Is CGI ruining film?
Print This Post
I used to be all for the idea of CGI.
It came about to fulfill our desire in society for realism in filmmaking.
I for example am normally a person that enjoys a Sci-Fi film and I would much rather watch one that has a CGI monster than one that has some guy destroying tiny buildings in a monster suit anyone can find at Tesco.
As CGI effects get more and more “realistic” films look more and more fake to me. Filmmakers these days are using CGI on things that don’t even require it like backgrounds, blood and gore, muscles and so on. It looks ridiculous to me. What I find amazing in film is when a makeup artist can use fake blood and silicone limbs to make a person look mangled. Whats one of the scariest movies people rated that they’ve ever seen? Jaws (1975) and only because that huge robotic shark, was so realistic, I was horrified to see that guy get eaten whole by it. The “not technologically advanced” robotic shark was so well crafted that I completely forgot it was, in fact, a robot.
I must admit the artistic styling of films like 300 and Sin City really appeal to me. Especially working in the creative industry.
I feel like Hollywood today is moving further and further away from what is traditional and the good old days about the art of acting and filmmaking. Take for example the recent film Beowulf (2007). The entire film was created by computer. Yes, the director used real actors such as Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins however, he transformed them into computer graphics. Think: when will actors really become obsolete? If in these times real actors are becoming CGI effects, just like backgrounds and blood, then where will we be when several of my friends, who are in theatre studies, want to make it big? What will become of the Oscars if people are purely created on the computer and never really exist? I suppose all the awards will go to the guys making the computer programs they make the actors on and the guys who use such programs.
I hope for actors, and my friends, as artists and myself as a seeker of “true” realism that Hollywood stops before they destory the art of cinema.
In a way I think yes. Whenever I see bad CGI it ruins the film a little ya know?
Plus when I see huge epic battle scenes and you just know that they are CGI that’s always disapointing because you think back to the days of Lawrence of Arabia and how amazing those real scenes were.
But then again CGI has some great use too.
So yes and no.
As long as it’s done well and avoids the computer game look I don’t mind.
That said: I can enjoy bad CGI the same way I can enjoy bad model work and painted backgrounds
Yes and no.
It easily cuts both ways.
CGI is just the latest way to ‘do’ special effects.
Would a question such as “Is rotoscoping runing film?” or “Is switching the screen from blue to green ruining film?”
The question is, “Is it being over used? Is it being used a crutch to bolster a poor story?”
CGI is fine if it’s used to enhance the story. My personal preference for CG is to have it blend into the reality that it’s presented in rather then work against it like so many big blockbusters try and do. They want people to see the special effects so you can ohhh and ahhh and the technical skills. I’d rather not see it and think, who did they do that!
I don’t remember seeing any battle with 350k people in LOA or one that lasted for more than 2mins. You only saw like 5 people die with melee and it looked horrible because the sword impacts looked so fake.
CGI’s popularity with filmmakers has to do with CGI enabling them to depict things that would otherwise be impossible to depict because of budget and practical considerations. You can aim for realism or not with it.
I don’t care about realism in films, personally. I never rate something lower because it doesn’t look real to me. I can rate effects, including CGI, lower, however, because they’re not attractive to me, or I do not think they work in the context of the film, etc.
I also hate “purism”, by the way.
CGI is just another tool. What makes it work or not is if you do interesting things with it, aesthetically pleasing or insightful things, etc.–not necessarily realistic things.
Like everyone else has said so far, yes and no.
I think once fantasy or (extreme) science fiction becomes a factor so does the appropriate leeway for digital matts, creatures and even speaking characters. In that respect I see little to no difference between CGI and the Harryhausen era of stop-motion animation: None of it is real or “in camera” yet all of it requires the talents of deeply committed artist; all that’s changed is the tools.
The more reality based the material the better it is to avoid heightened realities via digital renderings of the fanciful/sensational kind. With films like Changeling or even The Dark Knight the CGI was applied well enough as to avoid unwanted escapism. Whereas the Balrog from The Fellowship of the Ring is no different than Kong from King Kong or the skeleton army from Jason and the Argonauts: It’s a special effect that you WANT to see–as imaginative as possible–in all its glory.
Cinema is a young and constantly evolving art form, to say that “things were better before” is to stifle new and creative ways of expressing through the medium.
I can understand your worry that CGI will replace all other forms of effects, but I think it is misplaced.
Whilst I do believe that CGI effects will be the vast majority produced over the coming years I do not believe that this will either:
a: make all other effect forms redundant.
b: make movies any less enjoyable.
If we did not allow people to evolve new techniques to amaze and astound us then cinema would still be sepia-toned, silent affairs.
There will always be a place for traditional acting and visual effects in the cinema, and I am sure that many people such as your self will keep them alive and well even if they eventually get restricted to the Indie and Art genres.
For myself, I cannot wait to see what waits around the corner of the future of cinema, keep on moving forward I say!
its over-used and over-rated.
thats my personal thoughts on it, i just dont see the excitment of watching actors running around a green screen, i would rather see them be live in the action it feel’s more realistic and i think i would appreicate the effort put into the film more.
I also believe that is why recent films today are shocking. They have alot of hype but no over excitment and i believe CGI play a heavy part in this.
I googled “Cgi is ruining movies” after watching a scene in Wrong Turn 2 where 2 people get shot with an arrow simultaneously and I could instantly tell it was CGI by the fake computer looking effects and blood which consequently ruined the films immersion. I just want to back up the OP in saying I also think its ruining pictures when I think back to the days when people like Tom Savini could have made that scene REALLY look realistic with just makeup and clever camera work. I hope that CGI is used less in the future or atleast spent enough on so that I cant tell so easily.
Anthony Hopkins is one of the veteran actors in Hollywood that should be given a lifetime acheivement award.–’
when i hear the name Anthony Hopkins, i always tought of the movie Meet Joe Black.~’`
Leave your response!
Latest Discussion
Views
The LHM Network
Test
The LHM Network
Most Commented
Most Viewed