since we all hate cgi...
 

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!

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.

Bad cgi = The Hulk

Good cgi = LOTR

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.

chill
 

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

Van Helsing

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.

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.

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.

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.