CGI/Green Screen Movie Fatigue?

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by spectre08

that's exactly what I'm saying

So thank god, they didnt hire Joe Wright to film one of these Star Wars flicks or else it would be prequel land all over again.

[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.

[spectre08]

Consider this. A mid-range gaming PC right now can generate better graphics on the fly than an entire studio of visual effects artists could create frame-by-frame in 2000.

Like I said. CGI isn't getting less prevalent, it's just getting less noticeable.

[Chaotic]

The CGI for the storm scene in Mad Max was pretty awful I must say.

[L.J.]

Like when a film is made with as much practical effects as possible and cgi is used to enhance it. Don't like a film that has a story that suffers just to have more cgi effects shots in it like 2012. Think some times the studios forget not every thing has to be gigantic huge to be good. The smaller things in a film a lot of times is what makes it work. For instance San Andreas was a fun movie but to me Earthquake is a better quality film. Last film I saw with some bad cgi was TMNT ok film with some good effects but the scene where their coming down the mountain in a truck had some bad cgi in it.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yea Forrest Gump has several cgi shots similar to that in it.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by L.J.

Yea Forrest Gump has several cgi shots similar to that in it.

Yeah, plus a big one for that. Taking off LT. Dan's legs.

[Woosh]

Idk...I think the CGI in T2 and JP is better than a lot of what I see today.

I think some more practical effects might make a comeback but probably on these films that have a history of using such. The 3 you named are sequels of old movies that relied on that. So changing it now might cause more of a problem than a brand new franchise.

I do think even the Star Wars movie the CGI seemed out of place. The big Rathtar things, Moz, and Snoke weren't that good for me to see. It didn't make me hate the movie but it did seem out of place imo and was noticeably different.

I don't think Pan failed because of the CGI personally and I think CGI will only get better and more believable later on.(God I hope so) I think it just looked like a bad movie from the trailers and nobody wanted to see a warped different Peter Pan like movie.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

The CGI for the storm scene in Mad Max was pretty awful I must say.

Love Fury Road a favorite of mine, but the one scene where I thought they shouldn't have done that was a practical effect.

[Show spoiler]Can't remember his name but Imortem Joe's second man tears the head off of the engine at the end.

Would never happen unless he was Superman or something.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Jennifer Lawrence Fan

Yeah, plus a big one for that. Taking off LT. Dan's legs.

Braveheart also had some cgi. Mostly multiplying the soldiers.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Woosh

Idk...I think the CGI in T2 and JP is better than a lot of what I see today.

I think some more practical effects might make a comeback but probably on these films that have a history of using such. The 3 you named are sequels of old movies that relied on that. So changing it now might cause more of a problem than a brand new franchise.

I do think even the Star Wars movie the CGI seemed out of place. The big Rathtar things, Moz, and Snoke weren't that good for me to see. It didn't make me hate the movie but it did seem out of place imo and was noticeably different.

I don't think Pan failed because of the CGI personally and I think CGI will only get better and more believable later on.(God I hope so) I think it just looked like a bad movie from the trailers and nobody wanted to see a warped different Peter Pan like movie.

One of the reasons we see older movies, like T2 and JP, that we consider as having good CGI, is that at the time they KNEW it was bad, they understood the limitations of the technology, so they took steps. They added things like rain, smoke, dust, shadow, etc. to obscure and hide as much of the CGI as possible.

But some filmmakers today have grown overconfident in CGI and think their VFX look better or more realistic than they actually do. Terminator: Genysis was pretty guilty of this.

[Zivouhr]

Depending on the movie, if it's all about being as realistic as possible, then the CGI should attempt to be believable. If it's a make believe movie about things that couldn't happen in reality, should it still be believable if it's live action with real people playing the roles, and not an animated cartoon?

If it's supposed to be a real person, rather than get an animator to animate it (unless they're a genius animator), get the actor or stunt man to motion capture it (or just use a real stuntman), or else they end up with cartoon like motions as seen in Spider-Man 1 and 2 when Toby Maguire fights/swings in the Spider-Man suit.

At the same time, should some slack be given to those movies since Spider-Man is a super hero/fantasy movie that goes beyond reality and isn't something we'd normally expect? Like Spider-Man sling shotting himself out a window (looks awkward) or jumping 10 stories high, etc? I still think motion capture would've made those scenes a lot more believable.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Depending on the movie, if it's all about being as realistic as possible, then the CGI should attempt to be believable. If it's a make believe movie about things that couldn't happen in reality, should it still be believable if it's live action with real people playing the roles, and not an animated cartoon?

If it's supposed to be a real person, rather than get an animator to animate it (unless they're a genius animator), get the actor or stunt man to motion capture it (or just use a real stuntman), or else they end up with cartoon like motions as seen in Spider-Man 1 and 2 when Toby Maguire fights/swings in the Spider-Man suit.

At the same time, should some slack be given to those movies since Spider-Man is a super hero/fantasy movie that goes beyond reality and isn't something we'd normally expect? Like Spider-Man sling shotting himself out a window (looks awkward) or jumping 10 stories high, etc? I still think motion capture would've made those scenes a lot more believable.

modern mocap has done wonders for CGI in movie BTW, I'm glad you brought that up.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by spectre08

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?

People don't sing his praises because the transformers films are horrible. No one (to my knowledge) slams the quality of the effects work though. That's phenomenal. He's a great director and hopefully he loses the stigma he's earned with his craptastic transformers sequels. Bay is an Auteur. He deserves to make good movies again.

[Woosh]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

People don't sing his praises because the transformers films are horrible. No one (to my knowledge) slams the quality of the effects work though. That's phenomenal. He's a great director and hopefully he loses the stigma he's earned with his craptastic transformers sequels. Bay is an Auteur. He deserves to make good movies again.

Going to be hard to lose the stigma if he keeps making the Transformers movies. I think he's a pretty good director though and even some of the Transformers movies aren't that bad. I didn't see the last one though so idk about that. But they are big spectacles and clearly that works since the last one made over a billion.

[Infernal King]

spectre08 is laying down some stone-cold truth in this thread.

I'm not fatigued by CGI at all. Bad CGI sucks, everyone agrees on that. But I welcome good CGI and don't mind how much it's used.

[Packerfan75]

I don't see the trend stopping at this point. CGI is much cheaper and money talks in Hollywood. If things can look semi-real with effects and cost a lot less, most studios will use it. Although I prefer practical effects, I see them being used less in favor of CGI and a focus on attaining more realistic effects.

[WinkDinkerson]

cgi.jpg

[Markgway]

It's funny how the poster cites Fury Road as a great ad for CGI when it partly ruined the movie for me.
Almost nothing looked real. Even the stuff that was real looked fake because it was so overblown.

[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.