seemingly every scene and 'set' in the prequel series appeared to be 90% if not entirely CG. For me, this took away from the preceived reality we are supposed to receive from watching the film. The CG characters that were added, though amazing as far as CG is concerned, still felt more cartoony.

Where do you guys consider drawing the line for digital effects? I believe if you can effectively acheive an effect without the need for digitalization, the CGI should be left out. There were numerous sets in the new Star Wars that were entirely computerized that easily could have been created on a sound stage and would have given the movies more integrity and believability. Where I feel CG is adventageous is in movies like Spider-man, where the majority of the effects that can possibly be done in make-up and on set are used, but impossible or impractical stunts like web-slinging or maneuvers that are not humanly possible are added in. Spider-man is probably going to end up being a bad example since the sequels took more liberties with the effects *cough Spider-man 3* but I am interested in anyone else's opinions.

On another side note, I enjoy the CG work employed in 300 because it was used as a stylistic device continuously throughout the entire movie to create a surreal painting like quality to the film, much like the effects of Sin City. Is there a difference between using CG to this extent, or is that being hypocritical?

I haven't seen "I am Legend" but I am the exact opposite, I love cgi in a movie, when used right. Geoge Lucas definitely let down Star War fans with his prequels but IMO it wasn't because of the amount of cg work but because of how he used it, e.g. phucking jar-jar binks and the bright Disney colors and because of the ridiculous, instantaneous transformation in Anakin. I know he was wanting a contrast to the darker episodes with Darth Vader but that doesn't mean it has to look like "the little mermaid".

[brody13]

TweetCGI is my future, so the more popular it comes, the better for me!

[Rado]

Tweet

HOSTEL AND SAW MOVIES ARE MADE LIKE SH IT.LEGEND WAS MADE AWESOME. AND THOSES SCARY MOVIES ARE SO UNREAL AND FAKE ITS PATHETIC. DAY I'LL TAKE A BLOW TORCH TO A GIRLS EYE AND LET IT HANG OUT. THEN HAVE THEY GUY CUT IT OFF WHILE HANGING AND THEN START RUNNING . YEAH RIGHT. WOOPIE FUN. RUN ASIAN GIRL WITH ONE EYE

Legend was not awesome...Just like any other CGI movie; it ws ok...Like most will agree...It's a MOVIE...Give it a good story and I could care less how you make it...I was using horror movies as an example...Maybe I should of used I Am Legend for arguments sake...CGI is the future and it will just get better...But the original question was about when is it too much? Any movie made these days is just too much...But then again every american household loves CGI...The point is; who cares...It's a movie...

[horsepwr]

Tweet

I could care less how it's done...I do agree with your post...A movie is a movie...Did you like Transformers? I loved it...But I loved it because it's something I played with when I was a child, not because of the graphics...The director made my favorite toys come to life...I Am Legend is not something I'm raving about...Is it a good movie? Sure...But I'd rather watch Hostel/Saw movies...That to me is fun...I enjoy watching people scream for their lives.

I enjoyed the hell out of Transformers, but I figured it was only because I really didn't get into them when I was a kid. The couple of guys that I talked to that worked at Blockbuster played with them when they were young did not like Transformers all that much just because the machines were totally different than the original. They said that it shouldn't have even been called Transformers. But, since I wasn't into them back in the day, I didn't know any different so I enjoyed it.
With CG effects, I dig them for the most part. Like King Kong for instance. That looked like a real silver back...moved and acted perfect, everything. Skull Island was awesome. So, I gues I'm all for them. I think they make movies pretty kickass for the most part.

[Rado]

Tweet

I enjoyed the hell out of Transformers, but I figured it was only because I really didn't get into them when I was a kid. The couple of guys that I talked to that worked at Blockbuster played with them when they were young did not like Transformers all that much just because the machines were totally different than the original. They said that it shouldn't have even been called Transformers. But, since I wasn't into them back in the day, I didn't know any different so I enjoyed it.
With CG effects, I dig them for the most part. Like King Kong for instance. That looked like a real silver back...moved and acted perfect, everything. Skull Island was awesome. So, I gues I'm all for them. I think they make movies pretty kickass for the most part.

King Kong was great...CGI was amazing in that movie...All those kind of movies are classics...Making movies like MI1, MI2, & MI3 or I Am Legend, etc...CGI is needed...We should all know it's just a movie...This is the way I look at it...You want to make a movie(regardless of what's used)...Give it a good plot...Braveheart was fantastic...Gladiator was too...But I AM Legend was "ok"...Nothing out of Will's realm...He's an average actor...

[CNIZZ]

Tweet

Now I agree with fuzo, I can't stand those stupid horror movies that are not about suspense or drama, just about how sick and discusting they can make it. That takes little imagination to make a movie like that, I honestly can't believe they are even popular. torturing people, how does that get to be fun? lol

Though this does hold validity for some movies in the horror genre it isnt universal; I consider the gore sub-genre to be almost completely separate from "Horror" as a category.

Personally I prefer the violence and killing in horror and even gore movies a thousand to one over any action movie shootum up. At least in a horror movie, the victims have generally broken some form of societal taboo and are being punished by society personified. In action movies people are quite brutally shot to death and innocent people on the streets are unbiasedly killed by stray bullets, etc. Reservoir Dogs, any random action movie from the 80's or 90's, and Pulp Fiction (much easier to capitalize on Tarentino) are extremely graphic action movies that have just as much on screen violence, but seem to be more widely accepted by the public since the horror genre has been red flagged.

Playing devil's advocate and defending the torture movies, think it takes much less imagination to come up with another reason Rambo is back and better than ever than it does to create a story of teenagers being kidnapped on their trip to Europe and sold to be killed (using Hostel as an example). Considering what could have been shown and what wasnt shown, the movie is actually very tame. Much like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the majority of the violence in Hostel is performed off camera. The violence that does get depicted is a necessary tool in order to show the gritty reality of the situation the characters have found themselves in. The plot from Hostel was taken from events that have actually occured in eastern countries, just like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho were both based on the murders committed by Ed Gein, which adds a level of suspence because these sick and demented events have been performed to some extent by real people.

But then again, it takes a HELL of a lot of imagination to figure out how they could possibly bring John McClaine back and make a worse Die Hard movie.

[CNIZZ]

Tweet

Like King Kong for instance. That looked like a real silver back...moved and acted perfect, everything. Skull Island was awesome. So, I gues I'm all for them. I think they make movies pretty kickass for the most part.

King Kong is a great example both for and against my argument. The work done by WETA to create a real gorilla on screen was second to none, King Kong really did look amazing. Also, there is no other physical way to make a believable character like Kong without the use of CG, same was the case when they needed the T-Rex to run in Jurassic Park, it simply cant be done using animatronics.

Speaking of T-Rex though, the part of King Kong that absolutely destroyed the movie for me was the excessive and unnecessary scenes with the dinosaurs running through the valley trampling the crew, and even worse the T-Rex battle in the vines. If you are going to spend SO much time making King Kong as beautifully crafted and believable as possible, WHY would you do such a stupid thing like having him fight a couple of T-Rexs swinging in vines as the girl coincidentally lands safely from vine to vine?? To me the movie became a cartoon, a mockery of everything they were trying to do. It simply wasnt believable. I know this is where the argument usually comes in that movies are supposed to be "fun" and that I spend too much time breaking them down to enjoy them, but I loved King Kong fighting the T-Rexs on the ground where they belong, why not keep it as realistic as possible if that was the goal in creating the CG originally?