Why CGI in movies doesn't suck!

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

An interesting video of why CGI most definitely does not suck! https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24
Original post
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

That's a good piece and in summary makes the key differentiation between good GGI and bad CGI. And putting CGI in the right context. With all the expertise and all the technology available you could argue that bad CGI is inexcusable. But bad CGI and badly used CGI does suck!!
Profile picture for user Lincoln 7

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 8,306

Well I guess it had to come sooner or later, the Americanism words, looks like "SUCK" is the first. Talking on the phone to a friend in the States the other day, when the word "Shoot" cropped up a couple of times. Does this word, mean what I think it does, ie, SH*t. (Sorry for the thread drift) Jim. Lincoln .7
Profile picture for user DazDaMan

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 18,278

In a nutshell - CGI is only as good as the team behind it and the person using it.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

The reason I posted is because of the negative response from this forum whenever a new aviation film and cgi is mentioned. Just wanted to remind people that not all cgi is bad and in fact some is actually pretty bloody good!
Profile picture for user Dave Homewood

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 5,504

In a nutshell - CGI is only as good as the team behind it and the person using it.
Which can be said about everything else in film making - such as the script, direction, acting, cinematography, costume, make up, set design, budget, marketing, etc, etc. CGI is no different, so why anyone picks on this medium as ruining films is beyond me. Thanks for the link Hampden. Great to see they acknowledge the advances New Zealand has made in the industry too.
Profile picture for user j_jza80

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 1,540

CGI is much like computer games. They often look great when they come out, but after a while they age. I fear that CGI will ruin projects like Peter Jacksons Dambusters and The Mighty Eighth.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

Let's see if they get made, first.....:rolleyes: The case for good CGI has been made but that's only half the story.
Profile picture for user Dave Homewood

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 5,504

Sir Peter Jackson's film King Kong is now a decade old and in my opinion the CGI still looks fantastic. And face facts, non-CGI effects also date in films, particularly models of aeroplanes in flight. Special effects using CGI is exactly like everything else in movie making. You can enjoy a great film when everything is done right without really thinking about why it was so good apart from an excellent overall result - but if you get any one of the elements not being right, from a bad script, acting, direction, costume design, set design, historical inaccuracy, music score, sound quality, lighting, etc, it'll make the film look bad and you won't enjoy it so much. Every aspect of making feature films and television is a craft in its own right with specialist skills and specialist tools, and when you get all of them working in perfect unison it is seamless - get one of those aspects not performing quite up to par, whether it be down to lack of budget, ineptitude or inexperience, or whatever else, it can let the whole production down and leave the viewer feeling flat or even cheated. It's like an orchestra, with one player slightly out of key. CGI is an excellent tool in the filmmaker's tool kit, and when used well by a craftsman it is perfect. People who moan about poor CGI don't think about this. They'll pick on it more than they will a bad script or bad acting, etc, only because it is the newest tool in the filmmakers toolbox and they perhaps don't understand how important it is and how often they're actually seeing it without noticing it.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

All absolutely right. I think the problem is one of perception. Old technologies which have dated badly are "forgiven" because there was nothing better. In the 21st century the perception is that "anything" is possible, largely because of film makers' hard sell, and so expectations are raised so high that poor results are not forgiven, in the same way.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

CGI, Matt Painting, Models, Live. All tools in the filmmakers toolbox and sometimes all are combined into one seamless shot. I'm looking forward to the new Dambusters film but I think it may fail not because of technology but because it's often hard to better a good film. Perhaps we should look to remake the bad ones?
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

Or just have some original ideas....:)