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.

[spectre08]

you were saying?

[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.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by spectre08

[Show spoiler]

you were saying?

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

[Ultra_Violence]

Originally Posted by Jennifer Lawrence Fan

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

Fincher uses it the right way imo. For blending shots together or touching things up. Or adding small little details that don't detract from the story or scene at all.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by 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.

Maybe -- and as much as this hurts me to say about a Rooney Mara movie -- it failed because IT SUCKED AND NO ONE WAS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER TO BEGIN WITH?

[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?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by spectre08

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

Fair enough.

[Falaskan]

Cgi may be seamless looking when it comes to movement, but they really need to work on lighting and color. The airbrushed look I keep seeing in so many movies does not make their effects look any more realistic to me. In fact, they stick out like a sore thumb!