# [OT] Down with CGI!



## shadow (May 5, 2002)

I apologize in advance for this topic being unrelated to D&D, but seeing the Star Wars and Spiderman theads really made me start thinking.  I know the latest buzz in movies has been CGI.  Everything now is CGI this and CGI that.  I don't know about everyone else, but I'm really beginning to get a little ticked at CGI.  At times, it can produce amazing results in movies, but to much of it just makes me sick.  Do we really need a CGI yoda, when he has been doing fine as a puppet in the last 4 Star Wars movies?  What about the CGI Scooby in the upcoming Scooby Doo movie? (yech!!!) Take for example the famous T-1000 is T2.  The T-1000 couldn't have been done in any other medium.  That was a great example of early CGI.  Now think of the CGI abomination known as Jar-Jar Binks!  Now that CGI allows cheap and versatile special effects, Lucas and other movie makers are only thinking about whether or not such a CGI character is possible, not whether it is necessary.  Methinks that Lucas added Jar-Jar to show off the capabilities of CGI rather than to make a real character. 
  Some of my favorite movies such as Aliens and the original Star Wars trilogy were filmed before the advent of CGI.  They still have good special effects, without CGI.
  Moreover, often CGI and real actors just don't combine.  There just is something that doesn't look right with slick CGI images superimposed upon scenes of real actors and real backgrounds.  There are plenty of cheap CGI scenes to demonstrate this.
  Don't get me wrong.  There are some places where CGI works really well, and I think that some all CGI movies such as Toy Story were great.  However, too much CGI in the wrong places is just sickening.


----------



## Crothian (May 5, 2002)

The problem with CGI is when it overshadows the movie.  That is when I don't like it.  There is a more to a movie then special effects.  

Yoda as CGI should be okay if they need him to do things that aren't easy with a puppet.  But until I see it I can't pass judgement.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 5, 2002)

It's good that all this CGI is being used in such high-profile films. This is because it raises the bar, forcing CGI to continually improve and progress. At this rate, CGI will be next to impossible to pick out in 5 years or less; the only way to tell would be if something that obviously couldn't really exist or happen was on screen. Actually, that may be part of CGI's problem now; it's being used to portray stuff that couldn't possibly be in the real world, so it's easy to point at it and say CGI. There have been some good, subtle uses, like in Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates.


----------



## Droogie (May 5, 2002)

I kinda see what you mean. After seeing trailers for AotC, I think it has a good shot at being nominated for the best animated film  oscar next year.

But like it or hate it, CGI is here to stay. From what I understand, Yoda kicks butt in the new film, and he pulls off some interesting acrobatics that you couldn't do with puppets. 

I agree that there is good CGI and bad CGI. But in the good 'ol days there was always good fx and bad fx. Thanks to CGI, there has been an explosion of cool films that could have never been made, namely, LOTR. 

Even though most of us hate Jar Jar, I have to admit, the character CGI was done quite well. If Jar Jar had been done with a suit and mechanical mask, he would have looked like a silly muppet.


----------



## Droogie (May 5, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *There have been some good, subtle uses, like in Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates. *





I agree Colonel. Thanks to CGI, films like these would have been extremely difficult to make.

Some of the best CGI effects are the subtle ones, like in any Bob Zemekis film in the past 8 years. Remember how they erased Gary Sinise's legs in Forrest Gump?


----------



## Randolpho (May 5, 2002)

Well, I think CGI is good. Without CGI, we couldn't have such wonderful things as this forum, for example. Then there's things like shopping carts, search engines, and classifieds, none of which would be possible without CGI.


----------



## Ashtal (May 5, 2002)

Personally, I think a muppet participating in a full-fledged, ass-kicking fight scene with a lightsaber would have been truly laughable.

Long live CGI!


----------



## mattcolville (May 5, 2002)

shadow said:
			
		

> *I apologize in advance for this topic being unrelated to D&D, but seeing the Star Wars and Spiderman theads really made me start thinking.  I know the latest buzz in movies has been CGI. *




CGI was the 'latest buzz' ten years ago.


----------



## Aeris Winterood (May 5, 2002)

*CGI*

I for one, like what or where CGI is going. I think it is true that the truely fantastic (cave trolls) ( flaming eye) are awesome and we know that it is CGI because we know they do not truelly exist. I agree about the subteldies of CGi.... i.e. Private Ryan and Gump.... 

Like the Colonel, in 5 years or so we may not know what is actually real!


----------



## Nightfall (May 5, 2002)

CGI has nothing on my dark and twisted imagination!


----------



## Liquide (May 5, 2002)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> *Well, I think CGI is good. Without CGI, we couldn't have such wonderful things as this forum, for example. Then there's things like shopping carts, search engines, and classifieds, none of which would be possible without CGI. *




Actually that are CG you're referring to mate  !

CG = Computer Generated
CGI = Computer Generated Imagery

Just a friendly reminder


----------



## Darkness (May 5, 2002)

Liquide said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually that are CG you're referring to mate  !
> 
> ...



Heh. I love acronyms! 

There are sentences, however, where they _really_ shouldn't be used: _Piratecat looked over the computer-generated, politically correct, chaotic good player character that he had written on his own personal computer..._


----------



## Dimenhydrinate (May 5, 2002)

shadow said:
			
		

> *I apologize in advance for this topic being unrelated to D&D, but seeing the Star Wars and Spiderman theads really made me start thinking.  *




ahhh but what of the horrid D&D movie it HAD CGI and so therefore you are now slightly on topic


----------



## Impeesa (May 5, 2002)

Down with CGI! Up with PHP! 

Oh... wait, you mean CG graphics... um.... yeah.

--Impeesa--


----------



## Crothian (May 5, 2002)

Darkness said:
			
		

> *Heh. I love acronyms!
> 
> There are sentences, however, where they really shouldn't be used: Piratecat looked over the computer-generated, politically correct, chaotic good player character that he had written on his own personal computer...  *




You've been sitting on that for a while now, waiting for the perfect time to use it, right?


----------



## 333 Dave (May 5, 2002)

PC looked over the CG, PC, CG PC that he had written on his own PC. ( Damnit, there is no evil smiley )


----------



## uv23 (May 5, 2002)

pure cgi is crap.. look at movies like the original star treks.. the ships looked so real because they used actual models.. all of this pure cg crap is just that.. crap.. (my word for the day)

its laziness and cheapness and i'm sick of it
i refuse to see spiderman because of this very reason.. if i want to watch a cartoon, i'll watch a cartoon


----------



## Randolpho (May 6, 2002)

Liquide said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually that are CG you're referring to mate  !
> 
> ...




No... CGI means "Common Gateway Interface" in the internet world; it has absolutely nothing to do with graphics. It's that stuff you use to send information to CGI scripts written in such varied languages as Python, Perl, C, or yes, even PHP. 

See up at the top of your browser window where it says "Address"? See that part that says, "showthread.php?s=&threadid=12196"? *That* is CGI. Not *all* of CGI, but part of it. See all the buttons you can push and text boxes you can type in? Without CGI, those wouldn't be part of HTML. 

It was a bad pun, I know, but it had to be done.


----------



## Darkness (May 6, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You've been sitting on that for a while now, waiting for the perfect time to use it, right?   *



Almost... Truth be told, the "PC" word plays crop up in Nutkinland every now and again. 
The first time I did it, though, I didn't think of "personal computer" and when Ruin Explorer pointed it out to me and remarked that he found it strange that I managed to miss it even though _I obviously was sitting before one_, the word *"D'oh!"* was all could think of for quite some time... 

(edit - And when Liquide mentioned Computer-Generated in this thread, undreamed-of possibilities were suddenly available to me... )


----------



## Limper (May 6, 2002)

*CGI is BAD*

Limper takes the Soap Box.....

"I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."

"Thank You."


----------



## Darkness (May 6, 2002)

*Re: CGI is BAD*



			
				Limper said:
			
		

> *Limper takes the Soap Box.....
> 
> "I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."
> 
> "Thank You." *



*nods* A good role-playing session (or book) beats a bad but nice-looking movie any day.


----------



## Crothian (May 6, 2002)

*Re: CGI is BAD*



			
				Limper said:
			
		

> *Limper takes the Soap Box.....
> 
> "I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."
> 
> "Thank You." *




It's not meant to.  It's purpose is to aid in the story telling.  

Spiderman's web shoting is much better now then the 70's/80's TV show (if you remember that, I'm not exactly sure when it was).  That TV sho had lousy special effects and that took away from the story.  It was too rediculus to be believed.  But now through the use of more advanced methods, these special effects add to the story.


----------



## Limper (May 6, 2002)

"Meant to.... " If only everything were used the way it were meant to. Yes its true CGI could be an asset..... in moderation.

I do love good special effects, but its SO RARE they do well with computer animation of any sort. It looks cheap more oft than not.
The effects of the 70's were bad BY TODAYS standard at the time they weren't an issue. 

I suppose my rant is against all the DIET EYE-CANDY that the media keeps subjecting me to. It makes me very very sad to think how many people LIKE this tripe, who activly dislike thought provoking tales. Would it be to hard to have a good story AND good effects......... sometimes I'm ashamed to be a capitalist.


----------



## BOZ (May 6, 2002)

*Re: CGI*



			
				Aeris Winterood said:
			
		

> *Like the Colonel, in 5 years or so we may not know what is actually real! *




i don't even know what is actually real or not, right now!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 6, 2002)

uv23 said:
			
		

> *pure cgi is crap.. look at movies like the original star treks.. the ships looked so real because they used actual models.. all of this pure cg crap is just that.. crap.. (my word for the day)
> 
> its laziness and cheapness and i'm sick of it
> i refuse to see spiderman because of this very reason.. if i want to watch a cartoon, i'll watch a cartoon *




CGI is anything but laziness. It takes at least as much money and man-hours to do CGI as older model-based special effects, at least for high-budget movies. Yes, it's becoming less expensive and labor intensive to use CGI, but filmmakers who really want to push the envelope still spend lots of money and time to really distinguish their effecst from the rest. Plus, you're comparing top-flight effects using models to CGI, when I could point to hundreds of movies and TV shows that used model-based effects, and the ships (or whatever) looked like someone strung their toys up in front of a camera. The best CGI easily compares favorably to, if not surpasses, the best non-CGI effects. Compare the old effects in Star Wars to the special edition Lucas put out; I was there in the theater both in 1977 and for the re-release, and the new stuff revitalized that film; the effects simply hadn't held up.

I will say, though, that the two most impressive special effects movies I've seen came long before CGI - Close Encounters of the Third Kind and 2001. The effects for both stand the test of time very well. But they're the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Rashak Mani (May 6, 2002)

(gets up on the soapbox...)

   Well I wouldnt say "Away with CGI" but certainly... "We hate silly or desnecessary CGI !"... 

   More than ever people can see badly done or Show off CGI work... and Jar Jar Binks is the prime example of boring and showoff work.  If he had been shot thru the head in the film many would have cheered his very timely death... 

   CGI is the future thou... no getting around it... slowly the directors are seeing that CGI by itself isnt a crowd pleaser thou.  Got to have some substance too...

(waves... gets down from soapbox )


----------



## Shard O'Glase (May 6, 2002)

I thought the cgi in spiderman was really good.  While if I studdied it I'm sure I'd be able to see where it was cgi, either from logic no human could do that even on cables, or throguh actually seeing a flaw.  during the movie it flowed seemlessly enough that I never stepped back away from the movie and it allowed spidey to do the things spidey does in the comics, but couldn't be done on cables no matter how good the stunt man.


----------



## bondetamp (May 6, 2002)

*Re: CGI is BAD*



			
				Limper said:
			
		

> *Limper takes the Soap Box.....
> 
> "I completely concure. Down with CGI, its not impressive nor will it ever replace PLOT or STORY or CHARACTERIZATION."
> 
> "Thank You." *




Yeah. I have the same beef with costumes. They are used in almost every film now, and some of those films have quite shoddy stories.


----------



## Limper (May 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: CGI is BAD*



			
				bondetamp said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah. I have the same beef with costumes. They are used in almost every film now, and some of those films have quite shoddy stories. *




Good point indeed... very good point. Stupid Hollywood don't they pay any attention to messageboards.


----------



## kkoie (May 6, 2002)

shadow said:
			
		

> * I don't know about everyone else, but I'm really beginning to get a little ticked at CGI.  At times, it can produce amazing results in movies, but to much of it just makes me sick. *



Ticked off?  Why are you letting something as simple as computer animation even making you mad in the first place?!


> *Do we really need a CGI yoda, when he has been doing fine as a puppet in the last 4 Star Wars movies?  What about the CGI Scooby in the upcoming Scooby Doo movie? (yech!!!) Take for example the famous T-1000 is T2.  The T-1000 couldn't have been done in any other medium.  That was a great example of early CGI.  Now think of the CGI abomination known as Jar-Jar Binks!  Now that CGI allows cheap and versatile special effects, Lucas and other movie makers are only thinking about whether or not such a CGI character is possible, not whether it is necessary.  *



I suppose the idea that creating a CGI Jar Jar Binks was more realistic than having some guy walk around in a suit just isn't a realistic reason huh?  



> *
> Methinks that Lucas added Jar-Jar to show off the capabilities of CGI rather than to make a real character. *




I think you are judging Jar Jar not on the fact that it is CGI but by the FACT that you simply didn't like the character.  I think computers has nothing to do with it.



> *  Some of my favorite movies such as Aliens and the original Star Wars trilogy were filmed before the advent of CGI.  They still have good special effects, without CGI.*



Interesting, well what about the fact that the origonal star wars were later redone with CGI?  I suppose that was bad as well despite the fact that it improved the film?




> *  Moreover, often CGI and real actors just don't combine.  *



Now you are just being silly and nitpicky!  Using real actors and CGI combine about as well as using _ real actors and puppets_, if not more so!  At least with cgi the character looks natural.  Not a lot can be said of the puppets.



> *There just is something that doesn't look right with slick CGI images superimposed upon scenes of real actors and real backgrounds.  There are plenty of cheap CGI scenes to demonstrate this.*




Well it is wrong to judge all of CGI in all movies based upon poor work.  Not all cgi is cheap looking.  The backgrounds from the star wars films are examples of about as good as it can get.



> *  Don't get me wrong.  There are some places where CGI works really well, and I think that some all CGI movies such as Toy Story were great.  However, too much CGI in the wrong places is just sickening. *




Oh thats not so sickening, what I find truely sickening are all those nut jobs who go out and spend tons of money supporting cinematic trash like The Scorpion King and other films that are at best, mediocre as heck, and at worst, total garbage.  NOW that is SICKENING.

K Koie


----------



## PenguinKing (May 6, 2002)

uv23 said:
			
		

> *pure cgi is crap.. look at movies like the original star treks.. the ships looked so real because they used actual models.. all of this pure cg crap is just that.. crap.. (my word for the day)
> 
> its laziness and cheapness and i'm sick of it
> i refuse to see spiderman because of this very reason.. if i want to watch a cartoon, i'll watch a cartoon *



Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to create even one second of CGI animation?  You need to rethink that "laziness" stance.

Besides, if the issue here is verisimilitude, you think CGI looks like crap, it's unrealistic, it's cheesy - ask yourself this: are deceptive camera angles, stop-motion puppets, improbable wire-fu, and blue-screened backdrops really any less cheesy and lacking in realism?

 - Sir Bob.


----------



## Victim (May 6, 2002)

I think that Jar-Jar would have been just as bad, if not worse, as a puppet.  

What's kind of funny about CGI characters is that computer games when through a phase in which most things were based off video clips, and now lots of movies are based off computer animated scenes.  

I think the best thing about CGI is that it shows us a character, not a somewhat famous person playing that character.


----------



## PenguinKing (May 6, 2002)

Victim said:
			
		

> *I think that Jar-Jar would have been just as bad, if not worse, as a puppet.*



My point exactly - there are no bad mediums*, only bad ideas.  If it's a bad idea as a computer-generated effect, it would _still_ look just as bad done with camera tricks and puppets - or in Jar-Jar's case, as a guy with latex facial prostheses and animatronic ears.

(And don't anybody try to claim that CGI is bad for allowing more bad ideas to see the light of day; the same can be said of _any_ aspect of movie effects - even sound, for allowing bad pop music to play throughout pivotal scenes.  )

 - Sir Bob.

* (okay, technically "media" is the plural, but that might lead to confusion in this context.)


----------



## kkoie (May 6, 2002)

PenguinKing said:
			
		

> *Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to create even one second of CGI animation?  You need to rethink that "laziness" stance.
> 
> Besides, if the issue here is verisimilitude, you think CGI looks like crap, it's unrealistic, it's cheesy - ask yourself this: are deceptive camera angles, stop-motion puppets, improbable wire-fu, and blue-screened backdrops really any less cheesy and lacking in realism?
> 
> - Sir Bob. *




I think some people have the idea that CGI is cranked out in seconds.  Heck, the CGI scene from Fight Club where you had the camera pan through a waste basket took 1 week to render!  It takes tons and tons of time for the computer to render the detailed CGI scenes!

K Koie


----------

