since we all hate cgi...

[tarcher80]

so cgi has put a damper on countless horror movies over the years... which movies do you think suffered the most??? let's get militant on this one!

[urgeok]

van helsing .. piece of shit.



i dont hate cgi if it is used to create the impossible .. or add some polish to a low production film (in lieu of really terrible FX)

it is appropriate to use it for alien landscapes ..etc


i dont like it used for action that could be achieved with a little imagination and skill.

[newb]

Bad cgi = The Hulk

Good cgi = LOTR

[scouse mac]

There is nothing wrong with CGI if its used correctly, just like any other film-makers tool.

There have been some creature feature types where the CGI has been awful, Van Helsing is a good example and I hated the werewolves in American Werewolf in Paris.

As newb says, Lord O' has shown that with the guidance of a good director CGI in the right places and right amounts can only add to fantasy that the film generates.

[tarcher80]

b/f this goes on i'd like to say that i don't 'hate' cgi i'm just a fan of lower-budget horror movies, which do not have the lotr budget for good cgi effects. cgi, when used properly and w/ good direction, editing, production, etc. can be beautiful. i wanted people vent their frustrations w/ bad cgi not support the good stuff.................. proceed.


http://www.omgpix.com/uploads/2bad725895.jpg (http://www.omgpix.com)

[Dante'sInferno]

Van Helsing

[filmmaker2]

Yeah, I don't hate CGI either, just the poor use of CGI, just the same way I hate the poor use of any special effects tool. Of course, "poor use" of a tool means different things to different people..........I dunno.....it doesn't matter, I guess.

[mothermold]

There seems to be a huge misconception among alot of filmmakers newer and older that the addition of large amounts of C.G. will somehow "make" the film in post-production.Forgetting the fact that the acting,story and script might sink yet somehow beliving this "magic" technology will polish thier turd of a movie.

George Lucas for example has a massive hard-on for c.g., using it to the point of excess as where Peter Jackson marries several techniques to acheive his end result.

Future filmmakers delving into fantasy/sci-fi heavy in c.g. would do good to take a page from Jackson and the guys at WETA.

[filmmaker2]

Very well put. I don't know how many scenes I've watched of actors gawking at empty space, while a CG "something" has hopped, leaped, skipped, danced, and backflipped over, past and around them...

In so many of these instances, it's so obvious that the marriage of actor and effect isn't really choreographed, and that a surprising amount of the visual effect's "action" is improvised, dreamed up and endlessly revised in post. When you see a scene that has been created in this process, the actor seems totally disconnected from the scene that is supposedly taking place.

Go back to the Harryhausen films, the older stuff, and you see that the visual effect's action--even though it was realized in post--was carefully choreographed from the start, and that the actors KNEW where the creature was and what, specifically, it was supposed to be doing. The actors were IN the scene. The scene consequently felt real. Actors have always "sold" effects to us, at least as much as the effects themselves did.

The problem isn't the new technology. CG is a cool tool, and on a good day, it's a part of the tool kit that's applied well, with a classical mindset.

[noctuary]

I don't hate CGI at all. It's a powerful filmmaking tool, and it can be very effective under the right circumstances. Two films in which it worked very well, in my opinion, would be Starship Troopers and Lost in Space (even though that was a terrible movie, the CG creatures were really cool.) I just don't like that so many filmmakers have come to rely on it to the exclusion of traditional puppetry/ make up effects.

[_____V_____]

CGI if used sensibly, could make a bad movie look good, and make a good movie look awesome. But as they say, an overdose of anything is bad. A movie loaded simply with CGI is bound to fail, cuz there's nothing else to see in it.

The Hulk had plenty of it. Did it work? nope.

But sensible use of it, blended with the story, like the Matrix trilogy, the LOTR trilogy, the X-Men series...could make it a truly spectacular view. The box-office will show the results, and it will satisfy the audiences and critics alike.

[Dante'sInferno]

"cough"constantine"cough"

[filmmaker2]

I haven't seen Constantine.

[Dante'sInferno]

Originally posted by filmmaker2
I haven't seen Constantine. Good your head will expolde.




Although Rachel Weisz is reason enough to see it.:cool:

[The STE]

CGI is just like any other method of special effects. It hasn't "put a damper" on any movie. Bad filmmaking has.

[ballboff]

Yeah, I don't know where I stand with this one really. Although like what has been said before, if it's used well, it can be very very good.

[BH14]

Good CGI= Final Destination series... Whether you liked it or not, the series does has some nice CGI effects such as the car accident scene.

Bad CGI= Boogeyman.... Crappy movie and worst CGI.

[heebiejeebies]

Like everyone else who's posted, I don't hate CGI; I just hate when people use CGI to say, "Hey, look what I can do!" The Fog remake comes to mind. The CGI isn't bad, but it takes over the movie (a crappy one at that). It only serves to remind me how the simple special effects in the original are a thousand times better than this lame attempt.

[Soloman Kane]

I'am on the middle of the fence when it comes to CGI. In some movies CGI can make some of the action interesting. For example Final Destination. While for others it can make the movie suck all the more. Van Helsing is a very good solid example of this. The story wasn't that great to begin with but throw in the CGI werewolf & the rest, well the result wasn't pretty at all. From Dracula's overacting to the over the top brides. The final result was a very cartoonish looking affair. Did I mention Mister Hyde? No well he sucked for the love of god. What in the name of all that is inholy was he doing in the movie? Was this guy the stunt double for the hulk. When Van Helsing shoots him you can just about see the pixels. That was simply bad CGI.

[alkytrio666]

As far as horror, the CGI in 'Exorcist: The Beginning' made me sick.