# Is CGI killing the quality of movies?



## MartialHorror (Oct 16, 2008)

Well, three things actually confirm this.

1) People REALLY liked Transformers, and I kind of did as well. Still, the movies only real great quality is the CGI. To me, CGI should support a movie, not make it. So if people love transformers, the studios will get lazy in terms of good writing.

2) Remember when low budget movies had a fun quality to them. Sometimes you would get some great like "Night of the Living Dead"? These days, low budget movies that require any kind of special effect ARE BAD.....I mean, Alligator was a low budget monster(if an alligator counts as one) flick that only really had one bad special effect. Lake Placid 2......never had a remotely "okay" effect. CGI is easier and cheaper, but looks worse when it is bad. 

3) These days, EVERYTHING is CGI. Jokers makeup was part CGI(although at least TDK didn't rely on it), and the zombie-things from "I am Legend" were CGI as well......these are things that don't need to be CGI and often come across as cheap(with the jokers makeup, it only looked CGI in the trailers for some reason.....)

Of course, CGI can be a great thing as well...it's just that too many movies seem to only to have good CGI as a compliment. Even Uwe Boll movies are getting it.....

So does anyone agree? Or am I too anal on this?  I'm probably going to get sodomized by a bunch of rabid transformers fans.....


----------



## Zaphkiel (Oct 16, 2008)

I agree with most of your statements. CGI should only be there to complement a movie and make it look nicer. Storyline is equally important. 

However, I'm one of those guys who likes watching a movie for the action and the looks, less so for the storyline. Thus, movies like Transformers are like,  I'm not saying CGI is more important than story or anything. Like, The Forbidden Kingdom had some in it, the fighting was good, but the story _sucked._ I couldn't stand it.

I'm glad CGI is being used more. It allows for more spectacular things to be done in movies.  



MartialHorror said:


> So does anyone agree? Or am I too anal on this?  I'm probably going to get sodomized by a bunch of rabid transformers fans.....



Watch out for those mighty Transformers fans, they'll eat you alive!


----------



## Shark Skin (Oct 16, 2008)

Well I think your right to some extent. But I think that its really just because a lot of people are still messing around with it and experimenting to test what they can do with CGI. As you say its best if CGI compliments a movie and doesn't entirely make it. And I think that after a while people will stop drooling over looks and start looking for true quality (well not that they don't already).


----------



## Koi (Oct 16, 2008)

Not always, but it definitely can.

Have you seen the Star Wars DVDs?  Chaging Jabba and some of the other things to CGI was just an awful decision.

But really, though, an over-reliance on CGI CAN definitely ruin a movie and/or its effect.  Especially when the CGI is too over-indulgent.


----------



## Chee (Oct 16, 2008)

It's a film media, I don't mind it. When they use CGI and don't need it, I Am Legend for example, is when it bothers me.
Movies like Transformers is when they do need CGI, could you imagine gigantic robots looking like the early Godzilla? Nope.



> Jokers makeup was part CGI(although at least TDK didn't rely on it)



None of it was CGI. Two Face's was part CGI though.


----------



## Zeroo (Oct 17, 2008)

As a comic-book fan, I have little issue with CGI because now we are getting/got movies like 'Spiderman 1,2' 'Iron-man', 'Incredible Hulk' ,'Avengers', 'Thor' that no one thought was possible just a decade or so ago...
I mean I can't bare to watch those old Superman movies (as highly praised as some of those are..) just cuz of their horrible effects....

of course CGI does not make a movie automatically good...you need a good script, actors, director etc...and yes some producers look at CGI as quick moneymakers *cough* FOX *cough* but that thankfully is in the minority..

..in the end CGI adds more to the movie than it takes away...


----------



## excellence153 (Oct 17, 2008)

CGI is the production's choice.  It doesn't NEED to be used.  

Transformers (surprisingly) used some tricks from the old books... like at some points, the little one (I forgot its name) was definitely a puppet/animatronic.

I mean... in the end, CGI is not the bad guy.  It's the guys using it and how they're using it.


----------



## MarkosSadren (Oct 17, 2008)

depends on the movie


----------



## C. Hook (Oct 17, 2008)

Are puppets killing the quality of movies?

Are sets killing the quality of movies?

Are costumes killing the quality of movies?

Is rubber killing the quality of movies?

These are all merely tools to be used like CGI.

Surprisingly enough, the Star Wars prequel trilogy used not only more CGI, but more models, minatures, and sets than the originals. Yet of course, people blame the CGI. No, it's not the fault of the actors, or the script, or the plot. Only CGI should be blamed.

A better question would be, are summer blockbusters killing the quality of movies?


----------



## MartialHorror (Oct 17, 2008)

I do agree that CGI is mainly a tool, and that it depends how it was used.

The reason I picked on it above all was that it seems like people are forgiving bad movies as long as it has good CGI. 

Chee: Agreed that Transformers needed it. Hell, I prefer the new CGI Hulk over the old style Hulk, but it doesn't always work. Example, I think Godzilla looked better in "GMK: All out Monster attack" than the 97 version. Another problem with CGI is simply that it tends to get outdated quickly. 

But actually, Jokers makeup was partially CGI. A) There was a pic showing him on set with makeup on. B) Ledger at one point said because of it, it didn't take too long to get his on.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 17, 2008)

Scar_x said:


> As a comic-book fan, I have little issue with CGI because now we are getting/got movies like 'Spiderman 1,2' 'Iron-man', 'Incredible Hulk' ,'Avengers', 'Thor' that no one thought was possible just a decade or so ago...
> I mean I can't bare to watch those old Superman movies (as highly praised as some of those are..) just cuz of their horrible effects....
> 
> of course CGI does not make a movie automatically good...you need a good script, actors, director etc...and yes some producers look at CGI as quick moneymakers *cough* FOX *cough* but that thankfully is in the minority..
> ...



Are you kidding? The old Superman movies were the best ones! Well...I and II at least...


----------



## Zen-aku (Oct 17, 2008)

MarkosSadren said:


> depends on the movie



^ This right here


----------



## Chee (Oct 17, 2008)

> Chee: Agreed that Transformers needed it. Hell, I prefer the new CGI Hulk over the old style Hulk, but it doesn't always work. Example, I think Godzilla looked better in "GMK: All out Monster attack" than the 97 version. Another problem with CGI is simply that it tends to get outdated quickly.
> 
> But actually, Jokers makeup was partially CGI. A) There was a pic showing him on set with makeup on. B) Ledger at one point said because of it, it didn't take too long to get his on.



That was all makeup Martial. Dunno why you'd think it was part CGI, its not hard to smack on some white face paint. Unless you have a direct link to the actual quote?


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 17, 2008)

Its a tool, it depends on how its used, for instance Speilbergs over reliance on it killed most of his latest movies for me, especially War of the worlds and Indiana Jones. The latter of which used obscene amount of cgi for an indy movie.


----------



## Stalin (Oct 17, 2008)

I think it doesn't hurt if a lot of cgi is used, if a movie with a lot of cgi sucked, it was the director's fault for amking a cgi movie! Though the cgi has to look believable or it will be a con of a movie.


----------



## MartialHorror (Oct 17, 2008)

Chee said:


> That was all makeup Martial. Dunno why you'd think it was part CGI, its not hard to smack on some white face paint. Unless you have a direct link to the actual quote?



Nope, as for "how hard it is", you'd think so. But to get the right design, it takes forever to put it on. One mistake will make a continuity error. So I think they did alot of it in CGI to make it go quicker.

What I think it was was some wierd stuff that the exact CGI was added to detail it. The pic I saw had some wierd stuff on his face(that was not the joker makeup) and he had the scars. 

I dont have a direct link because I usually don't bother researching movies that came out that long ago.


Hmm,....I dont think Spielberg overused it with War of the Worlds. Obviously the CGI had to be there, but most of what made it effective was the noises the tripods made. 

I guess I can see why you would say that about Indiana Jones, although I dont think its any worse than the old ones......people tend to dislike it for the same reason they dislike the new Star Wars movies, they grow up with the old ones so ignore their flaws.


----------



## Chee (Oct 17, 2008)

Ugh, unless you have some proof then I'm not gonna stop saying that your wrong. Filmmakers deal with continuity everyday, it's nothing new and nothing different from the Joker.

Besides that, as the film goes on his makeup changes. It starts out fresh and then goes down to dirty...especially during that jail scene. And what picture are you talking about?

And as far as I know, CGI is only used for full objects, not someone's face. Honestly, back it up if you're going to spew this "Joker's makeup was CGI" crap.


----------



## Rukia (Oct 17, 2008)

I'm not that fond of CGI.  I definitely think some studios over rely on the technique.  

Worst examples of CGI I have ever seen belong to Garfield and Scooby Doo.  Absolutely horrible.  A regular cat and a great dane would have been better.


----------



## MartialHorror (Oct 17, 2008)

Chee said:


> Ugh, unless you have some proof then I'm not gonna stop saying that your wrong. Filmmakers deal with continuity everyday, it's nothing new and nothing different from the Joker.
> 
> Besides that, as the film goes on his makeup changes. It starts out fresh and then goes down to dirty...especially during that jail scene. And what picture are you talking about?
> 
> And as far as I know, CGI is only used for full objects, not someone's face. Honestly, back it up if you're going to spew this "Joker's makeup was CGI" crap.



Er, CGI is used for alot of things. Remember X-men 3? How else did they get Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart to look so young? Hell, often they will use it just to remove blemishes from peoples faces. 

Yes, filmmakers deal with it all the time, and have in the past. They just discovered they could make the makeup cheeper, easier and quicker than before. They could'v done full makeup on Ledger, but it would have taken HOURS to get it right. 

You need to learn that when movies are shot, its not done in the same structure as writing it. They do various scenes at different times.

So they could've shot the final scene in TDK first, and the first scene in TDK could have been the last scene actually shot. It all depends on everyone schedules....such as when an actor is available or when a location is available. So even though Jokers face changes, that doesn't mean they shot it in that order.

If it went from nicer, to dirtier, back to nice again.....would that make alot of sense? 

An obvious example of continuity problems is in "Stripes". A character is laying down with his bag. For some reason, it keeps changing from next to his head to under his feat. It's because they didn't shoot it all during one take. It was multiple takes and somehow that was missed.

Or when blood will be on someones shirt, vanish, and reappear later. It's an overlooked flaw that appears in almost every single movie. 

As for the picture, saw it on some article on Ledger. Also, weren't we talking about this in TDK thread at one point?

Aren't you getting a bit too pissy over something this small?


----------



## Stalin (Oct 17, 2008)

Rukia said:


> I'm not that fond of CGI.  I definitely think some studios over rely on the technique.
> 
> Worst examples of CGI I have ever seen belong to Garfield and Scooby Doo.  Absolutely horrible.  A regular cat and a great dane would have been better.



I agree on the garfield, in fact , it would have been better make a CGI garfield movie . 

I think it would adwark to have a regular gret dane, they just should made a better CGI scoobie.


----------



## Zeroo (Oct 18, 2008)

^  plz don't remind me of those garfield movies...they took the coolest cat in the world (and no not u felix...) and turned it into some looney tunes character...


----------



## Zen-aku (Oct 18, 2008)

Scar_x said:


> ^  plz don't remind me of those garfield movies...they took the coolest cat in the world (and no not u felix...) and turned it into some looney tunes character...



u deserve to be disappointed if u think garfeild is the coolest cat in the world


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Oct 18, 2008)

All I know is, The Thing didn't need CGI to spook me, Spidey's blood drop on the party would have benefitted from better effects and the wolf at the beginning of 300 looked awful. But I accept the CGI because it is a natural step and extravaganzas like Transformers I'd rather catch on broadcast TV than movie theaters where it really jumps on you.


----------



## Shoddragon (Oct 18, 2008)

Agreed somewhat. GOOD CGI however can help a movie greatly, however I preferred Lake Placid 1 over Lake Placid 2, mainly because the crocodiles in part 2 looked so..... fake. It can be good however, I extremely enjoyed the fights in the last Hulk movie, the transformations and fights were great.

I do think movies are sort of losing quality however. The ending of quarantine made me cringe. Cloverfield's ending could have been better unless the ending was made to setup a sequel. CLoverfield had some good CGI however, I enjoyed how good the monster looked. I mean, some CGI is necessary however. Imagine how bad it would be if the dog from the Men in Black movies was CGI. It would look awful.


----------



## Yakushi Kabuto (Oct 18, 2008)

I just think of it as another kind of effect to visually jazz something up. I don't think it takes away from films that are already good because it can't make bad actors better or improve lame dialogue. Although it does mean that bad films might be a little bit more bearable (unless the CGI is also hilariously awful ).


----------



## Black Wraith (Oct 18, 2008)

I disagree with you too an extent.

As you pointed out Transformers was brilliant and worked the CGI in perfectly. There are also other movies out there including Matrix Revolutions, which was nearly all CG, the story was a little messed up but the way they incorporated the CG was brilliant (I was hoping they'd do the same for DBZ but from the looks of it it's not going to happen).

I think just like all other movies without CG it depends a lot on the director and the way the actors work with the CGI, if the director is good with CGI and the actors are too you won't get a problem.


----------



## Zeroo (Oct 19, 2008)

Scar_x said:


> ^  plz don't remind me of those garfield movies...they took the coolest cat in the world (and no not u felix...) and turned it into some looney tunes character...





Zen-aku said:


> u deserve to be disappointed if u think garfeild is the coolest cat in the world



why..u have a better candidate..??


----------



## MartialHorror (Oct 19, 2008)

Black Fenix said:


> I disagree with you too an extent.
> 
> As you pointed out Transformers was brilliant and worked the CGI in perfectly. There are also other movies out there including Matrix Revolutions, which was nearly all CG, the story was a little messed up but the way they incorporated the CG was brilliant (I was hoping they'd do the same for DBZ but from the looks of it it's not going to happen).
> 
> I think just like all other movies without CG it depends a lot on the director and the way the actors work with the CGI, if the director is good with CGI and the actors are too you won't get a problem.



Are you responding to me? I never said "Transformers" was brilliant. It had great CGI, but that was all the movie had. 

Agree with the last part, but I used Transformers as an example of what is wrong with todays audiences. People are too easily impressed by it, even though the story sucks like hell...(keeping in mind, I never watched the shows or anything)


----------



## Chee (Oct 19, 2008)

I was impressed by the CGI in Transformers. The fact that it had lots of details and it all worked together to transform was amazing. Even though it's not a puppet, there is still an artist behind the robots, gotta give them props for it.


----------



## MartialHorror (Oct 19, 2008)

So do I. Great special effects.

In the other thread, you say something like even if it has a good cinematographer, if everything else sucks, then it doesn't matter.

Well, thats what I think about Transformers, except replace cinematographer with CGI. Luckily, I'm easily entertained so I like Transformers enough.......but it's still a bad movie.


----------



## Chee (Oct 19, 2008)

Thought the movie sucked as well, but it doesn't change the fact that the CGI was good.

Haven't seen Max Payne but it seems like it sucks, cinematography looked good though. Fully agree with you.


----------



## QwertyoPIZ (Oct 19, 2008)

Anyone who says transformers sucks is due to their lack of knowing the story behind transformers. People may say the plot has no flow, yet it does. All that has been done is that they throw in an entire session into two hours of movie. The SFX and CGI in transformers rocked, the story-compression was also very good.

One of the things that makes a movie bad is time plotting. New movies that come out today are generally rushed into an irritable plot. The animators can only do so much, with so many resources as to what the director gives them. Boundaries block actors, and animators as well as FX crews from fullfilling their entire potential into the movie.

A perfect example of a crapily done CGI is Beowulf. The book's story had extreme potential, but the director gave undesirable boundaries to his/her crew and made the movie suck.

Another example was Alien vs Predator 2. The entirety was demolished, pitifully wasted. The fighting scenes were scrap, and the pick-ups from AVP.

Understanding how film works plays a big role in judging whether the movie is good or not. Unfortunately, nowadays its easy to entertain a bunch of idiots with simple pathetic fight scenes and gore.


----------



## Kamina (Oct 19, 2008)

CGI makes films better in my opinion.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Oct 19, 2008)

It depends

I dont see many CGI in spanish movies

CGI spam is for blockbusters and shit

If your watching a film from Iran about a kid who lost his apple and has to come back home to pick another one dont expect too much CGI effects there.


----------



## Chee (Oct 19, 2008)

I love Guillermo del Toro, he always keep things physically possible for his films even though he could always half ass it. <3



Kamina said:


> CGI makes films better in my opinion.



When used correctly.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Oct 19, 2008)

Dark Knight had no CGI and its the 2nd biggest movie ever after Failtanic.


CGI (and bad acting) ruined starwars.


----------



## Zen-aku (Oct 19, 2008)

Scar_x said:


> why..u have a better candidate..??



chester chetto ^_^


----------



## MartialHorror (Oct 19, 2008)

QwertyoPIZ said:


> Anyone who says transformers sucks is due to their lack of knowing the story behind transformers. People may say the plot has no flow, yet it does. All that has been done is that they throw in an entire session into two hours of movie. The SFX and CGI in transformers rocked, the story-compression was also very good.
> 
> One of the things that makes a movie bad is time plotting. New movies that come out today are generally rushed into an irritable plot. The animators can only do so much, with so many resources as to what the director gives them. Boundaries block actors, and animators as well as FX crews from fullfilling their entire potential into the movie.
> 
> ...



IF the best defense from Transformers is "Those who say it sucks isn't aware of the story", then that still shows how bad it is. It might work for a T.V show, but not a movie. Anyway, I dont see how it has any kind of flow when alot of it is characters trying to find out something we already know about....

Disagree on Beowulf. Sure, I think the animated aspect was unnecessary, but I thought they actually improved on the story. I love the old classic, but there isn't much depth to it.

Agree on AVP2....although my main issue with it was that it was 40% random characters getting killed. 40% cliched teen drama and 20% of actual story....


----------

