 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.2.192.137
I got sucked in by a usually reliable source... shoulda known better. For all the money spent, CGI never looks real, always strains for excess, and rarely if ever adds to the story. I was reminded recently of this by re-viewing "The Abyss", the last movie (one of the originals?) that wasn't wrecked by CGI. Maybe it's just about not being of the generation raised on computer games...oh well, live 'n learn.
Cheers,
K.
Not an end in and of itself.
CGI is just one more tool in the filmmaker's arsenal...to be used well...or not so well, depending on the budget, time constraints and imaginations of the director and FX team. As 2001, The Abyss and other classic movies prove, you don't need CGI to create great FX on the screen. But CGI opens up many possibilities for the creative fimmaker.
As Analog Scott notes, you have probably seen thousands of frames of CGI in non sci-fi movies and never even known it. CGI makes it possible to achieve things on the screen that would either be prohibitively expensive or impossibly long and intricate, or that simply couldn't be done any other way.
One of the most brilliant uses of CGI serving a story was in Master & Commander, where CGI, miniatures, mattes, composites, digital grading, practical effects and a brilliant sound design achieved total and believable immersion in the world of an 18th century sea vessel. It served to enhance realism, but the realism of a time and place and sensibility far removed from our own. In this film, the FX were at the service of a great script, a superb FX team and cinematographer, confident producers and a master director.
What CGI isn't is a crutch - a substitute for story, character, structure or imagination. When done poorly, CGI takes you out of the movie. If the movie is working on every other level, then CGI is usually not an issue. In I Am Legend, what you had was an intelligent sci-fi thriller for the first two acts, and a cheap cop-out for a third act. Even great CGI wouldn't have saved this failure of imagination. Had there been more post production time available the critters no doubt would have looked better but it still wouldn't have made the movie good. And that's not the fault of CGI. It's the fault of the producing/directing team.
You got tasteless, excessive moviemaking your CGI will reflect it. A good movie is a good movie, no matter how the magic is done.
...with Will Smith's other blockbusters."Independence Day" and "I, Robot".
Of the three, I found "I, Robot" more interesting.
But the CGI robots - remember the scene with the car in the tunnel - and vampires in this one had a lot in common.
One reviewer mentioned the vampires in the 1964 (?) Charleston Heston remake - "The Omega Man" - looked like hippies in bathrobes.
Perhaps you'd prefer that.
I liked "I am Legend", found it entertaining, certainly not a great film, and the CGI vampires were the weakest part - I'd give it a B- or C+.
What I would have really prefered was a legitimate attempt at transcribing the book to film. That could have been an excellent movie.
This seemed like two movies../an intelligent, melancholy scifi fil, and a monster movie finale.
It was '71...they *were* Hippies in bathrobes!
Rod
but if the CGI is as bad as you say, then I'll stay away. Too bad, the premise sounded interesting.
I agree that CGI has ruined far too many movies in recent years. Give me live actors in realistic (i.e., non-CGI) settings any day.
"Blade II". It's just the very rare exception. In both cited cases, the directors were sufficiently talented, or the stories sufficiently strong that the technologic add-ons didn't intrude on / supplant the story. In most cases tho, it's like flashing a sign on screen to remind us that "oh, by the way, this is only some made-up sh*t, never to be confused with something that might really happen to actual people in some version of real life"....
Cheers, happy viewing,
K.
Did anyone here have any problems with all the CGI in Zodiac? IMO that was some great CGI used in a way that helped tell the story
-
Virtually every exterior in the city had CGI. Some times most of the background would be CGI.
http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/7808.html
http://www.cinefex.com/backissues/issue109.html
the bad CGI was the result of things that have nothing to do with the technology. I don't really wnt to point fingers or give details at this time but the problems were not technology based at all.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
We will be silent as a grave...
But dont tell Grits he is a bad spirit.
I'll tell all in two months.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
Waste of Time.
My 6-yr. old loves it, though.
I agree with you on the CGI. But CGI is here to stay. From what I gather, it has gone so far that virtually any action sequency that's not done CGI is called a stunt. So every Hollywood actor these days is a stuntman or stuntwoman!
Not sure what you mean by action sequences being "done" CGI. Some action sequences are actually CGI but most are just composites of filmed sequences with cables and other such items digitally removed. There has been no redefining of what constitutes a stunt that I know of.
I have heard actors or directors say stuff like. "That was me (or some actor) and not CGI." The emphasis being that it was "real"--a stunt.
"There has been no redefining of what constitutes a stunt that I know of."
Silly little man. The world is not limited to what you know.
> I have heard actors or directors say stuff like. "That was me (or some actor) and not CGI." The emphasis being that it was "real"--a stunt.>
OK...... Not sure that this vague generality really means much. Got any specifics? I am sure sometimes they are refering to things like digital compositing and digfital removal of cables and the like. that is not actually CGI. Even if an actor calls it CGI it isn't.
> "There has been no redefining of what constitutes a stunt that I know of."
Silly little man. The world is not limited to what you know.>
Never said it was. Do you know what it means when someone says "that I know of?" Hey if you have some information on the subject fill me in.
It was a response to your usual shitty attitude.
You are just another pseudo-intelectual pretentious art house movie fanboy trying to get a sesne of respect on ::sigh:: an internet forum. You are pathetic. It must be quite frustrating to have me here to call you on your B.S.
Not really. I think enough people here can tell the difference between factual posts and yours, which consists of nothing but personal attacks. Only people with nothing else to offer resort to personal attacks.
Trolls like you go a dime a dozen on the Internet.
I don't see anybody coming to your defense here or anywhere else. I think you are pretty much on your own with your opinions.
" Only people with nothing else to offer resort to personal attacks."
You might want to take a good hard look in the mirror.
Well, maybe not. It might depress you.
I never understood the purpose of emoticons until I ran into you. You do know my first post was being ironic? It was motivated by the John Wayne post here.
But mostly it was motivated by silly actors who tell David Letterman, or whoever, that they did their own stunts when world-class athlete Jet Li would never do stunts, or take credit for it. Jet does martial arts. The reason Jet doesn't do stunts is just because he is a world-class athlete and reasonably successful actor. He doesn't have to. Stuntmen are at the bottom of the food chain. Why would a reasonably successful actor strive to become a stuntman?
As for definition? There's none. The closest to a definition stunt is whenever the actor is being doubled. Injuries (like a broken leg during the shooting of Once Upon a Time in China) have forced Jet to use stuntmen/doubles many times.
The flashbacks in odd places and I vacillated between napping and being mad. This film is a failure.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
