Let's talk about CGI

[x Tame Impala]

CGI seems to be the overwhelming go-to for special effects in movies/TV and it's debatable on whether or not that's for the best. More often than not when i'm watching something with CGI in it there is a level of disconnect and a lack of immersion inherent on screen. I've watched a lot of the series "The Movies That Made US" on Netflix and it's given me such an appreciation for the talent and hard work that went into making some of our favorite movies come to life. Whereas now these special effects are made almost entirely by CGI and in my opinion it takes the humanity out of a lot of our entertainment experiences. Initially a lot of these effects were super cool, showing me things i've never seen before but now with their constant usage whenever a situation calls for something cool to happen on screen the fakeness of it all is too much to ignore. Maybe because i've seen things like this...

...and now that i know how the sausage is made i'm too disillusioned to enjoy it as i once have. This isn't strictly or even mostly about the MCU, they're merely an easy example representing my main point that there is an over-abundance of CGI in our entertainment media now and I don't think it's necessary to deliver good to great shows or movies. CGI seems like it's used for everything now when film/show makers want to make something cool happen on screen. I understand it for large scale battles or something in space but a lot of times i notice it's just used for set back drops or for entire characters. What happened to animatronics and carefully labored, "hand-crafted" special effects and why have they been mostly replaced by a green screen? The answer is probably because it's more cost and time effective but is that really what's best for the movie-goer?

Can any of us truly say that the special effects in Jurassic Park are worse than what we get in today's JP movies? Or that the shark in Jaws gave us a more fake version of what we see in "The Meg"? Or how movies used to have battle scenes with what felt like 1000+ real people all dressed in appropriate costumes as opposed to today's version which is a CGI battle fest that are almost always uninteresting.

I used to love watching the DVD bonus features when i was younger and seeing how the movies were made. The whole process of it was so creative and it clearly took a lot of effort to make happen. Designing costumes and set pieces for large scale battles in historical movies, designing the super intricate make up on characters, and just a general sense of making something cool happen on screen that was actually happening in real life.

I'm sure that CGI is a very labor-intense process and it is getting better all the time. I just think it's too prevalent in entertainment now and it misses the point for why so many of us watch tv or movies. We all want to be entertained in some way but deep down i think we're really watching to find some sort of human experience to relate to or connect with. I think it's getting harder and harder to do that when CGI is stapled to so much of what we see. Its prevalence has made it less impressive and less immersive. Not every movie out of Hollywood needs to try and blow my mind with what's happening on screen. It looks less real. It feels less fun. The more "cool" things I see with CGI the less i'm drawn in.

Give me back some realism. Show me characters who are experiencing

Maybe i'm just an old man shaking my fist at a cloud (although i'm in my early 30's) but growing up there were plenty of instances where even if the animatronics in what i was watching

Click to read more...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The problem is as good as your CGI is, it always seems to clean. Practical is dirty, there's imperfections, etc. CGI to date doesn't fully replicate that aspect and I think that is what causes some to not connect with it. Which isnt to say it cant get there.

I'll use Star Wars as an example of practical vs CGI.

People dont like Episodes 1-3 as much and its because the CGI isnt well done. Watch the fight scenes in Phantom Menace, you've got blasters and light sabers being used and there's no marks or footprints anywhere on the walls or floor which kills it. This happens throughout 1-3, everything is too pristine, there's no evidence of use or wear.

By contrast, you have to give credit to episodes 7-9 for doing as many practical things as possible. BB8 was physically real, Yoda was a puppet, it is a big part of why those movies looked and felt so much more like the original trilogy.

Practical is falling out of favor not because it doesn't look as good, but because it takes more time and money. Look, very few if any movies have matched the visuals of 2001 and that was all practical. Obvious caveat is the things that are impossible to do practically, like most super hero things or something like Inception

 

[Pink Mist]

There's been a lot of discussion about this on film twitter the past week or so. And one of the things that has been pointed out is that the Marvel movies (to use your example) don't even just use CGI for action scenes or sci-fi locations, they use green screens to even shoot scenes of conversations in parks and once you recognize the fakeness of it it is hard to ignore.

Some examples:










with $200 million budgets, I can't believe they can't shoot on location, create sets, or invest in production design, and it really makes me wonder where all that money is going to

 

[zombie kopitar]

^ that's just disgusting lol

By contrast, you have to give credit to episodes 7-9 for doing as many practical things as possible. BB8 was physically real, Yoda was a puppet, it is a big part of why those movies looked and felt so much more like the original trilogy.

Only the first one felt like the old ones imo. And it was almost just a reboot rather than a sequel. The writing/tone/direction got muddled up and horrible once so much behind the scene personal changed


But yes the sets were good throughout, I will say that

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

^ that's just disgusting lol


Only the first one felt like the old ones imo. And it was almost just a reboot rather than a sequel. The writing/tone/direction got muddled up and horrible once so much behind the scene personal changed


But yes the sets were good throughout, I will say that

Yeah, I should've clarified better. Meant the set pieces and props more so than the acting and dialog. They at least brought the dirtiness back to Star Wars, and continued it in Rogue One/Mandalorian/etc

 

[Shareefruck]

It's kind of funny how it's only gotten bad because it's gotten good. When CGI was bad bad, nobody would even try to pull some of the stuff posted above.

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

I don't mind marvel for the cgi. I mind it for the overused plot points and boring character choices. But that's another discussion.

I don't think cgi is an issue. It has its place. The issue is the place for these movies has become very large compared to dramas, thrillers and simpler action movies. I grew up to A Few Good Men and Heat being movies that were big and pushed and the special effects blockbusters were few and far between. Now they are all over the place and people can pick away at them because they just aren't special anymore.

 

[discostu]

I know there's been a lot of valid criticism of the use of CGI in Spiderman No Way Home, but I feel people may be taking for granted just how ridiculous that the movie got made in the timeframe it did.

The film came out in less than 2.5 years after the last film. There was no deal in place to make the movie, and, you needed a deal struck between two studios to even start the planning, and have to negotiate and bring on actors from all the prior franchises. Then you had two years of covid.

CGI was the shortcut to fast track that film to keep to a strict schedule. Some good ol fashioned on location shoots and practical effects could definitely make a better film, but not a timelier film.

And that's the crux of the issue. CGI is a very flexible tool.

To look at the cost of using practical effects during this same period Mission Impossible 7 is the example of a big budget blockbuster that uses practical effects as much as possible. It makes for great action scenes that definitely feel different than other blockbusters.

It had a similar release planned release of Spiderman before the pandemic. Spiderman got away with just a 6 month delay. MI7 is currently scheduled to come out 2 years later than planned and the cost overruns are bigger.

There's certainly value in practical effects, but, it's not hard to see why a studio will prefer the cost effectiveness of using CGI. Plus, there remains things that just aren't feasible, and you couldn't bring to screen without it.

 

[Jussi]

Shooting on location costs more than using green screen or Stagecraft/The Volume. Travel, insurance etc.

 

[Zeppo]

Shooting on location costs more than using green screen or Stagecraft/The Volume. Travel, insurance etc.

Look at the examples above. Two people talking in... let's say a park, one guy walking on a street in NY. Are you trying to say all the cheap indie movies out there are doing it wrong? They should just do it with CGI, not actually walk on streets and go to parks?

I don't mind that it looks a bit wonky when the Brooklyn Bridge is blown to pieces or Spiderman swings through the streets of NY, it's good enough under the circumstances. But those examples above are just ridiculous.

 

[JoeCool16]

Look at the examples above. Two people talking in... let's say a park, one guy walking on a street in NY. Are you trying to say all the cheap indie movies out there are doing it wrong? They should just do it with CGI, not actually walk on streets and go to parks?

I don't mind that it looks a bit wonky when the Brooklyn Bridge is blown to pieces or Spiderman swings through the streets of NY, it's good enough under the circumstances. But those examples above are just ridiculous.

I know it's not quite the same, but this video is pretty enlightening to how VFX shows up in the indies, too. Sure, Parasite isn't LOW budget, but, then again, most "Indies" aren't. Watch it through - it's really interesting. I think it also goes to show that VFX isn't the trouble... bad VFX is, the kind that's so bad that it takes you out of the moment. We can look past bad VFX if it isn't standing out, or if the story is just that darn good. You don't expect bad VFX during a conversation in the park. It's also worth noting that poor lighting is just as much an issue here as the VFX, and that can happen on a regular set, too. Let's not be too hard on the new embracing of visual effects... actors have been suspending their disbelief on stages for millennia. As long as we get a good story, who cares how the sausage is made, as the OP said?

 

[Jussi]

Look at the examples above. Two people talking in... let's say a park, one guy walking on a street in NY. Are you trying to say all the cheap indie movies out there are doing it wrong? They should just do it with CGI, not actually walk on streets and go to parks?

I don't mind that it looks a bit wonky when the Brooklyn Bridge is blown to pieces or Spiderman swings through the streets of NY, it's good enough under the circumstances. But those examples above are just ridiculous.

Location shooting depends these days very much on how much it costs to shoot there and how tax cuts they're getting from shooting there. There's a reason why so many of these films and shows are shot in Atlanta or Vancouver.

 

[Pink Mist]

Shooting on location costs more than using green screen or Stagecraft/The Volume. Travel, insurance etc.

They have Disney money and $200+ million budgets. I think they can afford to shoot on location and don't need green screens for every scene they shoot

 

[Jussi]

They have Disney money and $200+ million budgets. I think they can afford to shoot on location and don't need green screens for every scene they shoot

Chapek doesn't want to spend extra money.

 

[kook10]

They have Disney money and $200+ million budgets. I think they can afford to shoot on location and don't need green screens for every scene they shoot

You don't need to pay airfare, per diem, hotels and idle pay to dozens of traveling crew (in addition to additional prep and wrap time for local units) to capture a single scene on a Manhattan street...especially when the stories you make are very much on a global scale with numerous global locations. If you are that thick with vfx to begin with, why spend extra?

 

[Osprey]

I agree with everything that you said, x Tame.

In the early days, I was really impressed by CGI and wanted to see more of it. Nowadays, I appreciate more when it's used sparingly or not at all. I have a greater respect for the Mission: Impossible franchise and Tom Cruise than I used to for that reason, for example.

Action scenes with CGI tend to not do much for me because they look too fake and/or I know how they were done. Even before CGI, when something was obviously an effect, we still often didn't know how they did it and could appreciate the cleverness and skill that must've gone into it. We don't really get that today because we know that everything was done with CGI.

There's always been the argument that some things aren't possible without CGI and I'm not sure that I agree. A really skilled team of people will find a way. The only question is how convincing it is. The ape in King Kong, the twister in The Wizard of Oz and the parting of the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments were all pretty convincing for their day, despite being the sorts of things that we might assume require CGI today. I assumed for the longest time that the "leap of faith" bridge in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was CGI, but it wasn't. Even most of the effects in Jurassic Park and Independence Day, many of which a lot of people (me included) probably assumed were CGI, were actually practical and visual effects. As groundbreaking as it was, Jurassic Park had only 4 minutes of CGI dinosaur footage.

As impressed as I am with "StageCraft" technology and the like, I'm concerned that it's going to encourage even more film and TV productions to move indoors and shoot on virtual landscapes instead of real ones. In 50 years, maybe all film and TV production will be done in a computer and nothing will actually be real, not even the actors. I couldn't have imagined StageCraft or deepfaked Luke Skywalker when I was a kid, so who knows. Hopefully, it doesn't get to that point or we're not around to care.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

One thing I always thought: as amazing as CGI looks at the time it comes out, it never ages well. Pick any CGI movie from 30 years ago and at the time it would have been considered ground breaking and "realistic" but if you watch it now it looks terrible and so obviously fake. The lighting is never right, colour balance is off, etc. Repeat for a movie that came out 20 years ago, 10 years ago, sometimes even 5 years ago and same thing.

Practical effects, on the other hand, ages much better because it matches the aesthetic of the film and the era it was released.

 

[Osprey]

One thing I always thought: as amazing as CGI looks at the time it comes out, it never ages well. Pick any CGI movie from 30 years ago and at the time it would have been considered ground breaking and "realistic" but if you watch it now it looks terrible and so obviously fake. The lighting is never right, colour balance is off, etc. Repeat for a movie that came out 20 years ago, 10 years ago, sometimes even 5 years ago and same thing.

Practical effects, on the other hand, ages much better because it matches the aesthetic of the film and the era it was released.

This goes with what I was just talking about with Jurassic Park. I re-watched it recently and I was struck for the first time at how fake the CGI dinosaurs looked in most scenes, especially the first brontosaurus scene and the herd scene. People often say that Jurassic Park's CGI holds up or is as good as today's CGI, but what I think that they're really thinking of are the practical effects and mistaking that for CGI. For example, the velociraptors are mostly practical, not CGI, and any time that we see only the t-rex's head, it's an animatronic. Also animatronic was the triceratops (and good thing, too, or else we wouldn't have gotten this amazing meme):

All of those look so real because they were real, not CGI. It's also why they've aged so well... so well that that meme, believe it or not, actually got people in 2014 thinking that it was an real hunting trophy photo. If all of those close-up dinosaur shots had been done with CGI, instead, they'd look really bad in comparison and people would probably have a very different opinion of how well Jurassic Park's visuals have aged.

 

[Pink Mist]

One thing I always thought: as amazing as CGI looks at the time it comes out, it never ages well. Pick any CGI movie from 30 years ago and at the time it would have been considered ground breaking and "realistic" but if you watch it now it looks terrible and so obviously fake. The lighting is never right, colour balance is off, etc. Repeat for a movie that came out 20 years ago, 10 years ago, sometimes even 5 years ago and same thing.

Practical effects, on the other hand, ages much better because it matches the aesthetic of the film and the era it was released.

Yeah agreed. Not to keep shitting on Marvel, but they're an easy target for this as they're a major culprit of overusing CGI, but some of the CGI in their films from not even 5 years ago looks really poor and dated, and I imagine it's only going to deteriorate from there

 

[izlez]

I know it's not quite the same, but this video is pretty enlightening to how VFX shows up in the indies, too. Sure, Parasite isn't LOW budget, but, then again, most "Indies" aren't. Watch it through - it's really interesting. I think it also goes to show that VFX isn't the trouble... bad VFX is, the kind that's so bad that it takes you out of the moment. We can look past bad VFX if it isn't standing out, or if the story is just that darn good. You don't expect bad VFX during a conversation in the park. It's also worth noting that poor lighting is just as much an issue here as the VFX, and that can happen on a regular set, too. Let's not be too hard on the new embracing of visual effects... actors have been suspending their disbelief on stages for millennia. As long as we get a good story, who cares how the sausage is made, as the OP said?

This is a good example. I've been outspoken against the use of CGI for a long time. It certainly has it's uses as, seen in this video. Add texture to a scene with background and stationary objects, or subtle smoke or something. When it is THE scene, front and center, with physics and lighting to try to get right, they don't and it ruins most movies for me.

And the photo from Spiderman above kills me. I get that there were covid issues but come onnn: Build a set, hire extras, film the scene... use blue screen to add in the main actor

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

This goes what I was talking about with Jurassic Park. I re-watched it not so long ago and I was struck for the first time at how fake the CGI dinosaurs looked in most scenes, especially the first brontosaurus scene and the herd scene. People often say that Jurassic Park's CGI holds up or is as good as today's CGI, but what I think that they're really thinking of are the practical effects and mistaking that for CGI. For example, the velociraptors are mostly practical, not CGI, and any time that we see only the t-rex's head, it's an animatronic. Also animatronic was the triceratops (and good thing, too, or else we wouldn't have gotten this amazing meme):

All of those look so real because they were real, not CGI. It's also why they've aged so well... so well that that meme, believe it or not, actually got people in 2014 thinking that it was an real hunting trophy photo. If all of those close-up dinosaur shots had been done with CGI, instead, they'd look really bad in comparison and people would probably have a very different opinion of how well Jurassic Park's visuals have aged.

Not just a head either for the T-rex. They had a full size, fully functioning complete T-Rex animatronic. To your point, it's arguably the best work Stan Winston ever did.

IMO CGI works best when it's used to add extra spice to the scene rather than the entire scene. Another great example is Terminator 2, specifically the scene where the T1000 walks through the jail bars. That CGI still holds up today, and all the practical effects help to mask it

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

CGI has been terrible thing for horror films

Practical effects are so much better

Go watch the makeup/effects of Dick Smith, Tom Savini and others then compare it to the CGI today and today's stuff is terrible in comparison

A good example of how CGI has become a lazy and poor substitute is the Walking Dead use of CGI including various shots of blood, etc.

Go watch Day of the Dead (1985) effects and then Nicotero's work on TWD and it at times is embarrassing how Nicotero a Savini protégé is so willing to go with awful CGI instead of practical

Now maybe it's not fair to Nicotero the overuse of CGI but at same time he is a producer is he not? So he should be able to push back for more practical effects and makeup

 

[kook10]

CGI has been terrible thing for horror films

Practical effects are so much better

Go watch the makeup/effects of Dick Smith, Tom Savini and others then compare it to the CGI today and today's stuff is terrible in comparison

A good example of how CGI has become a lazy and poor substitute is the Walking Dead use of CGI including various shots of blood, etc.

Go watch Day of the Dead (1985) effects and then Nicotero's work on TWD and it at times is embarrassing how Nicotero a Savini protégé is so willing to go with awful CGI instead of practical

Now maybe it's not fair to Nicotero the overuse of CGI but at same time he is a producer is he not? So he should be able to push back for more practical effects and makeup

I am sure it is at least in part a TV versus film issue. TV cycles in many different directors, so it is the showrunner's difficult task to ensure continuity of look and feel. That is set at the beginning of the series between the showrunner and the pilot director. It's not often that shows drift very far. The studio usually doesn't have an appetite for reinventing a successful wheel (or paying for it).

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

This goes what I was talking about with Jurassic Park. I re-watched it not so long ago and I was struck for the first time at how fake the CGI dinosaurs looked in most scenes, especially the first brontosaurus scene and the herd scene. People often say that Jurassic Park's CGI holds up or is as good as today's CGI, but what I think that they're really thinking of are the practical effects and mistaking that for CGI. For example, the velociraptors are mostly practical, not CGI, and any time that we see only the t-rex's head, it's an animatronic. Also animatronic was the triceratops (and good thing, too, or else we wouldn't have gotten this amazing meme):

All of those look so real because they were real, not CGI. It's also why they've aged so well... so well that that meme, believe it or not, actually got people in 2014 thinking that it was an real hunting trophy photo. If all of those close-up dinosaur shots had been done with CGI, instead, they'd look really bad in comparison and people would probably have a very different opinion of how well Jurassic Park's visuals have aged.

Yeah, Jurassic Park is definitely a prime example of what I had in mind when I wrote that and a good example of (aging) CGI vs practical effects in the same movie: you can definitely tell what is CGI and what isn't.

I've never seen that meme before; that's hilarious haha

Yeah agreed. Not to keep shitting on Marvel, but they're an easy target for this as they're a major culprit of overusing CGI, but some of the CGI in their films from not even 5 years ago looks really poor and dated, and I imagine it's only going to deteriorate from there

I often wonder what it is that makes old CGI look so bad when we go back and watch it. Is it because the current CGI keeps advancing so quickly that it raises the bar in what we accept is believable so the older stuff seems faker by comparison? Or is it because the resolution of the medium keeps improving so much that it's harder to hide defects in CGI? Or possibly a combination of both?

Related to my latter point, I've read make-up quality and techniques had to be improved when HD came out because it was so easy to spot a sloppy make-up job. And one thing I've noticed is the resolution is so good now, it's obvious when the camera has missed its mark and the scene is out of focus if you go back and watch an old show (Seinfeld is bad for this). These sort of things would have been less noticeable when it came out in standard definition.

One positive thing I will say about CGI now vs before is technology is so good that even the "weekend warrior" filmmaker can make decent content from the comfort of his or her home on a consumer level computer, whereas years ago that sort of technology was out of reach to the common person and only the most advanced studios had access to it. There's some very creative people putting out amazing work on YouTube and they are getting exposure that would not have been possible before.

 

[Cas]

I often wonder what it is that makes old CGI look so bad when we go back and watch it. Is it because the current CGI keeps advancing so quickly that it raises the bar in what we accept is believable so the older stuff seems faker by comparison? Or is it because the resolution of the medium keeps improving so much that it's harder to hide defects in CGI? Or possibly a combination of both?

Related to my latter point, I've read make-up quality and techniques had to be improved when HD came out because it was so easy to spot a sloppy make-up job. And one thing I've noticed is the resolution is so good now, it's obvious when the camera has missed its mark and the scene is out of focus if you go back and watch an old show (Seinfeld is bad for this). These sort of things would have been less noticeable when it came out in standard definition.

I recently rewatched The Prisoner, the ITV show from 1967, on an HD TV with an HD version of the show, and I noticed exactly this.

The makeup, particularly in close-up indoor shots, was so obvious and, frankly, disgusting that it was actually unsettling. "Once Upon A Time," which is set almost entirely in a darkened room where the characters are lit by high-powered stage lights, with lots of close-up shots of their faces, is the most obvious example (particularly on The Supervisor - his cheeks are covered in a cakey, sticky plaster only barely approximating the color of flesh).

None of this would have been noticable when the show was first broadcast, nor did I notice it on the home-recorded VHS cassettes of the PBS broadcast that I grew up with. But with the advent and accessibility of HD, things that looked fine in standard definition are now rather unfortunate.