CGI/Green Screen Movie Fatigue?

[toddly6666]

With 2015's The Force Awakens, Spectre and Mad Max Fury Road reminding audiences that we like real practical effects, real locations, and little CGI (especially not obvious usages), are other filmmakers going to start catching on already and go back to the old school style too and easing up with the CGI/green screen overload? There is a reason that a movie like Pan failed because every scene in the film looks like the characters are either standing in front of a CGI background or they are in a claustrophic set. Is Hollywood going to continue investing in these "Pan" type films where every scene looks like the actors are performing in a huge green gymborie room?

[TheBlayman]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

With 2015's The Force Awakens, Spectre and Mad Max Fury Road reminding audiences that we like real practical effects, real locations, and little CGI (especially not obvious usages), are other filmmakers going to start catching on already and go back to the old school style too and easing up with the CGI/green screen overload? There is a reason that a movie like Pan failed because every scene in the film looks like the characters are either standing in front of a CGI background or they are in a claustrophic set. Is Hollywood going to continue investing in these "Pan" type films where every scene looks like the actors are performing in a huge green gymborie room?

We?

[spectre08]

lol, those movies, especially Mad Max, had a TON of CGI. As much or more than most of the movies that you would probably name as having "too much CGI."

The Transformers movies all have WAY more practical effects than any of those movies, but I'd bet you wouldn't cheer them as paragons of practical effects filmmaking.

We went through a rough time where CGI was relatively new and heavily used, but it wasn't good enough to be seamless. We are just now getting CGI that is so intricate and flawless that most of the time you'd be hard pressed to pick out what was CGI and what wasn't.

But I assure you, blockbusters today are no less full of CGI than those of 10 years ago. It's just better CGI.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

There is stuff in movies that is CGI. That most wouldn't even imagine was CGI. And thought was totally real.

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by spectre08

The Transformers movies all have WAY more practical effects than any of those movies, but I'd bet you wouldn't cheer them as paragons of practical effects filmmaking.

That is a load of bull. But even if it wasn't, it more has to do with what is the center of attention. Mad Max is centered on practical effects car chases. Transformers is centered on CGI robots beating up on each other.

What matters most is where it is used, not how much or how little.

[spectre08]

you were saying?

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by spectre08

lol, those movies, especially Mad Max, had a TON of CGI. As much or more than most of the movies that you would probably name as having "too much CGI."

The Transformers movies all have WAY more practical effects than any of those movies, but I'd bet you wouldn't cheer them as paragons of practical effects filmmaking.

We went through a rough time where CGI was relatively new and heavily used, but it wasn't good enough to be seamless. We are just now getting CGI that is so intricate and flawless that most of the time you'd be hard pressed to pick out what was CGI and what wasn't.

But I assure you, blockbusters today are no less full of CGI than those of 10 years ago. It's just better CGI.

It's not about how much cgi, it's about how it's used. Once again, explain me the difference in a movie like The Force Awakens and Pan? Besides the opening church scene in Pan, nothing else looks real after once they reach Neverland (aka Greenscreen Land).

Dude, Im not disagreeing with you - im just curious if filmmakers will try to keep the cgi/green screen stuff less obvious in future fantasy films.

[Jasonic]

Those first three show nothing different to what I was saying. I never said the movie didn't have cgi. I said it doesn't center on it. Transformers does.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Well, Transformers are giant robots. So yeah. CGI is kinda needed.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by spectre08

lol, those movies, especially Mad Max, had a TON of CGI. As much or more than most of the movies that you would probably name as having "too much CGI."

Difference is they used it better, balanced it more and made much more realistic looking movies as a result. People aren't making up their reactions.

Yes, I hope the trend continues.

[toddly6666]

Is anyone defending movies like "Pan" out of curiousity? Im wondering if people like the way the movie looks? I just thought it flopped because its overabundance on cgi and lack of balance.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Difference is they used it better, balanced it more and made much more realistic looking movies as a result. People aren't making up their reactions.

Yes, I hope the trend continues.

which is exactly what I'm saying. People don't have CGI/Green Screen fatigue, they have BAD CGI fatigue.

Filmmakers are getting better at it, but they certainly aren't using it any less, which was the point of OPs post.

Pan was bad because it was a bad movie filled with bad CGI. Pan wasn't bad because it was fill with CGI.

There is not a single frame of Fury Road that doesn't have multiple layers of CGI, yet OP listed it as a contrast between movies with CGI and without.

Fury Road is good because it's a good movie filled with good CGI.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by spectre08

which is exactly what I'm saying. People don't have CGI/Green Screen fatigue, they have BAD CGI fatigue.

Filmmakers are getting better at it, but they certainly aren't using it any less, which was the point of OPs post.

Pan was bad because it was a bad movie filled with bad CGI. Pan wasn't bad because it was fill with CGI.

There is not a single frame of Fury Road that doesn't have multiple layers of CGI, yet OP listed it as a contrast between movies with CGI and without.

Fury Road is good because it's a good movie filled with good CGI.

What about the filming in real locations aspect versus a huge dressed up claustrophobic greenscreen set?

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

What about the filming in real locations aspect versus a huge dresses up claustrophobic set?

most people can't tell the difference if it's done well. How much of Fury Road did you think was shot "on location?"

because none of it was. Literally none of it.

They could have filmed the exact same movie on the Bonneville Salt Flat, or on the FDR and ended up with the exact same final product.

Michael Bay insists on shooting on location, and in creating real explosions and capturing them in camera. What aren't you singing his praises?

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by spectre08

most people can't tell the difference. How much of Fury Road did you think was shot "on location?"

because none of it was. Literally none of it.

They could have filmed the exact same movie on the Bonneville Salt Flat, or on the FDR and ended up with the exact same final product.

They didnt shoot the movie outside? In the making, I heard that they traveled somewhere in middle of nowhere to film most of driving scenes?

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by spectre08

[Show spoiler]

you were saying?

Nice examples of subtle CGI to add atmosphere, scenery without being obvious.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

They didnt shoot the movie outside? In the making, I heard that they traveled somewhere in middle of nowhere to film most of driving scenes?

"outside" is not a location, it is literally just a place big enough to drive a car around.

The only part of the location in any frame that was actually capture in camera was the dirt directly under the tires.

All those mountains, sand dunes, canyons, etc....all fake

[toddly6666]

image.jpg

Eventhough The Force Awakens and Mad Max may use these type of scenes in the photo above, I didnt feel like that was the case as much as I felt that in a movie like Pan. Im not even talking about these movies being good or not, just the look and feel of each scene. So basically you are saying that the filmmakers of Force Awakens and Mad Max achieved the perception of reality with their greenscreen work and the Pan filmmakers didnt?

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

A good example of CGI. In the first Hunger Games movie. When they were on the talk show with Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci's character) Only the first 10 rows or so were actual people. And the rest behind that was all CGI. With all those others added later in post due to greenscreen.

or even in the movie Paper Towns. Yeah, that movie has Greenscreen. Where the two characters are looking out the window down onto the town. That was Greenscreen.

So its not just be action films that use Greenscreen and CGI.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

[Show spoiler]Attachment 130998

Eventhough The Force Awakens and Mad Max may use these type of scenes in the photo above, I didnt feel like that was the case as much as I felt that in a movie like Pan. Im not even talking about these movies being good or not, just the look and feel of each scene. So basically you are saying that the filmmakers of Force Awakens and Mad Max achieved the perception of reality with their greenscreen work and the Pan filmmakers didnt?

that's exactly what I'm saying